APPROPRIATION BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (15:57): The first time I spoke about the budget in this place in 2002, I described it as the height of prestidigitation (sleight of hand), and I made a few other comments which I had to go and do penance for at the Bureau of Meteorology, so I will not repeat those. Once again, this budget really is an economist's dream. You have one document that can be read in about 10 different ways and you can come up with 20 different answers. I am no economist, but the people assisting me who have gone through this document know far more about the way budgets are framed than I, and they are telling me that they are absolutely amazed at the lack of detail in this budget, the scant detail.

The parliamentary library put out a research paper the other day on the state poll and a few other things, and I facetiously asked them whether they had any documents on interpreting state budgets. They came back to me and said no, but, within 10 minutes, they had emailed me copies of a reader's guide to the state budget from Western Australia for the 2010-11 budget and a reader's guide to the budget from the Queensland parliament for the 2010-11 budget. Perhaps if the government is to be true to its statement in the 2002-03 budget papers about budget honesty and openness, then perhaps it might want to put out a budget paper that contains a lot more detail or at least put out a reader's guide to it so you can interpret the prestidigitation.

This budget is so disappointing. What could have been? We hear about the rivers of gold, all the money that has come in over the years—and it is true, it is all sadly true. But what have we got? We have a budget that could have been so much but is delivering so little. Estimates have been described by various people in this place as everything from a waste of time to a near-death experience. I am really looking forward to the estimates process this year because I will, hopefully, get some answers when looking at some of the detail in this budget. I am extremely disappointed, though, that the health estimates—which is one-third of the total state budget; $4.45 billion is the health budget this year—is a matter of hours. I will get three or four hours.

By the time the minister has made the opening statement and there are Dorothy Dixers, where is the opportunity for the opposition to really ask the minister questions and provide answers? He is there with all his advisers, but what do we get? A third of the budget jammed down to a matter of a couple of hours. Once again, they are hiding behind the process, whether it is the budget documents or the estimates process. The government should not be doing that. Go back and read the 2002-03 budget documents where they talk about budget honesty and openness. That is what they really need to go back to.

We were all getting ready for this budget, and we were hearing about the 'horror' budget, and what happened? The USB was leaked, and of course, that had some absolutely atrocious suggestions. I am concerned about the section on health, and I have pages 193 to 205 of the leaked USB document that was sent around all of a sudden, and I copied it. There are a number of items in here that talk about possible changes, removals and abolitions in the health budget.

They all have a CE priority next to them. For example, review of the South Australian Ambulance Service management structure is measure IDE5715 and has a CE priority of 18 next to it; the corporate services reform has a CE priority of 1; Adelaide health services, single metropolitan health service, has a CE priority of 2; and the closure of the Repatriation and General Hospital has a CE priority of 7. It varies through the various suggestions, and many of the items in here ended up appearing in the budget, and I will go through them in a moment.

The one that really sent alarms bells ringing and shock waves through the community, through many in the veteran community particularly—the vulnerable veterans—was the closure of the Repatriation General Hospital. That was measure IDE5721, and it has a CE (and I assume that is Chief Executive) priority of 7, so I assume that Dr Sherbon, the chief executive of health, had actually signed off on this as a potential target with a priority of 7. If Dr Sherbon signed off on this, you would have to assume that the minister was aware of it as well so that minister Hill had given this a level of priority.

What did we get? The USB leak, and then it really hit the fan with the announced inclusion of the closure of the Repatriation and General Hospital in the Sustainable Budget Commission's considerations. That was not dismissed straightaway. When minister Hill was asked why he did not dismiss it straightaway he said, 'Well, if we tell you what's not in the budget, then we might have to tell you what's in the budget.' That was a ridiculous thing to say—absolutely ridiculous.

We do not expect people to tell us what is in the budget. We always get some of the good announcements, obviously, but everyone in this place knows you are not going to find out what is in the budget until it is released—unless it is really good news or unless there is a leak, like the leak about the Royal Adelaide Hospital rail yards, which was a great leak.

It could have come out straightaway. The Premier and the minister could have done it on the Wednesday it came out instead of having to wait until the Saturday afternoon—after the budget—to go down to the Repat to say that it was not closing. They could have done it that same day. The angst that was caused to the veteran community in this state was unforgiveable. It should never have happened.

I would like to know why the Repat was in there in the first place at CE priority 7. Why was it in there in the first place? You did not have all the other hospitals in there—and they should not have been either, they should never have been in there—but the closure of the Repat was at a CE priority 7. Then, not to come out and denounce it, to scotch it straight away, I think was a pretty low thing to do.

As I said, I think the total budget is $4.45 billion. It includes capital works and recurrent funding—I do know the difference between those—in this budget. While this is a significant amount of money and there have been significant increases in the total health budget over the years, so there should be. There should have been a significant increase, and if there was not, the first thing I would be saying is, 'You are underspending, underspending, underspending on health in South Australia.'

As we know, the national government are using a health inflator of about 9 to 9.3 per cent. We hear everything between 8 per cent and—we heard the Treasurer say on radio FIVEaa on 29 January that health inflation was 12 per cent. So, if you are generous and trying to be fair, you can average those out at about the federal government's level of 9.3 per cent. If you were using that inflator back in 2002 and then compounding it up to now, I would be very surprised if you did not come at somewhere near the $4.5 billion total budget.

The thing that the government has though, in this year's budget, is another $360 million in savings over the next few years. After years of unfunded cost pressures, it is not clear to me, and I hope to find out in estimates, how the government expects their savings to be met. We have had the Paxton Report, the KPMG reports, reports of staff being moved into different departments and amalgamations of the regions—the Central Northern Adelaide Health and Southern Adelaide Health services have amalgamated into the Adelaide Health Service. I want to see where their savings are going to come from—$316 million in savings over the next few years. It is going to be very interesting to see the answers I am given.

There is only $12 million in this budget for the new Royal Adelaide Hospital at the rail yards. If you actually look at the projected spend last year and what was actually spent across health, there is a lot of slippage. There is certainly a lot of slippage in the new Royal Adelaide Hospital there, but there is $12 million in this new budget.

We wait with bated breath to see what the results are of the consortia tendering process, and to actually see who wins the tender and what the price is. It will be very, very interesting to see. My information is that it is up around the $3 billion mark. The actual hospital design of one of the consortia was described to me by somebody who would have inside information on this as 'out of this world'. What that meant, I can only imagine, but the cost of $1.7 billion is not the cost of this hospital.

We know for a fact that in 2004 in Western Australia, the Western Australian government started with the Fiona Stanley Hospital at $460 million. We know that in 2004, $460 million was a lot of money, but even inflating at the health inflator, or the cost of building inflator that they have, that still does not equate to the $1.7 billion that the Auditor-General came down with just a few months ago.

We also know that the nonclinical support contract for 20 years for the Fiona Stanley Hospital in Western Australia is $2.5 billion. Ours is for 30 years, it is a bigger hospital, so you are probably looking at anything between $5 billion and $5.5 billion for the nonclinical support contract for this hospital. It is a significant cost for this new hospital, and as the Leader for the Opposition, Isobel Redmond, said this morning, it is a cost that we would not have incurred because we would not be down there spending it. We would be putting that money into rebuilding the already fine world-class hospital down at Frome Road at the Frome Road precinct.

The capital works funding for hospital upgrades that are in the budget for Modbury, Queen Elizabeth, Flinders and Lyell McEwin are all good. The problem is that most of those are re-announcements. It is like an announcement yesterday for the breast cancer screening mobile units—fantastic, good to see, but, minister, it should have been done two years ago. You have not just been here for the last five minutes, minister, you have been here for years and years now. To come out and re-announce these things is not fair.

You raise expectations all the time, but you fail to deliver. You fail to deliver all the time. This is the hallmark of this government. They raise expectations about being fair and honest, and what happens? You cannot even believe the paper that has the Premier's signature on it. You cannot believe anything they say. You cannot believe anything they put down in writing. It is an absolute tragedy that we have to put up with them for another three years.

Most of the $86 million that is in the budget for extra elective surgery, which is something like 260,000 extra procedures over four years, if I understand it right—and I am sure the minister will correct me—is federal money. I would like to know, minister, where that capacity is in the system for those extra procedures. I wish there was. I wish there were the doctors, nurses, surgeons, anaesthetists and the theatres to do those extra procedures, because I do not believe they are there. The need to shorten elective surgery waiting lists is paramount, and you do not do that by just recategorising people or juggling them around on various waiting lists, reclassifying them and raising their expectations but not delivering.

The millions of dollars that have been spent on trying to reduce waiting times in emergency departments has been phenomenal—millions and millions over the years. We see in this budget the government plans to spend another $111 million over four years to try to reach 95 per cent of ED presentations: seeing, being treated, being admitted or discharged within four hours. I am happy to put a bottle of Grange on the fact that it will not occur.

You just need to look at what has happened overseas. The Poms have just pulled that because they know it was not working without the use of the fiddle factor. We are already seeing the opportunity for the fiddle factor to play a part in South Australia with the acute medical units (AMUs) being set up. What happened in England was that they went from the ED where patients came in and went on the ED computer and, at three hours and 59 minutes, they got flicked across to the AMU computer. So the target was met but the reality was that the patient had not been seen, had not been treated, had not been discharged. The fiddle factor was there. I want to know what safeguards are going to be in there to make sure that the patients are going to be seen.

If you look at the facilities and the staffing in EDs nowadays, there is room for improvement but it is not too bad. What the real issue is here is bed block. You cannot get patients out of the EDs. You might be able to put them in an AMU with some extra beds but then getting them into hospital is the big issue. Bed block is the real issue. What is one of the ways of getting rid of bed block? You either have great discharge plans where people go home and they go on to hospital support services at home or something like RDNS, or they get stepped down to Glenelg Community Hospital or Moonta Community Hospital where really good negotiations have gone on and, instead of paying the $1,200 a day for an acute bed (and that is what it would cost in Flinders or other major hospitals), you are stepping down to $100 or $200 a day—a massive saving. You are not subsidising these hospitals.

Glenelg Community Hospital is not going to shut because John Hill wants to pull that contract where the Recovery at the Bay, as it was called, is no longer there. The day surgery that goes on at Glenelg Community Hospital is fantastic. The staff down there, the whole of that facility, will continue on.

So why pick on Glenelg? I am glad the member for Mawson is here because let's have a look at McLaren Vale Community Hospital. It is a great hospital, but one of the ironies of this whole process of picking on Moonta, Ardrossan, Keith and Glenelg is that at McLaren Vale people are having an above-average service. The member for Mawson, congratulations! I do not know how you have managed to swing this, mate, but a lot of people say it is a political thing. What is happening there is that they are getting a $1.3 million subsidy every year at that hospital for step downs of mums and babies going from Flinders Medical Centre down to a community hospital at McLaren Vale. I do not know where that happens anywhere else.

You also have local doctors opting to have surgery done at McLaren Vale Community Hospital—a good hospital—when, in the minister's own words, it could be done within 20 minutes or so of a public hospital. They should be done at a public hospital because McLaren Vale is about 15 minutes from the Noarlunga health service and about 25 minutes from Flinders; perhaps it should be done there. I want the minister to explain why it is great for the member for Mawson and the people of McLaren Vale but it is not good for the member for Morphett and the people of Glenelg. It seems a silly thing, particularly when the Glenelg Community Hospital is saving this government money, reducing bed block, reducing the waiting times in EDs and helping the government achieve their targets. It is just one of those things that I just do not understand.

On top of all of this silliness about the four hours and then not doing something about reducing bed block, you have an outpatients saving of $77 million over four years. It does not sound much but when you work out what that is in reduced outpatient appointments—and I will talk a bit more about this in a moment—it is 560,000 outpatient appointments. The minister thinks he is going to shift those from the waiting lists, where the referrals have gone to the public hospitals and are waiting to be referred to the public outpatients units, to specialists in their own rooms. I do not know where the specialists are who do not charge a gap, who bulk bill. I do not know where they are, but I hope the minister does. I do not think they are out there, and I know that the AMA totally agrees that this is just not going to work.

There is no room out there for shifting away from outpatient units, particularly when most of the outpatient appointments here are seen by resident medical officers—in other words, publicly employed specialists and trainee medical officers who are employed by the government in public hospitals. They cannot go to private rooms. They do have the right to see private patients in public hospitals and then charge it to Medicare, so that is saving the government money, the same way as the supposed arrangements that will be in place where patients go to see private specialists in private rooms and, once the patient has paid the gap (if they can afford the gap, which can be up to $120), that gets billed out to Medicare. So it cost-shifts from the state to the feds—so much for ending the blame game between the states and the feds.

I want to know how this will actually work, because I cannot see it working. I would like to know what is the unmet demand in South Australia for these waiting lists; Dr Katsaros was in the Sunday Mail a few months ago with a 'hidden waiting list' (as they were being called) that the minister denied was there. We now know that the minister admits they are there, because rather than these referrals sitting in a drawer waiting to go through the public system he wants to send them off to the private system. How many are there in the drawers? How many are on this hidden waiting list that we now know exists?

In question time the Premier said that there would be no privatisations. In the Sustainable Budget Review and the budget papers it talks about privatising hospital car parks; the government was going to privatise them. Most of them are running at commercial rates anyway. Modbury and the Repat are free at the moment, and it will be the volunteers, the veterans and the visitors who will be paying at the Repat; $13 a day. The staff there will be paying more. Will the government allow the staff to continue to salary sacrifice their car parking? Will it buy back spaces from the private operators after it has privatised the car parks?

I look forward to another 20 minutes in my Supply Bill contribution and my 10-minute grieve, because there is a lot more to say on health.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Which you can have then. Thank you, member for Morphett.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I have a point of order, and I seek your guidance Madam Deputy Speaker. Just prior to question time the Treasurer tabled some corrections to the state budget to the tune of about $330 million, but no explanation was given to the house on the matter. When the budget is tabled there is a budget speech that goes with it by way of basic explanation, but we have a document that has been tabled that illustrates a $333 million error to the budget—basically, a $179 million difference in grants and subsidies and $154 million difference in other expenses—with no explanation given to the house. I wonder whether you would approach the Treasurer and seek that he comes back to give an explanation to the house regarding the reasons for the error.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the Treasurer feels that there is a need to answer further questions he will do so; it is not up to me to direct the Treasurer. However, you do have the opportunity, in question time, to ask him for those details, perhaps tomorrow.

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You cannot ask him any questions at all—

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Two points: obviously you can ask the Treasurer about this matter during the estimates process, as that is what it is there for. I have no doubt that the Treasurer will be glued to his microphone device in his office as we speak and he will hear you asking this question of me. I cannot direct him to answer the question you are asking me now. However, should he choose to do so, should he choose to make a ministerial statement on the fact, should he feel that there is a need to do so, I am sure that he will do so.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (16:21): Before I start, I would just like to congratulate my wonderful wife on her 42 years of marriage today. I am sorry—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: She should be given a medal!

Mr VENNING: I agree—I couldn't agree more.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps an expensive diamond medal.

Mr VENNING: She's getting flowers instead, Madam. I am just sorry that I am not with her today. Again, I thank her very much—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Remember, member for Schubert, that diamonds are a lady's best friend.

Mr VENNING: Okay, we already know that. Also, I want to congratulate my leader on her wonderful address this morning. It was quite inspiring, and it certainly gives a lot of confidence in the alternative premier in South Australia.

Here we are, the last week in September, and only now are we getting to debate the Appropriation Bill. What a disgrace! Tasmania went to the polls on the same day as we did and they managed to hand down their budget on 17 June—that is over three months ago. It was put amongst the football finals to hide the bad news. I feel it was a deliberate time lapse to enable the government more time between their promises and the time when they were out to break them, because I am sure they knew in the first instance, and they were hoping that people would forget.

It is clear that the Treasurer needed more time to try to figure out how to hide eight years of Labor's financial mismanagement. Not only did he need more time, but he could not even figure out how to get out of the mess he created, so the Rann Labor government had to spend more money to fund the Sustainable Budget Commission to provide recommendations, some of which the Treasurer labelled as radical.

We saw the SBC leak. The question is: who leaked it? Was it a deliberate act to put the people of our state into a state of shock so that, when the budget did come, it did not feel quite so bad with all the after-pain? It was bad enough. The question needs to be answered: who did leak this? Was it a member of the SBC, and are they under suspicion? What is happening?

The Treasurer and the Labor Party misled the South Australian people for the whole of the state campaign. They went to the state campaign saying that all they needed was $750 million in savings and they could do everything they wanted to do. Now we have $1 billion of increased taxes and officially South Australia really is now the highest taxed state in the country.

In this budget there has been a huge amount of increases, including rises in water rates, stamp duty, drivers licence fees, vehicle registration, bus tickets, fuel subsidies for country residents, and the abolition of the first homebuyer grants on existing homes. So, you can see from that lot that country people have certainly taken an unfair burden.

Public debt is $7.1 billion. That rings true to me because I was here during the State Bank debt. It is $7.1 billion, and South Australia will be paying nearly $2 million per day interest every day. Imagine all the projects that we could undertake with that sort of money! You do not need to be much of a mathematician to work out that three weeks' interest would build a new Barossa hospital—less than three weeks' interest. This is the price that we are now paying for financial mismanagement. For country people the budget contains no good news at all.

The problem of the shared services continues with jobs being lost in country South Australia as a result of this rationalisation that we were told about. How embarrassing is it when you see $2.5 billion being spent on rent on unused city offices? We are supposed to save $113 million; well, so far, it has cost us $113 million to go through this exercise, and what is the result? The loss of country jobs and all this money lost.

I am absolutely appalled about the cuts to primary industries—they have been absolutely stripped out. Agriculture, as we know, is worth $12.5 billion to the South Australian economy. There is scant regard for that in the Rann Labor government's budget. In 2009-10 the budget slashed $1.7 million from Primary Industries and Research South Australia (PIRSA), cutting 101 jobs over the next three years.

This year's budget slashed a further $80 million from PIRSA and 180 jobs will go. Well, that will hurt really badly. The Jamestown office, I am sure, is under great threat of closure. The same thing applies at Nuriootpa and right across the state—all these regional offices will battle to exist. Funding has also been reduced from the South Australian Research and Development Institute, (SARDI) to save $8 million over four years.

Rural Solutions has moved to full cost recovery, which the Rann government says will save $12 million over four years. The government should be increasing the funding to ensure South Australia's food security. We are alive with diseases. We have got fungus, we have got rust and we have got locusts. More than ever we need unbiased, non-commercial advice because we have a lot of problems. What have you got if you do not have enough food to feed your people? We should never have to rely on other countries for our food, and that is what is happening more and more every day.

We have had excellent people in an advisory capacity in the department of agriculture. This is the lowest ebb I can ever remember, and I can go back a long way. In fact, probably in the history of the department it has never been lower than this. For the first time in over 30 years the state government has cut funding to the Advisory Board of Agriculture. I cannot believe this.

I served on this board for eight years. This group of people get only minimal travel and a sitting fee. That is all they get. The rest of their time is volunteered. The job of these people is, first, to give advice to the minister for agriculture. Can I say that, serving under former ministers Blevins and Arnold, we were a great asset to these Labor ministers because what they did not know they found out from us. A lot of trust went between us, and I still have a lot of time for both those former ministers; and, indeed, Kym Mayes, I worked with him as well. It was with minister Arnold that I first met citizen Foley as an adviser. That is when we first met—a long time ago.

Mr Goldsworthy: What was he like back then?

Mr VENNING: He had a wonderful partner, that's all I can say, I will leave it at that. Over the years that department and the advisors on agriculture have been absolutely fantastic. It is the governing body of the South Australian agriculture bureaux, and these bureaux are the envy of all the states. They are magnificent institutions. This really is a double hit.

They strip the research dollars and they wipe out the extension, killing the ability for research to be extended to the farmers via these wonderful agricultural bureaux. I cannot believe the few dollars that saves. I cannot believe it, and I cannot believe that not more has been said. Where is the South Australian Farmers Federation? Not a peep out of it. I cannot believe it. The silence is so stark on matters such as this.

It is absolutely disgraceful at a time when the state's 2009-10 revenue has increased by $1.1 billion over budget. Ensuring our food security will be a major challenge for the future, and the Rann Labor government has demonstrated that it does not consider it to be a priority. Will it be happy only when we have to import all our food?

The wine industry has taken a hit, which will impact people within my electorate, the electorate of Schubert. The budget reduces the cap on the cellar door subsidy scheme currently available on the sales of wine at cellar doors. The cap will be reduced from 521,000 per producer to 50,000. This is on top of the payroll tax exporters' rebate, which will also hurt the wine industry.

The Rann Labor government has shown no consideration for an industry battling to stay viable in the years ahead because of the years of oversupply, low prices and drought, and particularly today with the high dollar crawling towards parity. That is making it extremely difficult, as the member for Mawson would know. He would be suffering the same as I am. What is happening is crazy. I want to read now from the South Australian Wine Industry Association newsletter dated today, 28 September 2010, a message from the Chief Executive, Mr Brian Smedley, and I quote:

Last week's state budget provided some bad news for South Australian wine producers that are eligible to claim the cellar door subsidy scheme, with a reduction in the cap from 1 July 2011. This will directly impact the level of business viability and profitability of many wine businesses. This is a baffling decision by government when one considers the wine industry is a significant contributor to exports, an important regional employer and an iconic industry for South Australia. Cellar doors also provide an essential element in the tourism mix of regional visitation. The loss of income will impact business cash flow, and divert money from the ongoing and essential development of wine businesses.

This will have an impact on the wine industry which is already dealing with an oversupply of grapes and production, a rising Australian dollar, increased business costs from a range of other services such as water and trying to just survive with difficult trading conditions. The South Australian wine industry is a world leader, and we need government that backs us rather than undermines our success.

I change to the topic of car parking at hospitals. This will be increased to commercial rates. How callous can that be? Whether you need to go to hospital for treatment for yourself or you are visiting sick relatives or friends, the Rann Labor government has now decided that you will become a source of revenue for them.

Country people residing more than 100 kilometres from Adelaide will have to pay more for their fuel. The loss of the country fuel subsidy will add approximately 3.3¢ litre to the price of fuel for motorists in rural and regional areas. The flow-on effect will impact consumers, businesses and tourism.

Even though the Rann Labor government did not announce any schools or hospital closures, as recommended in the razor gang's leaked report, the abolition of the small schools grant will hurt many schools across the state and lead to school closures in the future. This is a deliberate strategy, and about half a dozen of my schools are a direct target of these grants, particularly in the Barossa Ranges, and I name two—Moculta and Kyneton—as being deliberately targeted.

There is nothing in the budget for a new Barossa hospital. I asked the Minister for Health during question time, just prior to the budget being delivered, when he would release the business case for the Barossa hospital. His response was pathetic. I do not want to use that word, but it was pathetic. He merely said that he did not have it. His department has had it for over a year—for 13 months now, from July 2009—and he said he did not have it. Well, if he does not have it, he should certainly know where it is because it is within his department. So I think that is an embarrassment and a deliberate delaying tactic.

In the current economic situation, one must question the government's decisions regarding the unpopular rail yards hospital plan and the Adelaide Oval upgrade. The government has had its priorities wrong since being elected to government in 2002. It has had seven of the best economic years with high revenue, and what does it have to show for it? Some of the decisions in this budget are so bad and so illthought out that it is obviously a desperate attempt by the government to cover serious inadequacies in its management.

The Treasurer has made a comment that this budget would not be a great one for South Australia due to the $750 million savings that needed to be found to bring the budget back to surplus following eight years of financial mismanagement, but no cuts were made to the number of ministers, totalling 15. If we had won the election, we would have cut them back to 12. We would have cut the number by three. That was also a recommendation of the Sustainable Budget Commission, so why was it not done? The money saved would have been a huge saving. It would have sent a message to the people who are really being hurt that we are dinkum and prepared to share the pain. But that was not done.

If that is not wastage enough, the alleged 15 per cent cut to ministerial officers was nothing more than a fraud, as top-up staff from the department will be used and the 15 per cent will not be applied to these staff members. So, in other words, it goes on. Heavens above—this is where the cuts should have started! The government is overloaded, fat with extra staff, particularly in the media units of the government, and it should have been stripped out. The amount of money, I believe it all added up to $23 million per year, all the extras in here. That is where they really should have started.

It is a bit rude to be seeing all government departments stripped like they have been and for this one to remain basically unscathed. That is wrong. Yet two days after the budget was handed down, following comments that the Public Service Association was appalled by the announcement that 3,750 public servants would be cut, the Treasurer said on radio, 'I think government should wear as much pain as possible.' I ask the Treasurer: how are they doing this? I bet their media unit is as big as ever in an attempt to spin themselves out of this horror budget.

How do you spin out of a promise of no forced redundancies before the election and now we see 3,000 jobs to go? This is the Treasurer who said, 'I have the moral fibre to go back on my promises.' How can you support that? How can it be that we also had an increase of 18,105 public servants over the last eight years, when, in fact, only 2,500 were budgeted for? How can that be? All those rational thinking people, give me the answer to this one: how can it be that we had an increase of 18,105 public servants over eight years, when only 2,500 were budgeted for? Where did the 15,551 come from? Did they just appear there?

I note the Treasurer has walked in; he might like to answer this question: 85 per cent of those employed over the last eight years were not budgeted for. No wonder we are going broke. What do we have to show for it? The government and the Treasurer, I believe, have been lazy. In 2002, I was on the Public Works Committee and a lot of the major projects were stopped back then. The Barossa hospital was one of them; just got stopped, didn't happen.

The Hon. K.O. Foley: You left the state broke.

Mr VENNING: We did not. The Treasurer said the state was broke when they took over; beg your pardon. Anyway, I was on the Public Works Committee at the time and there were very few projects. Now you are trying to catch up and you are paying a lot more money to try to catch up, which I think is a shame, indeed. On the day of the election the Premier said:

I recognise we suffered big swings, but I promise to listen and reconnect in a positive way. I want us to commit, win or lose, to go out into the community to reconnect and reinvigorate what we're doing.

This budget shows the government is as arrogant as ever and doing the opposite. Spending blowouts, not falls in revenue, are the main reason the Rann Labor government has had to cut jobs and increase taxes—repeated blowouts to the Adelaide Oval upgrade, blowouts to the desal plant and one can only shudder with the thought of how much the rail yards hospital will blow out if the Rann Labor government decides to go ahead with the illogical proposal.

This morning I heard the genuine proposal put by my leader that—and I am sure every person on this side would back her in—if the government was to change its mind on the hospital proposal, we would thank you for it and we would forget the politics, because the state cannot afford to go on with that.

The Hon. K.O. Foley: You are in opposition; we are in government.

Mr VENNING: I understand that. We are doing all we can. What can we do in opposition? We are currently in opposition; you are the government.

The Hon. K.O. Foley: It's a dumb idea.

Mr VENNING: Treasurer, I do not believe we can afford it. I would run the state like I run my business. If I want to buy a big new tractor this year and I cannot afford it, I do not buy it. I wait for a few years until I can afford it and then I buy it. With the condition that this state is in—

The Hon. K.O. Foley interjecting:

Mr VENNING: You can't afford it. You need to pull your head in.

The Hon. K.O. Foley interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The interjections are, of course—

Mr VENNING: Out of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me, do not presume what I am going to say, thank you. The interjections are most unnecessary and perhaps, as you say, in fact, member for Schubert, out of order. So, let us just carry on with what you were saying because your time is brief.

Mr VENNING: I heard the olive branch go out this morning. It is high time we in this house—all of us—decided what is best for this state.

The Hon. K.O. Foley interjecting:

Mr VENNING: It was a commitment given by my leader and I presume—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! First of all, the Treasurer should not be interjecting, but, secondly, you, as a gracious person of some years standing in this place, should not even react to him.

Mr VENNING: I will not. Anyway, you are out of order, too, but anyway, it's okay. I support my leader's comments because we cannot afford either of them. The Rann government has proved yet again with this budget that Labor governments are not good financial managers. I was here in this house when the State Bank disaster hit us.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr VENNING: I was here in this house. Like today Labor, which was in government, denied that there was a problem until it got to the point where it all just came out—and what a train wreck! The people voted them out with very emphatic and decisive action: they rejected the Labor Party and reduced it to 10 seats out of 47.

If people knew the extent of this state's past economic position they would have banished this government in March, even if only 48 per cent, on a two parties preferred basis, actually supported them as they did. They should have gone but, with the deception and broken promises, they fooled the people. The 'win at all costs' attitude was there at the 2010 election and, in two and a half years' time, things will probably be much worse. I wonder if the Treasurer will still be here. He says he will be. I will be here, too, and I hope he is so that we can rub his face in it.

I will be interested to see the next Auditor-General's Report and also the report by Standard and Poor's in relation to how we keep a credit rating with this record, or do they give instructions to Treasurer Foley to rein in the government's out-of-control spending? Is this your budget, Treasurer, or was it one drafted by Standard and Poor's?

The Hon. K.O. Foley: They put a statement out. Didn't you read it?

Mr VENNING: I did.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Pederick.