Family First Party SA Blog

Random drug testing on the roads and in the workplace - Radio Comments - Wednesday 25 January 2012

2012-01-25T14:17:00.002+10:30

Dennis Hood, Family First MLC (5AA 10.11-10.14) Random drug testing in the workplace

(Byner: …Dennis Hood, what do you want to say on this?)

…I think the state of South Australia would do well to listen to … Chris Hamilton … it is a very, very serious problem that is recognised by the profession but really nothing is happening at a Government level. Just to give some clarity to those figures from the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre … my understanding is that they survey 100 people every year and that the latest figures show that 27 of those 100 people admitted to driving within one hour of taking heroin so what that suggests … roughly ¼ of drug users – or at least ¼ I think is perhaps a better way of thinking about it – will drive after using drugs within one hour of using those drugs on average. That’s a lot of people on our road, given how many thousands of people take illicit substances. In our community we’re talking of hundreds of people using illicit drugs and then being on our roads shortly afterwards and that’s terrifying.

(Byner: We are now testing for drugs, although not as broadly for these opiates – although if they do a blood test they’ll find them – so in a sense there’s a bit of science and cost that works against the state detecting this but in the workplace of course that’s another thing altogether isn’t it.)

I think that’s right … the workplace, as Chris rightly said Leon, is an area that has real danger but … what we need to do is put this squarely at the foot of Government … the figures don’t lie, the truth is that just 7% of our roadside screenings for people driving under the influence of either alcohol or drugs are testing for drugs … 93% of our screenings are testing for people over the alcohol so that in itself tells us that the emphasis is heavily on people driving under the influence of alcohol rather than drug use and we know that the figures are clear, that’s [unclear] own data which I requested from them and they were kind enough to provide, shows that more people actually test positive to using drugs on our roads, driving under the influence of drugs on our roads, than those that are caught driving under the influence of alcohol.

(Byner: What’s your position in the workplace?)

Leon, I think the workplace is as serious, if not more so, or at least as serious and that is because we have many, many people in the workplace making very serious decisions, particularly if they’re using machinery or driving equipment or whatever it may be … I heard the Minister say last week that he wouldn't think that it should be apply to people in clerical jobs for example – some people in clerical jobs, Leon, make very serious decisions and I think that we should be having a good solid look at this and I must say … there was one comment on your show last week about it should apply to politicians, well, you know what, I’d be first in the queue … I think we should have a good look at this and it should apply across the community.

~

Parliamentary Reform Paper released - Media Comments - 25 January 2012

2012-01-25T12:03:00.000+10:30

Family First SA's Parliamentary Reform Paper released 25 January 2012 can be downloaded here.

ONLINE MEDIA COVERAGE:

RADIO COVERAGE:

Call for changes to the way that members are elected to the Legislative Council

Family First MLC Robert Brokenshire wants changes made to the way that members are elected to the Legislative Council. At present Council members represent the entire state, but Mr Brokenshire says that’s led to poor representation for regional voters:

(891ABC 7am & 639ABC 7am/8.30am) “The Legislative Council, where the members there have to represent the whole state, I think they should be out there on at least two occasions a year. When it comes to the House of Assembly, I’m advocating that they get out at least twice a term, that is, every other year.”

(891ABC 7.45am & 639ABC 7.30am/7.45am) “Now I support personally the Western Australian system where the Legislative Councillors are elected for a part of the state. I think that’s part of the reform debate we should have.”

Family First to fight South East Drainage Levy - Media coverage - Thursday 19 January 2012

2012-01-19T12:05:00.002+10:30

Rob Brokenshire with some of his dairy cows at his farm
(Picture courtesy of the Sunday Mail)

ABC reports today: "Family First MLC Rob Brokenshire says no landholder in the South East should have to pay a drainage levy"

Earlier media release on this issue:

LABOR LITERALLY SENDING SOUTH EAST DOWN THE DRAIN

Thursday 9 June 2011

FAMILY FIRST MLC Robert Brokenshire has attacked the decision in today’s State Budget to extract over $15 million into forward estimates from farmers deemed to be beneficiaries of the South East drainage scheme.

“I’ve been attacking the Government on Natural Resources Management to stop water levying, because its got out of control”, Mr Brokenshire said, “All its doing is bloating bureaucracy and becoming another general revenue lever for Government. The Government are having another crack now through a South East Drainage levy”

“I can tell the Rann Government now, Family First will oppose the legislation required to enforce this new levy because it is unfair and will affect the viability of farmers in the region. The State Government have a responsibility here because it is about environmental factors and the public good”, Mr Brokenshire said, “I find it incredible that with the cuts to Keith hospital, constant centralisation and the forward sale of forest harvesting rights, they would have cut and sold off enough in the South East. However, now they’re looking to get money out of the drains!”

“This is on top of the $8m revealed today in the budget from cost recovery through water levies for the Department coming out of farmers’ dams, tanks and bores”

“This Government has gone beyond not listening to rural and regional South Australia. Now its open contempt as they tax the South East farmers for their drains”

“The viability of the South East and its fantastic food security is at risk as they get taxed out of existence”

~

Wind farm protests - Media coverage - Thursday 19 January 2012

2012-01-19T11:53:00.000+10:30

On Tuesday afternoon Rob Brokenshire spoke at the protest rally concerning SA's new Wind Farm planning policy - full story in today's Stock Journal

Family First supports the construction of community-supported and environmentally sound wind-farms to generate more renewable energy for South Australia

The State Government can not run roughshod over community concerns and opposition to wind farms.

Workplace drug testing - Radio Comments - 18 January 2012

2012-01-18T17:05:00.000+10:30

Growing call for drug testing in the workplace

Supporters say giving employers the power to conduct random testing of staff will make the workplace safer.

Family First MLC, Dennis Hood, says more people are now getting caught drug driving, so it makes sense to introduce workplace drug tasting as part of legislation currently before State Parliament:

(5AA 10am/1pm) “What we found was that more people are detected for illegal drug use driving cars on our roads than are people that are under the influence of alcohol and that was quite surprising to me. And the obvious question that has to be asked; well if that’s the case on our roads, why wouldn’t that also be the case in our workplaces?”

(5AA 12noon) “If someone is under the influence of drugs, whether they be prescription drugs or whether they be illicit drugs, then they’re not really in a condition to be operate particularly heavy machinery or any sort of vehicle or anything of that nature or whatever.”

...

Dennis Hood, Family First MLC (5AA 9.09-9.14) Drug and alcohol testing in the work place

(Byner: The Commonwealth Government is presently seeking national uniform workplace safety laws. I suspect that all of us are very much in favour of measures to increase workplace safety. To achieve this .. they have to get legislation passed in each of the State Parliaments … In addition to this … another issue that’s come to light with respect to the debate on workplace health and safety which needs addressing. Whilst the Bill before our State Parliament is touted as seeking to improve workplace safety it ignores a very significant and growing issue in the workplace safety – the effect of drug use in the workplace … the current proposal does not adequately address the issue of random drug testing by employers. Now, while this will not be necessary in many workplaces, there are some areas where drugs are of concern, where heavy equipment or motor vehicles are operated by workers, employers should have the right to require random drug testing by non-invasive means, I’m informed that urine testing is currently the most accurate method available and should be used in preference to other less decisive methods such as saliva testing. Now a Family First FOI of Police Stats shows that for drug and alcohol tests of drivers, the rate of positive results was greater – and in some instances much greater – for drugs than for alcohol and we found out recently that Australia and New Zealand are the two countries with some of the highest rate of cannabis use in the world but we ignore this when it comes to the workplace. Now, whilst the effects of drug use are not an issue in many workplaces, one MP is arguing that if we’re serious about safety in the workplace then it is really essential that we actually address this sooner rather than later. Dennis Hood … explain your rationale …)

… I think it’s an almost obvious point … when Family First did that FOI to the Police Force, seeking some figures, comparing how many people were picked up for driving … under the influence … of alcohol compared to drug use, what we found was that more people are detected for illegal drug use driving cars on our roads than are people under the influence of alcohol … that was quite surprising to me and the obvious question that has to be asked: if that’s the case on our roads, why wouldn't that also be the case in our workplaces and you can’t help thinking when you’re looking at the sort of Bill that’s before our Parliament at the moment, that the Commonwealth Government is pushing through the State Parliament … if we’re really serious about safety in the workplace then surely we should be looking at this issue of drug testing in the workplace as well … The reality is … that the Bill that we’ve been looking at in the Parliament for some time deals with a lot of very, very minor things, some major issues as well, but a lot of very, very minor issues but the elephant in the room … if someone is under the influence of drugs … they’re not really in a condition to be operating particularly heavy machinery or any sort of vehicle … if we’re serious about workplace safety then surely we’d have to be looking at this issue and particularly with respect to people in those sorts of jobs … there’s been no mention of that … no discussion of that whatsoever … under this Bill we talk about ladder heights and those sorts of things … some level of importance but surely it’s not the height of the ladder that’s the problem it’s the condition the person’s in when they get on the ladder, that’s the real problem.

(Byner: Stay on the line …)

...

Back to Dennis Hood

(Byner: …what do you say…)

There are costs involved but of course there are very substantial costs involved in implementing this sort of legislation and the question comes down to: how serious are we about workplace safety … if there’s somebody in a workplace … and they’re under the influence of any form of drug then obviously they pose a risk, not just to themselves … but to people doing the right thing in that workplace … I’ve had contact with people that work in very large industrial facilities that are aware of people using drugs “socially” … on the weekend … that work in those places … are we to assume that those people are never, ever under the influence of drugs in those workplaces? I think that’s naïve, frankly. I certainly don’t want to be imposing costs on business … what we need to do though is create a situation where if we’re really serious about workplace safety – that’s what this Bill is really about, we want to improve safety – how can we ignore the elephant in the room of people not of sound mind operating heavy machinery, driving equipment … I’m not saying that this Bill should be amended to include workplace safety but I think it’s time for a debate on this issue, I’ve got no quibble with the Minister saying that all of the parties didn’t feel it was worth going down this path and I can understand their reasons – it will cost money. But the truth is … it will … almost certainly lives and could ultimately save money in the end. I think it’s a debate that the Parliament needs to have. It’s one of those things that may be deemed as put in the too hard basket. Maybe we don’t want to know what we’ll find if we go down this path but I think it’s time we did.

~

Hospital security, Sporting Violence, Road Toll, Policing - Radio Comments - Monday 9 January 2012

2012-01-09T15:09:00.000+10:30

Rob Brokenshire, Family First MLC (5AA 11.07-11.15) Hospital violence / Violence in sport / Road safety

(Pantelis: We are talking with Rob Brokenshire ... on a couple of issues – one is hospital violence, the other is the road toll ... Happy New Year. Good morning ... just tell us about the problems that your constituents are telling you?)

Well, I’m having constituents, both professionals working within the health industry sector and also people that go to E&D for support of a loved one that needs assistance or indeed for their own assistance ... they’ve been talking to me for some time about their concerns and some of the behaviour that they see in these Emergency Departments ... I did some work on ... the Women’s & Children’s as an example where the Government are now spending a million dollars a year, Matthew, on security ... I support the fact that the Government are doing that at the moment because there’s no alternative to that in the short term ... we have to keep our nurses, doctors, auxiliary staff and the patients ... safe, but I am concerned that ... there are millions and millions of dollars being spent on security officers ... when you look at the figures there’s an escalation year in, year out over the last 5 years or thereabouts of incidents, serious incidents in our hospitals ... we need to actually drill into that ... find out what is causing this increased violent behaviour in our hospital system.

For other coverage on the Hospital Violence issue:

$1m a year spent on stopping violence at Women's and Children's Hospital - David Jean - Adelaide Advertiser / Adelaide Now - story here
Hospital's Million Dollar Protection Bill - ABC Adelaide - story here

(Pantelis: Well it’s not just hospitals ... there’s road rage on the rise ... campaign started – One Punch Can Kill – for instance ... it seems to be prevalent everywhere in society. I mean could the same reason behind road rage be the same reason as to why violence is now a factor in hospitals?)

I’m sure Matthew that you’re right to a certain extent ... this is the problem. We’re seeing a breakdown in standards, values generally across the board in society ... if we are to go on the bandaid measure, if I can put it that way, where we have to have more arrests, we have to have more security officers, etcetera, and not start to address the deep ... strategic analysis of what’s going wrong with society then I just think we’re going to be on ... the wrong track long term ... there’s certainly been an increase ... you see it in bullying and harassment at schools, you hear more about teachers being threatened and assaulted ... what I’m calling on the Government to do is to actually spend some money and probably a year or two of detailed study on this to actually see why there’s been an increase across society, particularly in our health system ... what we can do ... it may well be that some of it’s going to take a long time ... we may have to do a lot more with, you know, development of Keep Safe, Stay Cool programs in schools, those types of things as well ... we’re seeing it in sport as well I might add ... we really do I think have to this year have a look at why we’ve got this happening ... not just put more money into ... security and police officers but the root cause of the problem.

(Pantelis: You mentioned sport ... you had legislation ... mid last year actually when there was a brawl on a soccer pitch at North Adelaide ... you were suggesting legislation there to ban that sort of conduct. How did that get on?)

Responses to Family First's
"Violence on the Sporting Field"
Discussion Paper were being
collated in early 2012

Well, I’ve actually put a draft paper out to all sectors of sporting industry across South Australia ... we’ve had some good reaction from that ... we’re now analysing the submissions ... the intent would be to then consider tabling the legislation once I’ve gone through all of that, but you know that was done on the back of a government policy, a Labor Government policy as well back at the last election where they’ve identified concerns about violence in sport ... it’s one thing to identify that we’ve got an increase in this violence and unacceptable behaviour, but you know as I say I think now we have to have a look at why it’s happening ... then actually go to the root cause of it ... try and get some primary focus on addressing it.

(Pantelis: On road toll, we’ve had a terrible start to the year, what are the issues there as far as you’re concerned, what would you like to see happen apart from more people driving safely?)

... we’ve all got a responsibility on the road Matthew ... I spend most of my life out in the country. I want to throw an accolade at the police for the work that they did in the Christmas/New Year period ... last year we came in with I think the second lowest road toll since we’ve been keeping figures ... I’ve got to say that, you know, living on a farm and doing a lot of country work about an hour to an hour and a half out of Adelaide the police presence was significant in that Christmas/New Year period, even around Schoolies Week and after that ... I think that that is significant that when the police presence is out there driver behaviour changes ... we’ve tragically had not so much of a good start to the year after the Christmas/New Year period, but I think a lot of it’s about still education and reminding through programs like yours that we all have a responsibility. It’s a privilege when you’re driving a vehicle ...

we need to drive according to road safety, you know, education and laws, but I still get back to the fact that when you have a really strong police presence on the road that is the best deterrent against fatalities and injuries ...

Reductions of near-Adelaide speed limits
from 110km/h to 100km/h have drawn a
mixed reaction from the community

one of the things that I’m concerned about at the moment, and I came back from Wellington near Tailem Bend to Mt Compass yesterday ... the Wellington to Strathalbyn road was always 110 kilometres – that’s one of those roads that’s just reduced to 100. I’ve talked to other people in the country about this reduction ... we need to remember, Matthew, that you know the road toll last year came down low at a time when there were a lot of 110 kilometre roads still around. What I saw yesterday was frustration from people ... then they start to get up the back of a car; they then get frustrated and impatient ... overtake on areas that they shouldn’t ... people are saying to me that now at 100 instead of 110 on those roads, when a truck is speed limited at 100, what do they do, sit behind the truck for three quarters of an hour or take a risk? (Pantelis: Yeah.) So I think there’s till more debate and assessment on this 100 reduction ... my argument still is an increase in traffic police and particularly to trial a three shift traffic police scenario within an hour and a half of Adelaide because at the moment we still don’t have three shifts of traffic police.

(Pantelis: ... that’s a good point ... are you happy to take a call?) Sure. (Pantelis: Richard has rung in. G’day Richard.) (Caller Richard: ... I’m on the road a fair bit and I do a fair few k’s ... my biggest bug bear I suppose with MAC and also the Government is when are they going to start going back to teaching people the basics, like indicating and how to merge ... the number of issues where I see that people can’t merge and people don’t indicate or people just can’t drive in general is unbelievable ... that probably rates higher on my list than drunk drivers and actually speeding ... you’ve got to teach somebody the basics first ...) (Pantelis: Good point Richard.)

Controversial Motor Accident Commission Ads seem to have
had an impact on rural driving - you can access the
advertisements on the MAC website here

It is a good point, Matthew ... it’s something that we don’t see on billboards ... we’ve got some quite good MAC billboards in the country areas at the moment, but not reminding people about the basics – courtesy, indicating, you know keeping a safe distance behind a vehicle ... not seeing that sort of thing on the MAC ads either, so possibly Richard’s got a point there Matthew. (Pantelis: ... Rob, thanks for your points this morning. I think they’re valid and you know obviously you’ll be keeping the pressure up.) I certainly will Matthew. I’m looking forward to a busy year.

(Pantelis: Good on you. Rob Brokenshire, Family First Upper House MP here in South Australia.)

~

Power cuts on Fleurieu Peninsula / Australian Year of the Farmer / State Liberals - radio comments - Tuesday 3 January 2012

2012-01-04T14:10:00.002+10:30

Robert Brokenshire, Family First (5AA 19.47-19.58) Powercuts to parts of Fleurieu Peninsula due to high fire risk/ Australian Year ofthe Farmer/ Future direction of the state Liberal party

(Reimer: Robert Brokenshire,happy New Year.)

Happy New Year toyou too … I actually have my staff relax a bit over the Christmas New Yearbreak … I’ve actually been mainly doing farm work in amongst politics … I tendto take a week or two off late January … good to get that week or two off justbefore you start to plan for your sitting year really. So, happy to spend a bit of time with thecows although they weren’t very happy, Andrew, with the hot weather andyesterday was probably one of the worst days we’ve had for a long time butfortunately no fire, so I’m pleased about that for South Australia.

(Reimer: Yeah well, good on everybody involved inmaking sure it was safe. ETSA came undera bit of fire because they cut out the power to various areas around VictorHarbour but they did it for the right reasons as far as I can tell.)

Oh,they did … part of that’s in my own area and I actually thought gee, I hopethey don’t turn our power off, because it’s hot enough as it was for the cowsand … there’s a lot of farmers down there that wouldn’t have been able to milk. But the counter argument to that is that ifit was so windy that we ended up having a fire, you wouldn’t have stoppedit. I said to my wife Mandy, I said, “look, this reminds me a fair bit ofAsh Wednesday potentially” … we were pretty fortunate as a State to get out ofyesterday in my opinion, Andrew.

(Reimer: Now you’re talking about the factthat you’re a farmer … but 2012, a very special year for farmers this yearbecause of the Australian Year of the Farmer.)

Absolutely and I’m actually excited aboutit. It’s the first time … as Iunderstand that we’ve ever had an Australian focus for a year on agricultureand yet if you have a look at the House of Assembly carpet in the StateParliament, over and above the fact that … the House of Assembly, all the LowerHouse is a green colour, there are wine grapes and wheat sheafs on that carpet,now that’s pretty special … the reason for that is that South Australia wasactually founded on agriculture and we’ve continued to grow agriculture. We’re 175 years as a State since we firstbecame a colony … just celebrated a few days ago and agriculture’s been firstand foremost through that time … for my own family it’s 171 years this yearsince my mother’s family came from Scotland to farm here in South Australia. So, I’m looking forward to a year where we dohave some focus on agriculture … I believe parallel to mining and probably I’dargue … even more so than mining, sustainability-wise, agriculture will seevery good opportunities given to South Australians in the future.

(Reimer: Mmm, it is wonderful that the focus is being put on it this yearbut I would have thought it would have been a focus all the time, as opposed tojust this one particular year … let’s hope it gains some momentum and peoplestart … looking at buying more local products and supporting farmers and allthe rest of it here in Australia and South Australia … but to me it seems likesuch a no-brainer, support your local business!)

Well absolutely and … I’d appeal to all SouthAustralians listening tonight and I do this regularly, to try and support firstand foremost South Australian product, and we’ve still got to do better there,although in fairness there has been an estimate through the Government toincrease awareness of South Australian food produce and then … if you can’t getSouth Australian, hopefully buy Australian, because there are lots and lots ofjobs… retail is a big part of the employment sector but value-added agriculture ishuge, just the dairy industry that I’m involved in, that is a $10b a yearindustry in Australia, so you’re talking lots and lots of people employed if wecan continue to grow our own food … the other thing with this is that from apoint of view of food security, as the world gets hungrier I think it’s importantthat we start to focus on Australia and what we can produce, because one; we’vegot to protect our own sustainability with food supply but secondly; we need toensure that as we have to double food production over the next 40 years,Andrew, that Australia and especially South Australia grows its manufacturingsector, that’s my hope out of this, grows its manufacturing sector and agriculture to create more jobs andexport food across the world.

(Reimer: Sounds like a nice dream, do you think it’s gonna become realitythough?)

Look, it could and there’sno reason why it shouldn’t but I have to - after giving the Government anaccolade a few moments ago - throw a brickbat at the Government for notunderstanding and focussing on sustainable agriculture and farming … there’d bepeople tonight in some of the labour areas that’ll be on their tractors … ortheir headers actually listening to you and they chase the bins, still reaping… they know that they can produce a lot of food but we do get quite a lot ofdismay … when we see cuts to the Primary Industries Department, we see cuts to researchand development, we see the South Australian Research and Development Institutehaving to look at an amalgamation with the Adelaide Uni just to survive, whenactually that has led the world on a lot of plant breeding and also farmingtechniques … from that point of view I think a lot of it is up to theGovernment … I’m prepared to give Jay Weatherill some … free board here … he hasbrought regional development together with the Primary Industry portfolio butthe proof of the pudding will be at the end of this year and if we see himstarting to really focus on agriculture I’ll give him an accolade, but if hedoesn’t then I’ll be pushing him right through to the next election.

(Reimer:Mmm, you’re talking about the fact that you’re going to be very proactive andplacing pressure on the Government, making sure they’re doing the right thingwhen it comes to the farming community and other areas as well … I noticed theLibs, the Opposition, they’re finally starting to talk about policies and we’vegot a couple of years to go ‘til the election … but they’re starting to becomea little bit more vocal. You’ve worked …as a Minister for the Liberals many years ago, you’ve worked in Opposition,you’ve got a heck of a lot of political experience as well as experience on theland, what are your thoughts about the future the Liberals need to take when itcomes to policy making in order to be elected if they are in fact elected comethe next State election?)

Yeah welllook, there’s two or three key things there … first and foremost we need toremember that governments lose elections, Opposition’s don’t winelections. So for a little while anOpposition can wrap itself up in a … tight ball and be a small target, but aspeople start to focus on government, particularly a government that’s got to betired when it’s been in for three terms and asking the voters to give them 16years, it’s a long time. They want tosee what the real alternative is and this year the Liberal Party will have tocome out and make some broad policy announcements and start to give SouthAustralians an alternative appetite to what they could expect if Liberals wereto get into government. Now one example, Family First … will be bringing oneout dedicated to the Australian and particularly focused on the SouthAustralian Farmer of the Year and what we can do to grow agriculture. I wouldhope the Liberal Party would do the same thing. But if Isobel Redmond and herteam

1) are not tight knit, and I trust they will be, so they’re a veryforceful Opposition, and

2) start to make these policy announcements this yearthen they will find that voters will start to raise question marks about them.

So it’s a year where the Government have to perform very well … but theOpposition need to show that they are a strong alternative force to takegovernment in 2014

(Reimer: You talkabout the fact they should be tightly knit in order to make headway and getelected at the next election, but you look at the past, the animosity perhapsbetween Vickie Chapman and Isobel Redmond, do you foresee another leadershipchallenge from Vickie Chapman at some stage before the next election?)

…one of the Achilles heel of the Liberal Party for a long time, and Iappreciated the time I had in the Liberal Party and hopefully I put a lot ofeffort back for the Liberal Party, but leadership spills and those sorts ofnonsense games they cost and it cost the Liberal Party before. They need tounderstand that. As the Labor Government keeps saying, the worst day inGovernment is much better than the best day in Opposition and I think it’s timethe Opposition realised that and stopped worrying about the spoils of thefruits if you get there and how you divvy them up, but rather stick to IsobelRedmond. I think she’s the best alternative. She’s been pretty credible andstrong and my advice to the Liberal Party would be be grateful for what you’vegot, remember first and foremost … you’re elected to serve the community, soforget about challenges … focus on providing good Opposition to the Governmentso South Australians get the best opportunities that we need. And we certainlyneed them at the moment because it’s not easy out there as you know

(Reimer: … I know we’ll be hearing a lotmore from Family First over the coming 12 months …)

… and have a safe and avery good, healthy and economically strong family new year and I hope thatSouth Australians generally can have that too

(Reimer: … thanks for your time …)

Disruptive Housing SA Tenants - TV Transcript - 19 December 2011

2012-01-04T12:39:00.003+10:30

INTERVIEWEES: Robert Brokenshire, Family First MP; Brendan Moran, Director of Housing SA; Julie MacDonald, Housing Trust Tenants’ Association & Mildred Noland, Tenant

MAKIN
First tonight the rogue tenants owing millions of dollars to Housing SA. These low-life tenants refuse to pay their rent or cough up for the damage they cause to properties. Now the costs are just blowing out all the time. At last count it was around $20 million. But instead of throwing them out Housing SA appears to reward them by letting them stay on to continue to reek havoc, and that’s while thousands of needy families of course are still waiting to get a roof over their heads. Lucy Polkinghorne reports on a government department drowning in debt and incompetenance.

BROKENSHIRE
Why is Housing SA prepared to see this massive amount of debt that is working against the best interests of taxpayers?

MORAN
The debt that’s owed to Housing SA increased quite considerably a couple of years ago.

MACDONALD
I think we need an overhaul of the Housing SA system. Something needs to be done.

REPORTER
It’s the multi-million dollar question that needs to be answered.

BROKENSHIRE
Why are they allowing this debt? What are they doing all day? I mean in the private sector this would never happen.

REPORTER
South Australian Housing Trust tenants have racked up an astounding $19.7 million debt and the Government appears to have let it happen.

MORAN
We had a situation where debt was increasing by, you know, by quite significant amounts to a point where we were expecting the debt to balloon to quite large amounts.

REPORTER
Public housing is primarily intended to provide affordable accommodation for families who can’t pay for private rental, but it seems some tenants are abusing that privilege and outstaying their welcome.

MACDONALD
The Government seems to be housing more and more high risk tenants and our tenants are just fed up with the noise, the abuse, the threats, the drug dealing.

BROKENSHIRE
The highest one on the list we got who’s trashed to the extent of $43,000 damage to their property.

REPORTER
Freedom of Information documents, requested by Family First MLC Rob Brokenshire, reveal the top 20 offending tenants. All up they owe nearly $600,000 in unpaid rent and property damage.

MORAN
We have a number of instances where a small minority do do damage to the houses, trash houses and so forth and in those cases we do go in, repair the damage and sometimes the damage is up to twenty to thirty thousand dollars.

REPORTER
One tenant alone owes nearly $50,000 to the public purse. The Director of Housing SA, Brendan Moran, says they are trying to get a handle on this debt.

MORAN
We needed to change and improve the way we manage debt through putting in place debt specialist teams.

REPORTER
Try as they might the debt isn’t going away. It remains the same as it was 18 months ago.

MACDONALD
And the trouble is they’re re-housed quite often after they trash a property and run up a debt and they’re given another house and they do it again and it-- so it just doesn’t work.

REPORTER
Julie MacDonald from the Housing Trust Association says it’s not fair that well behaved tenants are forced to pay the price.

MACDONALD
There’s been a lot of changes in the rent structure this year, with children paying rent, with cottage flat rents going up, with pensioner’s income being garnished and that is to cover the debt and it’s just not fair that the deserving tenants have to meet the expenses of the unsavoury tenants.

MORAN
We must provide housing to those in greatest need, so we are housing a much more high needs, much more complex [unclear] now than we did ten to twenty years ago.

REPORTER
Ironically our social inclusion policy seems to exclude the mainstream. The priority, it’s given to those at risk.

MORAN
We have a policy or setting which ensures we house first people who are homeless, people who are victims of domestic violence, people with psychiatric issues as well.

REPORTER
While no question this is an area of need is there a better way?

MACDONALD
There needs to be much more social housing, purpose built social housing for these people and rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is key and social skills need to be learnt before people are tipped into public housing.

REPORTER
For those who meet their responsibilities it can be puzzling how others seem to be able to do as they please.

NOLAND
I’m always a, you know, stickler for bills to be paid. Bills come first, then you live what-- on what’s left.

REPORTER
Adelaide grandmother, Mildred Noland, is one of those law abiding tenants. She’s lived in the same Housing Trust complex for 30 years.

NOLAND
I don’t cause any ruffles or-- and I keep the place as clean as I can.

REPORTER
But poor Mildred at 84 can’t even get a safe and convenient place to park the gopher she relies on as a result of an accident.

NOLAND
The injuries made me that I can’t walk. I can only walk about three hundred to five hundred yards – my lefts stiffen and my legs stiffen at night and I’m toddling like as though I was just learning to walk.

REPORTER
And it’s not like she’s asking for much.

NOLAND
I wanted to park it in the community room because it’s close handy to my flat and also it has power points which I could recharge the gopher overnight.

REPORTER
But she was told by the Housing Trust committee she wasn’t allowed to.

NOLAND
They said no because it’s a community room and they don’t give out keys to everybody.

REPORTER
Instead she has to park it in a storeroom a good five minute walk from her flat. It’s a minor issue, but it matters.

MACDONALD
We find often we have to fight just for, say, separate water meters for elderly people who live upstairs that are getting bills for $260, for railing, for ramps, for maintenance on their property. I mean it’s absolutely crucial that we look after people and that they live in secure, decent properties.

REPORTER
Meanwhile, 20,000 people are desperately waiting to get into public housing while these destructive tenants are given priority. Perhaps the line needs to be drawn somewhere.

BROKENSHIRE
If you’re not doing the right thing three strikes and you’re out.

[End]

Review of the year in SA politics - Radio comments - 27 December 2011

2012-01-03T14:27:00.001+10:30

Robert Brokenshire, Family First MLC (5AA 19.44-20.18) Review of the year in SA politics [Interview from the 27/12/11]

Rob Brokenshire MLC outside Parliament
House, Adelaide

(Rodda: … 2011 has been a pretty volatile year in South Australian politics … Jay Weatherill is now at the helm and he appears to have injected new blood into the party and sort of brought a new energy and dynamic to what was I thought was a very old and tired and … very arrogant government. So, to get an independent view of how he saw the year unfold, I’ve asked Family First MP Robert Brokenshire to join me … it’s been a long time since we had a discussion on politics and I think the last time we did so you were a Liberal MP.)

That’s right …

(Rodda: …how long have you been with Family First now …)

… I lost my seat in the 2006 election which was a very bad election for the Liberal party … probably the worst election I can recall from the point of view of lack of structure and strategy etc … a couple of us on those knife edge marginal seats just missed out …

I went home on the farm and I was happy working with my son, I love farming, but to cut a long story short Andrew Evans rang me up … probably 12 months after I left politics in the Lower House and he said … I’ve watched you with interest … Andrew said … would you be prepared to take my seat because he had … diabetes and it was making it hard for him to work … I said … I’d fit quite comfortably into that … whilst I enjoyed my privileges as a Minister and everything … the one problem in the two major parties is that you’re not really able to be as independent as most would like and … with Family First you’re pretty well totally independent … I said yes I’d take that offer up … I’m probably now heading to three and a half years with Family First in the Legislative Council …

(Rodda: …you really enjoy being more independent rather than toeing the party line …)

Yes … it’s a lot different because it’s more of a watchdog role. I’d be telling you a fib if I said I wouldn’t have enjoyed an opportunity as continuing as a Minister because I had a lot more plans for the portfolios I had but in politics you’re basically there from one election to another … that’s important … if the people are happy with what you’re doing … then you’re fine, if they’re not happy you get kicked up the backside and that’s good democracy … with an independent party …we say

is this good for South Australia,
does it have merit,
is it going to help to grow the state both from an economic and social fabric point of view

and if the ticks are yes … then we support the Government, if they’re not with the Government with those ticks … often we’ll vote with the Opposition and amend legislation or at times oppose it outright.

(Rodda: …it must be good … to be able to just vote for good policy …)

It is … the one thing that Ministers won’t want to admit to but with cabinet solidarity which you must have once cabinet make a decision you go out in front of the TV cameras … you sing the virtues of what the Government want the listeners to hear but sometimes you may not necessarily agree with all of that and that’s not easy work … now I call it as a I see it and I fit much more comfortably with that. At times we actually upset both the Opposition and the Government and I think when we do that we’re probably on the money.

(Rodda: …let’s look at 2011. What do you think the biggest issues have been this year in politics for South Australia?)

… this is my 16th year in Parliament and up until now every one of those years has been with Mike Rann either as leader of the Opposition or Premier and Mike Rann did some good things, there’s no doubt about that, but he I think did start to get out of touch in a huge way probably straight after the election, probably just before the election, and so he copped the demise of that with his own party … they’ve given Jay a go, he will try and reinvigorate the party although I think … that any political party that’s been in office for 12 years … is probably almost at its use by date … I think even Howard showed that …

(Rodda: …I thought John Howard was a very good Prime Minister … but I saw him grow more and more arrogant …)

… John Howard’s Government delivered enormous opportunity for Australia but because of the energy and demand levels in politics … you do have a burn out rate … I think the American system’s a better system … from point of view of leadership … the other problem is that when you’ve been in Government for some time you tend to not even necessarily listen to your backbenchers a lot … you wrap yourself around your own team and I think that’s what happened to John Howard … if you look at Howard he was definitely a statesman and … also Paul Keating and Bob Hawke were statesmen, you felt confident when you saw them in the international scene, but I think we’ve lost that both at the state level and the federal level.

(Rodda: …I certainly didn’t feel like that about Mike Rann and Kevin Foley.)

… they got in by doing a deal, and I’ll never forget that deal, and then it was all about deals … I’ve heard one of them even mention that to me on occasions but I think it’s actually a lot more than about deals. I think it’s about putting the people first and the power second and the problem that all leaders have got now is being able to balance the power and the glory with the fact that you’re actually there to deliver for your community first and foremost.

(Rodda: …do we as the voters actually take enough interest in our politicians … people don’t take enough responsibility for these people that we’re putting into politics …)

The Legislative Council or 'Upper House' in Session
Rob Brokenshire argues voters support independent parties
in the Upper House as a check on the major parties

… I do agree with that to an extent and I think it’s important that more people do engage with politics because as I often say to young people … whether you like politics or whether you like politicians or not the reality is that most things that occur in your day, in your year … will affect you in your job creation … is determined by the people in politics right now and so it’s a good idea to actually take an interest in them and I encourage them to engage … I think there is a voter trend now that’s starting to pay more attention than probably what used to be the case … now, particularly in the Legislative Council … with Family First and other Independent parties … nearly a third of all the MLCs are on the cross benches and people have deliberately made a decision to do that … they may traditionally vote Liberal or Labor in the Lower House … because they’re the major parties but they’re saying … we actually want that check, that balance, that independence, that watch dog role in the Upper House and I think that’s healthy … if you compare what’s happening in South Australia in the Parliamentary debate compared to Queensland, certainly our South Australian voters are acutely aware of the importance of the Legislative Council.

(Rodda: …let’s look at some of the things that have occurred this year … Kevin Foley, there’s part of me that really feels sorry for this man because it was like watching a train wreck unfold … almost day after day in the papers and he just couldn’t put a foot right.)

And it’s unfortunate because I know Kevin Foley and Mike Rann probably better than a lot of people because I’ve worked with them for so many years … Kevin Foley is actually deep down not a bad guy and he was very committed to what he was doing but I think the way they actually got Government and then the fact that the Liberal Opposition, and I was part of it then … we were very bad in that first term. We were too frustrated and concerned about how they got into Government when we should have been there … we actually forgot to be an Opposition and so that allowed the Government to become very, very arrogant … the bottom line is that whilst major parties like to have a big majority, the truth is for a state like ours, the tighter the margin the better.

(Rodda: …I think Kevin Foley heaved a great sigh of relief when he hung up his boots finally …)

… Kevin liked the night life … but the unfortunate part was that because he’s high profile if any of us are involved in night life then you’re going to cop the wrath of the media if anything goes wrong … that’s a responsibility you have to take on when you put up your hand for these jobs … you are basically 24/7 in the public eye …

(Rodda: That’s the unfortunate part about it … and you do have to become careful don’t you?)

… you put up your hand, taken on the role and with that comes a lot of responsibility and the offset for that is you need to be careful. If you want to have a private time you’ve got have it with your closest friends or home but when you’re out publicly you’ve got to be very careful

(Rodda: Especially in politics … and a fairly volatile character like Kevin Foley … because there’s a lot of people that love to have a go at him because they don’t like his policies, or attitude, get a couple of drinks involved it’s a tinderbox situation …)

… it’s a bit like a footballer … some can play a hard game, and Kevin Foley was very good at that … but then because of that and the way he went about it there were the consequences … he’s a bit like a Barry Hall in the AFL …

(Rodda: Let’s look at some of the initiatives over the last year; we’ve had the go ahead for the hospital … and the Adelaide Oval redevelopment and the reinvigoration of the Torrens precinct. First of all … the hospital … what are your thoughts on this new hospital that’s going to cost us so much money?)

The Emergency entrance at the Royal Adelaide Hospital
which is scheduled for closure when the New RAH is built

I’ve always been strong and Family First had a close look at it … and we made a decision to support a continued restaging of development at the existing campus … because there’d already been $200 million to $300 million spent and that was mainly spent in the A&E and acute care areas … you won’t get better medical treatment than right now and the technology is there. What it did need was new accommodation … and that could’ve been done a lot … cheaper. So we supported the idea of paying as you go and owning it.

But the Government needed to do something with health because their polling showed they were on the nose with health. This became a project they decided on. It will be good, offer a lot for South Australia, but it’s going to come at a big price and if we’re going to continue with the Greater Adelaide Plan of another half a million people coming into South Australia we’re not going to have the capacity with that new hospital probably by 2020 and yet every day we’ll be paying $1 million on interest … so I don’t agree with the decision but it’s there now. The Government have bulldozed their way through. I just hope that it comes in on budget and that it is able to deliver the services that the Royal Adelaide has delivered for so long

(Rodda: Where does it leave our rural hospitals? That’s an awful lot of money to plough into one hospital … and where does it leave the Queen Elizabeth, Modbury and Flinders … is there enough money to still support them?)

Rob Brokenshire addresses a rally on Parliament House steps
earlier in the year comprising Keith, Moonta and
Ardrossan residents

I don’t believe so. I believe they’ll need to find that whoever is government a lot more money for that. Now the Flinders Medical Centre is getting some upgrades … and all of the hospitals are but there’s a … question mark over the QEH in the longer term and … the Lyell McEwin and definitely the Modbury Hospital. Then what the Government wanted to do … when they had Country Health Mark I, they wanted to shut down a lot of little rural hospitals and we’re still seeing it with Keith, Ardrossan and Moonta. Keith is just a dumb decision. The money they would save out of that is irrelevant in the big picture. It’s a lot for you and me … but for a government on a $15 billion budget to save $300,000 … they won’t save it

(Rodda: It’s just a no-brainer to me … I don’t get that one)

This is when bean counters take over from medical practitioners …

(Rodda: Why do they ask for medicos’ opinions and then not listen?)

Because … the Government says the Health Department has got to deliver dividends or cut its budget and while … deep down they would probably like to do what the medical people say, they’ve got to look at savings.

The bizarre one was the hospital car parking … at the moment a lot of South Australians think Jay Weatherill has done a back flip on that but it’s only half a back flip. What he said is we won’t charge you for the first two hours. People will soon start to find out that they spend more than two hours in a hospital. It’s mostly the vulnerable and pensioners … paying that. So these small amounts of money are not where you save money; you hurt people … you’ve got to be more careful in what you do with your bureaucracy and also your own departments, like your media department where the Government have about 64 media advisers. That’s where I’d see savings rather than the Keith Hospital

Hospital car parking at sites such as Modbury Hospital
(pictured above) were controversial for the Rann Government
in 2011, and distanced from the new Premier in October

(Rodda: Indeed … I have to say I have interviewed John Hill about the new hospital and I’ve had a lot of the doctors in my ears from the Save the Royal Adelaide campaign I have grave misgivings about this hospital and whether by the time it’s built its going to be able to service the need; I have concerns about car parking … and one of the reasons I choose not to work in the CBD is because of the car parking frustration. It’s just dreadful trying to find a park at 7:00 in the morning. … just doesn’t happen … let alone at 2:00 if you’re on a late shift)

Well exactly if you’ve got an appointment with the medical people at 2pm … I think as I said, that one’s a bad decision. I mean in England as an example they are having tertiary hospitals, state-of-the-art hospitals just like we’ve got with the RAH on a 300 year old campus and … look at the St. Vincent Hospital I think that’s in Victoria isn’t it, and the work there and the development … it’s like renovate, upgrade but own it; there are certain things that the Government can get out of and there are certain things that the Government need to own … I’m not comfortable with a Public Private Partnership arrangement there.

A key issue during 2011 was the campaign to save SA's public
forests from privatisation.

I think we’re leaving something that’s going to cost our grandchildren a lot and it’s a bit like the privatisation of the forests. I mean there were some good things done by the Government this year; you would expect that, that’s important but there are some decisions that the Government have made that I think are very wrong and as Chair of the Select Committee into the privatisation of the forests of South Australia and the southeast I think that’s again a bad decision that’s going to cost our grandchildren a lot.

(Rodda: What’s going to be the impact on the people of Mount Gambier and the southeast?)

… in the short term the Government will be able to tie the contracts so that there probably won’t be a lot of short-term impact … in the mid and long-term I think there’s enormous risk to the southeast and four or five thousand jobs and also of course I think there’s an enormous risk to South Australia because the reason why successive Liberal and Labor Governments since the 19th century have grown renewable forestry for South Australia because back then we didn’t have the hardwoods … for building.

But the point was we’ve always had our own security with our timber supply for our housing … I’m concerned that that puts the housing industry at risk. It may put the cost of houses up further which we don’t want and for short-term gain to try and save the Triple A credit rating which apparently we may not save anyway, why would you sell something for $600m or even $640 or $650 when it’s actually going to return you at least $50m net each year?

Rob Brokenshire says housing is one
industry that will suffer if forests are
privatised

(Rodda: That doesn’t make sense does it … a little bit like water … I’m of the school that thinks utilities should not be privatised, should be managed by Government because they’re fundamentals … look what’s happened with SA Water, that’s the biggest disaster this side of the Black Stump)

Well the desal plant’s the real problem there;

(Rodda: Well there’s some more money going out of the coffers isn’t it?)

… unfortunately your listeners haven’t even started to feel the real impact of power and water costs and I’m very concerned about them, particularly for low income earners, people in Housing Trust and superannuants and pensioners, but … there are some things Government can get out of but there are some things that Government need to control. But the problem we’ve got with Government at the moment of all colours is that it’s all about ‘how do I hold the seats in the marginal areas for the next four years?’ so a lot of stuff is done without long-term strategy and planning and the desal plant was a classic. The Government said ‘no desal plant’, you know, refused to even engage in it. Then they said ‘we’ll build a 50 gigalitre desal plant’ and then Kevin Rudd and Mike Rann had a brief meeting I understand and said ‘we’ll double it’. And as a result now we’ve got probably a quadrupling of water costs in the next few years.

(Rodda: Yeah and still nothing done about the River Murray But don’t get me started on that one)

That challenge [unclear] next year Ali.

(Rodda: Indeed. Alright Rob let’s quickly look at the good things the Government have done over the last year?)

… I think some of their road infrastructure has been very good. They’ve put a lot of effort into some capital works there and that’s desperately needed.

Some of the work they’ve done in education has been very good, technology and some of the new schools they’re building I think are a tick for the Government and then when it comes to the issues around the River Murray fight I think it’s fair to say that this Government has tried their best to take that fight up to the Commonwealth and the authority and knowing that at the bottom end of the Murray Darling Basin we need to have a healthy river you’ve got to have a healthy river from the Mouth back through to the source not the other way. So I think the Government have done pretty well there. But … there’s been a lot of areas where they’ve probably … just bumbled along.

(Rodda: Mm. Anything else? [laughing])

Anything else that they’ve done that’s good? Um, I don’t wanna be negative but I’m struggling to come up in all honesty Ali to get some, a lot of other [unclear]. Because if I look at social impact and decisions that have had an impact on the rank and file which is the absolute majority of our community I think we’ve been flogged and we are now the highest tax and charge state in Australia and we’ve got a debt now that’s back to where it was when the State Bank issue occurred. So you know I’m sorry but I can’t really give them any credit for those things. I’d like to -

(Rodda: Indeed)

I’d like to say they got the debt down more ,we’re the cheapest state to live in but we’re losing that cost competitive edge.

I guess the other thing that’s important that I will give them credit for although they opposed it as a party earlier on, but the Roxby Downs expansion, they did work hard on that and that one is very, very important to get a tick from the board of BHP Billiton by the middle of this year. So to be fair there’s another one they’ve worked really hard on.

(Rodda: Okay. Well let’s face it. Where have the Liberals been in the last year? I mean we’ve had this Government for over ten years now and in the last year we haven’t heard that much from the Liberal Party; they’re almost like a Toothless Tiger at the moment. What are your thoughts on the Opposition’s performance?)

Well some of my former colleagues that will be listening to your program now won’t like what I’m about to say but I think the Liberal Party have tactically made a couple of very bad decisions this year that they need to rectify next year. It was no good sitting back and letting the Rann Government implode as it was because clearly the heavy weights from the Labor Party would come in and do the job they’re happy to do which they did. So now it puts the Liberal and the Labor Party right back on an even keel; there’s nothing in it - two points either way. And why they weren’t out there attacking harder as an Opposition I really don’t know; they could have actually gone to the point now where they have become the alternative government … they chose to wrap themselves up in as small-a ball as they could in cotton wool and now next year they’ve really gotta come out.

It’s not too late for the Liberal Party … Isobel Redmond is a strong leader but there’s a few troops there that’d be a bit sore at the moment because they’re no longer in Cabinet, Shadow Cabinet and I think they need to be team players rather than dissidents. But if the Liberal Party want to win the next election and I think it’s going to be pretty concerning if the Government gets 16 years without pressure on them at the next election because that’s a very long time and everyone in Government gets tired by 12 let alone 16 years,

(Rodda: Yeah)

But I would like to see the Liberal Party coming out, making some specific statements about where they want to take the state and pointing out where the Government are wrong and really attacking there and supporting them where they’re right. But … the job of an Opposition Ali is the same as Family First; we’re a watchdog party. You need to point out where the Government’s going wrong. People will see where they’re going right but people want to see effective opposition. That’s what makes good government. So I think the Liberals probably wasted a bit of this year, quite a lot of it but hopefully for them they’ll come out next year and they’ll have their new Shadow Cabinet, they’ll be reinvigorated, they’ll have some strategy and they’ll start to announce that strategy and people will see the alternative differences between Liberal and Labor.

(Rodda: … I hope they’ve become a little bit more aggressive because you know some of these initiative have just been rammed through without any protest from the Liberals at all which is a bit disappointing because they’re our representatives as well. Just because they’re not in Government they’re still representing us.)

Well they’re the alternative Government and I said in the House - and some of them didn’t like what I had to say - but I’ve said it with well-meaning and that was, I said you’ve got to learn to focus as an Opposition. You’ve obviously - you also need to understand about winning marginal seats and some of them raised their eyebrows and … the bottom line was, because they were saying ‘well we got 52% to 48%’ two party preferred at the last election but that’s not worth anything to you when you’re in Opposition. Because … if Jay Weatherill wins the next election it will be because of Rann’s master stroke with his marginal seats at the last election. You know he managed to hold seven marginal seats and … you know Rann should go down in the history books with a Credit next to his name for that. It’s not easy to win seven seats in one election and if Jay Weatherill wins I think he’d want to go and thank Mike Rann for that

(Rodda: Yeah)

And the Liberal Party will need to understand how to actually target marginal seats … really they won two marginal seats last election, Adelaide and Norwood, and that was dismal.

(Rodda: Yeah; … I know that you have to go to bed early, you’ve got cows to milk … we could talk like this for hours but I do hope you’ll come and join me in the studio one night before we get kicked off air in March … and continue the chat because it’s always good to talk to you and there’s no shortage of conversation … so much going on there at the moment)

Well there is and I’m sure that there’s a lot that we can engage with your listeners as well … they are interested in seeing the state grow in a positive direction. I’d love to take the opportunity of coming in and this time of the year our staff are getting time off so that’s when I can have a little bit more time on the farm … .

(Rodda: Listen all the best for the New Year … we’ll catch you a little bit later on in January or February)

Thank you … great and healthy and safe New Year and also to all of the listeners on 5AA that they’ll keep safe, enjoy the New Year and … hope that it’s a growing and developing new year.

(Rodda: You too … Family First MP Robert Brokenshire there who’s always good to have a yarn and … it’s his favourite subject, politics.)

~

Imported food produce - Radio Comments - 22 December 2011

2012-01-03T11:39:00.002+10:30

Robert Brokenshire, Family First MLC (5AA 9.24-9.29) Consumer trend to buy cheap imported fruit and vegetables

(Pantelis: … Rob Brokenshire … you must be just throwing your hands up in the air, I imagine at these figures)

A selection of South Australia's fine foods at the
Adelaide Central Market

… yes, from the point of view of Family First Legislative Council as also as a farmer I’m definitely throwing my hands up in the air because so far we have not won the argument with the Federal Government to actually look at the importance of food security for a start. Then from a State perspective, in the Riverland where there is need for some diversification … we have an excellent opportunity through Grow SA and other organisations to go back into quality market gardening in parts of the Riverland, but the inhibiting factor at the moment is that it’s not viable for them to necessarily do that when we’re getting this food dumped at a cheap price because it’s not accredited, it doesn’t have the quality control, and it’s nowhere the product that we can grow in our own nation

(Pantelis: Why aren’t people listening? Why isn’t the Federal Government worrying about the food security angle especially?)

… sadly at the moment I don’t think the Federal Government has got a focus on agriculture and it’s unfortunate that I say that. I say that because we’ve seen reductions in research and development, we’ve seen a number of Senators and people like myself from Family First in there appealing, Leon Byner running a Facebook on this. But the Federal Government are not focused on agriculture. They think we’re doing fine. They think it’s alright to have this free trade when it’s not fair trade. And of course the focus is generally on mining because that’s an easy one for Government. But also in defence of the Federal Government, on the reverse side, I had some of the most senior legal people in my office a few months ago because I simply wanted to get a brand on pears and apples coming into South Australia, that simply said Produce of New Zealand, Product of Queensland, New South Wales, whatever, and they told me I would not be able to have that legislation passed in South Australia and even if I got it passed the Commonwealth would have to move to have it overturned. And even if the Commonwealth Government, would you believe supported it, because of the agreement that’s been.. the free trade agreement between New Zealand and Australia and the way that agreement was drafted, and the WTO, they would challenge it and it would be overturned for the reason that that contract is so flexible of that agreement for New Zealand. And that’s how come … we’re getting this back door approach of particularly frozen vegetables coming from China. I can tell your listeners I’ve been up to Adelaide Mushrooms, a massive state of the art mushroom production plant near Murray Bridge, it produces the best mushrooms you could get in the world, and yet they’ve got to compete with inferior mushrooms that I’ve seen filmed being grown almost in a sewerage pit … in China, and they’re bringing them over here and yet the accreditation that Adelaide Mushrooms … have to go through is second to none. This is the dilemma … and look, we must not give up the fight. A number of us must continue that fight and we appreciate the help we get from media …

(Pantelis: Are we likely to see a poisoning epidemic from imported food? We’ve had it in dog food imported from China, for instance … is it going to take something like that before the Federal Government … sits up and listens?)

Family First strongly supports Australian food security;
Rob Brokenshire is a Mount Compass dairy farmer
(Photo courtesy of the Sunday Mail)

… I hope that it doesn’t take something like that because that would be absolutely tragic, particularly when many of us have been ringing the alarm bells for so long. But it may be like that. Unfortunately it may be like a situation where until there’s a fatality on our roads we don’t get safety rails put up. But we should be going harder than that. Also from the point of view of our jobs and our own food security, there becomes a tip-over point. Look at what has happened with Edgell’s in the eastern states moving out with beetroot production now being done in New Zealand etc. If we get too much import then we lose our viability, we lose or flexibility between our domestic market in Australia and our export opportunities, and then there’s almost an implosion and you see more export coming in. We just can’t afford that because as those countries do improve eventually, and as they get hungrier, remembering we’ve got to double food production in this world in the next 40 years to even hope to cope with feeding the world, where is Australia’s food security? And from that point of view I think the Federal Government through the Prime Minister have got to take this internationally and argue for a fairer playing field and at least proper labelling laws

(Pantelis: Rob, thanks for your time.)

~

O'Connell Street Shooting - Radio Comments - 20 December 2011

2012-01-03T10:43:00.004+10:30

Robert Brokenshire, Family First MLC (5AA 9.35-9.40) Shooting on O’Connell Street on Sunday night

(Pantelis: Rob Brokenshire … another pollie who has phoned in …)

Family First's Rob Brokenshire MLC
was previously Minister for Police
in the Liberal Government

… I’ve phoned in because I’m quite concerned and in fact perplexed that the new Premier didn’t call a press conference yesterday to actually tell the South Australian community what the Government have in mind with respect to a strategy over this matter. Whilst the police are doing the best they can, as a former Police Minister and someone with the duties of spokesperson for Family First on Police, there’s no doubt there’s been an increased incidence in very serious crime with these outlaw motorcycle gangs and I think the first thing the new Premier should’ve been doing was reassuring people that he was on top of this and was putting certain strategies forward to try and stop this from expanding

(Pantelis: He did hold a media conference yesterday and of course was asked about this. Do you think his comments went far enough?)

No I don’t. Look there are two or three key things here. First of all, Stephen Wade is right on $50 million of budget being cut back for police recruitment, which is a concern because that then means we’ll slip below the growth numbers we need. But more importantly … the Commissioner has to find $34 million in general cuts to police. That’s an area that we’ve got to try and resource to the best capability of Government even when financial situations are difficult. But the concerns that I have are that we all know there are a number of affiliates and direct associates of outlaw motorcycle gangs … who have licences to run restaurants and hotels. One thing I think that needs to happen urgently is a review of those licences and probably the removal of those licences. Then the second aspect to this is more resources into organised crime, particularly what was known as Avatar which was a dedicated police focus on.. with dedicated highly trained police officers; I think you need to see probably a doubling of that number of police so they’re really get in on top of these OMCGs. And I just don’t hear that sort of commitment coming from the Government unfortunately

(Pantelis: Do you think in the wake of Mike Rann, who of course everyone in Adelaide referred to as Media Mike, and there was an association with spin and all of that, but if Jay Weatherill had said, you know come out strongly, do you think he would’ve been believed?)

I think he would’ve. I mean the first thing he could’ve come out and said was we’ve heard a lot of spin and rhetoric and promises from the previous Premier and Government, I want to take a new direction here, I am concerned about safety. Bear in mind this is on a Sunday evening, in the last of a series of events, when a lot of families were actually going home from the Carols by Candlelight and of course others from sporting events … and they need to be reassured that South Australia is safe. I think if Premier Weatherill had have come out and said look he won’t stand for this; any initiatives that have to be put forward will be put forward. And not just legislative initiatives because we heard all that from the former Premier … knocking down fortresses and so on …

(Pantelis: That’s exactly what I mean)

Yeah. So I don’t expect Jay Weatherill to come out and carry on with that rhetoric but he could’ve come out with some actual strategic direction and been shoulder to shoulder with senior police and actually shown that there was a commitment, an effort and a focus on this because we don’t need this sort of behaviour in South Australia. And at the moment … I’m getting this from a lot of constituents that someone that happens to be appearing to have a potentially unsafe load on a trailer or something like that, they’re being pulled over and fines are increasing, we saw that in the media recently. But when it comes to the serious end of town, where people are out there with firearms and the issues of whether they have licences.. even how did they get these … black market firearms etc? These are the things that I think … the community want reassurance on not only from police who are doing a good job, but this is where the leadership of the new Premier needs to step up in my opinion

(Pantelis: Alright Rob, thanks for calling in).

~

Family First 2011 Year in Review - Radio Interview - Wednesday 14 December 2011

2011-12-14T14:42:00.001+10:30

Robert Brokensire,Family First MLC (5AA 10.07-10.17) Uncollected fines / Sale of the forests /Proroguing Parliament / Claims registration plates in public car parks may bephotographed / NRM Boards / Housing Trust tenants

(Byner: I want to talk now tosomebody who, with his colleague Dennis Hood, has been one of many who has beenvery good to the people of South Australia ... you know taxing the rain, NRMbullies, marine parks, dairy inquiry, power of the supermarket duopoly, fightagainst fire blight, trade deals that disadvantage local growers, threats bypublic servants not to talk to MPs, clear contravention of the Constitutionthat protects individuals who seek out their local Members, the failed MurrayDarling Basin plan, Housing SA hell holes generated by placing criminals beforewomen and children in public housing. These are just a few issues tackled by my next guest. Now Dennis Hood and Rob Brokenshire havehelped a lot of people ...with everything from water department billing toassaults, bashings, intimidation in the burbs ... I need to make this pointagain – this program doesn’t care a toss about political colour, skin colour,gender or religion, we just deal with the issues that affect ordinarypeople. We don’t care about rhetoric, wedon’t care about spin, we don’t care about bluster – we just extract theissues, canvas as many sides of an argument as possible and you then can makeyour decision about what’s right and what’s not ... but it’s ironic that thebreadth of issues raised here are not in fact Opposition fodder but that of atwo Member Upper House political Crossbench, Family First. Merry Christmas Rob Brokenshire.)

MerryChristmas to you Leon ... Leon, I was driving down from the farm this morningand I listened to your program. I justwant to comment ... before we start on this lazy money the Government actuallyaren’t going out to get. One of the bigpressures out there at the moment are for genuine battlers, they’re reallyfinding it tough ... yet there are a certain number of people know the system;they’re aware that this government are actually social apologists when it comesto not collecting these massive outstanding fines ... I’ve been in Government,I’ve been a Minister and it’s not easy, but we’re all doing it tough out thereat the moment. This is the toughestI’ve seen South Australia’s economy for some time, probably 30 years ... thisis lazy money. Hundreds of millions ofdollars out there ... we’re fighting against the privatisation of selling ahundred years of our forests ... do you know that about a third of the moneythey’re going to actually sell the forests for is sitting there under theirnose ... to write a hundred million of that off and then leave $200 millionthere uncollected ... they’re political nut cases in my opinion. The Government have absolutely lost the ploton this ... people have had a gutful of not seeing that money returned toTreasury.

(Byner: ... you just told me some stuff during thenews at ten. Tell the people of SouthAustralia what you told me during the news break.)

... I’ve been talking tocolleagues interstate ... there’s been a Labor and a Liberal Government inVictoria ... they put initiatives forward because they have tight budgets tooLeon ... I can tell you that they’ve collected an enormous amount now of theiroutstanding fines ... they are not leaving a stone unturned to get that money.

(Byner: ... we were getting stories about visiting country markets and shoppingcentres, clamping wheels.)

Yes ... they’re right out there, they’re in theface of people, they’ve got the technology – we’ve got it here too ... theyalso use their police a lot more than we do ... that’s something I’ve argued about for some time. The former Liberal Government and thisGovernment seem loathed to engage police to collect this money and yet thosepolice are driving around all day with a computer in their car ... they havemuch better legal teeth than anyone else we’ve got in this government ordepartment.

(Byner: So are you saying you want to see SAPOL domore fine collecting?)

Well, within their work. Give them the resources ... there are a lotof people at the moment in the Attorney’s area that are out there trying to getthis money. What I’m saying is use thatmoney and use that resource and let SAPOL manage it because they are far moreefficient ... they’ve already got the technology; they know how to collect themoney, they know the law.

(Byner: ... the Government are of a mind, althoughthis hasn’t been put to Cabinet and I don’t think anything will be until Ithink the Attorney-General can actually believe he’ll get it up, because Ithink there are a lot of people in the Government who don’t want this tohappen, which is odd.)

Well it’s crazy. Those people need to get out over the Christmas break Leon and talk tothe rank and file voters out there in the community ... they’ll be told thatthey’re not prepared to have all these taxes and charges basically just makingit impossible for them when the Government aren’t out there collecting moneythat’s due to them.

(Byner: ... let’s talk to Peter at Taperoo ...) (Caller Peter: ... you were in Government and when youwere in Government you were party to privatising ETSA ... now you’re comingaround and saying ‘don’t privatise the mills down at Mt Gambier’. You had a change on the road to Damascus.)

Well not at all Peter ... I’m very happy to take that point up ... number one,when I was in Government this state was on its knees from the State Bank ... wehad a very large debt to repay. Numbertwo, Paul Keating actually said that we’d have to have a national grid, whichbrought a whole new ball park playing situation into it ... number three, itstill had to go through the Parliament, the democratic process. ETSA was not privatised until it went throughthe Parliament. With this privatisation,for over a hundred years the situation is that it’s not even go through theParliament.

(Byner: ... presumably the Government are not goingto put it through the Parliament because it doesn’t have to.)

Correct.

(Byner: So how so?)

Well because under the legislation and the way it sitsthey can actually privatise it, forward sell it for three rotations, a hundredto a hundred and ten years and not have to put it through the Parliament ...that’s unfortunate. I would like JayWeatherill to put it through both Houses.

(Byner: He won’t ... he’s already said that.)

Because he knows that it won’t get through because it’s a very bad deal forSouth Australia. I would say to Peterand your other listeners, having been Chair of that committee, that they willprobably undersell that by four to six hundred million dollars, simply becausethey need some quick cash, but it’s not the way to go. It returned nearly $48 million just thisyear.

(Byner: Now look has Parliamentbeen prorogued yet or what’s happened? Iknow it’s finished for the year ... right now there’s a whole lot of Bills ...many Bob Such generated ... that are just sitting there not looked at yet. If Parliament’s prorogued they’ll alldisappear ... everything gets scrubbed out ... when do we know whether it’sgoing to be prorogued or not?)

Well, I spoke to a senior person in theparliamentary staff only two days ago and they told me that they think theGovernment are going to make an announcement about proroguing in the next fewdays. I understand that the Premierwants to prorogue. I don’t think heshould prorogue, but it will mean that we’ll have to reintroduce a lot of otherthings, like the Private Members Bills that a lot of us have and of course theselect committee into the privatisation of our forests.

(Byner: Okay. If I had to say to you what do you think werethe three biggest issues on which you were getting people ringing you ... whatwere they?)

Well there were a lot this year. It’s been a real challenge for the community,but Leon the three biggest – number one I’d say is still Housing Trust andproblems with tenants that are just not prepared to live with the rest of thatcommunity ... hundreds of people just on that issue.

The hospital car parking issue, which is nowhalf back-flipped, which is a start – they’ll still have to pay fees after thefirst two hours. That was huge. We had rallies on that, we had petitions.

(Byner: ... do you know that the Westfields ... a lot of these private operatorswere photographing registration plates coming and going ... if they overstayedtheir welcome they would be sent an expiation or fine or break of contract,call it what you will, but the other one is that once you were photographed ina 24 hour period ... you couldn’t go back and get another free two hours, youhad to pay full tote odds ... have you heard that government instrumentalities,our government car parks are going to do that?)

I haven’t heard that butI’m concerned about that because we’re already seeing the Government ...charging after two hours in public hospital car parks now ... I’m actuallygetting a bill drafted at the moment to amend that for both the private and thepublic sector ...

(Byner: So are you putting up a Private Member’s Billto outlaw the photographing of rego plates?)

Yes I am, under the PrivacyAct. We’re getting it drafted at themoment. We’ll be introducing it on the15^th of February because this has got to stop; people have hadenough ... it’s a silly thing from a retail point of view – it’s hard enoughdoing retail now without sending people away because they don’t want to pay forcar parking.

Byner: ... we’ll take a break and come back ...) [Ads](Byner: ... we’re talking to Rob Brokenshire from Family First ... let’s take acall from Peter.)

(Caller Peter: ... this NRM ... reckoned that stock anddomestic water is exempt. Well, that’s aload of baloney. I’ve just been out to aproperty around the Mt Compass area ... this guy’s got two meters and he isbeing charged for stock and domestic use ... so this NRM are talking a load ofbaloney.) (Byner: ... he’s got to talkto John Darley about this ... I know that Jay Weatherill is somewhat concernedabout some of the bully tactics being used by this mob of environmentalists ...the NRM, Rob, in my view have an important job to do, but I don’t think they’reworking in cahoots with the community ... their attitude is poor ... we are giving them far too many resources todo things. I mean the NRM are not in aposition to tell a farmer how many cattle he’s been grazing and now you’ve gotto graze this many. There’s no scienceinvolved here ... I know for a fact there are other industries represented bygovernment departments in the same government who think this mob have just gotout of control ... what’s going to happen?)

... I tell you what’s going tohappen. John Darley and myself and someother colleagues are very concerned. Wewant to debate a bill that the Government have got through the Lower House thatwill not at the moment introduce in the Upper House because they’re scared ofour amendments ... the NRM has become a monster. There are over 300 people there. With the greatest of respect, I don’t believethey’re delivering environmental and economic outcomes, like they’re intendedto do ... can I say to Peter Manuel that as far as people being charged forstock and domestic that’s against the law ... I’ll follow that throughimmediately ... we are moving so that irrigators don’t pay for water at all. They’ve already paid for that when theybought the land ... they buy land in high rainfall areas and it costs them moremoney

. (Byner: And the Government said they’re not going totax the rain ... yeah right.)

Yeah sure Government.

Photo courtesy of the Sunday Mail

(Byner: Yeah right. Let’s talk to Julie McDonald from the TenantsAssociation ...)(Julie McDonald: ... I’ve rang up to thank Rob Brokenshireand Dennis Hood for all their help through the year. They’ve been unbelievable, especially Rob’sstaff ... just to update you on a few things with public housing. We’ve actually had three quite good outcomesdown here in Semaphore Park through the Port Adelaide Housing Trust office, notthrough the Minister’s office. We don’tseem to be getting anywhere. We had aneviction, one to the Residential Tribunal, who is going to be evicted ... theother night I spent the night with a tenant with the police. Luckily I heard the high needs tenantscreaming and abusing and threatening this tenant from my house a whole streetaway, so I was able to help the tenant, with the police ... they’re looking athopefully moving this tenant as well. So we’re getting some help through theregional offices, but doesn’t seem to be anything coming from the Minister’soffice, except we get a lot of help from Rob Brokenshire and Dennis Hood’soffice.)

... you have done a brilliant job ... I’m not just patting you onthe back for the sake of it. You’vedriven all of these issues through Leon’s program and many MPs’ offices ...without you a lot of people would be absolutely desperate.

(Byner: I want to stick up alsofor certain people at Housing SA.)

There are some good people there.

(Byner: Yes there are ... they ought to be commended. I find it’s unfortunate that at a policylevel of management there’s this hands-off approach. They come up with all the motherhoodstatements and goodwill gestures, most of which when you turn your back turninto thumbs up ... really they’re disingenuous, they’re just not sincere ... Ihappened to think that no matter who you are and what you’ve done you eitherare accommodated in jail ... and if you’ve got high needs you probably in manycases are not going to be responsible enough to live in a house where you canbe self sufficient ... purely at a occ health and safety risk point of view youput somebody in a semi supervised situation where they are unlikely to be adanger to either themselves or others ... the Government doesn’t want to payfor this, so what they do is they come up with this tripe – ‘oh we’re about therights of all people’ – no they’re not ... by doing this they’re playing offone class of person against another ... that is not social justice.)

Andwhat they’ve actually done ... they’ve in effect, through policy, changed thecharter of the Housing Trust ... some very committed people in the HousingTrust are doing the best they can, but I can tell you they’re pulling theirhair out because they know some of these people should be in supportedaccommodation, but they’re instructed to put them into those homes by theGovernment.

(Byner: Let’s talk to Gary at Ingle Farm ...) (Caller Gary: ... I was interested by the economicimplications of selling the forests ... I don’t think that we’re that poor as astate, why do we need to sell off the forests, where’s the money going?)

Wellthat’s a really good question Gary ... since this government’s been in office –and I give this government credit when I see them doing good things and I oftensupport them on the vote to get legislation through – but I don’t know, they’vewasted so much money ... it’s gone from $8 billion to ... nearly $16 billionand yet we have core debt in the Forward Estimates I think it’s nearly $9billion. Where has it gone? Most people can’t put their finger on one ortwo things, but it gets back to mismanagement ... to sell the forests when theforest is a jewel in the crown that is returning $48 million ... even FederalLabor, through their Chair of their committee in Canberra, have said thatforestry is one of the bright outlooks for industry.

(Byner: Let’s talk to Peter ...)(Caller Peter: ... just wondering with the Family FirstParty what is the future for the Family First with regards to any upcomingelections, are you going to have more people standing in more seats because wehave a Liberal Opposition that don’t seem to have any policies but have a lotof rhetoric; we have a Labor Government that’s – I’ve been a Labor voter, I’min my 50s; I’ve never voted anybody but Labor and there’s no way in the worldI’m voting for this party ever again in this state because they got rid of MikeRann and replaced him with Jay Weatherill, but that was a step sideways, itdidn’t do anything.)

Well what happens of course when any government’s beenin office for so long, and you saw it with the Howard Government ... we’re nowseeing it with the Weatherill Government ... you get tired. Ten years, they’ve got twelve years, it’s along time to be focussed.

(Byner: Okay,but on what you’re doing, are you going to have lots of candidates?)

Yes,to answer Peter’s question. As a smallerparty we will be able to field a candidate in every electorate ... I’m surethat the Greens will as well, so there will be choice other than the two majors... that’s democracy ... we have an important role on the Crossbenches.

(Byner: ... Margaret of Tennyson, good morning.) (Caller Margaret: ... I am so enraged about these pineforests being sold in Mt Gambier. Itreally scares me quite frankly ... whenJay Weatherill went down there the other day he was absolutely water weak ...I’m so disappointed with the Opposition – they haven’t even got a candidate forthe by-election down at Port Adelaide ... in my view it’s getting scary ...going through ... McLaren Vale only a week ago, looking at those beautifulvineyards ... you ask yourself do we still own them? That’s the situation now.)

... Leon, to Margaret and all of your listeners,one of the things on these forests is that even if they get six or sevenhundred million for them they’re going to get that money back in just 12 or 14years ... what I’d like listeners to dois contact marginal Labor seat Members and tell them they’re not happy becauseat the moment the Government think it’s only the South East that aren’t happy.

(Byner: Can I just point out something else, to be fair here – when you were inthe Liberal Opposition or in the Government and you sold Optima Energy you knowthat you sold the generators for a lot less than they were worth ... the peoplewho bought them got their money back in four and a half years.)

Well, I’dhave to say generally speaking privatisation, you know having a look back andbeing honest, privatisation is not the way to go. Certain things need to stay in governmenthands ... since the 19^th Century Liberal or Labor have kept thoseforests in government hands ... we have to learn from our mistakes, but whatI’m saying right now is why are we selling off a jewel, one of the few we haveleft.

(Byner: All right, what’s your office number?)

8237 9122 ... if anybody’s in trouble over Christmas/New Year there’ll be anemergency number there ... if there is an issue please ring that number andyou’ll be able to get through to me.

(Byner: ... Rob Brokenshire, thank you. Rob from Family First on 5AA.)

Forestry Forward Sale Scandal - Media Comments - 7-9 December 2011

2011-12-08T13:33:00.001+10:30

7 December 2011

Members of the South East community came several times
to Adelaide to protest the forward sale
On Thursday 8 December the Premier visited them
and, reportedly, 2000 attended in protest at the sale
including Forestry SA staff

7News - "Concerns over forestry deal allegations" - includes video

8 December 2011
ABC News - "Censored Board minutes released"
ABC South East - "Gago responds defends forest sell-off" (includes audio)

Radio Transcripts:

Minutes show Forestry SA Board was unhappy about the forward sale process of SE forests

More than a thousand people have gathered in Mt Gambier to express their opposition to the Premier, Jay Weatherill, about the proposed forward sale of forests. Businesses across the city have closed and children have been taken out of school in a bid to urge the Premier not to forward sell South East forests. Chants of opposition could be heard throughout the crowd. The three Lower South East mayors will address the crowd about the direct and indirect impacts of selling off the region’s forests. The State Government has opened expressions of interest for the sale, which could see up to three forward rotations sold.

Chair of a Parliamentary committee looking at the forward sale of South East forests, Family First MLC Robert Brokenshire, says that minutes of Forestry SA board meetings just released show that the board was unhappy about the process. He says the documents are explosive. The minutes have large sections blacked out. Mr Brokenshire says despite the minutes being heavily censored it’s clear the Forestry SA Board has concerns about the privatisation of the State’s forests. The committee had to push the Government and Crown law to get the documents released. Mr Brokenshire says he still believes the forward sale of harvesting rights is a bad move. Mr Brokenshire is calling on the Premier Jay Weatherill to stop the sale because the process is flawed:

(891ABC 10am & 639ABC 10am) “These are damning revelations from the Forestry SA minutes. Forestry SA have been belittled in my opinion, they have been pressured, they have been gagged.”

(891ABC 12noon) “Even with all the blacked out censored parts of these minutes it’s very, very clear that the Forestry SA Board had enormous concerns over this privatisation and not only that they’ve effectively been gagged and I believe virtually not considered at all in having proper input into the pros and cons of privatising our forests.”

Mike Smithson, Channel Seven Journalist (5AA 9.09-9.23) Proposed forward sale of timber rotations

(Byner: My lead story today is a doozy and it’s something that came out of Mike Smithson … the Rann Government has been hell bent on privatising Forestry SA. The people of the South East have protested loud and clear about this with their city cousins; they’ve protested several times here in Adelaide and today is their defining hour. Jay Weatherill is visiting the South East today as he continues to promote the same Labor Government under his leadership as being different. Now, credit to him; he’s been to the Riverland and now he’s going to the South East. Full marks for doing that, but I suspect that after the revelations you’re about to hear, Mr Weatherill has very big problems on his hands. Now, this program obtained from the parliament website documents that are damning. The minutes of Forestry SA’s Board were not given up easily by the Government; the select committee chaired by Rob Brokenshire has to fight to get them. This is the same select committee that’s recommended against the sale and heard from eminent people like Dr Jerry Leech … saying that the sale potentially undervalues the forestry estate by hundreds of millions of dollars. The Forestry SA Board minutes … show that the Government, including after Mr Weatherill took charge, have kept Forestry SA’s Board in the dark; told them to put up or shut up, slapped them with a gag that looks on the face of it to be illegal and now the chair and other boards members have gone – we don’t know if they were sacked, pushed or jumped. Little wonder when the board warned the former Forest Minister in May that forward sale was, and I quote: ‘a decision based on false premise pursuant to receipt of untested or inaccurate data would lead to the parliament and the people of this state being misled’. So there you have it. The Government’s rationale for the forward sale in tatters and what do they do six days after Mr Rann handed over to Mr Weatherill? Slap the board with gag orders and put them out of office. This is a damn scandal. Now, Mike Smithson … how important is this to South Australia? … )

… the minutes of the board meeting show that the board of Forestry SA thinks that the forests are extremely important to South Australia and the income they generate and … it’s an asset and it’s a very slow growing asset and it’s something that has to be nurtured and protected at all costs, I would have thought. So the Government, it would appear, wants to sell and some say at a fire sale price … the forward sales of timber for the next 100 years. They call it a lease but it’s effectively a sale … once it’s gone, it’s gone … what this shows is that beneath the surface at board level over a number of months … about six months worth of board minutes, they consistently and persistently argued to the Government, to Treasury officials that they didn’t like the process, they didn’t like the consultancy that was establishing what the valuation of this forest may be … they didn’t like being kept in the dark. Then they were asked to sign confidentiality agreements … they were saying … ‘Our position under the Act as a board is to look after the forest, not the sale process … now you’re trying to make us sign an order that we can’t say anything at all’.

(Byner: Who did this? … )

Trucks emblazoned with "Don't Privatise SA Forests"
have been an icon of the anti-privatisation protests,
and could be seen in marginal Adelaide seats in March 2014

Well, there’s a Treasury official and I won’t name him. He’s named in the minutes.

(Byner: … but Mr Snelling’s got to accept the responsibility for this. He came on this program and said some time ago, and I remember his exact words, that he’s looked at the business case and if it wasn’t sound he wouldn’t dare go near it. Well, if this information is right someone’s talking through their hat.)

So what do you do if you’re Jack Snelling? Do you trust the board that runs the forestry department? … I would have thought that you put your full trust in the board that you’ve established to protect the forests. But it would appear that the Government is going alone and saying … ‘We’ve got independent advice’ …

(Byner: From where?)

Coming from two consultants … one crowd called Union Bank of Switzerland.

(Byner: What would they know about forestry?)

Well, they’re the ones who have brought into – they’re valuers … I’m not putting them down, I don’t know anything about them.

(Byner: Yeah, but they don’t run forests … they’re experts in money not forests.)

Well, that’s why you’d put your trust in the board isn’t it? … what it tells me … is that the Government and the Treasurer and Treasury were hell bent and they were accused at one of the committee meetings that looked into this as being zealots who wanted to make money quick out of the forest sale … what it smacks of to me is that the Government says … ‘We’ll put the board there but we won’t listen to a thing they say’ … there are financial experts on that board that are no longer there.

...

Robert Brokenshire, Family First MLC (5AA 9.15-9.21) Proposed forward sale of timber rotations

(Byner: Rob Brokenshire, you’ve been on this committee, you’ve been fighting to get information haven’t you?)

Definitely been fighting and now these have been published because the committee have approved that but … these are very damning revelations from the Forestry SA minutes. In spite of the fact that so much of it’s been blacked out … just imagine what we would have found out if … so much wasn’t blacked out, thanks to the Crown-Solicitor’s office. But … Forestry SA have actually been belittled, they’ve been pressured, they’ve been gagged. (Byner: And then sacked.) Well, effectively, and can I say that people like John Ross that was a former chair who’s highly an honourable person, very experienced, he had to give the evidence that he gave under the select committee. And with respect to the confidentiality agreement, I mean the board questioned, and I actually agree with them, that they were being forced into a position … where they were in breach of the Forestry SA Act and the Public Corporations Act which is where their terms of reference are for their job. Now … the people with the expertise that have done such a very good job for South Australia for so long is Forestry SA. They’ve been gagged and they’ve been put to one side an don this evidence now I’m calling on the Premier to actually halt the forward sale …and to go back and revisit this whole saga before we actually sell one of the very few jewels left in the Government’s crown.

Back to Mike Smithson

(Byner: … do you think Jay Weatherill’s going to do that?)

Well no I don’t because yesterday afternoon as I was trawling through the minutes and … much of it is blacked out; pages and pages where it’s just black … so I rang the Premier’s office. They were aware that I had these documents …

(Byner: What was their reaction? … )

Well, slight concern but not overly because I think they knew at some point the documents would surface. But I was looking for Jack Snelling and he’s on holidays at the moment and he’s entitled to holidays … I was looking for a comment from the Government but without him –

(Byner: But … he kept saying to this audience … that there’s no way he’ll go near this unless the business case is sound and obviously what we’re hearing today is it’s far from that.)

He may think the business case still is sound and just doesn’t trust the board that ... may have been sacked, may have been terminated, who knows? Much of the board has gone. But the interesting point was that I said knowing that the Government knew that I had the information with me and that I was doing a story last night, I said is there any chance Jay Weatherill may announce a revision of this or a back flip of this today to try and circumvent the story going to air? … the Government said ‘No, he’s not going to make an announcement today and he’s not going to make an announcement that is a good news announcement in Mt Gambier’ … so I don’t think the Government’s going to change its point of view because it wants the money from the sale.

(Byner: It wants $600m when probably it’s worth a lot more than that.)

Well over the forward timeframe it’s like anything else … it could increase in value but what it’s not going to do is … return you the same dividend over that time.

...

Former Premier Rann and Treasurer Foley may be gone, but
Labor seems resolute in its determination to
forward sell (privatise) the forests under Weatherill
and Snelling as at the date of this media coverage

Back to Robert Brokenshire

(Byner: … what happens next?)

Well … unfortunately the Premier appears that he wants to prorogue the Parliament. But I’ll say to the Premier through your program now that I’ll be moving the reinstatement of this committee to finish its work the day I get back into parliament and we will have to – look, we have a duty of care; if the majority of the members, and it is the majority of the members who’ve recommended no sale, we’ve done that because as politicians we have a duty of care. The Premier has a duty of care too. Mike Smithson is right … we’re going to get $48m just this year in net return, plus 4,000 to 5,000 jobs that are down there every day and I’d call on the Premier now let’s have a public debate. He’s got some knowledge, I’ve got some knowledge; let’s have a public debate and let the community ask questions and get real answers … this forest is owned by South Australians, not the Government.

Back to Mike Smithson

(Byner: … this is really embarrassing for the State Government … isn’t it? … )

… it’s embarrassing for the State Government, it’s even more embarrassing for the board of the Forestry Corporation knowing that their recommendations, their concerns haven’t been listened to at all, in fact … the Government’s thumbed their nose at it. I would have thought a lot will hinge on the public perception and the images coming out of Mt Gambier today that Jay Weatherill might actually get the message. The people of the South East are incredibly angry about this and incredibly concerned and at the same time there are wheels moving within wheels in the city now that these board minutes have actually been made public … a lot of people just don’t accept the fact that the Government just brushes over these things.

(Byner: … Channel Seven have got a news team down following the Premier … did he invite the media with him or are they going to go anyway?)

Well, they were going to go anyway. The Premier’s Department has played this trip down like you wouldn’t believe.

(Byner: I bet they have … they wouldn’t have anticipated your story last night.)

No … and it just happily coincided with his trip … when leaks happen, leaks happen.

(Byner: Well, if the Government are going to act like a pseudo Russian … bureau and silence anybody who doesn’t agree with them, I think there’ll be hell to pay over this … I know they need money but … there has to be a process that appears to be fair dinkum and this mob are not fair dinkum … if this information is right then the Government are seriously in error and I think they’ll pay a price for this.)

… one thing that I can promise you is that … Labor governments in particular have to think very carefully about getting rid of assets that generate money and that’s exactly what this is doing. It comes down to do we need the money or are we thinking longer term? … do we need the income stream or do they need the money immediately to solve other problems? That’s what worries me; that the rationale behind selling it is to fix a problem elsewhere and if that’s the case it seems ludicrous.

(Byner: Well, I think we’d better give them all a tube of toothpaste for Christmas that’s been slightly used and let them get the rest of it out and see what happens because I think that’s what we’re talking about here. Thank you for coming in.)

Leon Byner, 5AA Presenter (5AA 9.40-9.41) Proposed forward sale of timber rotations

This is going to be Jay Weatherill’s most difficult task to try and manage, with revelations that his independent board which runs on a whole set or rules which politicians are not supposed to interfere or public servants. Now, I can tell you an observation that I have had for some time that concerns me and should concern you … that is the way in which … senior public servants bully other … people across the community including other public servants and almost tell them that they can’t even go to their MP, which of course is unconstitutional, and they get away with it … we’re not living in Soviet Russia … so maybe a slight shunt of reminder to the State Government would be a really good Christmas present, or maybe some heavy duty Windex so that things can be perfectly clear and indeed transparent.

Robert Brokenshire, Family First MLC (639ABC 12.42-12.52) Forestry SA’s concerns over privatisation of the State’s forests

Commentators have linked the need to
privatise forests in the South East
to pay for Adelaide Oval improvements
in the city.

(Long: Details have emerged revealing that the Board of Forestry SA, the State Government Department in charge of forestry, has concerns over the privatisation over the State’s forests. Family First MLC, Robert Brokenshire, has got his hands on the minutes from Forestry SA Board Meetings under Freedom of Information which he says have been heavily censored … welcome to the Country Hour … tell us about these documents.)

Well, these documents were actually – I’m chairing a select committee into the privatisation and the committee had been trying to get these documents for months and months and had had them stalled through the Crown Solicitor’s Office. Now, we were able to publish them on the parliamentary website only the last few business days late last week. We’ve been able to now have a look at those documents and I’m extremely concerned … your listeners would … be interested to know that an enormous amount of it’s blacked out and yet there’s still damning evidence in there regarding the proposal the Government are going ahead with, with respect to the privatisation of up to 100 years of forward rotation Radiata pine …

(Long: what are the reasons for blacking out information when you’re getting them under Freedom of Information?)

Uh well, we got them under the parliamentary select committee … the argument through the Crown Solicitor’s Office on behalf of Government is that they were either … potentially commercial in confidence and may jeopardise the best outcome of the privatisation, or that they were part of a Cabinet submission … I’m not sure that some of that is actually correct and we’ll have to get some legal advice on that as a select committee when we take up the position again early next year … there’s no doubt from my reading of it that two things have occurred.

Number one; that the Forestry SA Board have clearly been gagged and in fact had to sign confidentiality agreements and that was pretty draconian, given the fact that that then … does potentially put that Board in breach of both the Forestry SA Act and the Public Corporations Act. So, gagging the Forestry SA Board, not engaging and involving the Forestry SA Board, an executive of Forestry, sufficiently in the pros and cons of the sale …

(Long: so what details in the minutes actually tell you this?)

Oh well, the minutes are very clear … I’m looking at page seven of 10 of minutes just from the 24^th of November and that specifically goes into confidentiality agreements, it shows where the Chair of the Board … and other Board Members question and challenge the Treasury Department of Government on the Confidentiality Agreement … it was pretty hostile a lot of the moments … the Government, through Treasury, provided a hard copy of a PowerPoint presentation as one example, but then they went to great lengths to ensure that they were all returned at the end of the presentation … a clear lack of trust. They’ve kept this so tight to their chest … the Government, that we haven’t been able to get the transparency but … the evidence in these minutes from people that are qualified and know the value of forestry and have been dedicated to forestry for decades, clearly they expressed major concern and … that backs up what we’ve seen with most of the other evidence, which says that a sale of these forward rotations is not in the best interest of South Australia …

… (Long: Mr Brokenshire, I’d like to return to you now, you say you’ve got this information which shows Forestry SA itself, the Government’s own Department is against the sale. What does that mean for your own parliamentary inquiry, your select committee into the forward sale of rotations? Does this change anything?)

Well, it does, Warwick. We put an interim report out because we thought it was important to get that out, because this will affect the whole of the State and particularly the South East, it will also affect the city … once we get back to Parliament with this evidence that we now have, we will need to call more witnesses, we’ll have to cross examine again, Treasury … it’s clear that Treasury have not actually sought enough expertise from Forestry SA and the Government just seems to be hell-bent on selling probably at a fire sale cost, for short-term gain when the clear evidence is that in the long-term Forestry SA will return huge dividends, cash dividends and other job opportunities to the South East in particular.

Many country residents feel their assets are being
exploited for the benefit of Adelaide projects like the trams

(Long: Many governments though have made – governments are elected really to make decisions and many governments have made unpopular decisions in the past. What do you think would actually change the Government’s mind in regards to this one?)

Well yes, governments do make unpopular decisions at times but this Government promised that there would be no privatisation and this is a very large, broken promise, because for three centuries now, since the 19^th Century, Liberal and Labor have actually been developing our forests. But what would change the Government? Well, I think rallies like today, the evidence that we’re getting and the simple fact that the Government are probably, according to the Premier, going to lose the AAA credit rating anyway because of the massive debt they’ve accumulated and that was the whole argument … for selling the forests, to save the AAA credit rating, so one argument now would clearly be, well if you’re not going to have the AAA credit rating, surely if you’ve got an asset returning over 11% net a year, you would use that to cash flow each year to pay off debt … the other thing that I think the Government have underestimated is there’s still the potential in seven marginal seats in the city for them to also show very big concern about privatisation … I’ve spoken to a number of people in Labor marginal seats and they’re not happy about the fact that the government want to sell our forests.

(Long: Well, Robert Brokenshire, that’s all the time we have for you, thank you very much for your time.)

Thanks.

9 December 2011

The Adelaide Advertiser cartoon in the editorial section
Friday 9 December 2011

"Shirty locals pan SA premier on forest sale" - the Australian
"Premier seeks way through the forest" - the Advertiser editorial
"Protestors plea to premier to keep forests" - ABC (includes video)
"SA Premier in Mt Gambier as 2000 protest Forest Sale" - International Business Times

Radio Extract:

1395 FiveAA -- (Byner: I’ve been given some information from Robert Brokenshire … this is what he says: ‘The Government are either determined to privatise the forests irrespective of what interests of the state mid and long term are or officials are not giving the Premier correct advice … the cost of having manage the remaining forest assets in the Adelaide Hills, Mid North et cetera once the South East forests are privatised – these northern forest estates have always been financially subsidised by the much stronger viability of the South East forests … I’m advised the Premier said yesterday there would not be additional recurrent cost to the Government managing the balance of the non South East forests, yet in those Forestry SA Board minutes government officials told the board there would be some money required for that … I’m calling on the Premier to revisit the matter.’
Well Rob, as you heard from Jay Weatherill this morning, he has absolutely no intention of doing that.

~

Housing SA "Hellor Court" - Radio Transcript - Monday 5 December 2011

2011-12-05T13:19:00.001+10:30

Rob Brokenshire, Family First (5AA 11.07-11.16) Disruptive Housing SA tenants

(Byner: …you’ve heard on this program for some time complaints from good law abiding public housing tenants who complained to Housing SA about disruptive tenants and some of them are downright criminal yet the tenants are still there today. Allegations came to light over the weekend that took this situation to another level – Mellor Court, Gilberton, is being referred to by tenants as ‘Hellor Court’ and sounds more like something from a crime-riddled American housing project on television than in suburban Adelaide. Many tenants testify that a gang is living in the estate who are bashing people, breaking into cars and homes, doing and dealing in drugs, using stand over tactics to get money out of tenants … how is this allowed to go on in 21st century South Australia? Police say they’ve attended the estate but the behaviour continues … you might recall some years ago when now-Premier Weatherill was the Housing Minister, in response to public outrage about disruptive tenants, he announced that a three strikes and you’re out policy was now in place. However, examples like ‘Hellor Court’ prove it was never implemented. Or maybe it’s incompetence – tenants regularly complain that their own complaints are not registered on the Housing SA database. If this is a three strikes policy it seems to get strike the referee has to be watching the game and not staring at his own navel. The Government had several concerns about the content of the Housing SA report tabled last fortnight in Parliament, one being $16 million of tenant debt, including property damage – but get this, 6600 … tenant complaints, and that’s just the strikes that Housing SA record, 100 a week, 18 a day … you know what this boils down to, Housing SA couldn’t give a toss and yet we’re paying a bloke around not far from $400,000 a year to manage this – it ain’t managing. Robert Brokenshire, what on earth are we going to do about this?)

… I think your listeners, a lot of us in politics and certainly the way you’ve championed the cause for those people that are very badly affected by this shocking behaviour of a percentage of the tenants are at our wits end and we can’t let this go on; we have to make a commitment to actually fight this tooth and nail next year. You rightly pointed out in your editorial that the now Premier Jay Weatherill nearly five years ago … made a commitment three strikes and you’re out, it has not been applied as far as I can see and in fact for your listeners’ information, the 7,000 disruptive tenants in the annual report … there was less than 1% of those that were actually evicted, would you believe – less than 1% … so therefore what they’re doing at the moment is not working, and I was involved in that story on the weekend because what it confirms is that the phone calls coming into my office and into your radio station every day by good people that have just had enough … I can also tell you I’m advised that the police actually have had to go and protect one of the tenants when they could not live there any more and wanted to be safely escorted off the property and shifted to another location – that’s how bad it’s got there.

...
Back to Robert Brokenshire

(Byner: …Rob, what can you do?)

… a couple of things … I’ve actually put what the Government committed to and didn’t deliver on, and that’s the three strikes and you’re out policy, also into legislation … I’ll be talking to my colleagues based on what’s happened at “Hellor Court” and asking them to support it. We’ve actually gone a step further and I haven’t advised your listeners of this but we also have a chorus in there that if you’re found actually manufacturing illicit drugs or dealing in illicit drugs and there are allegations that this has been happening in “Hellor Court” … that you’ll be out immediately, it won’t even be three strikes because unless this Government actually now comes down tough on the felons and the offenders and starts to look after all the good tenants, I think you’ll find there’ll be serious revolt by a lot of people in public housing because they’re not going to stand for this any more, and if people like Nick and myself and other MPs are prepared to shoulder to shoulder them from next year let’s hope we can get some reform in this because it’s not acceptable.

(Byner: …thank you … I need to ring my colleague at Channel Seven, the Executive Producer of Today Tonight, because I understand that a couple of residents have very bravely filmed some very interesting footage at Mellor Court and this is going to be a very interesting media circus because … I have suspected for some time that when people ring Housing SA, depending on who they get, they may or may not log the complaint, even if it’s made in writing … there’s some internal policy that is giving more than an even break to criminals who know they can play the system and the orchestra sounds magic.)

~

Speed Limits on Country Roads - Question Time - Wednesday 30 November 2011

2011-12-02T11:25:00.001+10:30

SPEED LIMITS

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (14:40): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the minister representing the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure questions relating to the proposed reduced speed limits on some of our rural roads.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Members would no doubt be aware that the government has recently announced that it will be seeking to reduce the speed limit from 110km/h to 100km/h on 45 roads within 100 kilometres of Adelaide and on Yorke Peninsula. Many of these roads and, in particular, the Copper Coast Highway, are vital not only to the tourism industry but also to our industrial and agricultural industries.

According to the minister, the reason for the speed change is that 'reducing average travel speed is the most effective way to reduce trauma and produce significant and immediate road safety benefits'. I do not quibble with that assertion from the minister, but I bring the minister's attention to the latest research by the Centre for Automotive Safety, which shows that serious injuries and fatalities can be reduced by up to 50 per cent through safer roads and improving infrastructure, such as sealing the shoulder of roads, which can reduce crashes by up to 40 per cent; and by adding rumble strips, which has been identified as one of the most effective road improvement tools, with the potential to reduce fatal crashes by somewhere between 20 and 45 per cent, according to the KiwiRAP report of 2008.

It is argued that changing the speed limit without changing these environmental factors is doing only part of the job. My questions are:

1.Is the government aware of how many accidents are caused on rural roads as a result of the poor quality of those particular roads?

2.What is the government intending to do in these particular areas on the roads where the speed limit will be reduced in order to fix those roads so that they can also help reduce the road toll?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion, Minister for Social Housing, Minister for Disabilities, Minister for Youth, Minister for Volunteers) (14:42): I thank the honourable member for his questions, and I thank him for his interest in the government's efforts in relation to reducing the road toll and serious injuries and fatalities on our roads.

I am advised by the Minister for Road Safety that the Commissioner for Highways has recently approved the reduction of the speed limit from 110km/h to 100km/h on 45 sections of roads within approximately 100 kilometres of Adelaide and Yorke Peninsula. I am advised that, by reducing the speed limit on these roads, we could save 12 casualty crashes per year. Importantly, these changes will be in place before the busy Christmas holiday period.

The Weatherill government is taking immediate action to achieve the community's target to reduce the road toll by at least 30 per cent by the end of the decade. This is outlined in the new road safety strategy Towards Zero Together and features prominently as part of the State Strategic Plan. I am also advised that, over the past five years, more than $110 million has been invested in arterial roads. In addition, around $371 million has been spent on road maintenance over the same period in rural South Australia, using a combination of state and federal funding.

Road safety infrastructure improvements are an integral part of our road safety strategy but must, of course, be complemented with other measures. Reducing average travel speed is the most effective way in which to reduce trauma and produce significant and immediate road safety benefits.

I understand that there has been some criticism in relation to these changes and that claims have been made that it is not necessary and that casualties can be avoided through greater investment in road infrastructure. I am advised that, over the past five years, $17 million has been invested into the 45 roads through road safety improvements, such as the installation of safety barriers and shoulder sealing.

Regardless of a lower speed limit, the government will continue to invest in these roads through the Rural Road Safety Program, the Shoulder Sealing Program, the Responsive Road Safety Program and the State Black Spot Program. The Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure will be moving swiftly to change signs on the roads under its care and control by Christmas. We are confident that this measure will reduce the unacceptable burden that road trauma imposes on the South Australian community.

In 2003 the speed limit on about 1,100 kilometres of rural arterial roads was reduced to 100 km/h. Research by the Centre for Automotive Safety Research shows that this reduced casualty crashes on those roads by up to 20 per cent. The roads included in this announcement are undivided rural roads. The Northern Expressway, the Port Wakefield Road, the South-Eastern Freeway and the Sturt Highway are divided roads with controlled access and will retain their higher speed limits.

~

Motion on the true history and legacy of former Premier Mike Rann - Motion - Wednesday 30 November 2011

2011-12-02T11:05:00.001+10:30

RANN, HON. M.D.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (17:32): I move:

That this council observes and records the true achievements of the former premier, the Hon. Michael Rann MP, and the true extent of his legacy for the state of South Australia.

Introduction

In moving this motion, I want to put on the public record that this is not a motion of Family First; this is private members' time and this is totally my motion.

I was not going to move a motion to talk about the Hon. Mike Rann until one Sunday night a few weeks ago when I was listening to ABC Radio National and an interview with him just before he finished his period as premier. I felt that some of the history he was writing in that interview of 16 October 2011 needed to be corrected because at some time in the future someone will look at the record of achievement of the former premier. I want to spend a little while now on how I see those achievements.

Labor rising under Rann

To give credit where it is due the former premier, the Hon. Mike Rann, did achieve certain things for South Australia, as you would expect that anyone who was in that position of premier for nine years would achieve. One of the biggest achievements that I think the Hon. Mike Rann will be noted for is the fact that he did bring the Labor Party out of oblivion or the wilderness—whichever way you like to describe it—after the 1993 election. He did drive the Labor Party from a defeat, where there were only 10 seats for Labor after the State Bank debacle, and managed to turn that around to a point where, only a short time after, due to the sad tragedy of Joe Tiernan, he had picked up one seat and then had a cricket team. From there he really did start to focus on rebuilding the Labor Party.

Was SA the 'Rust Bucket' State in 2002?

Rob Brokenshire explores whether South Australia was
the 'Rust Bucket' state in 2002

I suggest that, had he not really been in that position at that time, the Labor Party may not be sitting here in government, having had 9½ years in office with at least another two and a bit years to go. What really did annoy me was that the premier said basically that the state was a rust-bucket state when he came into office. That is actually far from correct. In fact, it was a rust-bucket state when the premier was former minister for tourism in the Bannon-Arnold government and they lost office in 1993.

There is no doubt that it was a rust-bucket state then, but to give no credit whatsoever to eight years of effort by the then Liberal government—and all members of parliament, whether they were Liberal, Labor, Independent or crossbench or whatever—and basically be prepared to rewrite history to the point where you are saying that this state was a rust-bucket state in 2002, is simply unacceptable to me.

Members get varying opportunities in the parliament. A lot of it depends on the cycle at the time, the seat that you happen to be given if you are in the lower house, how you are seen by the factions of the major parties, then just how opportunistic you are and I guess a bit of good fortune along the way. All members of parliament come in here to do their best. All members of parliament do achieve but, as I said, some can achieve more because of their position.

I just could not believe that anyone could project such an ego as the former premier did during this interview, to the point where I think he actually believed that he single-handedly turned this state around. That is simply not true. On the subject of the rust-bucket state, David Penberthy wrote earlier this year in The Punch:

With the Crows celebrating their 20th anniversary, it is worth reflecting on the Adelaide of 1991 and the Adelaide of 2011.

In 1991, Mike Rann was a minister in the Bannon government.

In 1991, Adelaide felt like a boarded-up backwater and SA the rustiest of the rust-belt states. In the same year the Crows entered the competition, the State Bank had collapsed, exposing the taxpayers to a $3.15 billion debt.

He then went on to say:

Given the high unemployment and low levels of growth and investment, this figure seemed insurmountable. As Victoria clawed its way out of its own economic mire, we remained stuck in ours, and were dealt a further psychological blow with the news that we would be losing the Grand Prix, most gallingly to Melbourne...It was a time when South Australia had little to feel good about. It was a time when, in Adelaide, it also felt as if there was nothing to do. The arrival of the Crows helped change that. This flash, cashed-up club gave South Australians something to rally around.

I put that there because that was the true picture of where the state was up to when Mike Rann and the former Labor government left office, and that was when South Australia clearly was a rust-bucket state.

If you try to google and reference clippings for 'South Australia rust-bucket state between 1998 to 2002', you will have a difficult job. You will find a little bit there from Rex Jory, but he is really talking about the State Bank and the basket-case state as a result of that. There is no way that the premier can claim, given what I am about to talk about, that it was a rust-bucket state until he took over, because a lot of work was done between 1991 and 2002.

Rann's final months

Rob Brokenshire examines the 11th hour of the
Mike Rann 2002-2011 premiership

Premier Rann was clearly not very happy to be told to go early, and he certainly didn't go quietly. He capitalised on his final 10 weeks to run all around the countryside making announcements and doing whatever interviews he could. It appears that he is determined that history books will tell his story of Mike Rann's legacy. As I said, there were quite a few things that the premier did do over that time that were good. All governments need to do good things; that is why people elect them. As was said to me when I was a minister and a bit excited about one piece of capital works once, 'Don't expect to get re-elected on that; the community expect you to deliver those projects.' Of course, in delivering those projects, there are a lot of ministers involved.

Whilst there was a problem for the Rann government from early on when it was always talked about as a government of three—mainly premier Rann, Kevin Foley and Patrick Conlon at that time—there were other ministers in that government. Those ministers did put an effort into their portfolios and they had a part to play in the good things that the Rann government provided for South Australia, as did the backbenchers, the whip and others that were also part of the team. In fact, had those backbenchers not won their seats, clearly Mike Rann would not have had the opportunity that he had for a very long time.

To my way of thinking, he did not actually give credit to his own party for the commitment and guarantee that they gave him. I understand that in 1993 the Labor Party, in caucus, committed to give Mike Rann two terms to become premier and that there would be no leadership spill during that time. So, where is the credit from the premier back to his team? You do not hear the former premier even talk about a team in any of this interview at all. I find that disappointing for the Labor Party and for South Australia, because we could have capitalised a lot more had the premier embraced a team rather than a single style, as he went on to develop further and further during his time.

The post-Playford Dunstan era referred to by Rann in the interview

The former premier also said, in part of this interview with Julia Baird, that he wanted to talk about Don Dunstan. He said that he moved to South Australia in 1977, working for Don Dunstan. From there on, he basically wanted to model himself around Don Dunstan. One of the first things the premier did when he came into office was to rename part of the Festival Theatre complex to the Dunstan Playhouse, I think it is called. That is one of the first pieces of history that needs to be corrected.

The true credit for the Festival Theatre complex is explored

Most South Australians believe that it was Don Dunstan that was the architect and guru behind the Festival Theatre complex, but the fact of the matter is that it was actually premier Hall. He was out of office by the time it was open and, sure, then Dunstan opened it. Part of the re-writing of history from premier Rann was his claim that Don Dunstan built the Festival Theatre, and he didn't; it was premier Hall, and these facts need to be clearly in the record.

He then went on to say that he wanted South Australia to be a laboratory for social change, and said, 'And you've got to see it in the context of 30 years of Tom Playford as premier; 28 years of incredible conservatism. So, there was also a sense of dam bursting, as well as a very passionate reformer.' When it comes to social inclusion and opportunities for South Australia, I think we probably desperately need some conservatism right now.

Let us have a look at the history and what Sir Thomas Playford actually did provide. I will just rattle a few of them off: a real South Australian Housing Trust, which, among other things, built Elizabeth and, with that, the capacity to build the Holden motor vehicles and foster General Motors Holden into South Australia. This is something we are still doing very well today and, I am confident, into the long-term future.

Under Mr Rann's time as premier, we saw a significant reduction in public housing. We saw a change where it is not even called the Housing Trust any more; it is called Housing SA. We saw a waiting list go to over 20,000 people thinking that at some stage they are going to get affordable public housing. Sadly for them, they are not going to, because the stock has been reduced so much under premier Rann's years in office.

Rob Brokenshire credits the
Playford government for
visionary projects like water
and electricity infrastructure

We now see Housing SA mainly using its stock for mental health situations, drug addiction situations and the like rather than supported accommodation for those people to help rehabilitate them and then get them into public housing and become independent and, at the same time, doing what Sir Thomas Playford did, and that was to ensure that people on low incomes had the chance of affordable public housing.

Sir Thomas Playford was responsible for the big state visionary picture work: the Morgan to Whyalla pipeline; pipelines all over the state; and power grids all over the state. He was the first premier to push for the very uranium mining that Mr Rann sought to mark as the hallmark and legacy of his reign, even though he violently opposed it in his early Labor days and wrote documentation and talked about it as a mirage in the desert, and did everything he could possibly do to stop the uranium mine—and then he demanded that he negotiate the final sign-off in Melbourne a few days before he finished as premier.

Desalination

I raise those points because in looking at the record and in looking at history correctly, premier Rann is on the public record as saying that he wanted to set up small viable satellite desal plants around Eyre Peninsula. That would have been quite a strategic and commendable infrastructure project. He intended that he would be 'turning the pumps off on the River Murray that go to Eyre Peninsula' so that there would be less reliance upon the River Murray.

Of course, instead of that we ended up with a 100-gigalitre desal plant which he and his government opposed for a long period of time. That was to be a 50-gigalitre desalination plant but, after a walk one night with his friend, the then prime minister Mr Rudd, they decided to double that—with little science—and now we see a problem in this parliament and this state when it comes to the cost of water.

The manner of Rann's departure

One of the things that I felt sorry for premier Rann about was the way that he was finally dumped out of office, given that he did return the Labor Party to a situation of being in office for nine years. There was a question about this put to the premier during the interview with Julia Baird. She stated:

Well I'd like to come back to the ideas that you did implement as Premier, but first let's talk about where you're at today.

You've had almost a decade at the realm. Yet you've resigned just shy of the 10 year mark. On July 29 this year you were asked to step down as Premier. Were you surprised that happened?

This is what the premier, Mike Rann, said in response:

Well being that the people who'd asked me to step down had just recently asked me to stay on, so this is basically a fractional power play within the Labor Party involving the Shop Assistants' Union being at odds with another part of the right in South Australia in order to combine with, it's all very [strange], with the left and so on.

But ultimately, I mean was going anyway. I wasn't doing a John Howard and staying on regardless. The agreement was, that in fact that I'd initiated, that I would step down in March of next year, so on the 10 year mark, to give the new person two years to settle in and also, of course, to mentor them, a bit like Peter Beattie did to Anna Bligh, which I thought was a perfect, seamless transfer.

And it's interesting that, in a sense, we've been seeing a bit of that around the country with people who are not elected actually making these decisions.

And I think that whilst factions can be good in terms of, you know, a left and a right, two wings of a party—the same with the Liberals, they have the wets and the dries. But it's really important that the central purpose be the state or nation first, government second, party third and factions last.

What's happened is that the factions, I think, are becoming kind of patronage, perks, lurks and positions machines where they'd rather reward people, sometimes in terms of pre-selections for safe seats or for places in the Upper House—this has been over a long time, but I think it's getting worse in both parties—in order to, you know, rather than going out and getting the best talent available.

Again, you do not hear the premier recognising the talent even in this house; rather, the former premier is indicating that there is no talent in this house. Julia Baird then asked him, 'You've been unaligned throughout your career?' The former premier said:

Which is almost unheard of. I've had 17, well I've been in Parliament for 26 years, a frontbencher for 22 years, Leader of the Labor Party for 17, and I've never been a member of any faction because I don't like being told how to think.

Those are his comments. Julia Baird then asks, 'Was it your undoing in the end, though?' This is the answer from the former premier:

Well I think, in a sense, I was the victim of a factional power play that really didn't involve me. It was about, in fact, that the person who was the greatest casualty is the Deputy Premier, the one they asked me to mentor, John Rau. And I think that, you know, it could have been done a lot better.

I think that what the former premier did not say there was that the right is on the way out in the Labor Party now and the strength is with the left. The premier was then asked, 'Did you get angry?' to which he replies:

Oh absolutely. I'm a human being and human beings get angry. But I'm not known for being angry or bad-tempered. But I think it was the leaking of the meeting that was supposed to be confidential, the deliberate leaking, that most people found contemptible. And the people involved are contemptible.

I find that interesting because, to get the history right, one of the reasons the left moved with the right to get rid of the former premier was the arrogance and the threatening way he went about his business. Without naming the people (I would not do that because I respect them and they are important South Australians), we knew as politicians what was going on.

If an organisation or organisations, for example, wanted to buy a page in The Advertiser condemning the government on a decision or a policy, they could be out riding their bike on a Saturday morning and the premier himself would ring and threaten them like you would not believe. We saw the same with the media with, 'Have you been Bottralled lately?' I find that sort of behaviour quite interesting when the premier says that he is not known for being angry or bad tempered—just talk to some of the leadership people in this town and you will discover to the contrary.

Julia Baird then asked, 'What did they,' that is, the factions, the SDA or whatever, 'actually say to you?' Mike Rann replies:

What they said was that is in order to, you know, that they'd changed their mind, they didn't, that the Right had changed their mind, that they didn't think that, that they were now not backing John Rau. They'd decided to support the Left's candidate. And so it was a reversal of a position that had been put to me repeatedly.

He does acknowledge the fact that he did not have any problems with the new Premier, but if you listen to the whole interview he was not a happy person. Asking about the last election, Julia Baird said, 'But wasn't there also a swing against the seats of many of the key ministers?' to which premier Rann replied:

We did much better than we expected. You've got to think about it. Look at Dunstan's record and Bannon's record. The third election that we won, that I led, was the best third term election result in history. So clearly not. We had a net loss of two seats from the biggest majority ever. So I'm getting people ringing me up from all over telling me what a fantastic result it was.

Election tactics of Rann in 2010

So here is the premier again basically taking all the credit—no doubt he was a master at marginal seats, no doubt they outclassed the Liberal Party like you would not believe. If the Liberal Party does not win the next election, I will say that it is the fact that this government today still has seven marginal seats that the Liberal Party does not win.

A dodgy imitation of a Family
First how-to-vote card

To give credit where it is due, as a political tactician, and as someone who was very good in the area of marginal seats—albeit that we are now paying the price for that with the AAA credit rating, which I will talk about in a little while, and the fact is, if you want government, you want it at all costs, so you throw everything at it to hold or win those marginal seats—former premier Rann can claim some credit for that because he blitzed the Liberal Party at the last election in those marginal seats.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: What about the dodgy how-to-vote cards? Do you know about them?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Yes, and I know—that's what I said; I know about the dodgy—

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: —how-to-vote cards, but I am saying—

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Dawkins is out of order, and you are out of order responding to interjections.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Sorry, sir, I will not respond.

The PRESIDENT: Moving right along, now; move along.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: There is a lesson there, if you want to get into government—

The PRESIDENT: I am trying to give you that lesson.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: What's the lesson? Cheat?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: No, the lesson is to work the marginal seats with tactics; that is the lesson. I totally condemn what happened with the dodgy how-to-vote cards, but I am saying that on this occasion he can claim credit because he did hold seven marginal seats, even though there was a 52.5 per cent vote approximately for the opposition. It is all about marginal seats.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: It is all about marginal seats; that is what it is about. It was cold comfort to Jane Lomax-Smith, but I guess she had done her job for premier Rann.

South Australia's economy and the AAA credit rating

I would now like to discuss the AAA credit rating and a few other things, because I think this is important for the record. Julia Baird asked the former premier a question about the state of South Australia, stating, 'a lot of Australians are still uncertain, especially those that don't live in your state, about what actually happened,' to which the former premier replied:

We changed the state. Now we had the lowest unemployment in the country during the GFC. We've got record jobs growth, record employment growth. We've doubled the amount of money that we've spent on health. We got thousands of more nurses, more than a thousand more doctors, more than a thousand more police. Crime has gone down every year.

I want to try to get this history right: yes, there has been an increase in the number of doctors, nurses and police, but that is something people expect you to deliver, particularly when you have growth budgets. The fact is that, over those nine years when Mr Rann was premier, the budget over doubled. If you have a budget that is over double, you should be able to provide more services. These were golden years for economic boom, but my point is that the former Liberal government did a lot of the hard work in setting up that new foundation to provide these opportunities; it was not all done by premier Mike Rann. Former premier Rann goes on to say:

When I was elected we were the rust bucket state. It was what people called us. No-one says that now.

I want to reinforce that it was not a rust-bucket state in 2002. Look at the housing industry figures of 1997, '98 and '99; that is history that you cannot reinvent or rewrite on a radio program or in a book. The fact is that all of the growth in the housing market was starting to trend the right way in 1997, and by 2002, when Mike Rann managed to win office, the hardest of the work had been done.

Let me put the AAA credit rating into perspective. I find it interesting that some of the media have bought into former premier Mike Rann's line, and that of former treasurer Kevin Foley, on the AAA credit rating. Again, go back through the history books: technically, yes, the AAA credit rating was reaffirmed to South Australia during the time of the Rann government, but the work to achieve the AAA credit rating was done in the years of the Brown-Olsen governments, and that is the true history.

It is ironic that, just a few weeks after former premier Mike Rann left office, the new Premier came out to soften South Australians and prepare them for the possible loss of that AAA credit rating. I think that is significant to the true history of where Mike Rann took this state because, when Mike Rann was a minister in a Labor government, they lost the AAA credit rating. Those are the historical facts and here we have now, a few weeks after, the new Premier, obviously concerned about the financial situation of the state, indicating that we may end up without a AAA credit rating.

So, the history says that there was a doubling of the budget and they actually presided over a state as part of a nation where we had some of the best economic growth in our history. I would suggest that, after the Playford era—and I am 54 now and I know that that set up opportunities for all of us baby boomers—the strongest economic time we have ever seen was set up and occurred under the time Mike Rann was premier and what have we got to show for it?

I seek leave to conclude my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

[NOTE: the remainder of the speech will be uploaded here when made in February 2012]

~

Water Industry Bill - Second Reading Speech - Wednesday 30 November 2011

2011-12-02T10:58:00.001+10:30

Family First MLC Rob Brokenshire
has foreshadowed amendments
to the Water Industry Bill in 2012

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (11:04): Firstly, I rise to advise the house that Family First will be supporting the principles of this bill. However, we intend to move some amendments in committee stage, which I understand will be early in the new year. The Water Industry Bill is an important bill, and I am hoping that it will pave the way to allowing more flexibility and more opportunity for third-party associations, corporations and the like to be able to utilise what has been a monopoly situation with SA Water pipes in the past. I hope we will see this develop into opportunities like those we have seen with multiple telco companies now as against the old monopoly of Telstra.

Water and expansion of population, economy
There is no doubt—and I am sure all colleagues would agree—that water is a key issue for all South Australians. It is an issue that will continue to need very good management into the future if we are to be able to continue food production the way that we all hope to and also be able to accommodate the government's Greater Adelaide plan over the next 30 years with respect to up to 500,000 more people coming into the state and needing water. Of course, we also see issues around mining expansion; mines are also quite high users of water.

Research has shown that stormwater
captured, recharged into aquifers, then
re-used with treatment years later
can supplement the water supply, as
the City of Salisbury have proven

Stormwater reuse and water recycling

There are opportunities where we can learn a lot. I commend the Salisbury council, and Colin Pitman in particular, for the way they have led the way with stormwater harvesting, aquifer storage and recovery. In the south in particular, the City of Onkaparinga has developed Water Proofing the South and other initiatives with quite a lot of money provided by the commonwealth. There are other smaller initiatives, one of which I was proud to have a lot of input into back in the mid-1990s. That was the opportunity through the now Willunga Basin Water Company, which buys bulk recycled water from SA Water at Christies Beach treatment plant and brings that through purple pipes into the Willunga Basin.

Clearly there are lots of avenues for expanding and re-using our water. When you consider that water from the Thames in England is used up to seven times before it goes to sea, I am sure we still have a lot to learn in South Australia, and indeed throughout the nation of Australia, with respect to better water usage.

The inefficient, inequitable "Save the Murray" Levy

I just want to touch on the Save the Murray levy. It will not be a surprise to the government. I have been critical of the Save the Murray levy for some time. I do not believe that it has delivered what it should have delivered. It is costing South Australian taxpayers about $24 million a year. We have seen a situation where there has been a change of responsibility, control and management now with the new Murray-Darling Basin Authority.

We have seen $13 billion provided by the commonwealth again since the Save the River Murray levy was first introduced. Given that a lot of that money is unspent and a lot is used for administration, I believe that there is an opportunity to not only remove the levy from those people who do not access River Murray water, as the Hon. David Ridgway, Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council just debated, but to remove this levy and start to give people some full taxation relief at a time when we all really do need it in South Australia.

Water pricing

We know that pricing is a big issue for water. The desalination plant is only further adding to that. There is no doubt now that people are as worried about water pricing as they are about electricity pricing. They are big on the agenda of all households in our state. We have the third-highest price for water of all states and territories, at about $2.30 a kilolitre. When you look at states like New South Wales, Western Australia and Tasmania, we know Tasmania has the advantage, but comparing New South Wales and Western Australia, where I would argue they do not have an advantage, they are at $1.96 a kilolitre in New South Wales and $1.64 in Western Australia.

As I said, water prices are rising. The government's decisions of late have indicated that we could see another 50 per cent increase, I understand, in water prices. Family First supports independent pricing, as exists, for instance, in New South Wales and Victoria, but with some controls which we think are the aim of the structure the government has developed through the pricing order regime. Our concerns as to just how effective that will be will come out in the questions I will ask during the committee stage, but certainly we do need to look closely at pricing structure.

I put on notice a question for the government; specifically: how will the pricing order structure work if it has been issued to ESCOSA, and what sanctions can they take if the pricing structure developed by ESCOSA is not in harmony with the pricing order? Is it like a veto?

Farmers and mains water use

I also want to touch on issues regarding farmers in particular. This exorbitant increase in water costs has had an impact and will have a continuing impact on all South Australians who utilise River Murray water, but it is having a significant impact in the Clare and Willunga basins for those who irrigate their vineyards and other horticulture with mains water.

Also impacted are dairy farmers and sheep and beef cattle graziers, especially in the Meningie area, where they have to use mains water for watering their stock, cleaning their feedlots, cleaning their dairies, and for all animal husbandry. I have had reports through the South Australian Dairy Farmers Association, of which I and my family are members, that some of these farmers are now seeing bills of over $100,000 a year for mains water. It is now the biggest expense on their farms, and is actually threatening the viability of their businesses, so I do intend to move some amendments to address that during the committee stage.

Rob Brokenshire believes farmers should be able to get access
to mains water at a reasonable price to produce food
(Photo courtesy of the Sunday Mail)

I want to see a principle of fairness for farmers. If we are to be serious and holistic in our approach as government and parliament, there is no doubt that we need to look at what imposts are prohibiting and inhibiting farmers from being able to produce the food we need for our state's consumption, for the nation's consumption, and for exports. I think all members would agree that, if we are now seeing figures of $100,000 or more for water bills, it is just unacceptable and completely puts those farmers out of any level playing field competition base with their counterparts in other states.

I believe that competition is an issue we really need to question and challenge during the committee stage. We will be moving an amendment regarding competition; I see that as an opportunity, with respect to the Water Industry Bill, and I know that the government will have concerns about their bottom-line return from SA Water. From memory, the net return to the government is well over $250 million a year; it is one of the biggest returns—next to ForestrySA and possibly the Lotteries Commission—that the government receives.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: Cash cows.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: As the Hon. Mr Wade said, it is a huge amount of money.

Competition and price fairness for householders, particularly low income earners

I know government needs to manage its budget but, now that this bill has been brought in, I think it is time that we have a look at how we can actually get more competition in and ensure that SA Water does not have a monopoly dictated to by Treasury, where there is just more and more by way of charges.

I talk to pensioners and people on low incomes, and they are telling me that they now get a water bill for $70, $80, or $90 and the actual amount of water that they utilise is less than or around $10; the rest of it is for fees, charges and management of infrastructure. They are noticing that now and talking about it in the community; therefore, I believe that we have a responsibility in this chamber to move amendments that may, down the track—I admit and acknowledge that it will not be overnight—through legislation allow legal opportunities for competition through those pipes in South Australia.

Family First certainly welcomes competition if it delivers cheaper water and fairer water billing for householders. We need to reduce our water consumption and, subject to some of the savings provisions about equity for pensioners, families, and regional communities, we believe a fairer pricing model is possible, either through the SA Water monopoly or through the involvement of monopolies and opening up that competition.

We have seen a sweetheart deal done this week with BHP Billiton. Yes, we did support this and want to see the success of that expansion, but when you consider that they are going to be using between 24 million and 42 million litres of water a day, and they are paying only $1,200 for that when we should be charging $88,000, we are able to accommodate the needs of BHP—one of the biggest mining companies in the world—yet we have this major negative impact on general householders' budgets.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this is a major bill for South Australia. I will be spending quite a bit of time in committee moving our own amendments, questioning the minister and listening to other colleagues who will have amendments as well, as has already been flagged by the Liberal Party so far. I would expect other amendments, possibly, from other parties and crossbench members.

I want to finish by saying that I appreciate minister Gago indicating that the government did want to get through second readings on this but was prepared to then look at amendments and the committee stage next year. I think that is a good move on behalf of the government. With the heavy workload that the Leader of the Government has in this house, she made the time to speak to some of us, I understand, to let us know that the government would accept that. I see that as good management of the house and I want to put on the public record my appreciation to the Leader of Government Business in this house.

It is important to get this right and look at all the options, particularly after this summer when water supply and retail issues become clearer. With those few remarks, I look forward to committee on this bill next year.

[NOTE: Debate on the Bill was later adjourned for consideration starting February 2012. Family First will be moving amendments to the Bill at that time.]
~

Mullighan Inquiry Update Report - Parliamentary Speech - Wednesday 30 November 2011

2011-12-01T16:42:00.001+10:30

MULLIGHAN INQUIRY RECOMMENDATIONS

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (17:19): I move:

That this council observes the progress of the third update on the state government's progress on implementing Commissioner Mullighan's recommendations concerning child welfare on the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara lands.

I flag to honourable members that I intend to make some brief remarks on this motion and then seek leave to adjourn to 2012 on this important issue. I move this motion after my concern about the progress of the government's third update response to the Children on APY Lands Commission of Inquiry. It is a report into sexual abuse, chaired by the late Hon. Ted Mullighan QC. It is important that progress on this issue continues to be tracked and that this parliament continues to provide scrutiny and accountability for the government's actions on these very important issues. I do not need to say anything about the abhorrent nature of sexual abuse in any context to reinforce that point. I believe that all honourable members are with Family First on this important issue.

In between giving notice and today when I am speaking to the motion, the government tabled a 93-page report last Wednesday. Family First has not had the opportunity to go through and cross-reference everything in that report with previous commitments but we will do that over the summer, and before we get back to parliament next year.

The early feedback on the report is that it uses the term 'implemented and achieved' in a very generous way, and more analysis is required than Family First can reasonably provide at this early stage. I acknowledge that other colleagues will want to explore this report further and, given that it is only tabled in the parliament and not debated in the way that, for instance, a select committee report is debated, I am happy to open this report up for analysis and debate and hear honourable members on this issue.

I cannot conclude for today (at least on the subject of the APY lands and policing) without touching on the community constable situation. The government admits in its third response that there are only three positions filled. They fail to mention the other nine that are vacant and have been in some cases for several years and, in the case of Fregon, since August 2003. Family First released confirmation of that by a SAPOL Freedom of Information request on Monday this week, and the Hon. Stephen Wade MLC asked a question on that matter yesterday.

I know that there are mixed views within police on the community constables but there is a view amongst some that they are very useful to improve interaction and respect for police on the lands. I went up there when I was police minister and I toured with both police, corrections and community constables, and I have seen the benefit of, and importance of, having those community constables on the Lands.

I note that there are police Aboriginal Liaison Officer positions, and perhaps that reflects the preference of some within the government, or possibly police, as a better way forward than the community constables. But, in the end, we need evidence-based and effective policing in coordination with APY communities to ensure that the police role and the rule of law is respected on the lands, and, when it comes to sexual abuse issues on the lands, there is no hindrance to reporting those offences and seeing them swiftly prosecuted.

I will seek leave to conclude shortly, but, after the events of yesterday in this place, I cannot leave untouched the leader of the government's comments about my record as a former police minister regarding the lands. I invite those googling this speech today to go back to yesterday's question time and the five supplementaries asked after the Hon. Stephen Wade's question so they can check the record. They can go back to SA Police annual reports to further check the record. I recall that in 2002, which was at the end of my period as police minister, all community constable positions were actually filled and in a much better position than is the case now.

There was not as great a need for Anangu-speaking police on the lands because there were community constables from the local community to interface with police. I know and accept that the minister is just trying to defend her government, and only doing her job, but I take issue with this matter because I believe that it needs to be multi-partisan when it comes to ensuring that those resources are adequately provided. I suggest that if there was a shortage of police or services in a metropolitan seat in Adelaide, the focus would be to get them there as quickly as possible. I see the same need in the lands. With those remarks, I seek leave to conclude.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

~

Car Parking Law Reform - Radio Comments - Thursday 1 December 2011

2011-12-01T15:17:00.001+10:30

Move to ban the use of cameras to capture vehicle rego details

There are moves to ban the use of cameras to capture vehicle rego details at suburban shopping centre car parks. The technology would be used to identify and then fine motorists who overstay their parking limits.

Family First MLC Robert Brokenshire says the car park cameras should be banned:

(5AA 11am) “I think it’s a scam and a lot of people, you know when they get the expiation notice from this private company, they think that it’s legal and they have to pay it so the only way through this is to actually ban the breaching of privacy by photographing motorists going in and out of car parks.”

Laws on private and public parking areas
will be reformed
via a 2012 Family First Bill

(5AA 12noon) “I would hope they would, because I don’t believe that even the major parties would want to see private enterprise ripping motorists apart financially again, when that was not the intent of the Private Parking Act.”

---------------------------------------------------------------

Rob Brokenshire, Family First MLC (5AA 9.13-9.15) Private organisations accessing personal information of people who use their car parks

Good morning … I do want to change this … I respect Michael Woods as someone with very good capacity and experience and so I’ve read the transcript from yesterday. I was aware that this was occurring and I think it’s a scam and a lot of people, … when they get the expiation notice from this private company, they think that it’s legal and they have to pay it.

The only way through this Leon is to actually ban the breaching of privacy by photographing motorists going in and out of car parks for identification purposes.

Now we’re going to bring legislation in, in the first week of sitting next year because your listeners might be interested to know that even Google, … when they do their Street View photography … they actually blank out number plates and faces to avoid identifying people because they’re responsible and yet we’ve got these people doing this which I think is a breach of privacy and it has to be stopped and legislation will be introduced.

But I also want to expand that because I’m concerned that with the Sustainable Budget Commission recommending to the Government that they sell their hospital car parks, et cetera and seeing of course that they have the capacity now to charge there after two hours, even with the back flip, we have to make sure that the Government agencies and departments don’t try these tricks as well.

(Byner: Alright, so in essence you’re going to ban the photographing of number plates by car parks.)

That’s right; I’ve had some initial legal advice in my office. We’ve had a look at the Private Parking Areas Act … 1986 from memory and we believe that the best way to go through this ,the Private Parking Areas Act … is to actually bring in an amendment that bans the breaching of privacy by photographing these number plates and therefore eliminating this problem … for the community.

(Byner: Will the Government … the Liberals support it do you know?)

Look I haven’t ; in fairness I haven’t had a chance to talk to either the Liberals or the Government yet Leon but I would hope they would because I don’t believe that even the major parties would want to see private enterprise ripping motorists apart financially again when that was not the intent of the Private Parking Act and it wasn’t certainly initially the intent of people putting these private car parks into … properties adjacent to shopping centres or indeed shopping centres. So I would hope that this would be multi partisan because the other thing is, we’ve got madness in this state at the moment.

We’ve got people being charged left, right and centre wherever they can get ripped off. Last night in the parliament we started to debate an issue where they’re going to charge small egg producers up to $700 for a biosecurity licence; it’s just going too far and I think the Government have got an opportunity here to support us … and actually send a message that they’re not going to allow people to be ripped off in this manner.

(Byner: Alright, ...).

~

Protection for Busineses on Workcover penalties - Media Release - Wednesday 30 November 2011

2011-11-30T11:35:00.001+10:30

Family First SA leader
Hon Dennis Hood MLC
moved his amendment in
response to small business
concern about heavy-handed
fine policy by Workcover

WORKCOVER PENALTIES EASED BY SUCCESSFUL FAMILY FIRST AMENDMENT

30 November 2011

FAMILY FIRST MLC Dennis Hood’s successful amendment to the Government's new Workcover employer payments has changed the way WorkCover can penalise employers for late payments.

Under the current system, WorkCover can issue an automatic fine to businesses that missed an instalment or annual statutory levy payment.

“Whilst Workcover currently has the discretion to waive any penalty for late payment, until now there was no legal requirement to exercise the discretion.”

“Our constituents have told us that WorkCover’s zero-tolerance approach on late payments means that they have had to pay penalties of up to 80% of the value one month’s instalment payment. This burden is just too high for small business.”

Family First changes mean that businesses will be given a 14 day grace period for late payments when they have a perfect payment history over the preceding 12 months.

“We believe this good faith provision will benefit those businesses who have intended to do the right thing but for whatever reason, something has gone wrong. These changes allow for anything from unforeseen problems such as servers going down to direct debits not being transferred as requested.”

“Our economic climate is very difficult right now and we need a system that supports businesses as well as workers. We cannot continue to unfairly penalise businesses for honest mistakes or mistakes that are outside of their control.”

“These changes signal a welcome relief for the burdens placed on business. We are very pleased that these amendments passed. After all, it is only fair that WorkCover give businesses with a good payment history a fair go.”

[NOTE: The Amendment passed with support from the Labor Government, Liberal Opposition and the Greens in the Legislative Council]

~

Critical incidents in public education - Media Comments - Tuesday 29 November 2011

2011-11-29T18:10:00.001+10:30

Dennis Hood, Family First MLC (5AA 9.08) Critical Incident reporting

(Byner: … I want to talk about something that’s come up … it just goes to show how our noses with regards to the Education Department and the way it conducts itself has been spot on. Yesterday on this program we brought you the sad story of Ray about the nasty bashing of her 14yo son at Hamilton Secondary last Wednesday. Now her son ended up in Intensive Care in response, the Minister said ‘we do have a policy in place for critical incidents to be reported but it didn’t work well in this case and that’s unacceptable’, unquote. Now, the Education Department decided to start reporting last year a basic, one-page table of critical incidents to try and hose off media interest in violence, drug use and other dysfunctions within schools. But even this basic, inadequate reporting only came about after sustained pressure under FOIs from people in the Parliament. The table was later exposed as under reporting of the true figures of the critical incidence database itself. I’m now hearing that there are more critical incidents that are on the database … many senior staff in the department believe that reporting critical incidents reflects poorly on their professional status, even if it is reported senior staff at schools or higher in the department might refuse to report an incident upwards or to police out of concern out of future promotions or job prospects. A terrible situation like that, which Ray and her son experienced might now only be capable of being resolved by suing the department who owe a duty of care and staff alike. And I understand that tomorrow, Tony Kerin from the Lawyer’s Alliance has a very strong statement to make to the public about this. Now Dennis Hood you’ve received information that there are more critical incidents out there. Just tell us what you know … )

… following your program yesterday I think everyone would have been touched by that story; I certainly was, and our officers at Family First have been contacted by a gentleman who has come forward and disclosed to us four critical incident reports that were made by him on his behalf and yet only two of those were actually formally followed through as he’s explained it to us. And Leon these are very serious incidents indeed involving violence and … the sort of thing we don’t want to see in our schools and Leon, we’re still getting details on those but I can tell you that is a fact. That there have been four that he’s put forward and only two have been in any way followed up on. You know, these are very serious matters … the reason I am coming forward today and putting this on the public record and I will be sure with this gentleman to get all the details so we can clear it up … and make sure he has justice, but can I say … the real concern I have is the issue you raised in your introduction and that is, that I think that it is coming to a head where a concerned citizen or perhaps a lawyer acts on their behalf will actually take the Education Department on because this just cannot continue. I mean you cannot have a situation in place where even these reports aren’t even followed up; that is just unacceptable at every level … really, you can understand the frustration from the public and I can only see litigation coming; that’s the unfortunate thing. I think you mentioned this on your program … we have seen that take place with other states with very, very large sums of money involved but frankly we don’t want to see that take place here in South Australia.

(Byner: Alright, so what remedy do you propose to deal with this?)

Leon, I think these are very sensitive issues; … my proposal in this particular case is, I’m going to get all of these details today and I will take it personally to the minister to put it on the table, so that she can deal with it personally. I mean we’re dealing with children Leon … they’re very sensitive issues. I’m hoping, as I said, we don’t get to a point of litigation. I’m going to try and resolve this case individually. If there are other cases, I say to people listening, please come to our offices at Family First, my number is 8237 9362 and I will do everything I can to help.

(Byner: Alright. ....)

~

Time to Catch Next Wave for SA's Energy Security - Media Release - 22 September 2010

2011-11-29T15:41:00.001+10:30

UPDATE:

SA Labor today (Tuesday 29 November 2011) launched the first ever wave rider pilot plant - a 110 meter long by 20 metre wide structure. The plant will be moored off the coast of Elliston by March next year (2012)

TIME TO CATCH NEXT WAVE FOR SA’S ENERGY SECURITY

Wednesday 22 September 2010

FAMILY FIRST MLC Robert Brokenshire has hailed the recent release of scientific studies showing that Australia’s southern coasts (including South Australia) lead the world in potential for wave power generation.

Mr Brokenshire has called upon the Premier to get active in establishing SA as a hub for wave energy research, given the State’s problems with limited coal reserves, dwindling gas supplies, community concern about the visibility of some wind farms and political problems with nuclear power despite abundant uranium resources.

“Renewable energy is the way of the future and we have great geothermal prospects and increasing wind power”, Mr Brokenshire said, “But if you can excuse the pun, the next wave is wave energy. South Australia needs to be positioning now to spearhead research given our energy limitations”

““This discovery shows why it is short-sighted to cut the SARDI budget last week – we need to be resourcing our scientists to position us for the future”

The CSIRO stated that “Averaged over the whole year, Australia’s Southern coastline has a sustained wave energy resource of 146 GW”

Two of the 5 hotspot sites are in South Australian waters - a site south-west of Port Lincoln (35S, 133.75E) and west of Pelican Point near Mount Gambier in the South-east (35S 116.25 E). “The Port Lincoln site is particularly pertinent given all the positives of mineral exploration and the prospect that if mining begins, there will be major energy requirements into the future”

“Today I call upon Premier Rann to embrace this research and position South Australia to be the world’s pioneers in wave energy for the future”

You can download the CSIRO research article here and

find out more via the CSIRO’s Podcast available here.

Murray Darling Basin - Media Comments - Monday 28 November 2011

2011-11-28T12:21:00.001+10:30

On Monday 28 November 2011 the Murray Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) issued their revised Murray Darling Basin Plan after massive community protest about significant cuts in extractions from the Basin contained in the first plan.

The new Plan requires less cuts across the Basin, but cuts nonetheless.

Family First MLC Rob Brokenshire has been working for years on the process to ensure South Australia is fairly treated with the Murray returned to health and river communities protected.

Rob Brokenshire, Family First MLC (5AA 10.07-10.10) Draft Murray Darling Basin Plan released

(Byner: We got told a while ago … Nick Xenophon said to me some time ago that he felt we might be sold down the River by the Murray Darling Basin Plan and I … don’t know why but I’ll ask him in a sec … what we have at the moment is that on the eve of the release of this revised Murray Darling Basin Plan, after the botched first plan, we capped our extractions many years ago while other states kept guzzling, we’ve added many efficiencies that other states are now catching up on with the help of Federal money and of course … we’ve been paying this inefficient Save The River Murray Levy and … that’s being used for admin. So, what is it we need to do? … Tony Burke is going to be in the studio in the next couple of days … I get on with Tony pretty well … but I’m disappointed, because I don’t think the Federal Government have fought at all for South Australia and certainly the Premier doesn’t … let’s talk to Rob Brokenshire from Family First. Rob, what is it we should have got?)

… well, I think what we should have got was … protection for our irrigators, because our irrigators have already been under cap since 1969, we only use seven percent of the whole of the River Murray water allocations and we should have also got a healthier flow down the Lower Lakes. Now at the moment, I think because of the argy bargy, the wheeling and dealing that went on even in the last few weeks, Leon, particularly with sweetheart deals to Victoria and New South Wales we don’t see … enough water to keep the Lower Lakes and below Lock 1 as healthy as it should be.

So bottom line at the moment … I think we now have a huge fight on our hands, and I’ll be supporting the Government and the Premier to take this through to the High Court if it has to happen, because unfortunately I don’t think there was enough work done by our State earlier on and I don’t think we’ve been listened to enough.

(Byner: So, what would you have Tony Burke do?)

Well, first of all Tony Burke’s said that nine out of 10 years he wanted a good flow of water through the Murray Mouth. In America their legislation actually focuses on the Mouth back to the source. I believe that this is not the case with this report from the preliminary advice I’m given and want Tony Burke to actually absolutely guarantee there are sufficient water entitlement to have a health River to the Mouth of the River, not just partway through the northern section …

I think Tony Burke needs to give our irrigators the credit that they deserve, Leon, through being very efficient and therefore I think there’s an argument for us either not being part of the further reduction irrigation allocations, or indeed compensation to offset further reductions.

(Byner: Alright Rob, thank you for that.)

~

Community Constables on APY Lands - Media Comments - 28 November 2011

2011-11-28T12:16:00.001+10:30

Monday 28 November 2011 story in the Australian newspaper (full contents behind their paywall)

Radio coverage

Nine out of 12 Far North Aboriginal Lands community police officer positions vacant

A freedom of information request has found that nine out of 12 community police officer positions on the State’s Far North Aboriginal Lands are vacant. The Community Constable Program aims to enlist people from the community to work alongside sworn police officers to help bridge cultural divisions.

Family First MLC, Robert Brokenshire, says he made the FOI request after concerns about policing on the APY Lands were raised with him. Mr Brokenshire says more effort needs to be made to recruit community members:

(891ABC 7.45am & 639ABC 7.45am/8.30am) “We need to put proper focus, support and resources into the APY Lands. It’s a remote area, it’s an important area and the people and communities of the APY Lands deserve adequate services and policing just like any other part of South Australia.”

(Link)

~

APY Lands Sexual Abuse - Media Comments - November 2011

2011-11-25T11:46:00.001+10:30

Family First MLC Rob Brokenshire has moved a motion to track progress by the State Government on implementing the recommendations of late Commissioner Mullighan concerning child sexual abuse on the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara (APY) Lands in South Australia's far north-west.

The Advertiser reports here on the tabling of the progress report on 24 November 2011 in State Parliament.

~

Draconian Workcover late fees - Media Comments - Thursday 24 November 2011

2011-11-24T14:56:00.001+10:30

Dennis Hood, Family First MLC (5AA 10.12-10.16) WorkCover’s late payment fees to employers

(Byner: Now Dennis Hood good on you for coming up with this. Now you obviously were contacted by a number of small business people ... who were pretty upset about this, weren’t they?)

Yeah that’s right ... I have been contacted by a number of people who were upset. I mean I was actually really surprised to learn that WorkCover were basically providing no leeway at all, even for honest mistakes that people had made or just system glitches, like you know automatic direct debits not happening, that might be the bank’s fault for example ... even in fact in one case where it was WorkCover’s fault and they didn’t seem to want to budge.

(Byner: Are you telling me that WorkCover made an error and they fined the victim?)

Leon, that’s what I’ve been told.

(Byner: What?)

I know that sounds extraordinary ... that’s what really made me decide to try and do something about this ... I’ve drafted an amendment to a bill that’s going before the Parliament at the moment ... the amendment basically does this Leon. What it says is that if any organisation has had a good payment history, a perfect payment history actually for the last 12 months, they haven’t missed a payment in 12 months and they do miss one for whatever reasons, then they get a 14 day grace period without any fine being imposed to make up that payment ... I just think that’s reasonable good business practice ... the Government has given us a verbal commitment they’ll support it, so I’m really pleased, it looks like there’ll be a lot of happy small business people out there.

(Byner: Well good on the Government for supporting this ... I’m just in disbelief that WorkCover can make an error and then blame somebody else.)

Well Leon I think that’s extraordinary ... I’ve been informed of that by a reliable source ... I haven’t seen the documents, so I can’t ... sort of go to court and raise my hand and say it’s the absolute truth, but certainly I’ve been told it in good faith ... but also Leon I’ve been exposed to a number of stories where you know genuine things have gone wrong. In one case a direct debit didn’t go through, which was no fault of the business – it was actually the bank that hadn’t got the paperwork right ... then this small business owner got slapped with a fine which was 80% of their monthly fee, which you know in difficult times nobody needs that ... once this goes through WorkCover will be forced to do the right thing – give people a 14 day grace period ... it’s an amendment that Family First are looking forward to.

(Byner: ... you know what I found – and I’ll use this adjective wisely – reprehensible. They’re running ads on radio and television pretending to care to get people back to work and yet we’ve got the worst back to work stats in the country.)

Leon, I think you know my feelings about WorkCover ... we had a very big debate a few years ago in Parliament about this ... we’ve got an organisation with a massive unfunded liability approach a billion dollars. It has come back a bit, but look there’s big question marks over that organisation, there’s no doubt, but you know what I was really offended by was, you know, really slapping people hard which may have made just a genuine honest mistake, despite the fact that they’d been good payers and had a good history ... I don’t want them to get away with it and we’re going to fix it.

(Byner: Well it’s good that you are Dennis ... I commend the Government for backing you on this ... I met the new CEO of WorkCover a few weeks ago, in my own time, as a kind of community service. He came across to me as a pretty decent bloke, but you see obviously he’s not the one that makes a lot of these decisions. Don’t give me the excuse we’re forced to be unreasonable by law because there’s a thing in legislation that I’ve been told by top barristers called ‘goodwill’. Where is the goodwill in WorkCover, where is it?)

~

Olympic Dam Expansion - Hood speech - Tuesday 22 November 2011

2011-11-24T08:49:00.001+10:30

Family First SA leader
Hon Dennis Hood MLC

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (12:19): I think it is probably true of most members in this chamber, but I am certainly a proud South Australian. I think my friends, my colleagues and my family, etc., would have said about me over the years that I am somebody who always, at every opportunity, takes the time, where possible, to talk up our state, if I can put it that way.

Introduction

A number of members in this place would be aware that I used to work for a company called Johnson & Johnson. My job was based in Sydney, even though I had the privilege, if you like, of living in Adelaide. So that meant I had to get on a plane every Monday morning and fly off to Sydney and to all other parts of the country—indeed, right around the world quite often. One thing that stood out when I was doing all that travelling is that, for whatever reason—and, I think, entirely for the wrong reasons—it is true that sometimes South Australia can cop the bad end of comments from people living in other states in Australia, particularly in New South Wales but it is true in other states as well, and I think that is grossly unfair. That is the reason I am very, very pleased to endorse the bill that is before this chamber today.

I think this indenture bill will go a long way, at least to some extent, in terms of our mining industry putting South Australia firmly on the map. It is good for many, many reasons, and I will outline some of the specifics in a moment. At the very least, it is good from the point of view of showing our interstate rivals, or counterparts perhaps, that South Australia really can deliver outstanding results and very, very substantial projects. We have done well in a number of areas. In relation to the submarine projects and the air warfare destroyer projects, etc., we have performed extremely well.

This is a genuinely huge project; it is one that puts our great state firmly on the map. I think that, as South Australians, it will go part of the way to ensuring that we can have confidence with our interstate colleagues in saying that there is lots to be proud of in this state. It is not that we are necessarily proud of a hole in the ground; we are proud of the fact that we can deliver something very substantial for the benefit of others, and, indeed, we can be proud of the fact that the product that is being produced here will benefit people right around the world.

Bipartisanship

The other thing I would like to say before going into the specifics of the bill is that one thing that has really pleased me personally about the early phases of the debate on this bill, both in the media and, indeed, in the lower house and now in our chamber, is that it is the first time I remember seeing such very clear-cut bipartisan cooperation between the major parties, and I take this opportunity to commend them for that. I think that is what politics should be, where possible; it is not always possible, obviously. Ultimately, politics is a clash of ideas, and people will disagree deeply at times. However, I think that this has been an example of all of us—certainly the major parties—being at our best, and I take this opportunity to put that firmly on the record.

Perhaps the one thing worthy of mention on the downside of the lead-up to this bill is that, given the fact that the opposition has decided to support what is obviously a government bill, to some extent, votes from the crossbenches in terms of providing passage of this bill are not as significant as they are when the government and the opposition are in disagreement. Because the government and the opposition are in agreement in this bill, I do feel that the crossbenches have missed out in terms of the speed of consultation and perhaps the deliberate attempt to provide quality consultation—and that is not a criticism of the government necessarily. I do not think that it is necessarily the government's doing, but it has been the result of what has happened, and I put that on the record for further consideration.

Specifics of the Bill and Indenture Agreement amendments

This indenture bill amends the current Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification) Act 1982 to provide for the unprecedented proposed changes to the expansion of the Olympic Dam mine at Roxby Downs. Olympic Dam is the world's fourth largest copper resource, the fourth largest gold resource and by far the largest known uranium resource. The bill before us today represents a significant change to the face of South Australia and has the potential to attract other large-scale international operations by signalling, through our deal with BHP, that South Australia is a state with which an excellent commercial relationship can be fostered.

The bill also represents a significant change in the way in which BHP Billiton does business with the South Australian government and, indeed, its people. The Olympic Dam expansion is, without doubt, a phenomenal step forward of unprecedented measure in Australia, and it has the capacity to change the landscape of the South Australian economy. As we have heard, this expansion will triple the capacity of what the mine currently produces, and it is estimated that over a 30-year period this mine will contribute around $45.7 billion to the South Australian gross state product. It is estimated that there will be 6,000 new jobs in construction, 4,000 full-time positions at the expanded pit mine and about 15,000 new indirect jobs from this expansion.

Additionally, South Australia will see royalty payments of 3.5 per cent for refined mineral products, such as copper and gold, and 5 per cent for uranium oxide and uranium-bearing copper concentrates. Indeed, some people have taken to saying that, as a result of this project, South Australia has the potential to be to uranium what Saudi Arabia is to oil. Any one of these factors alone would foster a change for the South Australian economy and have the potential for a broadscale benefit for all South Australians.

Regional Development

The government has also indicated that there will be increased changes to South Australian regional community areas, and places like Roxby Downs, Andamooka, Woomera, the Upper Spencer Gulf and the Eyre Peninsula will see the benefits of the Olympic Dam expansion through regional development and all the associated benefits.

Family First has long supported regional development and will continue to support any measures that would see a beneficial change to our regional areas, in particular. We welcome, as I am sure we all do in this place, any proposal that allows for an increase in employment and social development and a bolstering of our economic conditions, particularly in the regions, where we have a relatively small population compared to other major regional centres nationally.

Family First supports this indenture. However, we have some questions and some issues that we would like to have responded to by the government in the summing up. I would say, though, just to be absolutely clear, that Family First certainly supports this bill. We believe it is a tremendous step in the right direction for our state.

Supporting South Australia

Under the proposed bill, however, BHP is required to use the services, skills and workforce of South Australians as far as is reasonably and economically practicable before employing people from other states or nations. I commend this provision in the bill, and there obviously would be a great injustice to having such a wonderful economic structure such as the Olympic Dam mine within the state only to have a minimal South Australian workforce sourced from our own backyard. I am pleased to hear this will not be the case.

The steps the government has taken within the indenture go some way to providing jobs for South Australians. However, we do have questions about the specifics of how this will happen. I understand it is the intention that predominantly South Australians will be hired. Our questions are about how it will actually take place. What steps have been taken, and how is it clearly delineated to the extent that some South Australians may still have the opportunity to be employed in this project? Let me explain this point a little further.

According to the provisions that are written into the indenture bill before us, the company, BHP, does not have a minimum employment quota to meet from the South Australian workforce. The company is only required to meet a standard that is measured by what is 'reasonably and economically practicable'. I understand that economics fuels all of these sorts of decisions, and I am certainly no critic of that, and that this provision has been drafted to give business efficacy to the contract, otherwise the purpose for which the indenture was made would be defeated and circumstances would be somewhat difficult for the organisation. However, I do wonder how effective these provisions will be in ensuring that South Australian workers—whether they be miners, manufacturers, tradespeople, suppliers, or other professionals—are actually employed.

On a very strict reading of these provisions, one could argue—and I note that it will be very unlikely for this to occur, but not impossible—that the entire workforce in fact could be made up of interstate or international workers. Again, I understand this is not BHP's intention nor, obviously, the South Australian government's intention, but there is no minimum requirement of the number of South Australian workers that should be hired, nor is there any strict requirement that South Australians should actually be hired.

What we have, on the face of it, are several clauses that could reasonably be argued to be an agreement by BHP to act in good faith towards South Australian workers in the recruitment process. I should add that I have no doubt that BHP has every intention of acting in good faith and, again, I do not suggest they do not; but the provisions give the impression that BHP is concerned about the wellbeing of South Australians and that the government has diligently done what it can in order to ensure that this is, in fact, the outcome. This may well be the case, and I am not saying it is or it is not, but it is clear that the intention is that South Australian workers are at least considered for a position within the ambit of this indenture agreement. The notion that as many South Australians as possible should benefit from this project I think is something that would be important to all of us and we would hold dear.

I want to draw attention to the fact that, should better qualified workers present for the job, according to the wording of this provision, BHP would be entitled to hire other workers over South Australian workers. To clarify that, I understand that it would be contrary to the best business practices for BHP to negotiate anything other than a general clause acknowledging that they would at least consider South Australian workers. The reason I make this point is that we have been told on countless occasions that there will be approximately 6,000 new jobs in construction, with 4,000 full-time positions available at the expanded pit mine and something in the vicinity of 15,000 new indirect jobs.

Skills needed for the expansion

This brings me to the real crux of the situation. What is the government doing now to ensure that we have an adequate number of qualified tradespeople and miners, qualified now, so that, when the jobs actually do become available, South Australians are employed and, therefore, can benefit from this unprecedented employment opportunity?

I just make it clear that I have no doubt at all that the company will act in good faith and employ as many South Australians as they can. The point I am making is they are not bound by the wording of this particular provision. It does encourage them to, and it is an agreement that they have entered into. We can only take that take on good faith. I have no reason to doubt that. I just place firmly on record that I urge the company to pursue that in the spirit that it is intended and, indeed, even beyond that, if it is possible.

For example, during construction, there will be demand for project managers, engineers, geologists and a whole lot of other people with various qualifications. Truck drivers and machine operators will be needed in the operation phase and the question has to be asked: do we currently have people trained or, indeed, training for these positions? What preparation are we making as a state to ensure we have enough people to satisfy the demand as it comes online?

South Australia's current unemployment rate for the month of October is 5.3 per cent. It will be a tragedy should the implementation of these colossal changes not improve our unemployment rate, especially if, through a lack of planning, we do not appropriately skill the people now who can take these jobs as they become available.

I compliment the government for its $194 million investment into the Skills for All program, which will run from 2011 to 2014. However, what is not clear is how much of that funding will go specifically towards training workers for the available jobs at Olympic Dam and training for other regional-specific trades to avoid skilled workers being poached from the non-mining sectors. It is also unclear what specific targeted approach has been given so that people are trained and able to work immediately upon this indenture being passed by parliament and at the commencement of the actual work at Olympic Dam.

It is one thing to tout the benefits of this agreement for South Australians and to mention the job numbers that are potentially available. However, the fact remains that, if South Australians are not qualified for these positions by that time the jobs become available, the jobs will, by necessity, have to go elsewhere. That is not the fault of the company; that is the fault of the systems we have in place to train people to be ready when the company is ready.

I say we need to be ready. I formally put the question on notice to the government: other than the program I have just announced, which is a good program, what are we doing to train people in these specific areas?

This parliament has a responsibility to act in the best interests of the state, that we do our utmost to ensure the best possible outcome for all South Australians and that that is, in fact, achieved. We need to proactively ensure that there are enough qualified people for the soon to be available jobs—and very well-paid jobs, I might add—that this state will enjoy.

If well managed, this could be—as I have heard the term used in the media by some people—a so-called game changer for the state. I concur with that. If well managed, this has the potential to be something that our children and grandchildren look back on as a turning point.

Local regional impact

BHP reported that, during the consultation process, a major concern of South Australians was the effect of the mine on surrounding rural towns and, ultimately, the businesses, as workers were enticed towards jobs in the mining sector. This is a genuine issue. According to recent articles in The Advertiser back on 14 October, reports have already started coming in of workers in the non-mining sector being lured into the mining sector.

There is nothing wrong with that. People will go where they can do the same work and be paid more. I am not critical of that, but whilst there will naturally be some movement between the industries to accommodate the expansion to the Olympic Dam mine as people search for better pay and working conditions, we must ensure that there are enough qualified workers so that the newly-created jobs at Olympic Dam do not come to the detriment of the other regional centres.

For instance, we have all seen the media reports of people working in service towns around large mining ventures in other states, and the service facilities (the shops, the pizza shops, and the like) physically cannot get people to work there. We want to do everything we can to avoid that as this mine comes online.

Whyalla is South Australia's second largest regional city after Mount Gambier, and it is a major industrial city and exporter and a significant contributor to the state's economy through steel production. Whyalla's industry is now expanding, with new global industries being targeted, including aquaculture, sustainable development, and renewable technologies.

Similarly, last year, the combined income to the food and agricultural industry in regional South Australia was quite a significant $12.4 billion; should either of these industries be irretrievably hurt (for want of a better word) or impacted by the mining sector through the loss of workers and the inability to function properly, it goes without saying that the South Australian economy would also be affected.

We do not want the threat of viable businesses closing, families having to relocate and having to learn new job skills because their employment has been swallowed up in what will be the huge Olympic Dam expansion. We should be actively ensuring that workers are sufficiently qualified to avoid workers being stripped from the non-mining industries. The planning phase for the introduction of this huge development and huge mining venture is really the most significant one in the coming years.

Under this bill, the company is required to submit an industry and workforce participation plan to the minister. The intention of the participation plan is, of course, to create opportunities for young people, Aboriginal people, local suppliers, research and development, and regional development, to name just a few. According to the Variation Deed, the company is required to use reasonable endeavours to implement the industry and workforce participation plan; should the company fail to do this, then the failure would not breach the indenture.

So, the question naturally arises: what guarantee do we have for the development of the industries and people at whom the industry and workforce participation plan would be aimed, should the company fail to implement the plan? In the light of the agreement with BHP, the government needs a separate contingency plan for regional development. There is no doubt that the state will profit from the royalties received from the mine, and much of these royalties can go towards the development of regions.

Royalties for regional infrastructure development

Members would be aware that Family First has tabled an amendment on that issue, and I will allow my colleague the Hon. Robert Brokenshire to explain it more fully. It is a very simple amendment, simply diverting funds once acquired from a company (that is, after the company has paid their royalties) to the regional sector—or a portion of those funds, I should say. Family First is especially interested in regional development and how the government plans to use the wealth created from the Olympic Dam expansion to benefit our regional communities—hence, the amendment.

A report released in July 2011 by Infrastructure Australia to COAG shows the need for reform in the financing of major infrastructure projects across Australia. Admittedly, this is an Australia-wide report on infrastructure, but the principles will hold true for South Australia. We currently have before us the opportunity to turn South Australia into a thriving state, to develop regions which have been overlooked for far too long.

In a media release from the Australian government, the chairman of Infrastructure Australia (Sir Rod Eddington) acknowledged that the report found that government reforms to infrastructure planning and delivery were frustratingly slow, which meant time lost in travel, delays at ports, and lost production, which all resulted in a slowing of Australia's productivity. An appropriate spending on regional development has several natural flow-on effects: areas are developed and provided with need-specific infrastructure, which improves the quality of life for those within the region through economic prosperity, and the development of rural and regional communities through industry growth and job creation.

Regional growth is something that South Australia must continue to take seriously and, indeed, take to the next level. We cannot ignore the wider needs of rural South Australia and expect that our valuable industries will continue to flourish. Regional development also proves to have a major impact on the productivity of South Australian industries in trade intrastate, interstate, and internationally. Without the appropriate regional development and support for businesses, these industries will not continue to grow but will decline and potentially take a large amount of the state economy with it. We simply cannot allow this to occur. Indeed, it is incumbent on us—and particularly the government—to ensure this does not occur.

Better infrastructure leads to reduced costs and, as we are well aware, increases in costs will always be borne to some degree by the end user of any product; therefore, anything the government does to reduce the cost burden on industries by supporting regional development and encouraging growth within the industries will mean that each industry becomes more competitive. Reducing the cost burden to increase competition is particularly important in relation to the bill before us. The indenture provides:

The Company shall, for the purposes of this Indenture, as far as it is reasonable and economically practicable...

(d) give proper consideration and, where possible, preference, to South Australian suppliers, manufacturer s and contracto r s when letting contracts or placing orders for works, materials, plant, equipment and supplies, where price, quality, delivery and service are equal to or better than that obtainable elsewhere.

Mr President, I draw your attention to that last part, where it says 'where price, quality, delivery and service are equal to or better than that obtainable elsewhere'. A question has to be: if that were the case, why would BHP not do it anyway? Do they want a supplier where the price is more, where the quality is lower and where the delivery and service are actually worse than what is available? Of course not. I find those sorts of comments in the bill to be almost superfluous to what a company would do in the first place. Companies go for lower prices, they go for better quality, and they want better delivery and service from their suppliers. If BHP was not doing that successfully it would not be the single biggest company in Australia. I think they have already worked that out, if I can put it in those simple terms.

The sheer volume and capacity of minerals that BHP requires to implement and maintain their mine means—by virtue of common sense—that many South Australian suppliers, manufacturers and the like will actually find it difficult to be the sole supplier, although they can, perhaps, enjoy some of the economic benefits of being at least a supplier of BHP. We welcome that; indeed, we encourage it.

Yorkey's Crossing and mine freight

To be competitive in this market you must first have a system that enables price and delivery to be competitive. For example, the excess cost for transport travelling via Yorkeys Crossing would mean the refusal of a tender, because the inbuilt cost to the company of those transport costs means that an interstate or international tenderer is more financially viable. To further elaborate, Yorkeys Crossing forms part of the Perth-Adelaide corridor, which is of significant importance to South Australia, obviously, as it links some of Australia's richest mining and agricultural areas to international markets. The corridor shares the road and rail network between Adelaide, Port Augusta, Tarcoola, Darwin, Eyre Peninsula, the Far North, the Northern Territory and the eastern and western states.

In 2007 the Perth-Adelaide corridor strategy report said that a short-term priority was to upgrade and seal Yorkeys Crossing. Four years on and there is still no change. In fact, we now face threats of the road closing because the Port Augusta council cannot afford to maintain the 23 kilometres of unsealed road. The road is estimated to have up to 125 trucks daily, hauling not insignificant loads such as mining equipment, dangerous goods at times, portable houses, and other sorts of dangerous goods, which all support our state's economy.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: The minister refused to go and have a look at it, if you remember.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I was aware of that, yes.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Despite the additional increased transport costs being for increased travel time and operation costs for the vehicles forced to take this route, users face additional challenges in wet conditions. This is a very serious issue that needs remedying. Yorkeys Crossing becomes dangerous to negotiate in even just minimal rain, and it has been reported to restrict the passage of oversize loads for a minimum of at least one day in wet conditions. This is simply not good enough and must be addressed.

When one considers the sheer extent of use on this road, and for such important purposes as mining and agriculture, it is incomprehensible that it has not been upgraded. An upgrade of Yorkeys Crossing is in the best interests of the state economy, especially in light of the materials that will need to get to Roxby Downs until such time as the train line is complete. This is something that the government cannot ignore any longer, and Family First calls on it to address this issue urgently.

With the royalties that the state will be receiving from Olympic Dam, we will be seeking confirmation from the government regarding how much money it intends to place back into regional development in order to develop and maintain networks, to allow the improvement of transport for industry and agriculture throughout rural South Australia and to other parts of the nation. Indeed, as I said, Family First intends to move an amendment to that effect.

The South Australian government stands to make a substantial windfall from the mining royalties that are associated with the Olympic Dam indenture. It is therefore incumbent upon the government to use the money it accumulates for the benefit of the state, both in conjunction with and separately to BHP. I am not suggesting that this is not the government's intention, but I think that areas like Yorkeys Crossing, for example, really point out priorities that need addressing in the short term.

Desalination concerns

Family First recognises the need for the desalination plant in light of the massive changes that have been proposed at the Olympic Dam site. We are not opposed to the desalination plant; however, we are aware of concerns that have been raised with respect to potential harm to the environment. Let me explain. I do not accept that that is necessarily the case, but I believe it is important that these questions are answered. Of course, it is a major concern regarding desalination plants in general that the effects of releasing waste discharge water, and particularly the brine it includes, can have a detrimental effect on marine life and the aesthetics of the bay.

I was fortunate enough to have a discussion this morning with the BHP Billiton Vice-President for External Affairs, Mr Kym Winter-Dewhirst. He certainly satisfied my initial concerns about this issue and gave me quite a detailed response on the extent that the company had gone to to ensure this would not be the case. I believe I am quoting him correctly—forgive me if I am not: he claimed that within 100 metres of the outlet points of the brine being released into the gulf there was in fact no discernable difference with normal sea water. If that is in fact the case, then I am certainly very encouraged by that.

There are many variables in the desalination process, which I will not endeavour to explain in this brief contribution. Family First's concern is that the salinity of the brine being discharged back into the sea may actually end up being higher than has been projected. As with many endeavours such as this one, you never know exactly what the outcome will be until you are several years into the process and see the hard evidence of what is occurring. We know some credible studies have been conducted on the effects of desalination on marine ecology. In 2010 the University of New South Wales published a report which stated that in some instances discharges had led to substantial increases in salinity and temperature and the accumulation of hydrocarbons and toxic anti-fouling components in the water.

Family First recognises the science behind these issues and the fact that, with the desalination plant, in reality a good deal of effort, it appears to me, from the company has been put in to ensure this will not be the case with this particular development. We are relying on the information presented to us. We do not have any other information available to us. Again, I am not suggesting that BHP will in any way mislead us on that; I am simply saying that that is the only information we have. We are, however, hopeful that this turns out to be the case, and we look forward to ongoing monitoring with respect to BHP providing those figures. Again, Mr Winter-Dewhirst assured me this morning that those figures would be publically available on the ongoing monitoring of brine releases into the gulf as they go, in real time, live on the internet was my understanding. That is about as highly scrutinised as we could possibly expect of them or any other organisation with respect to this issue.

I think the brine issue is a genuine issue. I understand conservationists and others have concern about it. I travelled to Israel and had a personalised tour of the largest desalination plant in the world, at Ashkelon in Southern Israel near the Gaza strip border. They informed me that within 100 metres of their openings the brine levels were neutral compared with normal sea water. I have heard the same claim from BHP this morning, so if that proves to be the case, then frankly I think that is satisfactory and should be regarded as very good practice. The fact that they can get it down to zero within only 100 metres of the opening is quite commendable. Let us hope that turns out to be the case in reality.

Concluding questions

In winding up, I will put a few questions on the record for the minister to respond to in summing up, and I accept that they may not be able to be answered by the government in minute detail. Some of these are very difficult to answer, but if the government can give us the best feel it has we would be appreciative, and the first one is a fairly simple but very important one:

1.How many South Australians are projected to actually be employed from this mine directly and indirectly?

2.Secondly, how many South Australian workers are currently trained to a level suitable for work once this mine is underway and as it progresses?

3.What efforts has the government made in relation to training South Australians to ensure we have an adequate workforce to meet the employment requirements of the mine and to maximise the number of South Australians employed?

4.How many South Australian manufacturers and companies are to get work or contracts under this indenture?

5.What percentage of profit does the government propose to spend per annum on regional development within South Australia, and on what basis will the government determine how to spend this money on regional development? This is a very important question. I had the privilege of travelling through the West Coast last week and I can assure you that our regions are thriving, but they need help. They need infrastructure. The tenacity of the individuals and people in towns never ceases to amaze me, but in many cases they need infrastructure spending.

6.What specific regional development does the state have planned for Whyalla, Port Pirie and Port Augusta in light of the changes that the Olympic Dam indenture will bring to these areas? Specifically, how is the government planning to redevelop Yorkeys Crossing to enable transport of the materials needed for the construction of the plant at Roxby?

7.According to the select committee report that was laid on the table in the House of Assembly on 18 October, the indenture is estimated to contribute $45.7 billion to the state economy over 30 years. We have heard that royalties are not expected for another nine to 10 years. What is the estimated benefit to the state in the first five years and then the next five to 10-year period and ongoing?

8.The sale of uranium, should the current ALP federal government lift the sale ban, as has been proposed, has been estimated to net some $17.4 billion per annum. This would have obvious flow-on benefits for the Olympic Dam indenture. What would be the net benefit to the state of South Australia if we did in fact decide in this country to export uranium to India?

9.What is the estimated impact of fly-in/fly-out workers on both the expansion of the Roxby Downs community and the sustainability of Roxby Downs as a municipality?

10.Much criticism has been made of the effect of the desalination plant on the giant Australian cuttlefish, and I addressed that in my contribution. What are the reasons the government has identified for the decrease in the cuttlefish population in South Australia if it is not through these sort of activities?

11.What recorded effects have similar desalination plants had on their surrounding environments?

12.What is the percentage of permeate water that will be produced from the desalination plant?

13.What is the estimated salinity of the brine waste and what is the estimated variation of water salinity in the ocean once the brine has been dumped? We have the figures from BHP. I am not querying those. I am really just asking: does the government agree with them, and, if so, will they confirm them?

That is essentially my contribution on this bill. I would just say, in summing up, that Family First welcomes this legislation. This is a great thing for our state. It comes with risk, as all great projects do. We cannot ignore that. However, we need to confront them and deal with them as best as we can. This is an exciting time for our state and this one thing alone will add so much to our state pride. It will be something that we can take some genuine pride in. I am sure that other states are looking at us quite enviously, which is a nice change.

~

Olympic Dam expansion - Brokenshire speech - Wednesday 23 November 2011

2011-11-24T08:31:00.001+10:30

Hon Robert Brokenshire MLC

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (21:00): I will be brief in my remarks, but there are a few things that I want to put on the public record. The Hon. Rob Lucas has put a lot of what I was about to say on the public record, so I will not go over that again for another hour, in the interests of being fair to my colleagues.

The lead speaker for Family First, my colleague, the Hon. Dennis Hood, has already put our party position and that is that Family First does support the Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification) (Amendment of Indenture) Amendment Bill 2011. We do so because we believe that it is in the state's best interest that we see this significant expansion of the Roxby Downs mining venture, but there are a few things that I just want to personally say.

BHP Billiton’s treatment of some Parliamentarians

First and foremost, I was disappointed that members of BHP Billiton who are responsible for government relations and, I would think, parliamentary relations, did not actually contact the crossbenchers until this morning to see if they wanted a briefing. In fact, we did not even receive one letter from them.

Of course, they were tactically clever. They got the government totally stitched up—and I will talk a little more about that in a while—and then, of course, they went to have a special party room meeting with the Liberal Party and stitched the Liberal Party up. We know that at times on the crossbenches we are very relevant and at times on the crossbenches we are totally irrelevant; however—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Which one are you on this occasion?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: On this occasion, clearly, we have got big BHP Billiton and we have got big Liberal and big Labor. When they get together, we are totally irrelevant. However, it may well be that, down the track, not too long from now, as this expansion rolls out, there may be some legislation and there may be a change of government even. I am not sure about that, based on the last poll; however, there may be, and we could see a totally different structure of both Liberal and Labor and perhaps BHP Billiton might actually need the crossbenchers.

I would have thought that it would have been prudent practice of them to actually be inclusive of the whole parliament a lot earlier than they were. So, I just put that there. I have got it off my chest now, but I find it interesting that we generally get lobbied like you would not believe on the crossbenches, far more than when I was with the Liberal Party in any of my privileged working capacity there, except on the occasion of this particular bill.

The Australian Labor Party’s position on uranium mining

I also just want to say that I find it interesting the way the former premier, the Hon. Mike Rann pushed and pushed this and was so capable that he managed to actually bring all this to a head within a couple of weeks of him, not retiring, but being forced from being the premier of South Australia, mainly by the left, but also some of the right, of the Labor Party. Well done to them for that; however, on ideology, if you have a conservative form of politics or you have a socialist form of politics, I can understand that.

If you support GM modification, I can understand that or if you do not support GM modification you do not support it but, on this occasion, as the Hon. Rob Lucas has already said, Mike Rann, in quite a lot of roles, went out of his way to work against the opportunity for this mine to be developed in the first place. When it comes to honourable, I will put David Tonkin way ahead of Mike Rann any day. The Hon. David Tonkin and others did a sterling job.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: And Roger Goldsworthy.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Yes, the Hon. Roger Goldsworthy—another very good honourable gentleman. I will credit them first and foremost, and the Liberal Party at that time, for being consistent in supporting this. Of course, it is only in recent times that we have seen the mining policy change by federal Labor, and it was only last week that we saw a complete backflip from the Prime Minister with respect to her proposal for uranium sales to India.

I will not go into that any more—I have a motion on the former premier tomorrow, and in private business I will talk more about his strengths and weaknesses, and the true record of former premier Mike Rann. However, I did want to confirm what the Hon. Rob Lucas in particular had said; I totally agree with his comments.

Adequacy of scrutiny of the Olympic Dam expansion

There are some things that Family First have some concerns about. I find this whole process interesting because we, as a parliament, have to come in here and support an amendment of the indenture agreement flying blind, because we are not even privy to commercial-in-confidence briefings on a lot of the arrangements.

We do not really know, as the Hon. Rob Lucas and others have said, whether or not this is the very best arrangement that could have been provided for South Australia. It really does concern me immensely that the former premier just happened to get this over the line before—did he actually do the best that he could for South Australia? We will never know.

I find it interesting that, when you get around to communities in either city or country electorates, people are saying, 'Why did all those ministers fly over to Melbourne to the headquarters of BHP Billiton? Why didn't they come to the State Administration Centre? Who actually had the trump card here; was it BHP Billiton, or was it the government?'

I think that the new Premier could have facilitated this negotiation just as well as the former premier. I do not believe that the former premier and former deputy premier were the only people who could negotiate such a complex arrangements, particularly when the former deputy premier spent a week or so overseas during the so-called detailed and complex final negotiations.

Rehabilitation issues upon the expiry of the mine

There are just a few things that I would hope the government has covered: Okay, it is going to be 100 years or more before we ever see a situation where rehabilitation of some sort will have to occur—when this mine finally exhausts itself. As large as it is, it will run out of its mining life, and I wonder what our great-grandchildren or our great-great-grandchildren will be saying about us as a parliament if they are left with a huge bill, or if they have to go through litigation, like we have seen with the Maralinga situation. Have we done enough to ensure that those things way down the track are covered? We are signing off here in the next few days to approve this, and we are actually putting a lot of faith in the government for generations to come.

Water extraction from Great Artesian Basin

With respect to water, I found it surprising that the water being pulled from the Great Artesian Basin—I think it is around 42 million litres a day—as I understand it, is only going to cost BHP Billiton $1,200 a day, when it is argued that the true value of that water is more like $88,000 a day. That is just one example of the arrangements that, as I understand, have been put in place, which you have to question. You have to question the impact this will have on our pastoral industry long-term.

People say, 'Robert, just relax; it's all fine, it's all been covered. We have been pulling water out of the Great Artesian Basin for the last 30 years for the current Roxby Downs project.' Of course the sales men and women are going to say that, but there is no science on what is going to happen in the next hundred years. We have already seen some issues of concern raised by pastoralists, and, whilst the pastoralists may not be as big as BHP Billiton, the fact is that they are very important to the South Australian economy, and they also do a lot to manage our pastoral and outback biodiversity.

I hope the government has had a look at that, because I for one—and you can call me naive—actually thought that the desal plant was going to start taking some pressure off the Great Artesian Basin, but I am surprised to find out that the desal plant will be cranked up, and I understand that, at the very least, the same amount of water that is being pulled out will continue to be pulled out, year in, year out.

Location of desalination plant

There is the issue of where the desalination plant is going to go. I know they have done a lot of EIS work on it and they have spent money on it as a company, and I respect that, by and large, they are pretty good corporate citizens, but I wonder whether or not the financial bottom line came into the overall decision about putting the desal plant right where the cuttlefish are. I trust that checks and balances will be put in there to ensure that we can still look after that part of our ecology, because, whilst I am no extreme greenie by any stretch of the imagination, that particular cuttlefish breeding ground is very important not only for our state but also internationally.

Family First’s amendment to the Bill – ODX royalties for regional South Australia

As has already been acknowledged by the Hon. Rob Lucas, we are moving one amendment. That amendment does not oppose what BHP Billiton is putting forward for South Australia, but it does have a positive impact on regional South Australia. I watched with interest the debate that former member the Hon. Karlene Maywald got involved in before the last election, where she flew to Western Australia to work over there with Royalties for Regions. She proposed Royalties for Regions here. I actually believe that it should be more about equity for regions, not royalties for regions, but Royalties for Regions has worked well in Western Australia.

In fact, I had a discussion with a very senior government minister only a few weeks ago regarding my amendment. I knew he would be resisting my amendment, and he said 'Oh, Brokie, they have so much money from Royalties for Regions in Western Australia now they don't know how to spend it.' Well if that is the case then good on rural and regional Western Australia, but, as I said to the senior government minister, that will not be the case in South Australia. You could give us $200 million, $300 million or $400 million a year in the rural and regional areas and it would be spent, and spent wisely, but it still would not make a dent in what is needed to be spent on infrastructure and other services and facilities.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Thank you, Mr President. Members are entitled to their view, but the bottom line is that rural and regional South Australia is crying out for infrastructure, for economic opportunities similar to the city, the point being that this money is all coming from the regions. It is not coming from Adelaide; they are not mining Adelaide, they are actually mining part of South Australia's rural and regional geographic areas. We have seen this happening day in, day out, where there is more and more expansion for exploration, at least, in mining in rural and regional South Australia. There is very little money actually being kept in the regions, particularly with fly in/fly out and things like that.

I know that the government is a master at managing marginal seat campaigns. Hopefully, so we see some better competition at the next election, the Liberal Party might actually master the game of marginal seats as well, so that we have a real serious and pointy election, with at least a cliffhanger to see whether this government is re-elected, which would be 16 years, or whether we get a new government. Just because they are going to play the seven seat game again and pork-barrel the marginal seats, does not mean that rural and regional South Australia have to miss out again.

I will say more about that when I move my amendment tomorrow or the next day. Hopefully we will get the bill passed this week, but I will be pushing hard for the one amendment that Family First has put up, which is about Royalties for Regions. With those remarks I think I have covered the key points I wanted to highlight over and above what my colleague the Hon. Dennis Hood has said. I wish this bill good passage and trust that the Roxby Downs indenture ratification bill, and indeed BHP Billiton's Olympic Dam Corporation, will be a huge success for generations to come in South Australia.

BHP and value-adding in Australia vs raw product exports

However, it is concerning that we do not have commitments—as I understand it anyway—that, wherever possible, BHP Billiton will spend its money in South Australia with respect to the development of this mine. We have not seen enough value-adding out of BHP Billiton. They are mining very well in Australia, but it is all going out in bulk ore shipping, and that is not in the best interests of Australia and South Australia as far as I am concerned.

It would have been good to have seen more commitment from BHP on the value-added job opportunities for South Australia and Australia. That said, we are in a tight situation at the moment. We have certainly got at least a three-speed economy, but the one aspect of the economy that has been going well, and I trust will continue to, is mining. I would like to see better commodity prices in agriculture because agriculture certainly is up there year in and year out with mining; however, we do have at least a three-speed economy.

We are seeing some serious investment from BHP. Whilst I know they have the capability and expertise on their board and the executive of their organisation to deliver well for shareholders, I trust that they will also be able to deliver well for South Australian and Australian jobs in the future.

~

Forestry Inquiry Report tabled - Media Comments - Wednesday 23 November 2011

2011-11-23T17:07:00.001+10:30

Family First MLC, mover of the motion for a Forestry inquiry
and chair of the inquiry ROB BROKENSHIRE reviews the
Interim Report tabled 23.11.2011 outside State Parliament

Wednesday 23 November 2011

Interim report expected this afternoon into forward harvesting rights of SE forests

An interim report is expected to be handed down this afternoon into the forward harvesting rights of forests in the south-east. The State Government is seeking expressions of interest for the sale.

Family First MLC and Chair of the parliamentary inquiry, Robert Brokenshire, says it was hoped a full report could be tabled but an interim report will let people see detail of the committee’s findings before the forestry sale goes further. Mr Brokenshire says another reason for the interim report is that Forestry SA has been reluctant to give the Parliament documentation that was requested. Mr Brokenshire says the committee needs to have all available evidence before its report is finalised:

(891ABC 12noon) “I get suspicious now when departments start putting documentation through Crown Solicitor’s office.”

ABC news online reports: "Report recommends against forestry sale"

-----------------

Recent figures show Forestry SA's profits climbing to $46m in 2009/10 and $48m in 2010/11
http://www.audit.sa.gov.au/10-11/b/b3/South%20Australian%20Forestry%20Corporation.pdf

------------------

Thursday 24 November 2011

Robert Brokenshire, Family First MLC (5AA 11.08-11.17) Interim select committee report into the forward sale of timber rotations

(Byner: If I told you that you had an asset which in the last two years had generated income of $46m and $48m and you had two choices: keep it with the revenue stream for 100 years, conservatively speaking billions of dollars in profit over that 100 year period, or your other choice was to sell it … roughly $600m … would you choose the recurring billions or the fast buck $600m? Well, the current Government under Minister Weatherill who’s now of course the Premier is continuing the Rann Government chase for a fast buck when it comes to Forestry SA. Now, Treasury are in desperate need of cash … and the Weatherill Government are continuing with the forward selling of Forestry SA harvesting rights for an estimated quick hit of $600m. Now, this decision not only has the people of the State’s South East somewhat upset, but here in Adelaide throughout 2011 we’ve seen massive rallies on the steps of Parliament House protesting this decision. It’s hard to think of a decision by Labor, be it under Premier Rann or Premier Weatherill, that’s been more on the nose than the forward forestry sale because two things happened in state and federal parliament yesterday that are significant game changers on this. Firstly: the federal parliament produced a bipartisan report tabled by a Tasmanian Labor MP saying forestry has a bright future in Australia and our softwood estates like Forestry SA’s radiata pine will need to expand to meet Australian demand otherwise we will rely heavily on imports. Now, this positive outlook is in stark contrast to the gloomy one painted by Labor as their excuse to sell. But secondly in state parliament, a seven month inquiry into the Rann and Weatherill Government forward sale decision chaired by Rob Brokenshire handed down its findings yesterday afternoon. Now, Rob, can you tell me what those findings were?)

… there are a lot of findings but I’ll go through the abbreviated version.

The first finding of the majority of the committee on this interim report was that there should not be a sale based on the majority evidence; effectively saying that to do this puts at risk enormous opportunities for good returns to government for our future generations in South Australia, bearing in mind that the Government are proposing to privatise this for over 100 years. It actually highlights … and this is all evidence based … the valuation basis for the forward sale was poor, potentially seeing the estate undervalued … depending on … whose evidence you take it’s possible that we could be seeing this sold for hundreds of millions of dollars less than its true value which is also alarming.

We found out that the ACIL Taman Report which the Treasury and the Government actually said would be a regional impact assessment was not that but simply a preparatory to an assessment … and it appears, would you believe, that Treasury at this stage have still not done a net cost benefit analysis or indeed completed a regional impact statement.

We’ve said that if it does go ahead that there should be 20% of the funds returned directly to the South East because they are potentially the biggest losers and …

another key point is that the parliamentary committee believes the Auditor-General needs to investigate the sale process and the outcomes if the sale does proceed Leon.

...
Back to Robert Brokenshire

(Byner: Rob Brokenshire, how is it possible for a government to sell that which they hold in trust that’s owned by the taxpayer without parliamentary approval?)

Well, that’s an excellent question and … I’m incensed by this because even with the privatisation of ETSA which was to do with … national grids and competition, and this forestry has nothing to do with that … [legislation was required] the Government are getting through on a loophole because legislation does not have to be addressed through the parliament. So just through a little loophole the Government are prepared to put at risk generation after generation, as [forestry expert] Dr Leech has said … great net returns. This is one of the few … jewels in the crown left of the Government and they are able to do it with their head in the sand simply because they know they don’t have to bring legislation through the parliament … if we did have to bring legislation through the parliament this would not get through.

(Byner: …thank you … when Forestry SA spoke to a parliamentary committee … economic and finance about the forward sale, it was suggested that if they didn’t get the $600m they thought they might get then we could lose our triple A credit rating. Now, that was some time back … and in the last couple of weeks the new Premier Jay Weatherill has made the point that he thinks it is likely – let’s not play with words, that’s the word he used – that we might lose our triple A credit rating. And I thought … I wonder what he means by that? I wonder if he’s going to rescind the intention of the Government to forward sell these assets or whether the position of our budget is such that even with that sale money we’re still in big trouble? Time will tell, won’t it?)

~

Citrus Industry Restructure - Question Time - Tuesday 23 November 2011

2011-11-23T08:35:00.001+10:30

CITRUS INDUSTRY

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (15:30): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the minister for primary industries a question about the citrus industry.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Quite a long time ago the former minister initiated what was known as a review of the South Australian citrus industry structure. The intent of this followed on from lobbying by some citrus growers and members of the citrus industry generally. I have had discussions with both the Citrus Growers of South Australia and the South Australian Citrus Industry Development Board, and I understand that Mr Alan Moss was engaged to come up with a report recommending a way forward for an improvement in South Australian citrus industry matters.

This report was with the previous minister for several months. No reflection on this minister as the new minister, because she has a lot to get her head around; however, it is of concern to the industry that there seems to be some stalling. I contacted the former minister's adviser on agriculture, and he advised me that that report had been with the minister back in September, I think.

My questions are:

1.Can the minister advise the council on where her deliberations are with respect to this report?

2.When will the minister make a decision regarding the recommendations of the report?

3.Will the minister table the report in the council so that members have an opportunity to see the full detail of it?

[Minister's answer to be published in the next 24 hours - Minister has confirmed she has the review with her and is working on a response]
~

Police quotas - radio comments - Monday 21 November 2011

2011-11-21T16:15:00.001+10:30

Rob Brokenshire, Family First MLC (5AA 10.13-10.15) Expiation targets

(Byner: Rob Brokenshire, you are a former Police Minister, how would you handle this?)

… it is concerning. I’ve got to say that in all my years with the responsibility for policing, from Minister right through still with that responsibility in Family First with the portfolio, it’s only in the last 12 months that I’ve heard so much suggestion that police are under pressure to not only caution but to get so many fines per week. I think that what we need first and foremost right now is the Police Minister to come out with the Police Commissioner and actually reinstate confidence for our police officers and the community that they are not after revenue raising, that they’re still are under general orders of using their discretion. Because at the moment it appears from the pressure on the Government’s budget that police are having to actually expiate more than they probably would prefer to do (Byner: So how would you fix it? What’s the remedy?)

SA Police have been told to achieve benchmark targets for
contacts with the public on matters such as driving offences

… first and foremost I think we need to back our police in because I can tell you that a lot of police are not comfortable under the pressure they’re under at the moment … in fact … I can tell you a farmer in one town went to see a police officer about some stolen tools. When the police officer walked out of the station with him, he said look I’m just giving you a warning that if you were to go into such and such a town, which was the next major town down, and you had tools and loose items in the back of that ute, they would actually charge you for that with an expiation notice. He said I’m not going to because he thinks it’s over the top but he said that’s the way some of the police are working at the moment. Now we’ve then seen the email, so there’s confirmation that something is happening. I don’t think a senior sergeant would just dream up that email and I hope he doesn’t get victimised by executive for doing that.

How would I fix it?

Number one, we have to stop Treasury from putting targets in the budget and they have been up until the last 18 months … Treasury year in year out were wanting police to get more and more in the way of revenue. They’ve spent more money on red light cameras etc and Treasury want a dividend for that. Take Treasury out of the equation, this is a police operations matter, not a Treasury matter.
Secondly, the Commissioner I understand has got to find $34 million in savings in the forward estimates. He can’t do that and they’ve got to reinstate his budget appropriately. And thirdly we need reassurance that the police can under general orders certainly still use their discretion that they were trained to implement

(Byner: So are you blaming Jack Snelling for this?)

I’m blaming the Treasury because every year, now in the last lot of books you’ll see where Treasury actually dropped the amount of revenue they expected from SAPOL … because Treasury over the last several years have had such high expectations in the budget papers for police to deliver income that they now just cannot meet those targets … so the short of it is I am blaming Treasury for putting the police under too much pressure. If they buy extra cameras, buy extra mobile radar detection equipment, that’s an investment in public safety and it shouldn’t be tied back to revenue.

Grain handling monopoly in South Australia - Radio Comments - Friday 18 November 2011

2011-11-18T15:57:00.001+10:30

Rob Brokenshire, Family First MLC (5AA 12.12-12.17) Viterra having a monopoly on grain handling facilities

(Byner: Yesterday on the program you heard ... from representatives from the SA Farmers Federation and Viterra, the monopoly grain handler in South Australia, after it bought the ABB Grain in 2009 ... during yesterday’s discussions, whilst alleging that Viterra was engaging anti-competitive monopoly behaviour, Phillip Wilson of the Farmers’ Federation referred to the Canadian situation where, unlike here, there is an open and balanced competitive market that works in the interests of grain growers. Now overnight this program has researched the issue further and found something very surprising. Canada still has a wheat board, but the Harper Government there will legislate by the end of this year to break up the CWB, that’s Canadian Wheat Board’s monopoly on market situations, including an end to monopoly access to grain handling facilities ... one of the direct beneficiaries of this CWB monopoly break up is Viterra – the same Viterra who here in South Australia have a monopoly on grain handling facilities ... Viterra’s Chief Executive in Canada said late last month he believed the break up of the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly would benefit Viterra in 2012, in a year where he expected, quote: ‘Fierce competition’ – end quote. Now that might be great news for Viterra shareholders, but isn’t it just a bit unusual for companies in the same family to be saying in Australia ‘there’s nothing wrong with having monopoly control’, but in Canada celebrating the end of a monopoly and the arrival of fierce competition ... Rob Brokenshire, you are a farmer from way back and a Member of the Upper House, what do you say?)

A former SA Consolidated Bulk Handling silo in the Mallee
now owned by Canadian company Viterra

... what you said there from my understanding is absolutely accurate ... it’s just ironic that when we are seeing a monopoly situation here with Viterra where, you know, probably arguably 90% of the infrastructure they own, which puts them in the trump card position, they are really resisting any moves to try and flex up for other ... grain traders in our state, plus in Canada I understand they’ve actually gone public and applauded the Prime Minister and ... the half of the Canadian Federal Government for the fact that ... they only have ... one monopoly left, namely the Canadian Wheat Board. Viterra over there are saying that the Government must break this up because it’s not fair on competition ... yet here our farmers are being kicked right in the backside by the monopoly, Viterra ... give your listeners an example.

This week I was talking to some farmers ... they got a notification on their mobile phones from Viterra that at Port Adelaide the last couple of days you could only take one variety of grain, wheat only, and a certain grade of that I understand to Port Adelaide ... in the area in which we farm with the grain at Strathalbyn, they can’t get canola into Strathalbyn, so they can’t take it Port Adelaide because of Viterra’s policy Leon, so they have to take it to Tailem Bend. That costs them $15 a ton to take it to Tailem Bend and then they’re docked $16 a ton when you do your grain trading because the grain trader’s price is ex Port Adelaide. So for the sake of the monopoly and the best interests of Viterra farmers in this state are arguably paying sixteen to twenty dollars a ton more to satisfy the management of Viterra and work against the best interests of our farmers.

(Byner: ... what do you think the remedy here is?)

Well I have to say that Geoff Brock and the Select Committee that I moved for in the Parliament to look into Viterra are doing a very good forensic job. I’m actually going to be contacting them next week and saying, ‘Geoff, really please focus on this monopoly factors as well as other factors’ ... I think frankly it’s probably got to be the Government and the Parliament intervening to ensure that there is more fairness in new grain traders coming in.

(Byner: How would you suggest they intervene, what would they do?)

Well, I don’t know for sure Leon, it’s a good question, it’s a complex answer, but what we'll do is to actually study what the Canadian half the Government are doing because if they are looking at breaking up monopolies over there then we can [unclear] something on here, but I’ve got to say that whilst Viterra spend a lot of advertising, a nice glossy brochure at the end of the committee inquiry they had themselves and did make in fairness some changes they are still very, very solid on protecting that monopoly and I don’t think that’s in South Australia’s interests ... what it does prove again, Leon, is that whether it’s Coles and Woolworths, Viterra when you get monopolies and duopolies it’s not in the best interests of the taxpayers and the economy of this state.

(Byner: ... we’ll watch this carefully ... we’ll possibly catch up with Geoff Brock in the next few days, but doesn’t this come back to the same old chestnut – too much power in the hands of too few – but I’ve got to say, and I said this again yesterday, and Viterra were on the show and I commend them for coming on and stating their case, but if you are part of a co-op and somebody buys you out and you know that the party buying you out has a corporate structure where you’ve got to do things in the best interest of shareholders, why would you on earth be surprised that now that you’re dealing with not a co-op but a corporate entity things will be easier?)

Marine Parks hearings on West Coast - Media commentary - 16-17 November 2011

2011-11-17T14:13:00.001+10:30

Family First SA leader the Hon Dennis Hood MLC moved for an inquiry by select committee of the Legislative Council into the State Labor Government's plan to establish Marine Parks in South Australia's coastal waters. As mover, he is chair of the Committee and spoke with local media on the West Coast about the evidence transpiring on 16 November in Port Lincoln and 17 November at Streaky Bay.

Local newspaper coverage:

West Coast Sentinel "Marine Park Inquiry moves to Streaky Bay"
Eyre Peninsula Tribune "Marine Park Inquiry moves to Port Lincoln"
Port Lincoln Times "Fishers to have say on Parks"

Radio interviews:

Dennis Hood, Family First & Chairman, Marine Parks Committee (639ABC 6.40-6.44) Select Committee on Marine Parks

(Neindorf: …there’s been a passionate response from Port Lincoln locals when the Select Committee on Marine Parks came to town yesterday. Evidence was heard from a number of representatives from industries such as prawns, sardines, fishing charters and also tourism. Family First Upper House MP Dennis Hood, and Chairman of the Marine Parks Committee, says this is one of the regions that has the most at stake. Mr Hood says the reason he moved the motion for the committee in State Parliament was due to the overwhelming negative response he was hearing in his office about the marine park process.)

Really what we’ve heard is the same thing everywhere we’ve gone and that is that people by and large aren’t against marine parks as such, in fact, people are fairly positive about them really but they’re concerned about the size of them compared to other states and they’re also concerned about the consultation process from the Department which has been … I’ve heard some terrible stories, I must say, really woeful … you wouldn’t call it consultation.

So, as a Member of Parliament I heard about all this, I was concerned, and I decided to move a committee that could investigate it and put pressure on the Government to change their current position.

To give an example, the proposal in South Australia is to have about 44% of our state waters covered as marine parks and the … situation in Victoria and New South Wales is less than 10%, so this is a massive difference and the impact on people’s businesses, on recreational fishers, on property values is all very real and that’s what our committee is hearing.

(Neindorf: …has there been a lot of submissions at these meetings?)

… we actually have had an enormous number of submissions, I wouldn’t be able to give you a figure, but many hundreds of submissions. Here in Port Lincoln today we’ve heard from the sardine industry, from the prawn industry, we’ve had representatives from charter groups, we’ve had people also representing the recreational fishers as well, so we’ve really heard from the whole spectrum.

The story’s the same – we hear it everywhere we go, the marine parks are too big, the no take zones are too big, and also the consultation has just not been good enough. And I must say, on behalf of my party Family First, we absolutely agree with that – I’m pleased to see the Liberal party has adopted support of the committee, credit to them for that, and some of the cross benchers did in State Parliament as well … really, it pretty much seems that the Government’s out of step with what everyone else is thinking.

(Neindorf: …from what I’ve heard today, tourism is a big theme that kept coming up … are marine parks going to have a big effect on tourism?)

I think quite rightly people are very concerned, tourist operators are very concerned about the potential impact of the parks as they’re proposed at the moment. If you think about places like Port Lincoln for example, we’re heading off to Streaky Bay this afternoon, these sorts of centres survive on tourism, if it wasn’t for tourism and the impact on these places is just dramatic. As a proud South Australian that really concerns me. I think we’ve got beautiful coastal waters in this state, we really have, I think we under sell them if anything and you know the impact of reducing tourist spend in those centres will be massive, so that’s another negative implication of these marine parks and I just want to be clear – I’m not against marine parks … again that’s what we’re hearing through the committees, people aren’t against them, I’m not against them, but we’ve got to do it carefully, we’ve got to do it reasonably, we’ve got to do it with the absolute minimum impact on anything and everyone else.

~

Forestry Forward Sale proceeding - Radio Comments - Tuesday 15 November 2011

2011-11-16T13:34:00.001+10:30

Govt seeking expressions of interest for the first stage of the sale of SE forest rotations

The chairman of a state parliamentary inquiry into the forward forestry sale says the Government should have waited to hear the committee’s findings before progressing the sale. The Treasurer Jack Snelling has announced the Government is seeking expressions of interest for the first stage of the sale of up to three South East forest rotations.

Family First MLC and chair of the inquiry, Robert Brokenshire, says the Government knew the committee intended to table an interim report before the Christmas break. He says the Government doesn’t have a clear idea of the report’s findings and recommendations. Mr Brokenshire expects the select committee’s report will be tabled in parliament next week:

(891ABC 10am & 639ABC 10am) “If the Government was not as arrogant as it is, that it would have actually been politically smarter for the Government to wait for the select committee to report.”

(891ABC 12noon) “The best interests of the South East and South Australia may well not be being served by the Government putting this proposal forward and now actually implementing it.”

Adelaide Bus contract issues - Radio Comments - Tuesday 15 November 2011

2011-11-16T13:33:00.001+10:30

More questions about the companies who’ve taken over some of Adelaide’s bus routes

More questions are being asked about the companies who’ve taken over some of Adelaide’s bus routes. Torrens Transit and Transfield have come under fire from commuters in the past few weeks for late services, buses not turning up or drivers not knowing the route or how to operate the ticketing machines.

Family First MLC Dennis Hood says he’s been told Transfield drivers only have two weeks training and they’re having to work 13 days in a row while the times for buses allowed to run empty has been slashed. He’s also concerned about maintenance issues:

(5AA 10am/1pm) “And I’m reliably informed that the maintenance requirements were actually adhered to, the monthly scheduled maintenance requirements weren’t actually adhered to in all cases at the Morphettville depot in October, that is just last month.”

...

Dennis Hood, Family First MLC (5AA 9.09-9.25) Problems with the new bus contractors

(Byner: As the current bus fiasco continues, we continue to hear reports about buses not turning up at scheduled stops, going on the wrong roads, drivers asking other drivers via radio for directions … when are we going to start getting the service we’ve been promised by the Government of this state? Now one may well say that in any contract changeover, teething problems are to be expected but you would think that time would be over by now. Having said that, very little is actually changing for the better for those of us who catch public transport and obviously something is seriously wrong here. Dennis Hood from Family First has passed on some information recently which raises some very serious questions: formerly drivers at Torrens Transit were given four weeks of training prior to being allowed on our roads – I’ve been told that the drivers working for Transfield are only given two weeks’ training – no wonder we have buses going down the wrong roads, missing stops. We’ve had drivers who’ve not known how to operate the ticketing machines. Bus drivers, layover times between scheduled times have been reduced from the minimum four minutes as mandated by the enterprise agreement to a minimum of zero minutes – surely this would raise safety concerns? The time allotted for buses to run empty … between any two points has been reduced, for example from the city to Paradise was allocated 19 minutes, under the previous company 11 minutes for Transfield so they reckon they can go from 19 minutes to 11, now there’s a mathematical issue: time and distance. A big question which needs to be asked is: what cost to our safety has arisen as a result of the changes that have been introduced and also why didn’t the Department pick them up when the contract was being negotiated and ultimately agreed to? Let’s talk … to Dennis Hood … what else have you got?)

…I’ve been contacted by people from in the industry and they’ve given me a whole lot of information but I think what you’ve said in your introduction there are some of the key issues. In terms of additional information, I’ve also been informed that drivers are working now 13 days straight under the new arrangements with Transfield and under the previous organisation, Torrens Transit, they were only able to work for a maximum of … six consecutive days. I also understand … this is perhaps the most concerning issue of all … there are actually statutory requirements for maintenance on each of the buses that travel our streets and I’m reliably informed that the maintenance requirements weren’t actually adhered to – the monthly scheduled maintenance requirements … - in all cases at the Morphettville depot in October, that is just last month, so … these are very, very serious allegations … that have been handed to me … I think … it’s for the Government to explain how they accepted this contract in the first place knowing full well that, as you mentioned …, some of the allotted travel times changed to the point of being unachievable – how you get from the city to Paradise in 11 minutes is really beyond me.

(Byner: You could probably do it in a hotted-up car.)

Or in a jet aeroplane perhaps …

(Byner: Let’s let the State Manager of Transfield answer this.)

... [exchange between Dennis Hood and Transfield State Manager Adam Machon can not be republished at this time]

Back to Dennis Hood

(Byner: Dennis Hood, what’s your closing comment?) …I think we’ve got to give Adam his due for coming to the conversation this morning, that’s a big tick … the thing really here that I think hasn’t been answered yet is how the Government agree to contracts in the first place that have travel times from the city to Paradise of 11 minutes, we have a Government that’s supposed to scrutinise these contracts before they put them in place and really any blame lies with them in terms of inconvenience. (Byner: …thank you.)

~

Bus scheduling - Radio comments - Tuesday 15 November 2011

2011-11-14T15:49:00.001+10:30

Adelaide Commuters have been inconvenienced with major
problems with bus scheduling after the State Government
recently gave a contract to a new service provider for a lower
price than the previous contractor

Have you had problems with your bus arriving on time or going where it is meant to?

Ring 8223 0000 from 9am tomorrow (Tuesday 15 November 2011) to share your experiences when Family First SA leader Hon. Dennis Hood MLC appears on the Leon Byner morning program on FiveAA.

Education and Children's Services Bill - Parliamentary Speech - Tuesday 8 November 2011

2011-11-09T11:17:00.001+10:30

EDUCATION AND EARLY CHILDHOOD SERVICES (REGISTRATION AND STANDARDS) BILL

8 November 2011

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (16:30): I rise to indicate Family First's position on this bill. I do so in the knowledge that the Hon. Ms Lensink [lead speaker for the Liberal Opposition] has flagged a few amendments of which, of course, we have yet to see the final detail. She has given notice to us all that she intends to put forward those amendments, and I would say at the outset that Family First is certainly in principle in support of the amendments she is proposing. Obviously, that is subject to the detail of those amendments, but by and large the concept looks good to us.

The trend toward national legislation and the resultant status of state legislatures

I think the reason I raise that at the outset of my speech—normally of course you would address amendments in the middle or towards the end of your speech—is that, as the Hon. Ms Lensink rightly pointed out, we have had a very interesting development in terms of the process of this bill coming to us. The big issue, I think, is that we have only started to see some of the real detail of this bill in recent days and of course, as with all of this type of legislation—national legislation—the reality is that the detail, in terms of the specifics that compose the framework, will be the important part in determining how this bill works in practice. I think, as the Hon. Ms Lensink highlighted in her contribution, we have really only become aware of that in recent days, so it is very difficult to have a final position on this matter with that in mind.

South Australia is increasingly following other State
Governments in adopting nationally agreed laws as its own
laws, giving away powers to the Federal Government

The summary of all that is that we are largely supportive of this bill. It has received widespread agreement across the country and we do not see it any differently to that, but I do think the amendments that have been flagged by the Hon. Ms Lensink on behalf of the Liberal Party do look favourable to Family First, at least in principle.

Supporting the principle of excellent quality children's education

Obviously the bill aims to ensure the continued provision of excellent quality education services to children in this state by requiring registration of and regulations on all early childhood and education services in South Australia. There is nothing wrong with that. This bill replaces the myriad of regulatory schemes that currently operate and this legislative change would bring South Australia in line with the nationally consistent standards as agreed by COAG back in 2009, I understand.

Family First is supportive in principle of what the government wants to do. However, we do have some reservations and concerns about the effect of this bill on families and small businesses, in particular. Family First has two primary concerns with what has been proposed. The first concern is the effect that changing from the Non-Government Schools Registration Board of South Australia to the new regulatory authority will have on independent schools. Our current regulatory system is antiquated and it means that one service provider can be required to meet the regulations of more than one regulatory body. In some instances these regulatory bodies have competing interests and that, of course, can be the source of the problem.

In one sense, then, having one regulatory body reduces the chances of any company or private business having to manage the competing interests of two or more regulators. Having the one regulatory body would then likely provide a clear and obvious benchmark for the provision of education and childcare services within South Australia. Again, this precise standard would minimise red tape and compliance issues that business owners face when conducting their businesses. Family First is in support of this principle.

Curriculum concerns

That being said, a concern that has been raised about the potential for the board to minimise or eradicate certain curriculum that is taught in some independent schools is a very real one, because it may not align with the beliefs of the board. We saw an example of that in recent times, about 12 or 18 months ago. The purpose of the non-government schools board, as I understand it, is to ensure that non-government schools, whether faith-based or not—and, of course, they largely are—hold high educational standards, cover agreed areas of teaching in the curriculum and have adequate financial structures. Presumably the regulatory board under this bill will have the same purpose.

My particular concern remains that any code of conduct that is created subsequently to this bill may in fact be based upon philosophical or ideological positions rather than policy based regulations, which in turn could meant that independent schools could be precluded from teaching the curriculum which best suits their culture and beliefs.

I have been informed that the government has been working closely with the Association of Independent Schools on this issue and I thank the government for taking a proactive role in addressing this issue. I have had conversations with the now premier, the then education minister, the Hon. Jay Weatherill, about this specific issue. He gave me assurances that that would not be the case and, frankly, I am happy to accept that. Having said that, I did consult with the independent education sector, of course, and they, by and large, are comfortable—although, I must say, a little nervous—about what is being proposed.

Family First also recognises the measures that the government has taken to ensure that the appropriate educational bodies represented on the board meet the needs of specific subcategories within the education and childcare sectors and that they are adequately represented. On the face of it, this bill does not minimise or, indeed, eradicate the rights of independent schools to choose their curriculum. However, it would be remiss of me not to voice a concern on such a significant issue and to highlight that Family First will be watching how this actually works in practice and consulting with the independent sector very closely.

Schools like this one, that provide Occasional Care and
Vacation Care, will be affected by the regulatory changes

Cost of providing child care services

Having dealt with the first concern, our second concern relates to the increased cost both for those who run childcare centres and for families seeking the services of childcare centres. No doubt, all members of this chamber have been lobbied quite extensively by groups—parent groups, in particular, and, indeed, the organisations that run these centres themselves—who are concerned about the potential for substantial cost increases. This is a very real issue, and we have seen media discussion about it, as well as extensive lobbying of us as MPs on this issue.

The increase in child to carer ratio is a very challenging issue because it may very well produce a beneficial outcome of the improved education of our children (and this, of course, is something that we all would want). However, on the flip side of the argument, the increased cost of running the childcare centres cannot always be absorbed by the business alone which, ultimately, means that the increased costs will be funded by the end user, which is, of course, the parents of the children who attend the childcare centre as it may be. This increased cost is simply not sustainable in the current economic climate for many families.

Family First supports any increase in the health, welfare, safety and education of our children. However, certain questions need to be answered as to the impact of these changes on both the business owner and, indeed, the family; because the changes that are made may look like they are going to benefit the end user by changing the ratio but, in fact, they may work to their detriment because it may mean that families simply no longer use the service at all. So an improved ratio is a benefit potentially, but if it is done at such a cost that it means it precludes parents accessing the services for their children, then of course the benefit is lost. Our responsibility as legislators is to ensure that appropriate and sustainable changes are made which benefit the people who we all represent.

Many childcare providers have expressed their concern at the increased need for higher child to carer ratios. High quality outcomes have been produced for years within our current model. The member for Waite in the other place (who has many years' experience running childcare businesses and, for that reason, I think has a valid voice on this issue and one that I am certainly pleased to listen to) has also stated that our childcare system is already excellent and indicated that this change may be unnecessary. He is somebody who has direct experience in the industry and I think we should, at the very least, carefully consider those comments.

The hiring of extra staff to meet the increased child to carer ratio would always mean a greater cost for the end consumer. However, when you couple this increased ratio with a lack of qualified staff, it means that the private business owner will have to hire teachers on teachers' award rates. This is, of course, in addition to the requirement of a four-year university-trained early childhood teacher on staff. This is a further increased cost that many small businesses will struggle to meet.

The costs invariably will be passed on to those who are accessing the services which, in turn, places our focus as legislators upon the increased cost to the family. I am told that all members of the Legislative Council have received a petition signed by over 1,800 parents who access long-day childcare services. The parents are concerned (as, indeed, is Family First) that the increase in the costs of child care, which have been estimated to be an increase of up to 20 per cent per day per child, may, in fact, be too much for many families who are already struggling with the constantly increasing cost of living.

In a recent letter received by my office, an independent childcare provider quoted that their fees were $75 per day and a slightly discounted rate of $365 per five-day week. My understanding is that these figures are at the lower end of the scale of figures that we have been seeing with respect to child care in this state. Adding an additional 20 per cent with those fee costs then increased the cost to about $90 per day or, if the same discount applied, something like $438 per week. Should the family then have two children in child care the total childcare bill, under this model, would be around $876 for one week. The average South Australian family simply cannot afford this cost, obviously.

Despite the federal childcare benefit providing some relief to parents, there are still many hardworking South Australian parents who are means tested out of this benefit who simply cannot afford the increase to childcare cost that this bill would create. There has not been any indication that either the state or federal government will provide additional relief in this regard.

Family First has expressed concern during debate that
regulatory changes could make child care unaffordable
for some families

Numerous independent childcare businesses have contacted Family First, as I am sure they have other members in this place, voicing their concerns that many families will simply not be able to access child care at this increased cost, which will subsequently mean that a parent will have to quit their job, in some cases, in order to care for their children. That is a choice that a number of parents will not want to make for various reasons.

Alternatively, parents may opt to leave their children with their neighbours or in so-called backyard child care provided by, in most circumstances I would imagine, people without appropriate qualifications who, therefore, would not meet the stringent regulations placed on childcare centres. I should say that I am not against people who want to make those sorts of arrangements by any stretch, but the point I am trying to make here is that what is being proposed would substantially increase the cost for most parents and, therefore, make it difficult for a number of parents who probably already struggle to find the money to provide these services for their children on an ongoing basis. In short, we are making it more expensive for parents to access these services.

Mr President, I remind you that the purpose of this bill is to ensure the continued provision of excellent quality education services to children in this state and to provide a regulatory system for all childcare and educational facilities. Creating a system that would require parents to seek these so-called cheaper private or backyard operations as an alternative to paying higher costs that would be associated with child care as required by this bill I think defeats the purpose of the bill in the first place. It seems that, whilst the improvement of the children to staff ratio has been welcomed by many sectors, it may in fact place too great a burden on the people whom it was intended to benefit.

Conclusion

To reiterate, our position is that we are generally supportive of the concept or certainly the goals that this bill is trying to achieve; however, I think some very real questions need to be asked. I think all of us need to pay attention to the very substantial lobbying that we have received on this issue from the community. There is genuine concern out there by literally thousands of people. We have all received a petition of at least 1,800 signatures from people who are concerned about the cost of this. I think the goals are admirable but it may be that the cost could be a very limiting factor for many people.

Just to reiterate, I said at the outset that we are favourable to the amendments that have been flagged by the Hon. Ms Lensink. Obviously, we have yet to see the detail of them but, in principle, we are supportive of them. We also agree that because the convention of not having a full week for this bill to be on the table has not been followed on this occasion (and there may well be good reasons for that; I am not sure) I think the Hon. Ms Lensink was also right in that it would not be suitable to proceed to committee today.

~

Correctional Services (Misc.) Amd't Bill - Parliamentary Speech - Tuesday 8 November 2011

2011-11-09T10:34:00.000+10:30

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (15:42): I rise to speak to the second reading of this bill. I am reminded of the 2009 debate on a bill of very similar nature and I will return to some comments on that in a short while.

Welcome provisions in the Government's Bill

Family First welcomes the victim of crime clawback provisions so that prisoners who are themselves a victim of crime can have their compensation moneys used to reimburse the fund where the prisoner has, by their offending, created victims also. We commend the member for Davenport (the Hon. Iain Evans) for his work on this issue; and, further, the government for actually accepting a good idea. It is nice to see good ideas from members other than government being adopted.

The Government's Bill has elements Family First supports,
such as improved police-parole liaison to ensure protection
for potential victims of domestic violence from released
prisoners

We support the intent of ensuring that police are notified about parolees in the community and the conditions they are on so that, say, in domestic violence situations that might arise—and we are advised that there were quite a number in a period of time that gave police considerable concerns—police are then empowered to act upon those situations in the spirit of prevention being better than cure.

Family First's previous amendments on prisoner and parolee drug detection and internet use

In 2009, when we had a bill quite similar to this put through the Legislative Council, I put up some amendments regarding drug detection dogs in prisons and also amendments to increase penalties for those who bring contraband into gaols. The majority of Legislative Councillors supported those amendments. Then, when they went to the other house, there was a flurry of activity by the minister and others saying that these amendments were too draconian with respect to the focus on drug prevention. In fact, there was a request from the government to pull them rather than go into a deadlock conference.

It is interesting how, in time, circumstances showed that those amendments were not too draconian. In fact, we have seen quite a lot of reports about increased drug problems in our South Australian prison system. In work I have done to get further information on that, it is clear that there are still significant problems and, arguably, in some areas, from anecdotal evidence at least, an increase in illicit drug activity and availability in our prison system.

Whilst we support the amendments now, I believe that, had the government supported our amendments back then, we would have actually made greater in-roads into the illicit drug problems in our prisons. This is a reflection of the government now realising it made a mistake and putting in similar amendments. I support the strong commitment to penalties and support the principle of that directly. There is no inclusion of the internet restrictions we proposed in 2009 for prisoners on parole, be it a total or partial restriction of internet use. We can only hope that the Parole Board is giving consideration to these matters in the conditions it imposes.

We also had amendments previously requiring drug testing of parolees. I am advised this already takes place, but whether or not it is as comprehensive as one would hope to ensure that these parolees are absolutely drug free is another question. I trust that the debate and amendments put up again in 2009 have pushed the government to recognise that it needs to take a very strong stance on substance abuse once parolees are back in the community.

Powers of the Chief Executive

There are quite a few extensions of power of the chief executive. I put on the public record that this is not a personal reflection on this particular chief executive at all, but I believe that there should be some restrictions on extension of powers to chief executives. We have a select committee before the parliament at the moment, and one of the reasons for that select committee being moved and supported in the Legislative Council was to do with powers, control, management, human resources and the like, and whilst the government argues that its bill is fine (and I appreciate the briefing the chief executive officer and ministerial staff gave my legal and policy adviser on this bill) the bottom line is that the parliament needs to realise that we are actually extending powers to the chief executive.

Whilst the chief executive says that he may intend to delegate those powers, at the end of the day if we pass this legislation as it is, then he has stronger powers again. I know that a lot of people in the correctional services department would have concern over that. One only has to look at some of the evidence that has come before the select committee.

Right of Executive Council (ie State Cabinet) to over-rule Parole Board recommendation

I note that the Hon. Ann Bressington has some amendments concerning the power of Executive Council to overrule the Parole Board. I wish to spend a bit of time on that. Until the Rann government came to office I do not believe there had been a problem whatsoever when it came to Executive Council and the consideration of the Parole Board recommendations.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: It was never used.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: As the Hon. Stephen Wade said across the chamber, it was never used. I would say that it was rarely used, and having had that portfolio and having sat around the cabinet table, I know (without giving away any confidentiality) that there was always serious consideration and debate. In fact, at times governors had questions of the relevant minister. I was involved in that situation myself, and that was the role of the minister in cabinet to explain why the Parole Board had made this decision, and so on. It is fair enough for the Governor and any minister in executive cabinet to ask some questions, but on an unprecedented nine occasions now we have had this government come out and actually rule against the recommendations of the Parole Board.

Current statute law empowers the Cabinet to over-rule the
Parole Board recommendations for prisoner release -
a controversial power used 9 times by the Rann Government

The fact is that this was blatant, base political point scoring to be tough on law and order—rack 'em, pack 'em and stack 'em—and the other spin we have seen with the government. It was a dangerous practice. Today we have seen the new Premier come out and say that he wants to take a different direction, that he wants to see a more orderly parliament, a more procedure and policy-based parliament. I would hope that the new Premier would also want to see that in his cabinet and that he, particularly with his legal background, would realise the dangers of cabinet picking and choosing who gets parole sign-off after a recommendation from the Parole Board and who does not.

Whilst I will listen in the chamber here or in my office to the Hon. Ann Bressington's amendment, and I understand the intent of the amendment, I personally at this stage have some concern over a situation whereby Executive Council will never have the capacity to overrule the Parole Board, only because I think there could be the odd exception where they may have to.

I know why the Hon. Ann Bressington is moving this amendment, because this government has played a game with the Parole Board and with the prisoners, a dangerous game, an inappropriate game, a game that has never been played to my knowledge by any former government , Liberal or Labor, and a game that I ask the new Premier to rule out in his cabinet. If we can get those sorts of commitments from the Hon. Jay Weatherill, then I believe that for checks and balances we probably should stick with the structure that has been in place for decades, whereby there was the ability to overrule but it was rarely, if ever, used.

Position on Bill as a whole, and possibility of referral to current Select Committee on Corrections

Regarding the second reading position, I am not in a position just yet, until we listen to the rest of the debate, to commit to supporting every clause of this bill. In fact, my preference would have been for this bill to wait for final debate on the outcome of the select committee that the Hon. Terry Stephens is chairing because there may well be other recommendations from the select committee that could then be considered by the government and the parliament and they could be also fixed at that time; or perhaps, in the meantime, to report progress and send this bill to the select committee for consideration of the overall broader deliberations that we already have.

Rob Brokenshire thinks the Correctional Services
(Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill should be
referred to the current Parliamentary
Select Committee inquiry

I know that would be some more work for the committee, but we have evidence there, we also have opportunities for colleagues to come and present specific arguments to that committee, and it could strengthen the whole case around this particular bill and other issues that will come up. I would not be surprised, without wanting to pre-empt what recommendations may come out of that select committee, based on the evidence so far, if some of the recommendations would not be around some legislative change. I just put that to the parliament for consideration.

I do not think the bill is one of those bills that is urgent to the point where it has to be passed in the next few weeks of sitting. I understand from listening to the chair of the committee that he does intend to get to a point where a report can be tabled some time in the first half of next year. Based on that, and in the interests of getting this right from the point of view of better management structure in the whole correctional services department, maybe it would be good if we were to report progress and consider this bill in deliberations with other evidence that we have had put to the select committee.

In conclusion, I look forward to hearing other honourable members' positions in the debate, including our stance on, as I have just put forward, postponing debate in light of the select committee investigation.

~

Substance abuse and Mandatory detention - Radio Comments - Monday 7 November 2011

2011-11-07T20:40:00.002+10:30

Dennis Hood, Family First MLC (5AA 10.11-10.13) Proposal for mandatory detention of offenders with severe substance abuse issues

(Byner: In a tragic series of events between 2004 and 2009, six Aboriginal people died near Ceduna in a town camp. On Friday the deputy state coroner Anthony Schapel released his findings into the deaths calling for a sobering up centre to be established on the west coast and significantly for our guests today Mr Schapel believed that people with severe substance abuse issues should be mandatorily detained. Whaddya think about that? … Mr Schapel said ‘the policy of dry areas merely moves the problem somewhere else but stops short of calling for town camps to be shut down’. Now the talk of detaining somebody against their will for treatment of their substance abuse problems poses a real challenge for the social apologists who like to think that they control the drug agenda under the Rann and Weatherill governments, and is especially a challenge for those who can only show revulsion when they hear the words ‘mandatory detention’. But in his remarkable findings, the Deputy State Coroner said ‘the men had received good care from the Aboriginal health service but critically had not received meaningful treatment for their alcohol addiction’. Now, we are seeing throughout our society the social cost of leaving those who are out of control with their poor social choices and the harm they subsequently cause to themselves or others. So the question for my guests today and to you … is has the Deputy State Coroner fallen on deaf ears? Is he right? Is he wrong? Are we going to make the tough decision to help those who can’t help themselves? And to what extent ought we go?

...

(Byner: Dennis Hood … I don’t think you’ll get up in the Parliament any kind of mandatory detention for any person no matter how bad their substance abuse, unless of course they’re in a situation where they’re just out of control, have to be put in a straitjacket and then maybe a psychiatrist at a hospital will give an order of detention.)

… it’s the sort of thing that will be very difficult to get through the parliament but I think we need, it’s incumbent on our elected members to have a really close look at these things and you need to have some context here as well. Remember this is a recommendation from the Deputy State Coroner. This is not some right-wing extremist group and furthermore if you actually read what he said, and I’ve done that of course and what he said was, ‘the people that are at a very high level of drug dependence, to the point where their own safety … and the safety of others is at-risk’. Now it’s … pretty hard to disagree with that sort of logic I’d have to say. I mean we are in a society where drug use is more and more common and unfortunately we do have a percentage of people … genuinely dependent on substances to their own detriment and in many cases unfortunately to the detriment of others.

Now we’re not talking about locking up a lot of people. We’re talking about very, very … high-level circumstances if you like, perhaps extending the mandatory detention under the Mental Health Act to encompass people who are obviously not of sound mind at that particular time. So … I think it’s a topic for discussion. It’s a big step for the parliament, for our society but I don’t see why we shouldn’t be looking at this properly.