APPROPRIATION BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (15:42): I continue my remarks from prior to the luncheon break and question time. I was in the middle of quoting from an email that I was sent by one of the parents at Norwood Morialta High School, who said:

My son is one of the happiest students and is doing very well at Norwood Morialta High School, and I would not like to see the standard of education drop as a result of this.

Local media have already reported the following, through the East Torrens Messenger:

Governing Council chairman Jeff Eglinton told the East Torrens Messenger that parents were both 'devastated' and 'concerned' by the news.

The local community and the Norwood Morialta High School community are indeed outraged.

I was very pleased to meet this week Gia-Yen Luong, who is the President of the Student Representative Council, a very articulate and intelligent year 11 student, who I wish very well in her studies. She is also very passionate, along with her fellow SRC members and her friends, about stopping the government, or convincing the government to change their mind about these budget cuts.

She noted in an email to me this morning that her group has set up the 'Save Norwood Morialta High School' Facebook page. I indicate that all members who are interested can find it by going to Facebook and looking up 'Save NMHS', which by this morning had already generated about 300 members, which I am sure will assist the community in the petition that is currently circulating to encourage the government to change their mind on these budget cuts.

I wrote to the minister at the beginning of this week. For the record, I want to put into context the correspondence that I sent to minister Weatherill. My letter states:

I write on behalf of many of my constituents who are part of the Norwood Morialta High School community, as students, parents, teachers and administrators.

The school community has been devastated by the news that your government's budget will cut 'additional above entitlement support that has been allocated to a number of schools that have multi and dual campuses'...Specifically I understand that the savings measure will see Norwood Morialta High Schools staffing budget cut by 5.8 per cent—or $622,629 per year. I note that this amounts to well over a third of the statewide savings expected by this measure, which signifies extraordinary way that Norwood Morialta High School appears to have been singled out by the government.

Norwood Morialta has been a dual campus school since its forced amalgamation in 1993, and such extra funding as it has received reflects the greater costs and complexity of running two campuses. For example, each of the two campuses maintains a school library and therefore a staffing allocation for the same. If this were not the case then year 8 students at the middle school campus would need to conduct a 6½ kilometre round trip to and from the high school campus just to borrow a book for their class work. This extra support was guaranteed to the school community in 1993 at the time of amalgamation and still represents a long-term cost saving to the government compared to if the Norwood High School and the Morialta High School had continued as separate entities.

In practical terms I am informed that in 2006 your government agreed to a five-year guarantee that the school's over-entitlement adjustment would specifically include an additional deputy principal, an additional assistant principal (level 2), 1½ additional coordinators, one extra teacher salary, 78 extra SS0 hours and 18 extra GSC hours. I am extremely concerned that these cuts will compromise the quality of learning that is achievable, and I am further disturbed that these cuts appear to directly contravene the 2006 agreement that the agreed over-entitlement adjustment would continue until the end of 2011, with the expectation that the allocation would be considered again at the end of that period. I urge you to revisit this funding decision that will clearly hurt the school community at Norwood Morialta High School.

I note that the minister was on radio this morning talking about this issue. He told Matt and Dave on the ABC that he thinks that there are ways that dual campuses can work more effectively. He said that he will work through it with the school without sacrificing the quality of education and that he was not trying to disadvantage Norwood Morialta High School, and that, in fact, they have only just started discussions. I can tell the house that this comes as news to the school governing council, which has been told which positions will be removed.

Nevertheless, minister Weatherill also said that any scaring that was being done was being done by the Liberal Party, which says that there will be cuts to deputy principals, cuts to teachers, cuts to SS0s, etc. He does not accept that. He believes that they can make efficiencies. Well, I hope that I am proved wrong. I hope that the minister is as good as his word on this, but the information that the governing council has received is that those positions are gone: a deputy principal, an assistant principal, the coordinators, the full-time teacher (including library staff) and the SSO time and the GSC time.

Given that the Norwood Morialta High School has only one principal, it is essential that the school has a deputy principal on each site to deputise in the principal's absence. It is not practical for one person to deputise on two sites 3.2 kilometres apart. Travelling teachers are also at this school. This year 16 teachers travelled between the two campuses every day; and, with the new SACE being introduced next year, it is expected that there will be 22 teachers next year.

The costs and complexities of two campuses mean that they need this extra funding. I hope that the minister is as good as his word on radio this morning and that, despite all the information so far to the contrary, Norwood Morialta will not lose out, but I am not holding my breath, nor is the school community. They are out collecting signatures on their petition.

They are very disappointed. They are upset that the government has shown a complete breach of faith and that they were not told about these cuts before the election when they elected the member for Hartley, for example, the senior campus of which is in her constituency. I think that the government has again shown here the fact that it cannot be trusted when it comes to these sorts of issues at election time. This budget is a betrayal of this community, and I urge the minister to reverse this decision.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (15:48): I rise today to speak to this bill and to echo the sentiments of my colleagues on this side of the house, especially with respect to the extraordinary and bizarre circumstances surrounding the budget. As members would know, South Australia went to the polls on 20 March this year, as did Tasmania. However, the Tasmanian Labor government handed down its budget on 17 June this year; and, indeed, the recently-elected conservative government in Great Britain, led by David Cameron, handed down its budget within 50 days of being elected.

Unfortunately, here, in the great state of South Australia, we have a situation where the Treasurer, the Hon. Kevin Foley, is the lucky last state Treasurer to hand down a long-awaited and, unfortunately, disappointing budget—in fact, it took six months. As a new member of this place, I would really like to know why there has been this delay, because I can tell members that a lot of people do not understand why it has been so long in coming.

It really does say a lot about the way in which the government has managed the state's economy in terms of lagging behind the rest of the country in so many critical areas, not least of which is jobs growth and economic activity generally. The Premier likes to spruik this government's credentials on creating jobs, but he neglects to mention that small businesses and the regional economies of this state are the real creators of jobs for South Australians. Governments provide the framework but private enterprise is the real driver of the regional economy and, in turn, is responsible for generating much of the state's wealth.

To paraphrase what other members have already said in regard to this bill, this is a quintessential Labor budget. This is a Labor budget with a deficit of $389 million forecast in 2010-11. This is a Labor budget which will mean South Australia will carry a debt of $7.1 billion. This means that South Australians will soon be paying almost $2 million a day in interest payments on government debt.

Along with this, as the member for Fisher quite rightly pointed out in this house earlier today, with this budget the government has managed to disenfranchise almost all of its traditional support base. Put simply, this is a Labor budget that highlights its financial mismanagement over eight years. It highlights this state's ballooning debt and ultimately shows Labor's record for what it truly is—abysmal.

How did we end up in this mess? How did South Australia go from a strong financial position under the previous Liberal government to a position where Labor has made us a debt-laden state once more? I note the Premier likes to cast his memory back quite a while. If we cast our memory back, the 2010-11 budget and the accompanying debt certainly harks back to the dark days of the State Bank collapse when, in fact, the current Premier was then a minister.

The answer to how they have trashed the state's finances can be found in this budget—record unbudgeted revenues, massive GST windfalls, basically a doubling of the state's coffers since they came to office, yet they are so inept in managing a budget that they now have to make these cuts and increased revenue measures of $2.5 billion. This is as a result of squibbing on making the necessary budgetary decisions over the last eight years.

I give the example of the gratuitous waste of taxpayer-funded government advertising, which has been a hallmark of the Rann government media PR machine. I note that, at last, there has been a cut to this blatant waste of taxpayers' funds in this year's budget of $18 million over the four years. However, the fact that they were spending so much in the first place is disgraceful.

With all this in mind, we now know why the government has had to slash and burn the Public Service and revisit its no forced redundancy policy. This is despite the PSA producing a letter from the Premier that he sent prior to the election that states there would be no forced redundancies. This demonstrates the mentality of Labor—that it will do and say anything to cling to power, whatever it takes. This budget characterises a Labor government that cannot manage the state's finances, with escalating debt and deficit compounded by the enormous tax burden on South Australians.

As has been highlighted by my leader and other members on this side of the house, South Australia has become the highest taxed state in the nation under the Rann Labor government. Since coming to office in 2002, tax revenue has increased by a staggering 76 per cent. South Australian employees and South Australian businesses are, quite rightly, outraged by this shameless tax grab.

An unnecessarily high tax regime for business stifles the growth of businesses and jobs, puts pressure on employment and makes creating employment opportunities so much more difficult, but that is what we have come to expect from this Labor government—tax, tax and more tax, without any regard for the real funding priorities of this state's employees and businesses. Where is the vision and foresight to make South Australia a competitive place to do business on the national and even international stage? It has not been there. They have squandered the opportunity to leave this state in a better financial position than when they came to office. If only they were less concerned about their own jobs and ambitions and more concerned about the jobs of South Australians (to borrow a phrase from the Premier).

I now turn to how this government has neglected the regions once again. I will go into further detail in my Appropriation Bill grievance on a number of savage cuts which will affect regional areas, but I would like to take this opportunity to touch briefly on the cuts to education which will impact on the regions and my electorate of Flinders. Cuts of $12 million over four years to the small school grants is surely one of the most callous and mean-spirited saving measures that this government has ever made.

How can the government justify slashing funding to the schools that need it most? This will severely affect funding streams and I fear will place a vast number of schools in my electorate and elsewhere in danger of closing. At the very least, it will force governing councils to make some very difficult decisions in the years ahead. As a matter of interest, of the 23 public schools in the electorate of Flinders, 12 are classified as small schools, so more than half the schools in my electorate have fewer than 100 students enrolled. They will feel the pinch from this funding cut.

Further to the small school grants, there are also a number of probable school closures which are described as 'amalgamations'. This is classic spin—and one thing they do well is classic spin. Amalgamation is a flowery word for closure and school closures are bad for rural and regional students, rural and regional teachers and rural and regional communities, as well as city-based educational communities.

Mr Marshall: Like Norwood Morialta.

Mr TRELOAR: Like Norwood Morialta, as the member for Norwood has just suggested. Also cuts to the Public Service, specifically $80 million in cuts and the loss of 180 positions from PIRSA. It will have a severe impact on the extension of research out in the field. It is that extension and resulting adoption of best practice that has allowed primary producers in this state to remain efficient and competitive in a global market. So, with a loss of 180 positions from that department, I am very concerned that the extension will be severely hampered. Primary producers will feel the impact and, ultimately, the state's economy.

The withdrawal of the state funding into Regional Development Australia from 2013 will also impact on the regions. Why on earth this government would consider not supporting a model that provides return on investment and value to the state is beyond me. Increased fees and charges such as increases in expiation notice fines and the victims of crime levy, and increased charges to Housing Trust rents and water charges are all cynical moves from an increasingly desperate and financially incompetent government.

As I said, I will dedicate more time to specific issues in my electorate when the house notes grievances later today, but in my closing remarks I will reiterate that this has been a typical Labor budget which will hurt many different areas of our community and, sadly, it is what we have come to expect from a divided and arrogant Rann government that continues to demonstrate how out of touch and city centric they are.

Mr MARSHALL (Norwood) (15:58): On 16 September 2010, the Treasurer finally delivered his much anticipated ninth budget. This budget was a major production. He would have us believe that this was something that was under construction between the time they were elected on 20 March and the time he finally delivered it 180 days later. In fact, this was a budget which was more than 15 months in the making. It dealt a huge blow to virtually every South Australian. I say 'virtually' because the increasing number of public servants in the cabinet offices seem to have escaped the Treasurer's razor.

My speech today will address three key issues. Firstly, how did we get into this mess; secondly, why has it taken so long for the South Australian government to respond; and thirdly, who has informed their new priorities? Looking first at how we got into this mess, it is difficult to comprehend how we have arrived in this situation. It is difficult to understand why the people of South Australia are being asked to endure such pain at the moment.

The Rann government came to power in 2002 and the past eight years have been extremely good years if you look historically at Australia. The federal Liberal government managed to pay off all the government debt during that same period, and simultaneously push ahead with major reform agenda including tax reform, but not this government. They had a backdrop of economic abundance but there was no reform agenda in South Australia. All taxation reforms introduced were actually forced upon them by the federal government introduction of its tax reforms.

So, after eight years in office, why do we need a horror budget? The Treasurer suggested that it was the sharpest and deepest global recession since the Great Depression. So, our Treasurer, 'not the sharpest tool', has suggested that this was the sharpest and deepest global recession since the Great Depression, and yet his federal counterpart and factional ally, the federal Treasurer, said that Australia had avoided the effects of the global crisis. In fact Australia is currently growing; we are actually in an inflationary period. The Reserve Bank board actually keeps putting up the official interest rate because it wants to counter the excessive growth in the country at the moment, but the Treasurer ploughs on.

The Treasurer says that we have lost $1.4 billion from the forward estimates, but is this real? In June last year, he predicted a dire situation for revenue in the financial year just ended. In fact, he predicted that we were going to run a $304 million deficit. Well, we have finished the financial year, and what happened? Did we run a $304 million deficit? No; we actually had a surplus. We ran a $167 million surplus. So, what was this hyperbole that the Treasurer put forward all about? Far from being down on the original forecast, it was actually up.

In the first eight years of this government, South Australia has received in excess of $5 billion in unbudgeted revenue. This is revenue that has come into the state over and above what was ever anticipated, what was ever budgeted for or what was ever forecast: this is money over and above that. Most of this has of course come through unbudgeted GST revenue and property taxes. We know that the Treasurer and his government opposed the concept of the GST when it was first introduced but they have been the very happy recipients of this incredibly large amount of money which has flowed into our state's coffers over the last few years.

We have had $5 billion of unbudgeted revenue. Where is it? This cuts to the heart of the issue. The reason we need this horror budget is Labor's addiction to spending—not because we do not have enough money but just to fuel this incredible appetite, this incredible addiction, to spending money. In every single year since this government has come to power, it has massively overspent on its budget: not every third year, not every fifth year, but every single year it has massively overspent on its budget. It has spent up big on public servants, spent up big on consultants, spent up big on government advertising, on extra ministers, ministerial staff, cabinet staff, government boards and many, many overseas trips for the Treasurer and the Premier.

Far from being the prudent economic managers that it has been projecting itself to be in the media, this government has been able to hide its massive inability to manage its own expenditure, its own budget, behind these massive windfall gains. Thank goodness for those gains otherwise the government would have been shown up for the economic mismanagers that it has been long before this horror budget came to pass. This should never ever have been allowed to occur.

The second point I would like to address is: why has it taken so long for the South Australian government to respond? It was in June 2009 that the Treasurer announced the formation of the Sustainable Budget Commission. This was, of course, in response to the global financial crisis, which I referred to earlier.

This was set up to deliver some savings that were necessary because of the global financial crisis. In fact, in the forward estimates it had already clocked up, in June 2009, savings to South Australia (this is before it had even met, by the way) of $750 million. Interestingly, none of these cuts, none of these savings were actually budgeted for the first year.

You could be cynical and say, 'Well, that is because that was an election year,' but no, none of those were for the first year, but in the second year, there were going to be savings of $150 million; in the third year, savings of $250 million; and, in the final year of the forward estimates, $350 million, making up a total of $750 million over the forward estimates' four years. Of course, all of these budget savings were completely undisclosed.

Again, I reiterate that this was announced in June 2009. So when was this Sustainable Budget Commission going to give us what these cuts were all about? Was it going to deliver the result within three months? Was it going to deliver the result within six months, nine months or 12 months? No, conveniently, the scope which was set by the Treasurer and the government was for the Sustainable Budget Commission to actually report on these savings after the election—how transparent—in fact, not only after the state budget: the Treasurer decided to push it a little bit longer, to get it after the federal budget. Can you imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker?

Far from swift and decisive action, the recommendations were delayed until after the state election and after the federal election. The delays are undeniably part of a plan, I believe, to deliberately deceive the people of South Australia. Mr Foley, the Treasurer of South Australia, went to the people of South Australia at the 20 March election promising to make cuts and identifying cuts of $750 million in the forward estimates.

What did we actually find when he finally delivered the budget? We found cuts to the forward estimates of $1.5 billion and, in addition to that, another $1 billion worth of revenue raising activity. So, far from $750 million worth of pain, which we were led to believe before the election, we are now, each and every one of us, asked to endure $2.5 billion worth of tax increases and spending cuts over the forward estimates. This is gross deception. It is a highly orchestrated delay in giving the people of South Australia the requisite information before making their decision on who to support at the last state election.

The third issue I would like to raise as part of this budget reply is: who has informed the new priorities of this government? The government gets an opportunity every year to come to this parliament and to restate its priorities, and it does this during the budget process. Every government has the opportunity to say, 'Well, I am going to increase the taxes to these people, or I am going to reduce the taxes to these people. I am going to increase services to these people. I am going to reduce services to these people.' It is completely and utterly within the scope of what the government does, and it gets to do it every single year during the budget period.

This budget unequivocally makes clear what this government's priorities indeed are. I can tell you where its priorities do not lie: its priorities do not lie with public servants and their entitlements. In fact, this budget delivers a cruel blow to almost 4,000 public servants to be cut over the period of this budget.

Before the election they committed to no forced redundancies, and we had more than 1,000 people on the steps of parliament yesterday protesting on this precise point. Before the election they committed to no forced redundancies. After the election—and you are starting to see the theme developing here—'We can't rule that out. If we haven't got rid of enough of them within the 12 months we are going to have to be shifting them along.' In addition, there has been a massive reduction in long service leave entitlements and the abolition of leave loading to these people. Again, none of these issues were made clear to the people of South Australia before the election; unfortunately for them, it was made all too clear after the election.

So, the priority is not with public servants. Who are they looking after? Are they looking after pensioners? No, they are not looking after pensioners. In fact, the pensioners in South Australia will be receiving rent increases during the life of this budget. Again, not disclosed before the election. What about our regional cousins? How did they fare? Not very well. The petroleum subsidy of 3.3¢ per litre has been completely removed. Again, not flagged before the election but implemented after the election.

Did new home owners fare any better? Unfortunately—as you can see, there is a theme developing here—no, they did not. If our young people, whom we are trying to encourage to live affordably here in South Australia, want to buy a house that already exists, unfortunately, they will not be able to do so with any form of subsidy from this state government. What about our arts community? No; $13 million worth of cuts. What about our fishing industry? No. What about our wine industry? No. What about hotels and farming? No. They have all had cuts to the extension services provided by this government and had fees, taxes and charges put in place to try and recover costs that this government has been spending on those industries in the past.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

Mr MARSHALL: The Film Corporation, of course, did get some money, so the Premier should be able to star in his own new production as quickly as we can get that money to them. As to hospital car carks, if you are visiting your loved ones, forget it; you are going to be paying through the nose. Driver's licence, Metroticket and vehicle registration costs are all up. Is it CPI, maybe with a little bit of a discount because we are suffering a global financial crisis? No; it is over and above the size of the CPI. Mining royalties are up. We have had massive cuts, of course, to small schools, and there have been many more.

Who has actually set the priorities? Who have been the great beneficiaries of this budget? One thing I do know is that cabinet officers have escaped any form of cut in this budget and, in fact, they have actually had an increase. So the Premier and the Treasurer and many of the ministers have increased services out of this budget and, of course, they would be very happy with those changes.

I would like to reflect back now on the 2010 election result. As disappointing as the overall result was, the 2010 election result did deliver a massive backlash to this government. In fact, the Liberal Party received far more votes at the election—they won the two-party preferred vote, but unfortunately they did lose the race for the most number of seats and so they have been unable to form government. However, the people of South Australia went to the election resting and relying on the information that was provided to them by this Treasurer and by this government leading up to the election. As we can see now by these results, there were a lot of things left out. There were a lot of holes in the information that was provided to the people of South Australia.

Nevertheless, the Premier said, 'I am going to take that lesson.' It was a kick in the pants for Labor and he said that they were going to go out and reconnect with the people of South Australia. He said that they were going to be focused on reconnecting. They were going to connect better, they were going to listen more and they were going to act accordingly. We have seen precisely how they have chosen to act with this budget. We have had to wait 180 days for this budget, so one would have thought there was going to be this massive period—180 days, to be precise—of reconnection and listening to the people of South Australia in order to come up with this budget that was going to optimise the effects for the South Australian economy moving forward.

Unfortunately, what we have received is a horror budget but, nevertheless, perfectly timed in the electoral cycle. It has been perfectly timed to deliver a harsh blow immediately after an election, undisclosed to the people before the election, but in enough time for them to be able to recover in the future years leading up to the 2014 election.

It was a budget which could have been completely and utterly avoided through more prudential management over the last eight years. Unfortunately, for this government, despite the huge amount of unbudgeted revenue they received, they have been on a spending spree for eight long years. If they had spent properly, we would never have been in this situation. In fact, they have been on such a spending spree that our state debt at the moment has blown out during this budget to $7.5 billion and, as has been more than amply pointed out by our leader on this side and also by many of the members, that equates to an interest bill approaching $2 million each day. We all know that $2 million a day is a large amount of money to spend on important community projects.

It was a budget which could have been avoided through proper prudential management. The people of South Australia have been deceived. They will not forget this absolute betrayal.

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (16:16): I rise to speak to the Appropriation Bill. Given this is the Treasurer's ninth budget, it is a shame that the budget has been delivered so late and that so many of the measures were not disclosed prior to the March election. This budget has delivered more debt, over $1 billion of increased taxes, public sector job losses and fewer services, while South Australia still remains the highest taxed state in the country.

Public debt of $7.1 billion and a $389 million deficit for 2010-11 means South Australians will soon pay almost $2 million a day in interest on government debt, similar to the State Bank disaster. This is a gross waste of money. What could we do with this extra $730 million per year? As they say, 'It is not what you earn, it is what you spend.'

With every increase in income, Labor has continued to overspend. Income has doubled since Labor came into government, yet what do we have to show for it? A tram to the Entertainment Centre, a place already serviced by eight buses and two train lines, and this led to the removal of the 99B bus that ran every five minutes in both directions in a full loop of the city. This was already for free. The tram extension has caused traffic hassles throughout the city with no right-hand turns until Victoria Square and has turned North Terrace into a dog's breakfast.

For eight years my business was on North Terrace until the tram came along and there were changes in traffic conditions. The removal of car parking along North Terrace led to the isolation of my business to the point where I had to move to survive. I suspect the Station Arcade post office, which is now closing after three years of constant decrease in turnover, is in part due to the negative effect on businesses in the area caused by the tram.

As expected, the Labor government has shown its inability to prioritise. Instead of reducing its ministers by three, giving calculated savings of approximately $7.5 million in projected savings of $30 million over this term of government, which was a Liberal Party policy at the last election and a recommendation of the Sustainable Budget Commission, the Treasurer in his wisdom decided to increase the already corpulent budget of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

This government would rather close down the Parks Community Centre, which is visited by 20,000 people per month and used by 50 sporting clubs and groups. This facility is used widely. I myself have done a WEA rollerblading course at the Parks. The Parks is located in one of our most financially and socially disadvantaged areas. Perhaps the government figured that it was in the Labor heartland so it does not matter what they do to the site. It all appears to have a deja vu feeling of the St Clair Reserve development at Cheltenham.

We have a government that is cutting the essential things: services, police job entitlements, public sector employee entitlements and public sector employee jobs. Of course, had the government not employed an unbudgeted extra 12,000 workers in the Public Service over and above the already unbudgeted police, nurses and firefighters, they would now not be in a position of having to cut 3,750 jobs. The cut alone will cost $354 million for 3,000 voluntary reductions at an average of $118,000 each. This is a shocking state of affairs.

I am extremely disappointed that this budget ignores the request by families in Prospect, Walkerville, Fitzroy and Medindie for access to a city high school. It was implied at the state election that the Adelaide High School zone would be extended to include them. Instead, you have allowed for one extra building over the next four years that will only just cover the overcapacity they are already experiencing. This will not even allow the people in the zone to gain entry to Adelaide High School. This is not good enough. More must be done.

In my electorate I have families that are going without heating, their grocery bills are slashed, and families are living in small rental accommodation so they can send their children to a private school in the city. The decision to send their children to a nearby private school is not by choice, but by force. People are taking second jobs and seeing their families less just to meet this cost. They feel forced in this financial predicament, as they are unable to send their children to the nearest high school to them: Adelaide High School. Their needs are being ignored by this state government, and this is a shameful situation.

The state government's 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide anticipates population growth to 1.85 million people by 2036. The City of Adelaide's Strategic Plan anticipates an increase in the CBD residential population by 1,300 persons per year until 2012. Where will they go to school? Gilles Street Primary and Sturt Street Primary School are both bursting at the seams, and we do not have a city public high school solution to carry these children through their education. The Bowden Urban Village would be a perfect and logical site and would be an excellent investment.

Examining the capital investment statement, this government is only committing $500,000 for high school capital investment in 2010-11. This is to be divided between four high schools, including for extra capacity of 250 students at Adelaide High School. So how much of this is for Adelaide High, and when will the building commence? This is ridiculous, when the government knows that Adelaide High School is already over capacity by more than 250 students. Hundreds of children are on the waiting list, and the school could not even fulfil its in-zone commitments.

The lack of spending on education in my electorate demonstrates that the educational needs of children in the Adelaide electorate are not worthy of this government's attention. Their needs are being ignored. This government would rather give money to support the already wealthy AFL and SACA and turn North Adelaide and the northern Parklands into a car park and destroy Adelaide Oval, at a cost of $535 million.

To overcome the very popular Liberal idea of a city stadium, the Labor government announced a $450 million—not a penny more—patch up of Adelaide Oval. This included $150 million from the commonwealth government and $300 million from the state government. Of course, there was no notification of the blowout prior to the election, and soon after an $85 million allocation after the blowout was remembered. After a bit of creative accounting and transferring a few of the costs, the new total from the original $300 million is now $535 million, for far less. There is no bridge and no car park, not to mention the third extension of the deadline in a desperate attempt to force through a very disastrous plan that will destroy Adelaide Oval forever and turn North Adelaide into a car park. And this is not mentioning the adding to our debt figures and therefore our growing interest payable.

First homebuyers lose the government grant if they choose to purchase an existing home. This effectively takes away their choice to live where they want. This will banish the majority of new home buyers to the outer suburban greenfield developments, which will place greater pressure on the carve up of prime farmland for new housing. This will increase our carbon footprint, as homeowners are reliant on personal vehicle transport rather than more green commuter choices of public transport or cycling. This plan will not encourage private ownership in our inner metropolitan areas.

We are losing people from our state. Today's ABS figures show 3,012 people left South Australia for interstate in the last 12 months. We are losing businesses from our state, we are losing investment from our state. Why? Because we are the highest taxing state in Australia. We need to make urgent changes to become more competitive. Land taxes are crippling this state. We need to do all we can to attract investment and business to this state, and we cannot do this while we continue to be the highest taxing state in the country.

Land tax affects everyone and is detrimental to the state's prosperity and its people. Mum-and-dad investors who have a couple of rental properties are now charged as part of a grouping, therefore, either, first, the rent goes up to cover adding to our affordable housing crisis; secondly, they sell their house, thus removing more housing from the rental market; or, thirdly, they take their money and invest interstate.

For commercial property owners the cost of land tax is passed onto the lessee, thus making it harder for people to start a business, to afford to lease a property or even to afford extra staff. Melbourne Street for the past two years has had commercial leased properties available—at least 10 throughout that time. Many people I have spoken to in my electorate have told me that they are taking their money out of South Australia and moving it interstate.

Several business owners were not only moving their money, their property ownership, but their head offices and the jobs that go with them. This is devastating for our state and must be reversed immediately. Whilst I acknowledge the changes recently made to increase the base from $110,000 to $300,000 due to the pressure from the Liberal Party and the community, more must be done to change this very destructive tax, particularly when affordable housing is defined as up to $330,000 and the median house price is $410,000.

Payroll tax in our state is uncompetitive and is making businesses go elsewhere. It is a crazy scenario, with 9,500 businesses in South Australia in the 2007-08 year liable for payroll tax, up from 7,200 in 2001-02, and it is guaranteed to be more this year. What incentives does this give to business to expand or to stay in Adelaide? Perhaps members opposite would prefer the cost of more unemployed people.

Who are the losers in this budget? In short, everyone loses. First homebuyers lose the grant and the ability to choose where they live by removal of the grant on existing homes, and car owners and drivers are hit with $12.546 million in extra licensing fees, the loss of registration stickers to remind them when their registration is due and less choice over the time period in which they can pay.

Visitors to hospitals lose by having to pay commercial rates on car parking. Again, this is a fundraising exercise which targets the sick, our vulnerable and their carers. Tourism budgets have been cut by $12.5 million. Tourism is a very important industry that has a flow-on effect to many other industries, thus affecting jobs.

I recently introduced a bill to support the tourism industry by allowing shops in the Rundle Mall precinct to open on selected public holidays. Perhaps this will help to counteract the losses. In closing, this is a very short-sighted and mean plan. This budget is not visionary. It does not create extra jobs. It does not encourage investment or growth. It is merely the proof that we have a tired and ineffectual government that is limping along, watching the other states in this nation forge ahead.

Mr PEGLER (Mount Gambier) (16:27): Given the extra time it took to formulate this budget, and the involvement of the Sustainable Budget Commission and the Social Inclusion Board, I thought that it would be an exciting budget that addressed the unsustainable level of state debt but at the same time addressed the needs of the most vulnerable in our society; and, in particular, the inequity of levels of service delivery to the needy within the regions.

It should also have been a budget which encouraged growth within our private sector, but I am sorry to say that I feel that this budget fails to deliver what it should, especially to the regions. On a brighter note, I congratulate the government on retaining its AAA rating, as this is extremely important when a government has to borrow so much money on the open market, and probably means a saving of one half of 1 per cent in interest each year.

The people of the electorate of Mount Gambier are justifiably quite upset with this budget in that it seems to be all about taking from the regions and giving little back. Our petrol prices are to go up by 3¢ and diesel by 2¢ per litre. We also see massive increases in SA Water prices in our electorate to fund the desal plant in Adelaide, and also a reduction in the base amount of water from 136 kilolitres per annum to 30 kilolitres per quarter. Our motor vehicle registration and licence fees are also being increased. Whilst these increases may seem to be minimal, they are a great impost on families that are finding it hard to make ends meet.

Our small schools are under threat with the removal of the $30,000 they presently receive and, whilst the minister assures us that there will be other funding opportunities available, it puts our small schools in a state of flux. It must be remembered that these schools are often the core of these small communities that they serve and, without them, we will see the death of many of these small communities.

Our primary producers and fishermen also feel threatened, with massive reductions in research and development funds, moves for full cost recovery for biosecurity, large reductions in the number of people working for both SARDI and PIRSA, and a reduction in the ceiling for wine tax from $521,000 to a mere $50,000. We were once the clever state in a clever country when it comes to primary industry research and development, and these backward steps will make it very hard for our producers to compete on the world stage.

I note that an extra $518 million over four years has been allocated for roads, but it is an absolute insult that only $12.4 million of these funds will go to regional roads.

I find it quite ironic that the government is planning the phasing out of funding of Regional Development Australia boards. It has been a monumental effort in South Australia to bring the three levels of government together to fund these boards, and there could have been great opportunities to leverage more funding from both federal and local governments to enhance these boards so that real regional development could occur in both a social and economic manner. But none of these things will happen if the state government reduces its commitment.

I applaud the government on the extra funds it has made available for mental health services, early childhood protection and the funding of school buses. I also thank the government for the initiatives that have been shown with country health. We have a long way to go, but at least some steps are being taken in the right direction.

The greatest economic threat to the South-East is the threat of forward selling of ForestrySA pine plantations for anything up to three rotations, or 105 years. There are over 5,000 people employed in the South-East in the forestry industry and many of these jobs will be put at risk if the forward sale goes ahead. It must be remembered that the government receives over $40 million each year in profits from forests in the South-East. Yesterday we heard the Premier criticising the former Liberal government for selling ETSA and he went on to say how his government had kept its promise of no privatisation of government assets. I would have thought that the sale of up to 105 years of profit is nothing but privatisation.

We are also getting mixed messages from his ministers, with the Treasurer merely saying, 'We are investigating it,' and the forestry minister saying, 'Government has made a decision. We will be putting on the market either one, two or three forward rotations.' If this proposal goes ahead, we will see the same result as has happened in Victoria and New Zealand, with the closure of timber mills and the export of these jobs, along with the raw logs, to countries such as China and India.

Bill read a second time.

Estimates Committees

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Minister for Employment, Training and Further Education, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for Road Safety, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (16:34): I move:

That this bill be referred to estimates committees.

Motion carried.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Minister for Employment, Training and Further Education, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for Road Safety, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (16:35): I move:

That a message be sent to the Legislative Council requesting that the Minister for Urban Development and Planning and the Minister for State/Local Government Relations, members of the Legislative Council, be permitted to attend and give evidence before the estimates committees of the House of Assembly on the Appropriation Bill.

Motion carried.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Minister for Employment, Training and Further Education, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for Road Safety, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (16:35): I move:

That the house note grievances.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (16:35): I indicate that I am the lead speaker in the grievance debate on the Appropriation Bill. This is extraordinary. We have just completed the debate on the Labor government's budget, treasurer Kevin Foley's ninth budget, and not one Labor member spoke. Not one of them stood up to support the Treasurer on the budget that was going to reconnect. This was the budget to reconnect the Labor Party with the community and not one Labor member bothered to stand up to support treasurer Foley. Not one—

Mrs GERAGHTY: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me, member for Davenport, a point of order from the member for Torrens.

Mrs GERAGHTY: While the member may be correct about members on this side not speaking at this particular moment, he is misleading the house in terms of our not supporting the Treasurer. It is quite incorrect.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: That is an extraordinary point of order. As we all know, there was no point of order; it was simply a point to be made. What the member for Torrens—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Davenport! I have not had an opportunity to say whether or not I thought that was a point of order so enthusiastic were you. I do not think there is a point of order. However, I can see where the member for Torrens is coming from.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I agree with you, there was no point of order. Congratulations, Madam Deputy Speaker, on that ruling. What the member for Torrens is saying is the Labor Party is supporting the Treasurer by its silence. All of them had the chance to come in and put 20 minutes of support on the table for treasurer Foley and his budget. Each member had 20 minutes to speak and not one had the decency to come in and back Kevin Foley, the Deputy Premier, the man who wants to be king. Not one person came in and said, 'Kev, we think you've got your mojo back, we're going to come and support you as well.' Absolute silence from Labor members.

This week we have had question after question about the Parks Community Centre and all the members of the Labor Party over there crying crocodile tears and saying to the electorate, 'Well, we don't agree with that one; we don't agree with that,' but have you heard any of them stand up and defend the Parks Community Centre? Not one. Not one of them has stood up and backed the Premier and the Treasurer in relation to this budget.

This is unprecedented. You would have thought that, after eight years in government, some of the Labor backbenchers would have something to say. You would think they would have something to say. You would think there would be something good in the budget, just one good thing that they could come in and say to their electorate, 'This is a good Labor budget for this reason.' But what do we get from Labor members? We get the sound of silence.

What the member for Torrens wants us to believe is that they are standing up for the Treasurer by saying nothing and they are standing up for their electorate by saying nothing. That was the point of order. The member for Torrens said, 'The member for Davenport is quite right, no-one has spoken, but we are supporting the Treasurer because we have said nothing. We have said absolutely nothing.'

This is a huge embarrassment for treasurer Foley. They have delayed the budget for six months. The Labor members have had six months to get their notes ready, their arguments ready and their speeches ready, yet, after six months, all you have is silence. We have silence. This is just extraordinary. No-one is speaking about the cuts in education, no-one is speaking about the efficiency dividends in health, no one is speaking about the wineries getting cut through the cellar door subsidies, no-one is speaking about taxes going up by $1 billion over the four years, no-one is in there talking about the cost of household water prices doubling, and no-one is talking about the car registration fees going up, driver's licence fees going up or compulsory third-party insurance premiums going up.

What we get from the Labor Party is silence. What a gutless mob! The Treasurer sits there during question time and calls us soft. He yells across the chamber, 'You guys are soft! You guys are soft!' Well, I tell you what: we have had our say on the budget. We are prepared to stand up for our electorates, but where are you? Where is the Labor Party? Not one. We had the Treasurer give his budget speech on Tuesday and not one has spoken. What we get is silence.

They are not prepared to back the Treasurer in. This is the Treasurer who after the budget was running around South Australia saying, 'Look at Big Kev; I've got my mojo back.' He might think he has his mojo back but he has no-one in here saying that. He has no-one in the chamber saying he has his mojo back. What we get in the chamber is silence.

There has been more discussion this week about who might be treasurer and who might be premier than there has been about the budget from the Labor side. There has been more discussion about who might be the next deputy premier or treasurer and who might be the next premier. Not one Labor member bothered to come into this chamber and support the Treasurer. Well, that is extraordinary. It is a shame.

I think it is a shame on the Labor Party, each and every one of them, that they did not have the decency or the courtesy on behalf of their electorates to come in and express a view. They are going to go out to their electorates and they are going to be asked about the budget. They should refer them to the Hansard: 'Go and see what the member for Light said about the budget. Go and see what the member for Mawson said about the budget. Go and see what the other members said about the budget,' and the answer is: they said nothing.

So, after nine years, the ninth budget was delayed for six months so that the Labor Party could get prepared, so that the Treasurer could get the figures right. Of course, the Treasurer gets the figures wrong but only by $333 million, but what do we get from this government, the backbench, the people who are trying to support the Treasurer? We get silence. It is extraordinary, I think, that we get silence from this government on its own budget. It is unprecedented, and I think the Labor Party's silence on this budget speaks volumes for what they really think about the budget.

Do not forget that this was the Labor party room that applauded the Treasurer in private. 'They did,' said the Treasurer. They applauded the Treasurer in silence, but why will they not say anything in public? If they are applauding the Treasurer in silence, why will they not say something in public? This is a sad day for the South Australian Labor Party. It is a sad day for treasurer Foley, and shame on the Labor Party for not having the decency to put up one speaker—just one speaker—in defence of its own budget.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am advised that, should the Treasurer wish to speak, he has every right to do so and does not close the debate, as this—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't want to be interrupted anymore, and as for the member for Schubert, with the wild pointing and the dancing—stop that. Treasurer, please speak.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Treasurer, Minister for Federal/State Relations, Minister for Defence Industries) (16:45): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your wise counsel, as always. I noted the reprimand to the member for Florey—she has been here long enough too.

What a performance by the shadow treasurer! What feigned anger and excitement! I have been in this place for a very, very long time. I have delivered nine budgets and sat in here through eight Liberal budgets. It is not the moment for governments: it is the moment for oppositions to attack government. Yes, I did receive a round of applause from my caucus colleagues when I brought the budget down, which was a most unusual feat.

Ms Chapman: Because you're going.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: No, I am going nowhere. I have delivered, yet again, a budget that has reconfirmed the state's AAA credit rating. I am absolutely confident that the Moody's rating agency will also reconfirm our state's AAA credit rating in the not too distant future, as we have provided financial excellence as a government.

Members opposite are soft, that is a proven fact. We only have to have a look at the pathetic attempt by the Leader of the Opposition to put forward an alternative strategy. I think she put forward things like, 'We will cut the Thinkers in Residence program. We will get rid of three ministers.'

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Only $999 million to go!

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Well, no; $2.439 billion to go. I mean, they put forward a couple of very small programs to indicate how tough they would be.

The Hon. J.J. Snelling interjecting:

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Oh, the gum tree, although, there might have been something in that—but, you know, the gum tree approach to education from the Leader of the Opposition. The opposition says, 'Well, we wouldn't build the Adelaide Hospital. We would cancel the project. We could do it for a billion dollars down at the old site.' What a load of nonsense. Even the shadow Treasurer, on the day before the election—and could I yet again, Madam Deputy Speaker, please be allowed to put on record our party's gratitude to the contribution of not just the shadow treasurer on the eve of the state election, when he said that their election costings were all spin. We managed to get that out into the electorate on the day before the election. I should also commend, as I often want to do when I am in here, the fine efforts of the member for Bragg, for her excellent contribution in the last week, where she failed to rule out a leadership challenge.

Ms Chapman: So did you.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Yes, but we won. What must really stick in the craw of members opposite, what must distress the leadership of the Liberal Party, is the ill-disciplined, ill-timed and quite inflammatory reaction of the member for Bragg in that press conference, where she completely failed—and I understand, even when there was a phone call from The Advertiser—to rule out a leadership challenge. I can tell you—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Treasurer, could you please sit down for one moment. I have this to say: we sat through a very enthusiastic and impassioned speech by the member for Davenport, as was his right. He was heard in absolute silence; not one person interjected. I would ask that you offer the Treasurer exactly the same courtesy that you were given.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was in our campaign team, and I can assure you that, by polling and reaction, those two quite significant contributions from the member for Bragg and the then shadow treasurer were a major element in the Labor Party holding onto office.

Why was that? Because it reinforced the two great weaknesses of the Liberal Party that have bedevilled them for 20, 30, 40 years in this state: the first was the issue of disunity and instability; the second was their financial incompetence, their inability to be able to convince the public that they could manage the finances.

Again, I thank the member for Bragg for ensuring the longevity of this Labor government, and her efforts in doing that over a number of years in this parliament are well and truly recognised, not only by members on this side but also by a number of members on her side.

The Hon. J.J. Snelling: We should give her a life membership of the Labor Party.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: We should give her a life membership of the Labor Party, as the minister suggests. Can I say, firstly, about the $333 million headline today—most unfortunate—that errors occur by public servants compiling what would be the most complicated and detailed dataset that the state produces in any given year.

Ms Chapman: You signed it.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Pardon?

Ms Chapman: You signed the budget.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Right, okay. These mistakes happen. In fact, I think in the year 1999-2000 treasurer Rob Lucas also put forward a corrigendum for errors in his budget, and there have been some examples of that through the course of my tenure. The reality is that the dataset was inaccurate, but the bottom line numbers were unaffected. It was a presentational issue in some tables, and that was appropriately corrected yesterday. What I can say is this—and I have said this repeatedly and it has to be said again—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have said this once and I will say it again, and this will be the last time and the next time will be a warning. It is very tedious to have to repeat myself. We listened to the member for Davenport and the members on my right did not interject once. You will offer the same courtesy to the Treasurer during this time. If you cannot do that—if it is so frustrating to you, member for Bragg—then I advise you to leave the chamber for a little while. Thank you.

Ms CHAPMAN: I take a point of order then, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Indeed.

Ms CHAPMAN: The Treasurer, in his presentation, presented to the house that he had appropriately acknowledged his error, which is entirely incorrect. He came in here and dumped onto the table his addendum—his stuff-up acknowledgement—with no explanation whatsoever, misleading all of us as to whether or not that is appropriate. It was a disgrace.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not think that that is a point of order, so the Treasurer can carry on giving the speech he was giving.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I will take a point of order and ask the member for Bragg to apologise immediately or move a substantive motion. She said I had 'misled all of us'. That can only be dealt with as a matter of a substantive motion. I ask that she apologise and unreservedly withdraw.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: And I ruled that there was no point of order and I did not accept what she was saying. It is best, if we wish to continue usefully with this process, that the members on my left control themselves and that you carry on.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The funny thing was that, if the members opposite were so concerned about the details of the corrigendum, they had 10 questions in question time. They could have asked one or 10 questions about the corrigendum and I would have given an explanation. It is a presentation error and it was an error not by me as Treasurer but by my agency and, of course, I take responsibility. It was not as reported. It was not of significance, and it had no effect on the budget bottom line or the outcomes that are forecast in the budget at all.

But if the member was suggesting I was hiding this, I tabled it before question time and I was open to questions; and I did. When I heard the shadow treasurer was distressed at my lack of explanation, I dropped everything and came down to the house because I am that kind of guy—a decent bloke who will be more than prepared to do all I can to assist the house in understanding what is a very complex document in the state budget.

But I want to make the point again—and it is not done in a partisan way or political way, but rather as a statement of fact—that the growing pressures on state government to deliver increased and improved services, be it either through unavoidable demand such as our hospitals or be it through a desire and a need to continually improve certain deliveries, the state's financial capability to meet those needs is not only limited but seriously threatened by our inability to meet a lot of these expectations and demands.

It will not matter who the next treasurer is in the term after next but whoever is treasurer in this place, me or my successors, the problem will only get more substantial. If there are members opposite who will one day sit on the front bench and around the cabinet table, you will be confronted with a problem larger than what we are confronted with.

Mr Pisoni: Your mess.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Our mess.

Mr Williams: You've done it once.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: You've done it once. Yes, right. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am trying to have an intelligent debate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, and member for MacKillop—excuse me, I am sorry to have to keep on interrupting but it is inevitable with this kind of behaviour—I am not quite sure if you heard me the first two times.

Mr Williams: No, I didn't.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. Good, excellent. We have established that you didn't. What I was actually asking, in fact stating, was this: we listened to the member for Davenport, the lead speaker for your side, in total silence. The members on my right did not interject. We will listen to the Treasurer in total silence, and you will not interject either. Should you choose to interject, there will be warnings.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The challenge for governments into the future will only increase as health, in particular, continues to swamp the available finances that we have. Put together with the general ageing of the community and the impact that has on a whole series of government service delivery, we will with limited income and with no desire that I can read out there in the community to pay more taxes—in fact, the community is always wanting, and understandably so, to pay less tax—we will as a state and as a parliament in the years and the decade or two to come will have a horrendous job of trying to balance the budget and meet those expectations.

Health costs, as I have said often in this place, are growing and compounding somewhere between 9 and 11 per cent per year (activity growth). We have had a 5 per cent overspend in the budget this year in health, which does not sound a lot, but 5 per cent of $430 million is around $200 million. That is the magnitude of an overspend. We cannot do much about that because that is people coming into our hospitals.

What state budgeting has become in each budget I have done is a gruelling exercise in having to make trade-offs. I have delivered savings in just about each and every one of our budgets—from memory, $1.7 billion in our first four-year budget cycle. I think it was about another $850 million the following four-year budget cycle. We are doing this so we can continue to find the money to meet those health pressures, to meet the pressures on families and communities, and to meet community's expectations to have more police officers, to have better education standards, to have more public infrastructure. Public infrastructure alone, when we came to office, was less than the notional depreciation of the government's asset base. We took that from $500 million to over $2 billion—I think closer to $2½ billion.

We are electrifying the city's rail network, and we are rebuilding and updating all of our state's hospitals. We are building the most significant tribute, I think, to this government, in terms of a legacy, the most sophisticated and the best quality hospital probably anywhere in the world when the new Royal Adelaide opens. We are putting light rail into our city to try to lift the amenity and the quality and the attractiveness of our CBD.

We will develop Adelaide Oval, and with that will come the Convention Centre, an upgrade from the private sector of the Casino site, we hope, and I am sure there will be further investment in years to come in the Festival Centre complex. The whole amenity of the River Torrens will be such that we will have a world-class attraction point for people to come into our city and be entertained and to bring their families to enjoy what the city has to offer, just like people in Melbourne, Brisbane and Sydney in terms of their respective South Bank, Darling Harbour and Circular Quay. However, all of this comes with a trade-off. When we make decisions to cut, we make decisions to cut—is the member on a mobile phone?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There would appear to be a member with something clamped to his ear. I think we should look at this in a wholistic manner: it has been known that members on my right have had things clamped to their ears. Of course, the great thing is that if the member for Unley does have something clamped to his ear it means that he is not interjecting upon you, Treasurer, which is a bonus.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I would rather that he not speak on a mobile phone, but never mind. The pressures of the government will only increase; they will never decrease. Members opposite can make a mockery of this budget, they can be critical of this budget, they can make things up, such as we are incompetent and we have done this and done that. That is all the theatre and rhetoric of this place. The reality is that we have done a very good job in balancing all of those pressures that I mentioned before.

It does not come without serious pain. It does not come without serious challenges to the way we have done things in government before. However, all of our cabinet were rock solid in the challenge that we had. There was no internal dissent because our cabinet, an experienced cabinet, a talented cabinet, a quality cabinet, knew exactly—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: A what cabinet?

Mr Williams: Get on with it!

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Well, member for MacKillop, who loves the sound of his own voice, I am allowed to make a contribution.

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes, get on with it!

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: God, you think you're really good, don't you?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Fellows, chaps—

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: You think you're some sort of—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: —guru, the old member for MacKillop.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Can I suggest that people do not interject?

Mr Williams interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for MacKillop, using a mobile phone in the chamber is completely inadmissible, as well you know. I have tried to be—

Mr Williams interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do not speak while I am speaking. I have tried to be relaxed about this. You have come in here, you are doing all the chatting, and you are interjecting—just stop it. Just let him continue. He has a right to speak. Sorry, Treasurer.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The budget has been a difficult process, and it has proven to me, and I think to the government, that we have a cabinet capable of not only making the hard decisions but making the right decisions. After nine budgets and after an incredibly tough budget losing $1.4 billion in revenue from the GFC and the $200 million alone over four years ($800 million) of health cost increases, as well as in excess of $100 million required for Families and Communities for children in care, we have met those pressures. We have been able to deliver a surplus budget position in the out years, and we have had reconfirmed by Standard and Poor's our state's AAA credit rating; and I expect that, in the very near future, Moody's will reconfirm our AAA credit rating.

Where the opposition does not have a leg to stand on, where it has no credibility, is trying to suggest, as the leader did yesterday, that we are back to State Bank levels of debt; that we have a mess that they have to come into government to clean up. The rating agencies are the independent judge of these things.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: $400,000? Well, if that is the case, the member for Bragg, your treasurer Lucas was spending a similar amount of money every year. He could not get a AAA credit rating but he was giving them $300,000 a year. So, wake up, Charlie. This is what you do.

Ms Chapman: $400,000.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: And you paid it when you were in government.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I beg your pardon?

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Madam Deputy Speaker, the member for Bragg has just accused Standard and Poor's and Moody's rating agencies of not being independent.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: You are a pathetic person, a pathetic member of parliament, an incompetent shadow minister—

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand that the Treasurer is under some pressure, poor darling, you know, but what is important is that, if you were listening attentively to his speech—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As I am.

Ms CHAPMAN: —as pathetic as it was, I was expressing a view to my colleague sitting to my right, and the Treasurer interrupted and started involving himself in our conversation. If he has something useful to say to the parliament he can continue his debate, otherwise he may as well not waste the next nine minutes.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: In relation to your point of order, there is no point of order, member for Bragg, and I would like to have the opportunity to explain why. If you say that you were speaking casually to the colleague on your right, I have to say that I could hear it very clearly. So, perhaps, the member for Norwood has some sort of hearing problem, because we could hear every single word that you said. I have to say that, from a very impartial point of view, member for Bragg, it did appear to be an interjection. There are standing orders relating to interjecting. I do not accept your standing order because you in turn were breaking quite a few of them. Let us carry on.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Thank you.

Ms CHAPMAN: Madam Deputy Speaker, repetition in debate is also an offence to standing orders. Three times now in his contribution he has claimed that he was preserving a AAA credit rating in reference to Standard and Poor's. That offends standing order 128 for repetition in debate, and I ask you to bring the Treasurer to order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Bragg. Unfortunately, again, I am not going to be able to uphold that particular standing order, because, during the eight minute speech given by the member for Davenport, he broke that particular standing order on, probably, about 30 occasions. And, as the honourable member knows, because this place is a place where we try not to be too pedantic and mad, I let it go. Now, I think that 30 repetitions compared with three is as nothing. Carry on, Treasurer.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The failed political career of the member for Bragg is quite amusing from our side of the benches. The suggestion that Standard and Poor's or Moody's are not independent and that they are somehow bought off by a $400,000 pay-off is nonsense. When Rob Lucas and Stephen Baker were treasurers the same process was undertaken. You will not get them to rate you if you do not pay them. They do not do these things for nothing.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: The member for Bragg would not even understand the process. Moody's will be in Adelaide next week as will Standard and Poor's. They will put in a solid day's work with my Treasury officials. I have been to meet them both and they come to visit us on a regular basis. They analyse our data and put a lot of work into it. It is a fact of life that, whether you are a public corporation or a bank getting rated, you pay for that service. So, that was absolute stupidity and naivety in her comments. But, I guess if she has managed to go from putative leader all the way to the middle benches, way down the totem pole and lose any portfolio of significance that she has wanted in her career, I guess I would be sitting there interjecting nonstop to ease the pain.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I have had a very successful political career—somewhat more successful than yours—and I am proud of that. Anyway, I am sure your pain is such that interjecting somehow relieves that pain and tension.

However, to conclude in terms of the budget, we have yet again shown that we have what it takes to govern this state through good times and difficult times. With regard to the reference by the Leader of the Opposition that we are back to the State Bank debt of $2 million a day (the mantra that we used to hear from Olsen and Brown), I think the rough figures when the State Bank collapsed were that the debt to state GSP was something in the high 20s; and state debt to GSP today is around 4 per cent. The nation is at 5.6 per cent.

So, if you are going to compare like with like, be honest. We have a very low level of debt, wisely invested in public infrastructure. Moody's, who take a much more focused look at overall debt levels in their methodology of rating a state, have said to me as early as this morning that they are quite comfortable with our budget settings and do not see a problem with the level of debt that we have incurred.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Look at them.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: You are such a pathetic member of parliament, member for Bragg. What I find extraordinary about the member for Bragg is that she has been a repeated failure at everything she has attempted in politics. She has nothing to brag about, yet she still comes up chirping at every opportunity. If I were you, member for Bragg, I would actually be a little quiet and a little bit reflective on how you have managed to sabotage your own career. But what is incredible is not only did you sabotage your own career but also you sabotaged the careers of all of your colleagues, because there is no doubt—

Mr PISONI: I have a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I refer to standing order 127. The Treasurer got up to defend his budget but has spent most of his time attacking the member for Bragg. I do not know what the attraction is or what the motivation is—

Dr McFetridge: Fatal attraction!

Mr PISONI: Perhaps it is a fatal attraction. I point to standing order 127, making personal reflections on other members. I would have thought, if the Treasurer was so proud of his budget, he would not have time, in the half hour he is allocated, to spend so much of that time attacking the member for Bragg.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am not quite sure for whom that relationship is fatal.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not ask for the opinions of the members on my left. I think that, given that the Treasurer has responded to a fairly feisty attack from the member for Davenport, that the Treasurer's speech has constantly—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me, order! The Treasurer has been constantly interjected upon. There is no point of order, and we will continue with his speech.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. You are right, I have just been defending myself from the onslaught that the member for Bragg continually throws our way. In conclusion I say this. We know that we have upset people. We know that we have upset the accepted normality of government, but the choices were limited. The choices are incredibly limited because what I did not want to do was to raise taxes on the family household. I did not want to raise taxes like the emergency services levy. So, if you do not want to raise taxes and put a burden on the household, you have to cut your cloth, and when you come to cutting your services you look for services and ways to cut that have the minimal impact on the general population.

We make no apology for the fact that, in the modern workforce of today, the vast majority of South Australians do not receive 17½ per cent leave loading, unless they are working shiftwork—and we not touching the shiftworkers of our state, nor are we touching it for teachers. You can no longer justify, in this modern economy, with the pressures and the demands we face, a 17½ per cent leave loading. What we are doing is trading it off. We are providing two extra days a year for a public servant. They may not like it, but it is a fair substitute and the vast majority of South Australians work under similar conditions.

When it comes to the controversy over long service leave, I say this. When you hit the 15-year mark of service in the public sector, you get 15 work days (three weeks) for every extra year of service. That means, over a further 15 years, you can take almost a whole year off courtesy of the taxpayer. You can retire a year earlier on full pay. If members opposite think that that is reasonable, well then vote against our measures. It is at the benchmark, the highest in the nation (on advice I have) and it is so out of whack with other jurisdictions—the commonwealth and, in particular, the private sector workforce—it can no longer be justified. Because who pays? The taxpayer pays.

How can we in all good conscience allow a system to continue where, after 30 years of service—and that is not uncommon in the public sector—a person can take about 45 weeks leave? That is a fair, appropriate and balanced measure. It is not to taking away long service leave, but bringing it back to a midpoint in the nation for state and federal governments and at a benchmark consistent with what the average worker would have in the private sector. These are not radical; these are fair.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:18): As is normal, the Treasurer comes in here and hurls himself into personal abuse across the chamber and thinks that he is a good parliamentarian and a good debater. What he should have been doing is trying to justify his budget. Only moments ago, the Treasurer said, 'I think we have made savings in every one of my budgets.' What the Treasurer does in his budgets is not make savings, he reprioritises. He corrects the stuff-ups that he made the year before, the year before and the year before. That is what the Treasurer is doing: he is continually having to change his priorities because his budget is out of control.

I also reiterate the point that I made only yesterday about this claim that the Treasurer makes and continues to make that the global financial crisis has caused a $1.4 billion hole in his budget. I reiterate: in the financial year 2008-09, when the global financial crisis hit, the Treasurer's budget underestimated the revenues by $276 million. In the following year, the financial year just completed (2009-10), the Treasurer's budget underestimated revenues by $1,087 million.

If you add those two numbers together, in the two years where the Treasurer claims that there was a $1.4 billion black hole created by the global financial crisis, indeed his budgets underestimated the revenues by $1.363 million. By my arithmetic, at the very best, the Treasurer could claim that there was a $37 million shortfall created by the global financial crisis. The reality is that the rivers of gold to his Treasury have continued to flow notwithstanding the global financial crisis in other parts of the world.

This budget is another fudge, and it continues the fudge by a Treasurer who for nine times in a row has come in here, given us a set of figures that are the wrong priorities and tried to con us with spin and deceit. Only yesterday, when I spoke on the Appropriation Bill, I noted that I was the third speaker for the opposition and, at that point, nobody from the government had stood up to argue the case for this budget.

It is my best information that every member of the opposition has spoken on this budget. Not one member of the government other than the Treasurer has stood up to defend this budget. How on earth can the Treasurer claim that this is a good budget when not one member of his team has the gall to stand up and endeavour to defend this budget? Not one of them wants to be associated with this budget back in their electorates.

Dr McFetridge: Can you blame them?

Mr WILLIAMS: I don't blame them, because I wouldn't want to be associated with it and obviously not one member of the Treasurer's team wants to be associated with it. It is an outrageous document. It is full of lies and deceit. The claim that the global financial crisis has caused challenges for this Treasurer is simply wrong: revenues have continued to go up.

The reality, as I said yesterday, is that expenses are the problem of this budget and this Treasurer. The expenses of the government of South Australia as a percentage of the gross state product have grown from 15.9 per cent in financial year 2001-02 and 15.4 per cent in 2002-03 to 18.9 per cent and 18 per cent in the last two financial years. Therein lies the problem that the Treasurer has with his budgets: his expenses have grown by a factor of 3 per cent of the state's gross product. That is just not sustainable. I do not want to harp on that but it does need to be repeated and we need to be absolutely certain what the problem is here. It is the Treasurer: it is not the global financial crisis.

I am delighted that the Minister for Health is in the room and I would like to take a few minutes just talking the Minister for Health through some issues at Keith District Hospital. The minister is obviously in denial about what goes on at that particular hospital. He claims that state funding for the equivalent of three public beds is not delivering value for money for the state. What I need to say to the Minister for Health is that the state funding for the equivalent of three beds in that hospital has underpinned the viability of that hospital and that enables that hospital to deliver in total 1,959 bed days in the last financial year.

That is a lot more than three public hospital beds or their equivalent. It is probably the equivalent of six or seven public hospital beds, so it is very good value for money but as well as that, that hospital provides general practice services to a large, isolated community. It provides accident and emergency services to a large and isolated community, and it provides vital emergency services covering the Dukes Highway, probably one of the most dangerous stretches of road in the state.

It is the last of the points east of the Royal Adelaide that we can fly to without refuelling the emergency helicopter. That provides a vital service to the travelling public using that highway and the Riddoch Highway, which branches off at Keith and runs south down to Mount Gambier, the second biggest city in the state.

The Keith hospital will fail. It will not continue to operate without at least the support that it has been getting from the taxpayer of South Australia and probably a bit more support—as the minister acknowledged when I brought a deputation to meet him back on 27 June to argue that point.

The minister has acknowledged that he wants to retain accident and emergency services at that hospital. I have to tell him that there will not be a hospital there without adequate support. If he thinks he can cherrypick and just put in a few dollars to maintain accident and emergency services, that will not happen because the whole hospital is unviable. The doors will close. There will be no hospital from which accident and emergency services can be provided.

There will be no GPs in that local region. There will be no volunteer ambulance services along the length of the Dukes Highway, probably from Coonalpyn until you get to Bordertown. Bordertown is outside the reach of the rescue helicopter, and it is a long, long way from those parts of the Dukes Highway on which we regularly see bad motor accidents.

The minister has to accept that there will be no service on that part of the Dukes Highway, and there will be no service delivering any health cover to those communities if the Keith hospital is allowed to close. He is getting a very, very cheap health service for that region and for that isolated series of communities all the way from Padthaway to Coonalpyn.

The minister has to accept that, if the Keith and District Hospital closes, he will have to pick up all of those patients. All of those bed days that I mentioned a minute ago will turn up in a public hospital somewhere in the state, probably in Adelaide. The people of Keith probably will not go south and east for their medical service; they will probably come north to Adelaide. They will be public patients, as they are retaining their private health cover and turning up at the Keith Hospital as private patients only because it is a private hospital. The minister has to understand that these patients will come back into his public system, and he will find that the cost will be a lot more than he is currently paying to keep that hospital open.

Time expired.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (17:28): What I have picked up from the budget debate goes back to something I was taught by my mother at a very young age; that is, if you cannot say something nice about somebody, do not say anything at all. So, maybe that is why there is silence from the government benches—because they cannot find anything nice to say about treasurer Kevin Foley's budget and that is why we are deafened by the silence.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Unley, I apologise; there is a point of order over here. Could you take your seat while we are doing that, thank you.

Mrs GERAGHTY: I would quite like to listen to what he is saying and act accordingly, but I just point out that the process has not finished and that we are still running up until probably 10 o'clock tonight, so there is plenty of opportunity for people to speak.

The SPEAKER: Yes, there does seem to be some misapprehension.

Mrs GERAGHTY: If you cannot say things about people that are nice, do not say anything at all—I just remind you of your own words.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Right, that would have been 126.

Mr PISONI: Was it really?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It was 126, yes. The member objected to the words that were used, but do carry on.

Mr PISONI: I will remind the member for Torrens that that is what my mother said: it is not what I said. My mother said, 'If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.' She did bring me up. Then the Treasurer, of course, says that it is the opposition's time and that is why everybody is quiet on the Labor side, but he spent half an hour defending his own budget because nobody else would. We have moved into the 10-minute grievance debate. All the Labor members had 20 minutes in which they could have expressed their love for the budget and spent that time doing something about it.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PISONI: I think my mother gave us a very balanced life. She brought up a Liberal MP and a CEPU union official, so she has a very balanced life. I must say, when Simon and I talk about politics we do not have a lot to say, because we go back to that reference to our mother, 'If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.'

I would like to take this opportunity to raise some concerns in my electorate of Unley in regard to a full range of issues that are loosely connected to the budget. I came across a very interesting situation just a few weeks ago of a constituent who lives on the back of one of the many creeks that runs through Unley. If you remember, we had flooding before the 2006 election and I think there was some television footage that was arranged of premier Mike Rann going out to a constituent, I think, of the member for Waite and promising to do something about stormwater, but he was thrown off the property because she understood you could not believe what the Premier said in an election climate.

I think what happened was that, in response to that, we saw the Stormwater Management Authority set up to manage stormwater in the council districts of Burnside, Unley, West Torrens and Mitcham. Here we are four years after that legislation has come to the parliament and, guess what, they have only spent money on board fees—that is all.

I had a situation where Mr Brown from Wayville called me and said, 'Look, I'm really concerned, David, because there are shopping trolleys in the river behind me and somebody has built something illegally. I am concerned that the drought has broken and we are going to be getting some rain. Whose responsibility is it to deal with this? The council told me it's not their responsibility because this part of Greenhill Creek is privately owned,' and so the council could not take responsibility.

I wrote to the Stormwater Management Authority asking for advice and six weeks later I got a letter back from the Chairman of the Stormwater Management Authority saying, 'Look up the act.' The advice was, 'Look it up in the act.' I only got that letter back after I rang the office and said, 'Did you get my letter?' 'Yes, we got it.' 'Were you going to respond?' 'Yes, eventually.' This was in the lead-up to the wet weather.

I obviously expressed that I did not think that was a very satisfactory situation, that a member of parliament has contacted an authority and the letter has been ignored, and the advice was quite sloppy, I must say. So I called him and spoke to him, and he did take my call, which I appreciate, and he advised me, 'Yes, it is a problem. We haven't really worked out how to deal with that and we will raise that in the review.' So, for four years they have had the money and have not spent it on anything other than board fees, and now they are having a review. I hope they do not spend too much money on a review because I could tell them, 'Look, you haven't done anything. You can't even solve a simple question of a creek being blocked in a suburb.' No wonder we have so much trouble working out how we can manage the Murray over three states.

Then, of course, a very big concern in Unley, which is also a concern for people who have become aware of the government's 30-year plan, is that 70 per cent of the growth in South Australia is to come from existing suburbs. Urban infill is a very big concern, and I know that the member for Morphett has some beautiful heritage areas in his electorate as well, and it is one of those distinctive features of South Australia. When people come from Sydney and Melbourne, they know they have the trams in Melbourne and the Opera House in Sydney, but they always comment on our beautiful stone homes, our beautiful character suburbs.

A concern that my constituents have is that that will all be lost by the government's 30-year plan and its plan to infill and to get its growth in population in South Australia by infilling 70 per cent of the established urban area in Adelaide. All of us represent electorates of the same number of people roughly, within 10 per cent or so, but geographically the seat of Unley is the smallest at 12.2 kilometres. I say to my good friend, the member for Hammond, that it took me nearly eight minutes to drive from one end of my electorate to the other the other day in peak hour traffic. Outrageous!

Ms Bedford: What speed were you doing?

Mr PISONI: Forty kilometres an hour in Unley; unless you go along Fisher Street, then you can go 50 km/h.

Mr Pederick: Did you take a packed lunch?

Mr PISONI: I didn't need a packed lunch. It does enable you to appreciate the commitment that our country members have to servicing their electorates and their constituents. Of course, we do not have a lot of public open space in Unley. We are slowly losing our private open space as well when a house gets knocked down and two or three replace it on the same block.

The new tree regulations are concerning for many in Unley because we have lovely tree-lined streets. We did lose the beautiful elms on Greenhill Road. That is an interesting story in itself. The department of transport used to pay the Unley council about $60,000 a year to water those trees because they did not want to be bothered with it. The council was right next door, they were watering their own trees, but then the water restrictions came in and they said, 'Water restrictions, we are not going to give you that $60,000 any more to maintain those trees.' Guess what? They are all dead. They are 80-year-old elm trees. I think Australia is one of the only places in the world where we do not have Dutch Elm disease on elm trees, yet we have dozens and dozens of them that have died because of the mismanagement of the department of transport.

I imagine that the order came from the Minister for Transport who has just recently moved in to the lovely tree-lined streets of Unley. So it is confusing. He told this house he only moved in to vote against me, and I am quite flattered by that; however, it did not work. I am here and enjoying the contribution that I am making to the South Australian parliament as the member for Unley.

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (17:39): Budgets are indeed complex, both to compile and examine, and I look forward to taking part in the estimates procedures in the next two weeks to observe what I know will be the forensic examination by members of the opposition of the budget lines, rather than the carping that has comprised their contributions on supply to date.

The member for Davenport spent a great deal of time this afternoon questioning why no member of the government had risen to speak to supply. In my experience in this place, it has always been the opposition who have gone hardest on supply and members of the government have usually spoken in grievance debate, which is what I am doing. So I am sorry to have disappointed the member for Davenport, but there are many reasons for the opposition to have free rein on supply, and I have enjoyed listening to your contributions.

Government members wait, as I said, for the debate in what has become normal practice—so we are talking about precedence in this chamber—not because we have nothing to say. Time for parliament is precious, and the budget document, I feel, does speak for itself. It is announced on budget day, and it is impossible for us to take in all the measures of the budget, which I am sure you all understand, because you take it away and read it as well. We have certain announcements given to us, as you do, so it takes some time to work through these things.

The papers are prepared by a team of experts; we would agree with that, I am sure. Our public servants do their very best to prepare a document, which I am sure you will agree is not aimed at doing anything but making South Australia a better place to live for as many people as possible. It is crafted according to the times, and we face unprecedented times. Whether or not you believe the global financial crisis has had no impact on South Australia, I am sure it will not take long for us to find ways that the budget has had to suffer because of the lack of income.

I take it on trust that budget documents are prepared to the best ability of public servants, and I am sure you do as well. No government, I would say to you, ever makes decisions to cause angst or consternation among the public. Rather, they do their best to balance the competing priorities, and even previous Liberal budgets we know were prepared to do as much as possible to look after South Australia. It all comes down to what is considered to be core responsibilities or promises.

For my part, and for the part of the constituents I represent, health services, in particular the Modbury Hospital, continue to be the centrepiece of focus for a good budget, and it is a concern in every electorate, as far as I know. The Minister for Health has told us many times about the enormous pressures that the budget for hospitals and health services is placing on South Australia's finances.

I think it is agreed that we had to do something that was completely different. In order to maintain the high level of services that are now expected by people in South Australia, the number of services that the ageing population need, we have to make some changes to what has been the norm in the past. However, I am really pleased to say that Modbury Hospital, that has suffered greatly at the creative hands of Liberal budgets in the past, has managed to see an increase in its infrastructure and services. I look forward to seeing the GP Plus clinic come into operation. The people of Modbury are beginning to again have the sort of trust in the service that had been eroded over many years as a result of cuts, unfortunately made by the Liberal government at the time.

History shows and Hansard shows that the reversal of fortune came for Modbury Hospital from continual work on this side of the house. I am indebted to our government for taking over the Modbury Hospital at the time it did to bring back the staff that we needed. It is also important to put into the whole overall look of the budget the health plan that the minister has brought in, which has seen three major hospitals now provide all the services necessary throughout the Adelaide region.

It has taken some time for people to understand, I think, the importance of that shift of service delivery. I think that the Royal Adelaide Hospital, which will be starting shortly and will be finished, I know, in the years to come, as minister has told us, is going to make a great difference to service delivery for health in South Australia.

Over the period of time between the election and now, my constituents have accepted, and are very happy to accept and wait for, the new Royal Adelaide Hospital, because they know it is going to be a much better outcome for them. The city expansion that is going to be a result of not only the new Royal Adelaide Hospital but also the oval I think will completely revitalise the city centre, and there is nothing wrong with that. I think every business in South Australia is going to benefit from the number of people who come to South Australia more readily now to take part in the revitalisation of that section of the city and the wonderful public buildings we have along North Terrace.

Another thing that heavily affects our people in the Modbury area is the O-Bahn bus service. It has been a remarkable public transport service for some time, and we are looking forward to enhancements. Only yesterday the member for Newland and I spoke with the Minister for Transport about improvements we are hoping to see very soon in the Tea Tree Plaza interchange and parking services around the O-Bahn. Public transport, I think, is a vitally important part of South Australia's future, particularly in the city region, obviously. Cutting down on the numbers of cars on our roads will make a real difference to sustainability in the future and the air quality in the city.

Employment is something I think that everyone understands. The Premier has placed a great emphasis on it in his entire time as Premier. He has worked tirelessly to make sure that we have jobs throughout South Australia. It is very easy to look only at the cuts to the public sector. There is natural attrition. No-one is happy seeing jobs moved backwards and forwards, but it makes a great deal of sense to look at how we provide the public services that we all need and rely on here in South Australia.

Public sector employees make very good decisions, and there has been a lot of criticism of how these decisions have been taken in this house. I think that it is insulting to members of our Public Service to be under constant attack by the opposition for what they are producing. With respect to the education budget, schools in my electorate have done well. We have seen enormous amounts of infrastructure go in, not only the BER buildings.

Education is the most important thing that we can give to our children. It is the only way they will get jobs in the workforce. I am heartened to see what is going on in education. Obviously, things are changing in education in terms of the way in which the services are delivered, but I think that the changing world demands that sort of change.

Everyone has grappled with water restrictions. People have learnt to live with them, and I do not think that is a bad thing. I think that South Australia has shown itself to be quite thrifty with its water use; and, now that we have had so much rain, I am looking forward to much better times. People in the garden industry in particular approached me in the past, and they were very concerned, but that industry has adapted and changed. I think that good times are coming for the garden industry because everyone in South Australia will change the sorts of plants they have in their garden, anyway, and that will not be a bad thing, either.

In terms of services for the ageing, disabled and any disadvantaged member of our community, obviously we want to do as much as we can to support people. Again, the demands are enormous, and we have to be very careful that we make sure that we make every dollar spent on disability go as far as it possibly can.

It is not enough for members of the opposition to say that things are not as they would like them to be. It is about making sure that we get behind the budget. If there is something that members see in the budget they do not like, let us work constructively to make sure it does as much as it possibly can for their constituents. We can represent only our own areas. I cannot look at what will affect the constituents of members opposite and speak for them. That is not what I am here for.

We live in volatile times. Circumstances force governments to change and make decisions on a regular basis. There are competing priorities in the budget, and that is never going to change. I think that one of the things I would like to pick up on, just before I finish my remarks, is the State Strategic Plan. One of the items in the plan the Premier has pointed out is halving the informal rate at elections.

As we come into the local government elections (where, as we know, voting is not compulsory), I guess we will all be looking at how many people do take part in that vote. I think that it is a very important thing, particularly when you look at what has happened in the federal election—and around the hung parliament—that we all do as much as we can to engage with our communities to explain to them how parliament does work.

I think that the more people who are interested in parliament and what goes on in here the better it will be for all of us as we come to represent our people in here. The fact that people have been allowed to think that parliament is not relevant to them or not as relevant to them as it should be is a real tragedy. I know that I will be doing my very best to get people involved in the democratic process, understanding how it works and understanding how they can become activists in the area that concerns them.

As we come towards the celebrations of the 175^th anniversary of our parliament, which I know we will be marking here in parliament, I hope that is something all members will keep in mind.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (17:49): In this budget there is absolutely nothing for the electors of Morphett other than pain. The electorate of Morphett is a compact electorate. It is one of the tourist zones of South Australia. It has hotels, high-rise, investment properties and a lot of commercial properties. The government must be taking millions of dollars both in stamp duty and land tax out of my electorate every year, but what do they get back in return—very little, other than they are very sensible to keep electing a Liberal member of parliament there, and with an 11.2 per cent margin they are not getting it in the foreseeable future. I will be doing my damndest to make sure that this government is exposed for what it is doing, and that is looking after those who look after them.

We see that this budget has put a lot of money into advertising, again, with $320,000 going into public communications for the new Royal Adelaide Hospital. I did not think this government was going to advertise again.

The bit that really hurts in the health budget and concerns my electors in Morphett is the withdrawal of the supposed subsidy to the Glenelg Community Hospital. I use the word 'community' deliberately. It may be a privately owned hospital inasmuch as it is not owned by the government, but it is not owned by the Catholic Church or Healthscope or one of those big boys. It is owned by the Glenelg community. It is a not-for-profit hospital and has been there for a long time. My son Lachlan was born there on a dark and windy night on 15 March 1975.

The hospital was going strongly then and had lots of obstetrics. You cannot have a baby there now, unfortunately, but you can have excellent care for day surgery and overnight surgery, and also a program called Recovery at the Bay. That is a program that linked Flinders Medical Centre and the Repatriation General Hospital with the Glenelg Community Hospital. Patients waiting or recovering from surgery or recuperating from some other procedures or illness can come to the Bay and Recovery at the Bay.

My understanding is this is not charged out at the acute bed rate. This was carefully negotiated. It was a good thing that the Department of Health did. It negotiated extremely good overnight prices for people who are stepping down to Recovery at the Bay. This actually saves the Department of Health hundreds of dollars per night per patient. So why would you abandon it? Don't ask me. At the same time, there are other hospitals that have larger subsidies.

The Glenelg Community Hospital board was so concerned that it issued a press release. Mr Peter Moloney, the chairperson of the Glenelg Community Hospital, put out a press release on 21 September which said:

...the Glenelg Community Hospital expressed surprise and disappointment at the press report which appeared in the Saturday September 18...Advertiser. He said: 'I wish to set the record straight as regards public funding and the Glenelg Community Hospital.'

He said that there had been considerable angst unnecessarily caused by the article—

We know where that came from—it came straight out of the budget papers. Mr Moloney said:

'GCH has been operating successfully for 60 years and has no plans to close any time soon irrespective of any funding issues arising from the recent state budget.' Mr Moloney went on to explain that, 'The core business of our hospital is the provision of overnight and day surgery and the care of medical patients, which is 100 per cent funded via private health insurance providers.'

Mr Moloney explained that [Glenelg Community Hospital] has 'for some years now had an agreement with the Flinders Medical Centre, the Repatriation General Hospital and the Noarlunga Hospital to take patients from those facilities who are waiting for surgery, recovering from surgery or who need care prior to being transferred from hospital to home and this amounted to a very small fraction of the hospital's income. He further said that, 'It was a valuable community service which we have been pleased to be able to provide.' He went on to say that, 'It would be a great pity if this program was lost to the community because it helps these public hospitals operate more efficiently by freeing up beds for more acute patients,' and that 'GCH has been happy to assist in this process.'

Mr Moloney went on to say that if the program is to close it 'will not affect the viability of the Glenelg Community Hospital. It will simply mean that we will continue to serve the community in other ways not involving collaboration with the public hospital system.'

It is not a subsidy. It is a service that is being provided by the hospital. So, when the minister can review that decision, I think it will be good not only for his bottom line but also, more importantly, for the patients who are benefiting from Recovery at the Bay.

The member for Unley talked a bit about the Stormwater Management Authority. I have vivid memories of the floods in Glenelg North when millions of litres of stormwater came running down Brownhill Creek, Sturt Creek and the Patawalonga Creek to the Barcoo Outlet. The gate system was not working properly and the whole area flooded. That may not have happened had there been better retention and detention upstream, and it pains me to hear that the Stormwater Management Authority is not doing a whole lot to move things forward with stormwater management in South Australia, particularly retention and detention.

This week I was delighted to receive a letter from the Adelaide Airport outlining their new aquifer storage and recovery project that is going to be put next to the airport. This will save millions of litres of stormwater from rushing out to sea through the Barcoo Outlet. It will be detained; it will be retained. It will be cleaned up in the wetlands and a lot of it will be stored in the aquifers underneath, and as has been demonstrated so well by Mr Pitman and Salisbury council, it will be reused for on-site non-potable use. Volumes of stormwater rush out to sea all along the coast. I live on the coast at Somerton Park, and even when it has not been raining at Somerton Park but in hills, massive volumes of water rush out to sea. The sooner we do something about stormwater recovery, detention, retention and treatment, the better. I know the Liberal plan was an excellent plan.

The 22 kilometres of sand pipeline that was going to be put along the coast is now back to nine kilometres. However, the price has not gone down, it has gone up. I do confess that I live at Somerton Park, so I am rather pleased that it is not my end that has been cut; that is, the pipeline will go from West Beach to Kingston Park. However, the poor beggars at Henley, Grange and Semaphore, the people living in those presently safe Labor seats, will be suffering the inconvenience of large trucks trucking sand along their streets each time there is a need to move sand up and down the coast. The sand pipeline should have gone ahead. It should not be short-changed and it should not be shortened in length.

The other big issue I have in my electorate is the state of the roads. Anzac Highway between Brighton Road and Marion Road—it is not in my electorate—is an absolute disgrace. Bitumen has failed, bitumen has lifted off and bitumen has peeled off. There are corrugations and ruts. It is almost like a four-wheel drive track coming up to Adelaide now, along with the thousands of cars. I know the Minister for Transport does not live down there anymore, but he needs to drive along Anzac Highway and to look at the state of Anzac Highway. I am getting continual complaints from constituents. I have written to the minister about it, but so far nothing.

The state of Morphett Road is atrocious. One thing I have asked about in estimates before is the tram crossing at Morphett Road. The congestion goes back to Bray Street, and now, because they put these extra sets of traffic lights at the tram crossing, you have congestion at Anzac Highway, Morphett Road and also going north through to Immanuel College. The traffic lights do not add to the safety of the road. In fact, you can still get caught on the tram crossing, with a green light there and a red light at Anzac Highway. They spent $400,000 on that crossing. The then CE of transport described it to me—and I will not use the exact expletive—as a complete 'f'er'. That is what he said. That was a few years ago. Nothing has happened. It has got worse, in fact.

Oaklands crossing, at the other end of my electorate, is another area of complete congestion. We have seen patch-ups and the station moved. At last the State Aquatic Centre is being constructed at Marion, but considering the volumes of traffic going through that area now, that is another area this government needs to pay attention to. It is going to take millions of dollars to fix it, but you cannot keep postponing, because the moment you postpone it, up goes the price. The danger to people, the cost in time, the cost in delays; it is just getting worse and worse. Those two particular traffic areas are something that the Minister for Transport really needs to pay a lot of attention to.

The good people of Morphett deserve more than this. They are putting a lot of money back into this state through their businesses and their endeavours, the taxes they are paying and in supporting the economy. Let us not forget, three million visitors per year visit the Bay and spend money, and that money is going back into state coffers. Morphett deserves better from this government.

[Sitting suspended from 18:00 to 19:30]

Mr BROCK (Frome) (19:30): We all understand that any government and, in any case, any responsible person or company needs to adjust their budget according to the opportunity for their income to offset their expenditure. This state has been promoting the many opportunities for resource commodities and the great additional opportunities with the rewarded and awarded projects that we have achieved with defence and renewable energy.

The state has been very fortunate with the opportunities that we have been successful in but, as the Treasurer states, we have had the global financial crisis and the loss of expected revenue from the GST share from the commonwealth government. As we are all aware, Australia and indeed South Australia escaped the worst of the crisis and, whilst our state received a great share of the commonwealth stimulus package moneys, I believe that we have missed the boat with long-term planning.

We have, with the pause that was created in the activities as a result of the global financial crisis, had the opportunity to look at getting people ready for work when the resumption occurs; that is, when the GFC has been overcome and mining activities re-establish themselves in the north of South Australia. However, I think we have not grasped the opportunity for funding to look at that training. This government seems not to have grasped the opportunity, with funding to adult education being slashed.

Also the reduction of TAFE activities in regional locations is not the right direction that we should be going as a state and/or as a government. We have people looking to be upskilled or retrained in lots of areas, and here we have this opportunity now being squandered. How can these people get the required training to be able to apply for positions with mining opportunities, renewable energy opportunities or anything else that may eventuate in the future?

We have not sent a very positive message for business opportunities within the regional areas by eliminating the funding for Regional Development Australia after 2013. We should be increasing the activities of these sectors to encourage activities in regional South Australia.

Last year, I had the opportunity to visit potential businesspeople in China, and I have now introduced some of those people I visited to the relevant ministers. I understand that there are now opportunities in the pipeline to gain from these companies' involvement in this state. One of those is in the area of renewable energy, and if that is all that was achieved as a result of my visit to China last year I am very happy with that. This trip was assisted by our trade people in Shanghai, and I must congratulate them for the great work they did.

However, with this budget, these areas for establishing and promoting trade are being dramatically reduced or, in some cases, eliminated. How are we to promote if we do not have representation in these regions, particularly in the Asian and Chinese regions? This move, together with proposed cuts to PIRSA, which means savings of $80 million plus a loss of 180 jobs, certainly will not assist the welfare and the growth opportunities for activities in regional South Australia, nor will it assist with export potentials.

The electorate of Frome, along with other electorates in this state, has a proud wine industry which not only provides great export earnings for the state but also is very active in promoting tourism activities for people not only within the state of South Australia but also interstate and overseas. The $7 million cut to the cellar door subsidy will diminish the opportunity and the ability of our winemakers, especially the smaller ones, to showcase our famous wine produce to the Australian domestic market. It will also be a hindrance and a restriction to the export market all over the world.

While there was no mention in the budget regarding the closure of any schools in regional South Australia, or across South Australia, it appears that the funding criteria for smaller schools may create more issues than opportunities. These schools, even though they may have smaller numbers than metropolitan schools, still deserve to have the same opportunities as their counterparts in Adelaide.

The main area of concern is the removal of the small schools grant, being up to $30,000 per school, which is for small schools in regional areas. If we take this amount of grant money away from some of these smaller regional schools—and there are numerous ones across regional South Australia—we may, as a result, lose the school. If that eventuates, the community shrinks.

I have today requested a select committee be established to investigate the best opportunities for regional and outback school bus services, which could be more effective and better value for money than the current system. However, going forward we must ensure that schools and relative transport for schoolchildren in regional and outback South Australia is not affected, and is improved.

As we are all very well aware, or we should be, our communities are already facing great challenges and are under great pressure. If we lose a school, or start taking students away from one of these smaller schools, the communities that they are in will suffer the loss of shopping and associated activities, which will result in a further loss of confidence and also retail and employment opportunities.

Also, there is no indication in this budget that funding for country hospitals is to be reduced, but we must remember that we have to ensure that as many services are available as possible for our people to be able to get the required attention and the medical facilitation. I have asked the Minister for Health for a review of the PAT system, and I await a reply with a copy of this review.

The reimbursement costs for these services, with regard to travel and accommodation, has not been reviewed or increased since 2001—this has been going on for 10 years. It is an issue that this government, and the previous government, should not be proud of. Again, the sick and the less fortunate have to bear the brunt of the required cuts to balance a budget. Again, regional South Australians have been asked to pay for the services that are readily available, for less cost, in metropolitan Adelaide.

Another area of concern is the land tax payments. I know that the threshold and the various brackets were adjusted at the last state election, however this state is still the most expensively taxed state in this regard. It certainly does not encourage the establishment of business opportunities in South Australia, and in particular, regional locations. I understand that this state's land tax liability is 70 per cent above the national average and over 500 per cent above the land tax liabilities in Western Australia.

However, on a positive note, I am thankful to the Minister for Health, who has recently approved the four renal dialysis machines for the Port Pirie Regional Health Service—a service that is gratefully appreciated by the patients that now do not have to travel three times per week to Port Augusta to receive this service.

As said earlier, budgets are very difficult to balance and it is no different with our own personal budgets. If we have to reduce expenditure, for whatever reason, then we must ensure that the must have items are maintained. The like to have items may have to be deferred or reduced, to ensure that the items required for our day-to-day existence are maintained and improved.

We can increase areas for income, such as increasing taxes and the like, which has happened in this budget. This move certainly does not encourage confidence or increased activities by business and/or the general community. I understand the need to balance our budgets, however we need to ensure that we do it in a responsible manner and, whilst people may elect to state that this is a responsible way to achieve the savings, it is again the less fortunate that are bearing the cuts.

The Treasurer may be saying that this is a responsible budget, and that this state has retained its AAA credit rating. However, the people who have contributed to this AAA credit rating retention, have again being the people who can least afford to contribute.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (19:39): I gave what I thought was a fairly comprehensive speech yesterday on the impact of this budget on regional South Australia and the people of Stuart most specifically. I shared a few positives, and I shared many disappointments yesterday. I am not going to go over all of that again. What I am going to do, though, is delve into one particular part of the budget—one of the most disappointing parts for me—and that is the removal of the small schools grant.

I would like to put some things into perspective. The reality is that taking this money away from these schools, if you look at it purely in dollar terms, is quite a small thing. If you look at this from the perspective of what it means to the schools, the towns and the communities in regional South Australia, it is an enormous thing—it is a really enormous thing. In 2006, the previous education minister, Jane Lomax-Smith said:

Small schools are an important part of their communities and will continue to share in the benefits of increased funding for education, provided under the Rann Government. The way we fund our schools has historically given greater levels of funding and staffing support to smaller schools and that will continue in the future.

When talking about regional schools, she said that they 'suffer the tyranny of distance, isolation or levels of disadvantage' and that those schools will continue to receive the grant. Clearly, that is not continuing. The 2010 Resource Entitlement Statement and Supporting Information document of the Department of Education and Children's Services states:

Students from rural and isolated areas are disadvantaged in comparison to metropolitan students due to their access to services, the higher costs of running services and the size of the school population. Initiatives that have been adopted to address these inequities include—

and one of the issues listed is:

Small Schools Grant—allocated to rural and isolated schools, special schools or disadvantaged metropolitan schools...

Clearly, things have changed because here we are in September 2010 and that small schools grant has been removed. That grant that gave $30,000 to schools 80 kilometres or more away from Adelaide (small schools being those with 85 students or less), and they have lost that support.

Taking away that support from those schools saves the budget $3.5 million every year, and that $3.5 million every year is nothing to snivel at; that is a lot of money. In the scope of the budget, though, getting back to perspective, it is very little. However, let me tell you, from the perspective of regional South Australia, that is enormous. In the electorate of Stuart alone, Blanchetown, Booborowie, Cadell, Farrell Flat, Marree, Melrose, Morgan, one of the primary schools in Port Augusta, Port Germein, Robertstown, Spalding, Truro, Wilmington, Wirrabara and Yunta will all be affected by this. Every single one of those 15 towns will be affected by this. It is very important stuff.

I cannot stress enough, going back to perspective, how important it would be to any one of those towns to lose their school. If you lose your school, you lose the heart of your town—children, education. Those schools are not just about teaching. Teaching is incredibly important, but those schools are about developing students, about developing teenagers, about developing young adults and, hopefully, developing middle-aged and older adults who will live in the town or in the community; they are about families, and they are also about economic sustainability. If you do not do those last few things I have talked about, you do not have economic sustainability.

If you lose your school, you lose your butcher, your grocer, your take-away shop, your service station, your workshop, your netball club, your football club, your cricket club and your church. You lose all of these things because you are not developing young people in your area, in your town. You are not allowing families to stay in your town. You are not encouraging grandparents to stay in your town. You are not encouraging people to stay, let alone for those towns to grow and develop.

Taking the schools away takes away the critical mass of the town; it takes away employment; it takes away apprenticeships—it takes away all these things. It is not an exaggeration. There are 15 schools involved although, in fairness, I have to say 14 because one of the schools is in Port Augusta, but if you take away the school in those towns you will take away the heart of the town, and the town will die.

I am not scaremongering because I am not exaggerating. I am also not scaremongering because I know it will not happen in every single one of those towns. The $30,000, though, is very important. There are schools that have 20 or 30 kids in them and sometimes fewer. I called in to the Yunta school a few months ago and there were two kids studying there at the time. There are more kids than that at the school but they were away on a field trip. However, the people at Yunta were keeping that school open for two kids who were there that day to learn. That is dedication; that is support; and that is employment creating future opportunities. That is devotion to those kids and to the town.

If you take the money away from schools, I point out that they are already on tight budgets; schools with the small schools grant are already under threat and are concerned about being closed. They are already concerned about losing all those other flow-on benefits to their towns. If they are already concerned when they have the grant, how serious does this issue become if the grant is taken away? This is a dreadfully important issue for regional South Australia.

The sum of $3.5 million per year is being taken out of the budget—in Stuart alone affecting 15 schools; over regional South Australia, that might possibly be 50 small schools. At the same time, however, expenses and office funding for ministers are going up. This does not involve all of them: there was a claim made by the Premier that there would be a 15 per cent cut across all ministerial funding allocations (which was subsequently proven to be incorrect).

However, the cost for the Premier's own staff and the running of his offices will go up. The Treasurer's will go up and minister Caica, minister Weatherill and minister Snelling's costs will go up. So, at the same time as the salaries and the money allocated to run those offices is going up, that $3.5 million (probably affecting roughly 50 schools in towns all around South Australia) is going down.

Under the Liberal opposition's policy of cutting three ministries, we would have saved $9 million a year, yet in this budget the government has chosen to take out $3.5 million to affect all those towns. Those 15 towns I mentioned are terribly important to the electorate of Stuart and there are other really important towns in other parts of the state as well. I know that other members of parliament are incredibly disappointed. The member for Frome mentioned this in his contribution a few minutes ago.

A little while ago the member for Florey talked about competing priorities, and I agree with her: she is right in saying that there will always be competing priorities in a budget. However, $3.5 million, in terms of a dollar sense over the whole budget, is absolutely nothing. Nobody will convince me that that would have blown out the budget, broken the state or affected the AAA credit rating. However, I can assure you that the decision on that $3.5 million per year to every one of those towns may well make or break them.

When it comes to competing priorities, I am sure that my fellow MPs on this side and even on the other side who represent city electorates would all agree that that is a very high priority. Imagine if this was happening to a whole suburb in Adelaide and it was going to die because it lost its school. That is what may well happen to some of these country towns. I genuinely fear that it will happen to some of these country towns, and I think it is really disgraceful. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (19:50): I commend the member for Stuart on his contribution. It truly does demonstrate, as much as any on person's speech in this place can, that he is a man who cares for the community he serves and which elected him to this place. So, well done, Dan, you will serve your community with pride for a long time.

Before I start talking about the budget, I just wish to correct some statements which the Treasurer made earlier this evening, which he has perpetuated a few times, and which are directed to me and I do not like very much. This relates to comments attributed to me on the last day before the election, 19 March, as reported in the AustralianFinancial Review. For the benefit of the record, I want to run through what actually occurred.

On the Thursday before the election, I had done a 40-minute press conference about the Liberal's finances, as we approached the election, and what we intended to do over the next four years. I then had a telephone interview with a journalist from the AustralianFinancial Review, and we spoke at length about what I had put on paper and what I had presented to the media. He asked me about our Royal Adelaide Hospital proposal compared with the government's. He specifically asked the question about the saving of $1 billion that the Leader of the Opposition had specifically mentioned quite a few times during the election campaign.

A decision had been made that our RAH rebuild was to be a public-private partnership also; so, the same principle that the government supports for its new hospital. On that basis, I was questioned about whether the $1 billion of savings that we had continually talked about could be delivered. I explained my situation by talking about the initiative of the $174 million extra that we were proposing to put in health and the fact that, because it was a PPP, savings of the lower construction costs were to be realised over a 30-year period.

On some estimates that we had done on the cost of the RAH build compared with the cost of an RAH rebuild, it was in the vicinity of $115 million per year; that was the difference in the PPP payments. I told the journalist this, and I said that our commitment was that every dollar saved between the government's proposal and the opposition's proposal would to go into regional and suburban hospitals, and I stood by that. I said that if you perpetuate that over the 30-year period of a PPP, there is actually $3.45 billion plus the $174 million extra that we were putting into health.

Regrettably, that journalist chose to report my comments, specifically the question he posed to me about spin versus substance, in a way that completely misled the people of South Australia. It certainly gave the Labor Party an opportunity to put an attack upon us. My great regret will be that I did not get the opportunity afforded to me on that day before the election to put my case, but others made the decision on that. However, I stand by my words, and I stand by the honesty and integrity that I brought to the role of shadow treasurer and deputy leader at that time, and I will never resile from that. I ask the Treasurer whether he can stand up and say that he speaks the truth at all times, because there are many people in the community who would seriously doubt that.

Now that I have got that little bit off my chest, I want to get back to the budget and reflect upon some things that frustrate me also. Having a reasonably wide portfolio area in the shadow ministry, there are a lot of things that really concern me. Any person who is from regional South Australia, as all those who have spoken about it, has expressed a complete frustration. I want to take a few minutes to talk specifically about some targeted areas. The first one is Regional Development Australia.

I stand here having served as a board member on three different regional development boards in the past: Yorke, Port Pirie and the Northern board based in Port Augusta. I have seen so many examples where regional development structures can assist communities, small business, start-up enterprises and a region to grow economically and give the people who live there a far greater future financially because there is job growth, business development and a real chance to turn an economy around that has for far too long been reliant entirely upon agriculture—to supplement agriculture, of course, because agriculture will still be the prime focus, but to make sure there is a diversity.

I have to express my real frustration to the minister for allowing the situation with the current funding agreement for Regional Development Australia, which has gone through enough hurdles over the last two years with the amalgamation of boards from regional development boards into Regional Development Australia and an agreement with federal government, and where local government had also commit to their funding agreement and where there has been an enormous upheaval.

No doubt they have lost some good members of staff who have had tremendous relationships with the communities they served from an economic development perspective; but now to be told that from 30 June 2013 they are expected to be entirely self-sufficient I just think is another kick in the guts for the regions. Those of us on this side are sick of it.

We are so sick of the seemingly constant attack that is placed on regional South Australia (this being an example of it) that the people of this state have to rise as one and recognise that you cannot continually kick the people who live outside metropolitan Adelaide and expect us to take it. We will talk about it. We are going to encourage our communities to continually talk about it in so many different areas because it is something that needs to happen.

I looked at a recent edition of the Stock Journal and the editorial comment. I know that the editor is Deanna Lush, a former press secretary for the government. Previously, she worked for the Stock Journal, then went to work for former minister Maywald, I understand (the former member for Chaffey), and is now back working for the Stock Journal. I just want to take out a few of the comments in her editorial from last week. It is entitled 'Bovver boy kicks rural SA', and it states:

If South Australian Premier Mike Rann believes depriving the most vulnerable in the community of regional areas will improve the state's terms of trade and ensure a more prosperous future in the long term, he is extremely deluded...Treasurer Kevin Foley, however, has a myopic view more to do with political survival than promoting regional development through investment and infrastructure with all the inherent implications for sustainable growth into the future. The Premier's bovver boy, instead, has been content to hammer the lifeblood of rural communities and the last vestige of the Public Service left to support them.

We are told that 186 jobs will go at PIRSA, and the member for Hammond has certainly spoken at length about this already and how that will gut agricultural development in South Australia, Including 100 from Rural Solutions, which has to be self-funding by 2013-14. Again, that word 'self-funding'. It is the same situation with the Regional Development Australia—self-sufficient.

The only way they can provide services is by charging more, which comes at a greater cost to businesses and, indeed, can those businesses afford it—no, in many cases; so, they are going to suffer from a lack of expertise and advice. RDA, PIRSA and Rural Solutions, exactly the same thing. Her final comments, I think, are quite interesting:

On top of this, farmers will be expected to finance their own biosecurity and animal health while meeting strict compliance laws. The withdrawal of the small schools grants—

as the member for Stuart and many others have spoken about—

and the slash and burn at every level of the Public Service that serve regional areas will compound the pain.

Her final comment is:

The credibility of state government's commitment to regional South Australia has just hit a new low.

That is a sad case. We are a proud state of 1.6 million people, and about 300,000 of those live in the regions. The State Strategic Plan talks about ensuring that at least 18 per cent of our population—even with the 30-year growth envisaged—continue to live in the regions. Unless there is a commitment now—which is a critical time coming out of a drought and a critical time for the future of our regional economies—to ensure that they will be well placed to have a future, we are going to suffer.

All of us in this chamber, no matter what side we come from, need to open our eyes, take a bit of a look, appreciate every person who lives in the state and ensure that the priorities on expenditure of funds are done for the best of the people. At the moment that is the exact opposite of it.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (19:57): Grievance debates are just that, and tonight I want to raise three grievances on behalf of three of my constituents. Before I do that, I want to commend the member for Davenport on a fine speech as the first grievance speaker in this bracket of grievance tonight. I think that it is one of the finest speeches I have heard in this place, and I commend him for that. It is easy to make a good speech when you have got passion, and the member for Davenport has got plenty of that, and I commend him very much.

Following the death of an employee and friend on a piece of earthmoving machinery, a Caterpillar scraper, my constituent Mr Malcolm Coleman, proprietor of SA Earthmovers Pty Ltd, had his scraper taken by the SafeWork SA for investigation. This, of course, is absolutely necessary when a fatal accident has occurred. However, SafeWork SA held onto this machine for nearly five years. SafeWork took him to court, the case was dropped and he had no case to answer.

The machine, costing well in excess of $100,000, was taken away from him and he did not have it for five years. Mr Coleman was without this scraper. He had to pay for it and he had no income. It was a very large, expensive piece of machinery. If you calculate how much revenue was lost it would be approximately $2 million. He has been offered no compensation whatsoever, not even an apology.

I repeatedly tried to assist Mr Coleman to have this investigation completed as soon as possible, but to no avail. He tried every avenue to have the investigation expedited, getting my assistance to make inquiries and going to the Ombudsman. He repeatedly contacted SafeWork SA directly. However, the SafeWork SA executive director—and I will not name her but I have her name here—never once responded to his queries.

Mr Bignell: Gunny would have named him.

Mr VENNING: I may, if I have to. Twelve months following the accident, Mr Coleman spoke with (the name, again, is included) a legal representative of SafeWork SA to find out how long this investigation would take, and he responded to Mr Coleman, 'There was a fatal accident. Your livelihood and business doesn't come into it.' Mr Coleman apparently also inquired with a SafeWork SA staff member (name again supplied here, and I have deliberately left out these names) as to when he would get his scraper back. The response was, 'You will get your machine back after we have prosecuted you.'

I firmly believe that the reason SafeWork SA held onto the machine for so long was they had already decided that Mr Coleman was culpable for his employee's death and it could not just have been what it was, a tragic accident. There is even a strong feeling that the man had a heart attack, but that did not matter. He did not get the scraper back.

Finally, after nearly four years of the investigation dragging on, Mr Coleman went to the media with his story, an act that caused him to receive a letter from the Crown Solicitor saying, 'I consider it inappropriate for Mr Coleman to be contacting the media and giving interviews in relation to this matter while it is currently before the court.' It is probably also inappropriate for me to be quoting that here, but I have done that because I am incensed by what they have done to Mr Coleman. Good heavens above! Five years it has taken, and they have brought it back. I would like to know what else he was supposed to do.

By this stage he had tried everything and the investigation was still ongoing four years after the accident occurred. I would have thought an investigation such as this could have been completed within a year, at the most. If the loss of his long-term employee and friend, coupled with nearly five years' investigation and loss of revenue was not enough to deal with, when the scraper was finally returned to Mr Coleman (the day following the last hearing in court, a few weeks ago), it was returned in pieces. It had no brakes, some pieces were missing and some had actually been cut off. The officer from SafeWork SA who returned the machine drove it off the truck onto a public roadway while it was unregistered, uninsured and without brakes. The officer then had the cheek to serve Mr Coleman with a notice to say that he had to fix the brakes and lights before he could use it.

Madam Speaker, tell me this is not true. Minister, tell me Mr Coleman has got this wrong. I cannot understand the treatment my constituent has received. It is absolutely deplorable. Is it appropriate for SafeWork SA to confiscate this machine for so long and the court then to find that he had no case to answer? If so, shame on our legal system. I hope Mr Coleman receives some compensation for his loss of income and emotional stress this mess has caused him. I have raised this matter privately with the relevant people in this place only as late as last night. I hope Mr Coleman receives an apology and some financial consideration. I will join him in his fight for justice.

The second issue I wish to raise impacts upon some Barossa Valley grape growers who, along with vignerons across the state, continue to experience tough times, as they have during the past few years, as a result of oversupply, coupled with low prices and a lack of available contracts. This has led to many vignerons leaving on a day-to-day basis. Of course, the dollar being at the level it is today is causing even greater hurt and anxiety.

Water prices, availability and allocations have been at the forefront of most irrigators' minds over the past seven or so years as a result of the drought, but now I have been alerted to a different problem relating to the water supply that threatens to place even further stress on vignerons, that is, because of SA Water charges, irrigators are paying to have their water transported to them. With SA Water transportation agreements, the grower must source their own water on the open market and then pay SA Water a fee to transport it.

Growers understand that they cannot just access and use SA Water's infrastructure for free; that is a given. However, surely whatever they are required to pay should be reasonable. One grower purchased 82 megalitres of water this irrigation season and the bill he was hit with from SA Water for transporting it was ten times the cost of the water itself! SA Water increased its peak transportation costs to irrigators in the Barossa Valley by a whopping 28 per cent from the 2008-09 financial year to the 2009-10 financial year, without any explanation being given for such an increase. Has such a large increase been introduced to pay for the desal plant or the lavish fit-out of the Victoria Square SA Water offices? We all know that the average householder's water bill has also increased recently.

I have written to the minister seeking an explanation about these exorbitant costs. He confirmed that, for the 2010-11 season, a peak transport charge of $2,430 per megalitre will apply. This is ridiculous and outrageous, and I am seeking further information on how these rates are calculated and on what basis. I hope that this matter can be addressed because, if it cannot, it will devastate some of the grape growers of the Barossa Valley. Will the government just keep ramping up the cost until many growers are driven out of the business, or even more of them?

The third issue I want to speak about briefly is what I believe to be another cash grab exercise by the government and it relates to vintage car numberplates, an area in which I have to declare an interest. Car enthusiasts have the ability to enter into a restricted rights agreement with the registrar, which means they can have a particular numberplate regardless of whether or not the vehicle is registered. However, an issue arises if the vehicle changes ownership or if a new numberplate is allocated to the vehicle.

If a person wishes to purchase a plate that has been in the family for years but on another car, a class specific rights agreement can be acquired. However, the registrar's policy is only to offer such rights for numberplates at public auction. Currently, there is no provision for a restricted rights agreement to be converted into a class specific rights agreement. In a letter from the minister on this issue he stated:

At the last numeric numberplate auction held in May 2010, numberplates sold for between $3,000 and $15,800 each.

This is absolutely ludicrous. This issue was brought to my attention by a friend who could no longer continue driving and wanted the numberplate from his historic vehicle, which had been in the family all his life and which had a lot of sentimental value, transferred to his daughter. He was told that he would have to buy back the plate at auction—and who knows what exorbitant price it might go for. In correspondence to me, the Chief Executive of DTEI, Mr Jim Hallion, stated that plates go through public auction 'to ensure a fair an efficient process is given to the sale of historic numberplates'. I think it is ridiculous. These plates, if they have been with a vehicle for many, many years, ought to be able to stay with the vehicles.

Mr BIGNELL (Mawson) (20:08): I would like to add my contribution to this discussion. I reiterate the fact that every promise made by the Labor Party at the March election was delivered in this budget and its centrepiece was the delivery of the $445 million to fund the duplication of the Southern Expressway so that it goes both ways, something that should have been done properly in the first place, but I am sure you all know that over there. I think you have all conceded that it was a dopey idea in the first place and it should have been done properly—a government that had no vision at the time and certainly just one way in its outlook.

An overpass is also to be built at the intersection of Victor Harbor Road and McLaren Vale, which is one of the most dangerous parts of the Victor Harbor Road. We hear a lot about that road. The government has recently opened the new intersection at Victor Harbor Road and South Road which has made things a lot easier for people. However, that was not the deadly intersection. The deadly intersection is the one at Main Road McLaren Vale and Victor Harbor Road. An overpass will now take traffic out of McLaren Vale, up and over and onto the Victor Harbor Road so, hopefully, we will no longer see the horrific crashes that we have seen along that stretch of road in the past.

We also have $110 million in the budget for additional police and high-tech crime-fighting equipment. When I make my way around the Neighbourhood Watch groups in the area, it is very heartening to hear and see the statistics showing a continual drop in crime. That is something that has happened since we came into government in 2002, and I commend everyone involved in Neighbourhood Watch because they play their role as well.

It is all very well for us to be putting millions of dollars in for high-tech equipment and putting extra police on the beat, but I really would like to commend the people in the Neighbourhood Watch who do a fantastic job of keeping the community involved and letting the police know.

Community policing was a trial introduced in the southern suburbs around Hackham and it went very well and I am glad to see that under this government the trial is now to be expanded into more community policing throughout the state with good old-fashioned policing values. I grew up terrified of Sergeant Rufus at Kalangadoo, even though I never met him as a young fellow, we always knew Sergeant Rufus might be out to get us.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

Mr BIGNELL: Yes, we would hide under a yacca down on Yacca Road at Kalangadoo: that's it. I think that is a really good thing because people feel a little bit reticent to talk to police officers who they do not necessarily know, but if you can build up a relationship then they can pass on information and that police officer can then talk to several people in the community and actually build up a picture of what is happening in the area.

So, I commend the government for the extra spending on police. I think we have never lost sight of the importance of the continual funding, and I must congratulate the police association on an excellent job that they have done over the last few years talking to both sides of the parliament and I think they have done exceptionally well for their members.

There are almost $21 million for new expanded bus services in this budget to suburbs that include Reynella, Noarlunga, Sellicks Beach, Willunga, Aldinga and several other areas in the southern suburbs. That is going to make a huge difference as we are trying to attract more and more people to public transport. Of course, the Seaford rail extension project will begin soon and that is really going to help people from the south to get to work.

I am sure that people from as far south as Victor Harbor are going to drive to Seaford, park their cars there and can be in on an express train in about 35 or 40 minutes, so it is really going to change the way people get into the city from down south. It will hopefully take a lot of cars off the road, particularly once you get to the Darlington interchange which we are looking at as a subject for future budgets to try to improve the flow of traffic past Flinders University and the Flinders Medical Centre.

I would also like to commend the government for its spending on school buses. Willunga High School has more school buses than any other school in the state with 17 and they come from far and wide and some of the fleet is quite old. It is going to be good to see some renewal there and some safer conditions there for the students. I know that is something that will not just affect Willunga High School obviously but also schools right throughout the length and breadth of this great state.

There is $4.2 million in the budget for food and wine industry development. That is an area very dear to my heart and as the member for Schubert (a very good member representing the Barossa Valley) has already said, the wine industry is in dire straits at the moment and as local members and as a government, we are there to make sure that we do everything we can to promote the wine industry and also to protect the wine industry.

I am looking forward not only to continuing my relationship with the McLaren Vale Grape Wine and Tourism Association but also developing the relationship I am forming with the people up in the Barossa as well. When we work together, we have a lot more power and a lot more say.

I would also like to commend the government for the $12.8 million for plague locust control. This is a huge threat to our rural sector and, after so many poor years, to actually get a great crop, the fear of these locusts swarming down on us is quite an unbelievable thing to see as nature plays its role. We need to do everything we can possibly do as a government to intervene in that and try to reduce the damage.

Some of the new operating initiatives in the budget include $10.9 million for ten new children's centres. There are already two of these children's centres in the electorate of Mawson. We have one at Woodcroft that the education minister and I opened earlier this year and then there is another one at Hackham West which opened about two years ago.

They are fantastic and they really give not just the children but also their parents a great deal of support. It is a great part of our community now both at Woodcroft and Hackham West. For those areas that do not have children's centres, I urge you to get in and fight for one for your local area because they provide not just education but all sorts of social and health advantages as well.

While on education, I must congratulate the education minister, minister Weatherill, for his approach to his new portfolio and the way that he has gone out to schools right throughout the state. He has sat down with students, teachers, principals and parents, to hear feedback first-hand; rather than listen to what the people in the department are telling him, he is actually out there asking for people's feedback first-hand. I think he is really moulding a new-look education department in South Australia.

I heard the member for Stuart speak passionately before about the closure of small schools. It is my understanding that no schools will be forced to do that; it will be up to the communities to do it. However, I am someone who came out of a very small school which was merged when I was only in grade 1. I think there were about 30 kids in Glencoe West Primary School when I started there.

We had one or two terms before they closed the school and merged it with Glencoe East Primary School, to become Glencoe Central Primary. It was a fantastic move that gave us more resources, more social interaction and more opportunities for sport because we did not have 30 kids, we had 70 kids. At that stage, I thought it was the biggest school in the state, until I moved to Adelaide at the age of 10 and was quite surprised when thrown into the mix at Pennington Primary.

It may be a little bit harder, particularly in the seat of Stuart where you have greater distances between towns than we have in the south-east, and it may well cause some of those problems that he mentions. However, I must say that it is not all about scaremongering; there are some positives when you merge schools.

One of the other commitments we have made in the education section of the budget is $9.7 million for Better Behaviour centres and truancy officers in schools. I think that is a very important move, which will be widely applauded by parents throughout the state and certainly in the area I represent.

There is $70 million for Disability SA funding and $70 million for concession increases for pensioners for water, sewerage, energy costs, etc. It is very important that we help those people who are pretty much on fixed incomes. They have paid their taxes all their lives and it is time for us to give back. I think increasing concessions is something this government has done very well since coming to government in 2002.

There is $4.2 million in the budget for children with autism—a very important area. I am sure all members in here would have been contacted by parents. It just seems that autism is increasing at a fairly alarming rate, right throughout the state; whether that is through better diagnosis or for some other reason, it is something that we need to put money into to help not only the children but their parents and the wider families to cope.

There is $3.1 million in the budget for home visits for the elderly, which is also commendable and shows that we are looking after the most vulnerable people in our community. When you look at the alternative care funding for child protection, there is an extra $137 million. These are very tough economic times right around the world, and this is a budget that looks after all South Australians.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (20:18): We have heard a lot about this state budget over the last couple of days. I guess, one of the major issues that is going to affect my electorate, and one which concerns me greatly and which regularly seems to be the whipping boy, is the tourism budget. I am somewhat appalled that just over $12 million is to be cut out of the tourism market at a time when, if we need to create opportunities for employment—

An honourable member interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Finniss, we have a problem.

An honourable member interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Thank you, we have organised the clock. You had an unlimited time, and we know how you can talk, so we did not want to do that.

Mr PENGILLY: Well, it is good to get lucky every now and then, isn't it?

The SPEAKER: You now have 10 minutes—you had a 30-second bonus.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Finniss, continue your remarks.

Mr PENGILLY: I need the protection of the chair, Madam Speaker.

The SPEAKER: I think you need more than that, member for Finniss.

Mr PENGILLY: I am feeling nervous. I am like the former member for Stuart. If we ever needed marketing in tourism it is now, given the global situation over the last couple of years and indeed, the domestic situation. We can kid ourselves into thinking that Australia is bubbling along pretty well, but it would not take much of a hiccough in China to sort us out somewhat, I might add.

The fact is that in an electorate like mine, with the hustle and bustle of tourism that takes place on the Fleurieu Peninsula and the tourism industry on Kangaroo Island, we need every single marketing dollar that we can get. There are hundreds of thousands of people who come down to the Fleurieu and Victor Harbor, Port Elliot, Middleton, Goolwa, Yankalilla and all points in between. They are absolutely critical to the economy of that area, and this cut in marketing worries me.

Operators have spoken to me in the last day or two and expressed their concerns over just what is going to happen. They are nervous. They have had a fairly lean winter on both sides of the water. Tourism in South Australia is always lean in winter, but it seems to be more lean than usual. A lot of the bottle shops, for example, are saying their sales are down 12 to 15 per cent across the board over the last two or three months of winter, which indicates quite clearly that there are not as many visitors coming down and, indeed, local people are not spending as much on leisure activities such as going out and buying a bottle of wine and whatnot. That in itself is a concern.

I heard what the member for Mawson had to say about the amount of money that is to be expended on the Southern Expressway, the McLaren Vale Main South Road turnoff and a couple of other bits and pieces in between. The save Mawson campaign was significant. It was quite clear to us that the polling in Mawson must have been absolutely horrendous, because we had money being spent like a drunken sailor to save Biggles. It was the save Biggles campaign.

Ms Chapman: Family First campaign—his family!

Mr PENGILLY: And the Family First campaign, yes, on election day. The member for Mawson may need a bit of a history lesson on why the Southern Expressway is only one way. He seems to forget the State Bank debacle and the fact that when the Liberal Party came into government there was nothing left in the coffers and they bent over backwards to build that road. The Southern Expressway works pretty well. You do not hear a lot of complaints about it. Obviously we would all like it to be duplicated; it would be terrific. It would have been done in the first place.

You also need to remember that the government of the day actually bought the land so it could be duplicated when things got a bit better. Unlike John Bannon with the MATS plan, when he sold off all the land they had to duplicate Main South Road, the land has not been sold off for the Southern Expressway. It is still there, so we have a bit of a head start.

I look forward to seeing that project come to the Public Works Committee of the parliament, I look forward to that project commencing and I look even more forward to that project being completed in the near future, because no doubt all the residents of the south and the Fleurieu Peninsula will be able to get here and there a lot more quickly. The member for Mawson needs to remember that it would have been duplicated from the outset if his mob had not broken the state. You can put out all the spin you like, but that is the reality of it.

My view is that the first part of the duplication of the Victor Harbor-Adelaide Road that needs to be done is the Cut Hill section nearest to Victor Harbor. The work that has been done on the road has certainly made it safer than it was; there is no argument about that, but that Cut Hill section is an extremely dangerous section, and we hear nothing about that, despite the RAA regularly putting forward the Victor Harbor-Adelaide Road as a major priority for them. That needs to happen. Perhaps we will see what transpires over the next two or three years on that.

Another subject that needs some clarification is the subject of police. The government and the government members like to wax lyrical about the number of extra police that are on the beat. I am a great defender of the police. I have very good relations with them, I have good contact with them and they are very helpful, and they go about everything to the best of their ability with the resources that they have. However, it is worth noting that the so-called five extra police who are going to be based at Victor Harbor are going to be out on traffic. They are not going to be running around the electorate doing this, that and everything else.

They desperately need another police officer at Normanville to bring that station up to three. They also need another police officer on Kangaroo Island to bring that up to four. There is always someone on leave or having days off and sometimes there is only one police officer on duty for a considerable period of time which causes great stress for the police force and that police officer's family. In small country towns, as most members will know, you simply cannot get away from work—you cannot get away from it. I stress to the government that those extra police resources in places like Normanville and Kangaroo Island are absolutely paramount. SAPOL is aware of that and, indeed, information comes to me on a fairly regular basis.

I also want to talk about public infrastructure. Whilst we have been talking about the roads and whatnot, we may also forget that, once upon a time, governments delivered strongly on infrastructure, not only on roads and things like that but also on marine infrastructure such as jetties. A few years ago, the government went about the process of selling many of the jetties to local councils, conning them into taking them, I would suggest, after they had done them up.

These jetties are key points in the community. With thousands of kilometres of coastline in South Australia, a lot of these jetties were built 80, 90 and over 100 years ago and they are deteriorating and they should not be allowed to deteriorate further to my mind. The jetty at Rapid Bay was built as part of the grand plan in the 2006 election campaign and it was highly successful for the angling sector, but I know that the Yankalilla council, for example, would have far preferred to have had the jetty at Normanville done. However, that is another story.

Finally, in the very short time left to me, I will talk about the ongoing issues of freight between Kangaroo Island and the mainland, the lack of government accountability and the government not coming up with an answer as to how to deal with this problem, the lack of support for the Kangaroo Island community, and the failure by the state government to adequately address this through its federal counterparts. The federal government is possibly there for another three years. It is time to hit the federal transport minister fair between the eyes again.

I support the council to the best of my ability but we need to sort this issue out. Only today we had a Japanese delegation at Parliament House who want to buy grain and goods from Kangaroo Island. It is just adding to the costs, while the government procrastinates and will not make a decision on assisting the residents of Kangaroo Island on the freight issue.

Mr PICCOLO (Light) (20:28): I would like to make a few comments about the budget discussions and I would like to—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PICCOLO: Madam Speaker, on this side we actually go for quality rather than quantity. That is why we do not have to speak twice on the same matter.

Members interjecting:

Mr PICCOLO: Madam Speaker, I sat here listening to them and gave them the courtesy of listening to them. I wish I had the same courtesy.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, Member for Bragg!

Mr PICCOLO: I have not started yet, member for Bragg. I would like to make a few comments and a few observations about the budget and the ongoing funding by this government for a number of programs and services in my electorate of Light. There are a couple of things I would like to say to provide a more holistic and balanced side to this debate so that the community can understand that this government actually does support the state.

There are a couple of things that I would like to bring to the house's attention. For example, one of the new programs supporting regional and rural South Australia provides cancer treatment chairs to the Gawler Health Service, so that people who live in my electorate do not have to travel far to get treatment. When people are sick their families also become patients by virtue of the fact they often have to travel to other locations. That is a welcome improvement that the minister spoke about today.

The government has announced a major increase in funding for GP Inc., which provides the accident and emergency service in Gawler. Despite the scare campaign by the Liberals, saying that that facility would close down, and so on, the government has announced a major increase in funding to secure that service for the growing Gawler community. There is also the ongoing redevelopment of the Lyell McEwin Hospital, which serves the southern part of my electorate. They are some of the things in the health budget which indicate this government's commitment to the welfare of our community.

In the area of public transport I am happy to say that as close as possible to 1 July there will be a brand-new bus service for the town of Gawler and also the area of Hewett. That is a commitment to improving public transport and infrastructure for this community, but it is also a government commitment to the growth in Gawler, and the infrastructure will be there when the community needs it. This is part of the plan not only to grow but to support Gawler. So there will be enough buses around for the Gawler and Hewett communities. However, public transport investment in this community does not stop there. There is also—

Mr Marshall: There's more.

Mr PICCOLO: There is more—there is a lot more. There is a $2 million government program to revitalise rail; the electrification of the Gawler line is happening. Apart from having a faster, quicker, cleaner and a much more comfortable train service, we are also going to upgrade a number of train stations in the electorate, and the Munno Para and Gawler stations will be upgraded in conjunction with the federal Labor government's proposals.

But, there is more, as the member for Norwood said; there is more my electorate. There is also an extension of bus services to Munno Para West and the Peachey Belt, again to support growth and the new schools in that area. There is more in the public transport area, and very shortly—

Members interjecting:

Mr PICCOLO: I will. There is a lot to be said. There is also the introduction of a dial-a-ride service for Angle Vale, which will be the first time a sustainable public transport system will be introduced in that town after the failure of the Liberal government plan in the late 1990s, when a service started and was then cancelled after six months. Rather than the gimmicky things that the Liberals have done, I have worked with the community there and also my new colleague the member for Taylor, and shortly we are going to have a new service for the Angle Vale community. That is public transport.

Let's go to education, where the story is even better. We have completely redeveloped the Roseworthy Primary School, spending another $4 million. It is, incidentally, a booth that I won, and I also won Wasleys—two country booths which the Liberals lost. In addition to supporting those rural communities with brand new schools, we have made a major investment in the northern suburbs, the southern part of my electorate, with an investment in the John Hartley B-7 school, and also the Mark Oliphant B-12 school, which will rejuvenate the whole education system both in those southern parts of my electorate and in the northern suburbs, supporting the young people there.

There is more in terms of education. Over $14 million will be spent on redeveloping the Gawler High School site to combine the Evanston primary, high and preschools, and it is supported by the community.

Members interjecting:

Mr PICCOLO: Well, all I can say is that I'm here. You can't change that fact: I'm here.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I have got no idea what is going on because I cannot hear a thing.

Mr PICCOLO: Madam Speaker, while this government is investing millions of dollars in education in my electorate, I will just tell members what the Liberal Party would have done had it got elected. I quote from their leader today:

Education is about teachers and students. It is not about having flash new buildings. My view is you can actually have a good education sitting under a gum tree provided you have good teachers.

All these new schools, had the Liberal Party been elected, would not have been built.

Mr Treloar interjecting:

Mr PICCOLO: The Cowell Area School, the member for Flinders, would not have been built, either, because your leader thinks that you can just do education under a gum tree. That is the Liberal Party policy on education. You have actually outsourced education to Trees for Life. You will have all your kids under these trees.

But there is more. In the case of road transport, we have the Northern Expressway. In southern Gawler, the major new investment is part of that growth area. We have urban regeneration in Playford North; more than $1 billion over 10 years to rejuvenate a major area.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Norwood, you are very loud tonight. Can you be quiet, please?

Mr PICCOLO: I am glad to see that the opposition has come alive tonight. In the area of environment, this government supports the $40 million Waterproofing Gawler project, which, hopefully, will get federal funding and work with the community. We support that. When it comes to policing, I am happy to say that the police will provide an additional patrol in my area to improve community safety.

The good news for my electorate does not stop there. In the area of jobs, the government has announced additional apprenticeships and traineeships. The area of economic development, I must say, is really a good story. I spoke to a developer from interstate who has invested to build a commercial and industrial zone in my electorate because of the investment we have made in public transport and the investment we have made in the road transport area.

He is investing in the future, and this will be part of the key employment zone for this locality. He was quite happy to have a Labor government. He knows that a Labor government will provide the infrastructure which business requires and which ends up with jobs for our young people. But the good news does not stop there.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

Mr PICCOLO: Sorry?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PICCOLO: I am glad to see that the opposition is so excited about my electorate. It is really great to see. This area will become a major mining services precinct. It will provide a lot of services and support for the mining and mineral industry. While the mining is up north, a lot of the support services will occur in my electorate, and there will be jobs for young people as a result of the investment this government and the federal Labor governments have made in road transport.

In terms of emergency services, this government is supporting the redevelopment of the Gawler River CFS, which will occur. In terms of rec and sport, the minister for sport recently announced major funding for sporting organisations, especially for sporting hubs, which will not only support health but also support our volunteers through those programs.

Last but not least—and I could go on and on—are the early intervention programs through our children's centre. We are supporting our families by providing support services in that regard. To try to find some balance, this is some good news in my electorate.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Can we have some order, please, and some decorum. It is Wednesday night. Someone was using a mobile phone earlier, and I would ask them to be very careful about that or I will confiscate it like a school principal. The member for Bragg.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (20:38): Thank you, Madam Speaker. May I first say that, whilst I am a proud member for the electorate of Bragg, an electorate which covers Rose Park to Uraidla, I could not help but listen attentively to the member for Light's contribution. I recall during the election campaign visiting his electorate to hear the rather sad story of a lady who had been ripped off by treasurer Foley. She was charged stamp duty for the transfer of an interest of access to occupancy within a residential facility, which requested the funding to be given back.

I am pleased to say that we have in the gallery today the Liberal candidate for Light, Mr Cosie Costa, who fought valiantly with us to get her money back, and members will recall reading in recent media articles the return of that money. There was no apology from the Treasurer and no interest paid on her money. There was no apology from the Premier. They just tried to get away with it. But we got the money back, and wasn't that a fantastic thing for her? She fought the fight to make sure that this does not happen again to others in those circumstances. So I acknowledge our candidate on that occasion.

Let me get back to the seat of Bragg, covering from Rose Park out to Uraidla. Some is rural and some is residential, with retail and, of course, primary industries across the board. It is a very good electorate. We have never had much from this government and I do not expect much from this government. I know I will get nothing from this government. At the moment we do not have any police or public hospitals. We have got some public schools, let me say, and they are very good ones, but when we need some help for Linden Park or Rose Park primary schools we get nothing in the way of support from this government. The parents get trodden on. We even get dodgy documents given to us in a report prepared by the government. I am pleased to see that the minister has at least sacked the CEO, Chris Robinson. We have had nothing but absolute contempt given to our schools in my electorate.

We have a CFS, which is a number of different agencies, that have got no extra money in this budget. We do not expect any, of course. We have got no extra equipment. We have all these extra rules that we have to comply with but no extra funding. A classic example is that the Uraidla oval was recently given advice that it was to provide a facility in the event of an emergency or bushfire. It has no independent water supply or generator if the power goes off. How on earth are they supposed to be meet those obligations and provide those facilities?

We have got no funding for the Britannia Roundabout—an RAA hot spot, and has been for decades. There is no funding to fix that facility. On average, 2½ accidents a week occur at that intersection. It is a dangerous intersection in this state. There has been not a dollar provided. There is no funding, not one dollar, to contribute to the Victoria Park redevelopment. I acknowledge and thank the Adelaide City Council for its contribution in the work it is doing in restoring the main auditorium and playing fields. It is a great effort on its part. There is not a dollar, not a dime—nothing—from the state government.

I come to the MFS. There is a Metropolitan Fire Service within my electorate. It services the major accidents and spills on the South Eastern Freeway. It is an important service. It has had on the books for a number of years the development of a replacement of its facility. The budget comes and there is not a dollar, not a dime—nothing—for them, of course.

In Bragg we are quite used to getting stuff all, and this year is no exception. Let me tell members what we do get. We get funding for a pipeline and a pump infrastructure at Wattle Park that we do not want. They want to spend $403 million. Part of that project is to go through our area, rip up the roads and trees between Beaumont and Stonyfell. They do not give a tinker's curse about what the people in the electorate say or want to have happened, or even whether they are informed about it. That, of course, has been publicly scrutinised and exposed.

The government's idea of consultation is to make a decision, do not give a stuff about what the people say, and, when they retaliate, pay them off with something and then proceed anyway. That is the policy of the government. It is typical and has been repeated over and over again in projects around the state and is a regular feature in Bragg.

Let me give one other example. Finally, after years of protest and submissions to minister Gago, as the minister for local government, she announces that she is going to have an inquiry into concerns that are raised about the Burnside Council and its administration. Some $850,000 later, and God knows how much has been spent on the cost internally in departments and Mr MacPherson's report, we still do not have it. This is a report which is so important to the integrity of local government but, after a year's investigation and nearly $1 million worth of direct cost in this investigation, we still do not have it. I think that is a disgrace. They think that we will pay to have these investigations and then they will keep it a secret.

I remind members of the importance of what we are talking about here, because just a year ago, when this inquiry and investigation by the government was proposed, it reminded me of J.F. Kennedy's statement nearly 50 years ago when he said, 'Secrecy is repugnant to a free and open society.' Yet, almost contemporaneously on the Premier's dancing in here to tell us about how open and transparent he was going to be to ensure that cabinet documents over 10 years old would be open and available, minister Gago is in the chamber saying, 'We are going to shutdown freedom of information applications for all the departments that have anything to do with the MacPherson inquiry.' You were not even allowed to apply for a document.

Essentially, the current rules allow you to apply for a document, and if there is a particular reason for exemption, part or all of that document can be withheld—cabinet confidentiality, commercial sensitivity, personal embarrassment and so on. She introduced a regulation, which we challenged at that time (but of course parliament got up and we did not sit forever), that any agency assisting in the investigation—the Department of Primary Industries and Resources, the Office for State/Local Government Relations, the Department of Planning and Local Government—were all declared by her hand to be exempt. I say that it is absolutely imperative that we have the answers from minister Gago and that we receive the report which we have paid for and which we are entitled to have.

We are about to have a council election at Burnside, along with all other local councils across the state. This report has not been delivered. We have not had any indication from her about when she is going to table it. We have paid the money, we are entitled to have a look at it and we demand that she table it and be fair not only to South Australians but also to ensure that if there has been any inappropriate behaviour or improper conduct we know about it for the purposes of amending the Local Government Act or any other legislation. We are entitled to it, we want it and we have paid for it. We are about to go to elections and we deserve to have that transparency.

I also ask the minister, after she has tabled it and put forward her recommendations for our consideration, to release us from this stranglehold of a regulation which is just a disgrace. This is a total epitome though of what the government has done; that is, announce and beg forgiveness to cover everything as best it can, with the protection of secrecy to ensure that we do not get access to it. It is absolutely critical not only for my electorate of Bragg but all South Australians that, in future, we have some transparency in the way the government operates.

We are used to having no money spent in our electorate. We are used to looking after our own. We are happy to keep providing for our own. Volunteers, pensioners and retired people particularly work very hard in our electorate to provide for our own and others, but we will not put up with having a blanket of secrecy placed on information which we are entitled to have access to and we damn well demand and expect it to be delivered.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (20:48): In the main debate on the Appropriation Bill earlier today, I spoke at length about some of my concerns with the serious budget cuts to education measures in this state budget. In that contribution I made the point that there were some positive measures in the budget, and so I thought it would only be fair if I turned to something that I thought was a positive measure in the budget tonight, although I should say it is a qualified tick at best. I am talking about the better behaviour centres and truancy officer support: $15 million over four years and ongoing of about $3.5 million per year. Of course, these were promised in November last year and then again during the election campaign, and now in the budget in the last couple of weeks we have had them announced again, but perhaps it is a good story so it is worth announcing three times.

It is six new better behaviour centres—two in the country, four in metropolitan Adelaide—to provide early intervention behavioural programs and intensive support for up to 1,000 students each year and employ an additional 12 truancy officers to more than double the number of truancy officers from 10 to 22. As I say, it is a qualified tick. There is not enough really for this program to make it as effective as it could be. It is not just about the resources but the approach that should be taken to combat systemic truancy issues, and I am concerned that not enough is being done.

I will be interested during the estimates hearings commencing next Thursday to discover more about exactly how these centres will function and what relationship truancy officers will have with schools, the department and, in fact, other parts of government as well. I am particularly thinking of the police force. When the Liberal Party was in government, the police force had an important role to play in dealing with the issue of truancy. I do not believe that has been the case under this government.

Of course, this is an issue that in recent days has generated some troubling publicity and I note the Sunday Mail article of 26 September titled 'Why isn't my son at school?' by David Nankervis. It was about a father demanding that the state government tell him why his 13 year old son had been allowed to skip 100 days of school this year.

In that story we were advised that the minister said that there was an issue with the boy caring for his mother who had some disability-related concerns, which was apparently news to the father, but there is no need to go into that detail to deal with the systemic issue. The father alleges that the lad was skipping classes to go to skate parks and shopping centres with other boys instead of attending classes. The article stated:

Although parents can be fined $500 for failing to ensure their child attends school, none have been prosecuted in the past decade...

Not one parent of a truant child in South Australia has been prosecuted in the last 10 years under the watch of this government. This brings me to the case of one of my constituents, who I hope will be assisted by this new budget measure, although up to now the government's lack of gumption on this issue of truancy leaves me with concerns.

My constituent has requested that I keep his name anonymous, and that is fair enough. He has a relative who is a 14 year old student who has been chronically truant over a period of at least the last seven months. During this period my constituent has striven to bring this issue to the attention of the appropriate authorities, but to no avail.

Everyone in this house knows the importance of education to a young child's life, particularly in attending school. Education is the best equaliser we have in society; it is the best and most reliable way of providing equality to individuals. Ideally we start from a position of some relative equality. Everyone has the right to an education but, to have the opportunity to better themselves and create opportunities for the future, children must be compelled to attend school.

If we fail to educate our children in their youth, we are reducing our future potential as a state and we start widening the disparity that already exists in society between individuals which becomes much harder to bridge in later years. Of course, after this budget which has emaciated funding to adult re-entry programs and will destroy the Marden Secondary College's adult re-entry programs for high school, we will see a situation where, if a child does not get that education in their school years, it will be almost impossible for them to ever get that back.

Early intervention is crucial because the chances are that if the problem is not rectified early, it is less likely to be rectified later on. We all know that the life prospects of youths who have been chronically truant do not paint a very positive picture. Every day there are thousands of children who do not attend school in South Australia. A number, of course, have genuine reasons; they can be ill or have family matters that prevent them from attending school.

However, there is also a component of serial truants who represent a serious waste of potential both in their own lives and also in our state, and they store up serious problems for the future of our state. According to the figure quoted—and I do not believe it has been rejected at the moment—there are some 5,000 students identified as potentially being serial truants in South Australia. Not only do these individuals and those around them suffer, but the future economic potential of the state as a whole is squandered and the talent of the state is not utilised the way it should be.

The constituent who contacted me knows all this and that is why he is so determined to turn around the life chances of his relative. Unfortunately, he has been thwarted in his efforts and given short shrift by the government agencies from which he has sought assistance. The student in question has been enrolled in four different schools this year, none of which has put in a referral to DECS to report the child's non-attendance which they are obliged to do under the Education Act.

It appears that the student—or non-student might be the more appropriate tag—has slipped through the cracks and not been followed up by the appropriate school attendance officer. They have never been in attendance at any of these four schools for so much as a day, apart from enrolling so as to form a relationship with the school that might have alerted the school to the student's truancy.

If the case is not being dealt with by an appropriate authority, then of course any prosecution of the parent would be unlikely, but we know that that would be the case, anyway, because in 10 years we have not had a prosecution. By the same token, under the current act it is permissible for police officers and student attendance counsellors to obtain a child's name and address and the reason for non-attendance, if the child is observed in a public place in school time. However, police officers and counsellors are advised to use the act sparingly, occasionally or in special circumstances only.

You can rest assured that that act is used very sparingly indeed. So much so that if you walk down Rundle Mall in the afternoon on any day during school time you will observe plenty of young people in school uniform in a public place, in that school time, and in any of the major shopping districts and plenty of other places where you really would not ideally want young people to be when they should be at school.

Of course, this is partly a question of the availability of resources. So, this small amount of extra resources is helpful—which is why I am commending the government again—but I am not sure that we are putting in enough effort and pressure to have these youngsters stay at school.

I first wrote to the minister about this case several months ago, and at the beginning of this month my office again followed up with the minister's office, who confirmed that the matter was receiving attention and that a response would be forthcoming. It was on somebody's desk; hopefully, we will get there eventually. While I would love a response to the correspondence, that is not the issue. The highest priority is that action must be taken to get this young student attending classes again.

One thing we could do is start removing the advice provided by the act that schools and DECS officers are discouraged from labelling any student as a truant. The preferred term is 'non-attender'—more political correctness. I think we should call a spade a spade. We are not going to do them any favours by shielding them from the consequences of truancy. If we are focusing on the idea of what we should be calling these people—truants, non-attenders, anything else—then clearly the priorities are wrong. I suspect that the student is probably not going to get offended at being called a truant because, if they are not attending school enough, maybe they do not even know what the word means. They should attend school more often to find out.

I conclude my comments tonight by urging the minister to once again look promptly at my constituent's case. If we act promptly, we may be in a position to do something for this young student before things get any worse.

However, more to the point on the systemic issue, I hope this new program and this new funding is a useful tool in the fight against truancy, but while the government tends to talk tough about young delinquents in all sorts of areas—beating their hairy chests on gaols, young offenders and bikies—it is actions that we need to look at. We can see in their actions on truancy—10 years without a prosecution—that they are soft at heart. It is nice to be nice sometimes, but nice does nothing like as much to help these young people get a future as would some improved discipline and getting them to attend school.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (20:57): I would like to commence my remarks by making an observation in the house this evening. It is interesting that the government has decided to rustle up a couple of speakers in relation to the budget bill.

Clearly, the shadow treasurer, the member for Davenport, had hit a fairly raw nerve when he highlighted the fact that not one government member has spoken in the first part of the second reading stage of the Appropriation Bill. Not one government member spoke in support of the budget, so I wonder what that is telling the South Australian community at large. Perhaps a percentage, at least, of the Labor caucus has some real concerns with the budget that the Treasurer has brought down.

I concluded my remarks in relation to the second reading stage by highlighting an issue of, basically, the forced amalgamation of the Birdwood High School and the Birdwood Primary School. I highlighted the fact that it was obviously an 'announce and defend' scenario by the Minister for Education—something that he had publicly decried in an article in The Advertiser several weeks ago.

I just want to make the point again that Birdwood High School is about to launch a groundbreaking learning initiative—a groundbreaking learning program. It is called the Academy of Middle Schooling: a Community of Thinking. As I said yesterday, that new learning initiative will stagnate as a consequence of the time, effort and commitment that the school communities will have to put in to see the amalgamation through.

I want the minister and all the departmental people—the head of the department, even though he is going and there is going to be a replacement, no doubt, appointed in the next months or years or whenever the minister gets around to it—to be acutely aware of the fact that these forced amalgamations are going to cause those school communities a great deal of concern and take a great deal of their time and effort in implementing the amalgamations. We are going to have a lot more to say about those issues as the weeks roll on.

I also want to highlight another aspect of educational needs, particularly in the township of Mount Barker. I note in the budget that there has been some funding allocation for new special school projects. That is a welcome announcement that the government has made; however, I want to also stress to the minister and the departmental people of the real need for a special school to be established at Mount Barker, particularly for children who suffer with autism and those types of concerns, because at the moment there are taxis that are ferrying autistic children from Mount Barker to the special school at Murray Bridge and back, a round trip of at least 100 kilometres.

I have an understanding of autistic children, and they do not deal with new sets of circumstances and new environments particularly well. I have had at least three women come to see me extremely concerned about the educational needs of their pre-primary schoolchildren that suffer from autism. They do not want to be faced with the prospect of having to put those children—well, they will not do it. They simply refuse to put their children in taxis to ferry them to Murray Bridge and back.

I know that there has been strong representation from the district office and a strong proposition put to the Department of Education and Children's Services in support of the establishment of a special school facility within the current school site at Mount Barker Primary School—what we call the Dumas Street school. There are two primary schools in Mount Barker, Mount Barker South and Mount Barker. There is a strong case that has been put forward to establish a special school at the Dumas Street site. So I urge, I ask and I plead with the minister for education to allocate some of that funding that we see in the budget for the establishment of a special school within the site of the Mount Barker Primary School.

These mothers are at their wits' end in what they are going to do with their children as they leave the kindergarten and preschool environment and what they are going to do with them to meet their primary school needs. It is a responsibility of any government to provide a satisfactory level of education for our children, whether they suffer from some form of disability or they have special needs—whatever their requirements are. It is a fundamental responsibility of the government to provide satisfactory levels of education for our children. As I said, I implore the minister that that special school be established at Mount Barker Primary School to meet the needs of these children with special needs.

Another aspect I want to talk about in relation to education is the cuts to small school grants. Some of us experienced this previously in about 2006, just after the election before last. The then minister for education, the member for Adelaide, announced that there would be cuts to small school grants within an 80-kilometre radius of Adelaide. That encompassed small schools in my electorate and in the electorates of the members for Schubert, Heysen, Finniss—all those peri-urban electorates that border the metropolitan area. I can tell you that we believe that it was the intention of the government and the intention of the then minister—and she has been seen out of this place as a result of the outstanding victory by the newly-elected member for Adelaide—that if you starve those schools of money, you will eventually close them.

Well, I can tell you, the exact opposite happened. The heart and soul of those communities stood up for their rights and they fought the government and the minister tooth and nail, and not one of those schools has closed. If anything, the school communities and the schools themselves have actually flourished as a consequence of the government's action. They were not going to close. We had an enormously large and successful rally on the front steps of Parliament House where the organisers handed out these little yellow ducks. I still have one of them in my office in Parliament House as a reminder of the tenacity and the strength of community spirit that those people showed.

I actually went to one of those schools. I went to a small primary school in the hills and I know the direct benefit that that educational environment has. It was a benefit to me. My children also attended the local primary school, which is regarded as a small school, and I know the benefit that it has provided them.

We will see the same action taken by these other small schools around the state where these cuts to small school grants will be perpetrated. They will rise up; they will fight the government and it is my strong opinion that those school communities will not falter, they will not fail, they will not close. They will go on to bigger and better things. We know what this government is about. This government is about rationalisation, consolidating and centralising. It is about big government, big bureaucracies and central control.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon) (21:07): Hendrik Gout of The Independent Weekly was the principal writer on a small circulation publication issued on Fridays in Adelaide and owned by a company called Solstice Media. He styled himself 'editor' of the publication and is a former staffer to defeated Democrats MLC Kate Reynolds. Mr Gout is scathing of the Rann government's policies—

Mr PISONI: Point of order. The member for Croydon has been a stickler for pointing out when members are reading their speeches and saying that they are, in fact, in breach of Erskine May. I ask you to rule on that in this instance.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Piccolo): I am sorry, I was not wearing my glasses. I could not see the member actually reading his notes.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: —especially its criminal justice policies, although this did not stop his applying for a full-time job as a Rann government media adviser, what he would now call 'a spin doctor'. Mr Gout disclosed to me by email that he had applied to be the media adviser to the Deputy Premier and this is the first I and the Deputy Premier had heard of this, although I had heard on the grapevine at least two years ago that he had applied to be a spin doctor generally. Mr Gout has now regularised his position and joined the staff of Michinite Liberal MLC, David Ridgway.

Mr Gout publishes the opinions of Adelaide defence lawyers Dave Edwardson and George Mancini. In the months leading up to the High Court's decision in a South Australia liquor licensing case—

Mr MARSHALL: Point of order.

The ACTING SPEAKER: Point of order, the member for Croydon will resume his seat.

Mr MARSHALL: It is my understanding that we are actually speaking tonight on the budget and so far—

The ACTING SPEAKER: It is grievance. Member for Norwood, it is actually a grievance debate.

Mr MARSHALL: It is a grievance on the budget.

The ACTING SPEAKER: No, it is general grievance.

Mr MARSHALL: I apologise.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes, wrong again.

The ACTING SPEAKER: We will forgive the member for Norwood; he is new to the place.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: In the months leading up to the High Court's decision in a South Australian liquor licensing case, K-Generation, Mr Gout had promoted the view that the state government would lose the case and all our legislation that protected criminal intelligence from full disclosure to defendants would fall like a house of cards.

Our laws define criminal intelligence as information relating to actual or suspected criminal activity, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice criminal investigations, or to enable the discovery of the existence or identity of a confidential source of information relevant to law enforcement. The obvious example of this is information about, say, the Gypsy Jokers motorcycle gang which could come only from a police informer planted in the gang. Should that information be disclosed to a defence lawyer for the Gypsy Jokers and then passed to the Jokers themselves, that informer and his family could be murdered.

The ability of police to keep criminal intelligence out of the hands of defendants and their lawyers is vital in liquor licensing cases, crowd control licensing cases and cases under the Serious and Organised Crime Act. After the High Court unanimously upheld the validity of the state's criminal intelligence provisions in K-Generation, the Independent Weekly did not cover the case but, after I challenged Mr Gout to report it, a report appeared the next week. In this report Mr Gout wrote:

But there is a special twist to this law. Even though you can't see the secret allegations which stop you getting your gun licence, a job as a bouncer or a liquor licence, a politician is allowed to read your secret file.

I will return to test the validity of this claim but first I must set out a representative sample of the claims Mr Gout makes in his newspaper—some claims by him, some from his defence lawyer contacts and others from 'a highly-placed source' or 'operative'. Mr Gout writes:

How many ministers do you trust to hold secret dossiers on you, your family or your commercial and in-confidence business affairs? Do you trust Attorney-General Michael Atkinson?

Mr Gout continues—and here he quotes correctly:

Justice French says it is up to a court to determine whether the information has been correctly classified as criminal intelligence and, if so, what weight should be given to it.

I offered the Independent Weekly a 600-word opinion piece on the K-Generation case in the hope that the government's position might be available to readers. This was sent by email. In less than a minute, Mr Gout replied, making it clear that nothing from me or the government would be published in the Independent Weekly. Mr Gout has, more than once, made it plain to my then media secretaries (Jayne Stinson and Rik Morris) that he has no duty to offer me the opportunity to comment on stories of his that will be critical of me, nor does he have any duty to carry any response from me if I offer it unsolicited in anticipation of a scathing story, and nor should I have the right of reply the next week in the letters column which, by the way, Mr Gout edits.

On those occasions that Mr Gout does allow a letter of mine to be published, he will sometimes accompany it by a commentary from himself that is as long as the letter and attacks me from a direction unrelated to the original story or letter.

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: There the matter rested for a week—

The ACTING SPEAKER: The member for Unley is warned.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: —until Mr Gout published a front page splash headed 'Secret Files'. This time Mr Gout wrote:

The government acknowledges it has been gathering files on the basis of collecting criminal intelligence but has never admitted the extent of its covert operation. According to the operative, the Attorney-General has access to files under the existing SA legislation.

On page 2, Mr Gout continues:

Many files are believed to be on religious South Australians.

Mr Gout then quotes his highly-placed source and operative about me and states:

'I can tell you, he gets it. He sees it.' He can also ask the Police Commissioner to get a file on somebody.

According to Mr Mancini, the gathering of information by police about a South Australian on request from the Attorney-General is legal under state legislation.

The legislation does not seem to preclude the Attorney-General himself passing on or distributing the contents of the secret files.

If the Attorney-General allows a colleague, an MP, factional associates or anyone else to see the file in, for example, Mr Atkinson's own office, the file would not by legal definition have been passed on. No charge could then arise against the Attorney-General even though secret information has been exchanged.

One does not have to have much experience in the black arts of propaganda, innuendo and insinuation to know what Mr Gout wants his readers to take from this. Let me be plain. Mr Gout wishes his left-liberal readers, concentrated in the inner suburbs of Adelaide and romantic about the ideological battles of the 1960s and 1970s, to believe that the Rann government is keeping secret files on them; that these are available to all ministers but they are controlled by Attorney-General Atkinson, who supplements what the police supply him with special requests to the police to dig up dirt on individuals Michael Atkinson does not like—requests that the police cheerfully fulfil; that this information is used to deny readers of the Independent Weekly jobs and promotions in the public sector and to deny them vocational licences; and that Atkinson corruptly and criminally shares these files with his right wing mates at nefarious gatherings in his office.

Michael Atkinson is Harold Salisbury, only worse, and does this with the knowledge and consent of the Premier, Mike Rann, and the others who denied Hendrik Gout a media adviser's job. Like Gletkin in Arthur Koestler's Darkness at Noon, Hendrik Gout believes that all the players in politics should be brightly coloured like gingerbread men at a fair, and if some, like me, lack colour, he will splash it on liberally.

The truth is so dull. The only criminal intelligence I ever received in about eight years in office was about the Finks motorcycle gang in connection with the Serious and Organised Crime Act. I have never asked police for a file or information on anybody. I have, of course, as the member for Croydon, sent letters to the local police superintendent on behalf of constituents, making complaints about allegedly criminal behaviour, and I have made complaints to the police attendance line on 131444 about incidents of alleged criminal behaviour that I have seen, usually on the road.

Since I have not, until December 2008, received any criminal intelligence, I have not, therefore, been able to share it with anyone and, as far as criminal intelligence on the Finks, it is kept safe and the only people with whom I have discussed it are the Solicitor-General, the Crown Solicitor and my chief of staff and acting chief of staff for the purposes of adjudicating the police's application to declare the Finks under the Serious and Organised Crime Act. So, to be clear, apart from the Finks' application, neither the Attorney-General's office nor the Crown Solicitor's Office maintain any criminal intelligence files.

It is true that SA Police has a criminal intelligence gathering function, and it would be useless if it did not. Hendrik Gout tries to give this shock value by deleting the word 'police' and inserting the word 'government'. It is a calculated and deliberately misleading sexing up of the story. Mr Gout will reply 'Well, SAPOL is part of the state government, isn't it?'

Well, the police's gathering information concerning suspected criminal activities and the individuals suspected to be involved is a stock standard approach of every police force in a rule-of-law country. It is done for the purposes of uncovering crime generally and supporting investigations of particular matters. It is a normal, continuing incident of the usual police function and as such it is universally accepted.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Excuse me, gentlemen. I hate to interrupt the conversation across the floor, but could we return to business?

Mr MARSHALL (Norwood) (21:18): Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Members interjecting:

Mr MARSHALL: Thank you very much. It has been very interesting today to actually hear our response to the budget and the lack of support for the budget from those members opposite. In fact, this was actually brought up in an edition today of the www.adelaidenow.com.au, and I note that since this time the government has wheeled in the big guns to talk in support of the government budget.

In fact, we have heard the member for Light and the member for Mawson speak about the virtues of this state government budget. We have not heard a minister actually speak in support of the budget. We have just had two people who fought marginal seat campaigns and with plenty of money being poured in to prop up this government going into the March 2010 election.

We have, of course, heard from the former attorney-general, who has basically delivered a fairly therapeutic presentation that has got a lot of stuff off his chest, and I think he is going to sleep a lot more soundly this evening. We wish him all the very best.

I would like to refer to member for Mawson's speech, because he jumped to his feet to defend his Treasurer and talked about all the things that this budget delivers. In particular, he made the point that this government delivered on all of its election promises. So all of the things which it promised in the March 2010 election, and the lead up to the campaign for that, have been delivered by this government. Well, he was wrong—he was completely and utterly wrong.

Firstly, nothing has been delivered; they have only put it in the budget. And let's face it: this government has made an art form of announcing things in budgets only to pull them back the following budget, or possibly even to postpone them, or just to remove them completely. Do I need to remind the house about the Mount Bold reservoir? We could have saved ourselves $2 billion from this botched desalination plant if the government had delivered on its budget promise of doubling the size of Mount Bold reservoir.

Do I need to talk about the prisons' PPP, which cost South Australia plenty of dollars compensating those people who were successfully selected as bidders for that program. This government has announced plenty and delivered precious little. This government simply cannot be trusted to deliver on projects just because they have been announced, and often, as the member for Morialta quite rightly points out, they not only announce projects, they often re-announce them several times just in case anybody was not listening the first time.

Nevertheless, this government has attempted to keep, and indeed has kept, a lot of the commitments that it made at the time of the election right through to the point of this budget. So, they have kept their promise so far for 180 days, but I am certainly not holding my breath.

Mr Gardner interjecting:

Mr MARSHALL: Correct. They haven't kept them or they haven't broken them—just yet. Most importantly, this budget contains many items which were never promised. In fact, they were never even hinted at prior to the election. The government went to the election promising to reduce government expenditure by $750 million over the forward estimates. That is what they promised going into the election, but they have delivered much more than that. In fact, just before the state election we had the Mid-Year Review.

The Mid-Year Review was literally a couple of weeks before the election. This provided the Treasurer and the government with the opportunity to update their $750 million cuts they promised to take to the budget. Did they use that opportunity in the Mid-Year Review, just weeks before we moved into the caretaker mode, to foreshadow that there were going to be $2.5 billion worth of cuts or revenue measures in the budget? No, they did not. They kept that completely and utterly hidden.

As I have already said, there were many cuts and many new revenue items mentioned by this state government which were never taken to the people prior to the election. Tonight I would like to comment in-depth on just two of these. Firstly, the removal of funding for adult re-entry to SACE level and, secondly, the significant reduction in funding to the Norwood Morialta High School.

On the first issue, the removal of funding for re-entry to achieve SACE levels, this state government has decided that, as of 1 January 2010, students over the age of 21 will no longer be funded at any one of the six adult re-entry campuses in South Australia. In the electorate of Norwood I have a very fine example of one of these colleges: the Marden Senior College. This currently has 900 full-time equivalent students studying on that campus, and it is a very fine college.

There are 900 full-time equivalent students. There are over 2,000 people using the site, and it is estimated by the school that half of those people will need to go. Half of those people are over the age of 21 and will no longer qualify to go to that college. This will not only affect some of the most vulnerable people trying to re-enter the education framework in South Australia, but it will also affect every other student on that site because it will undermine the economies of scale.

The second item I would like to deal with is Norwood Morialta High School. Norwood High School, which incidentally celebrates its 100^th anniversary this year, is a great school. So what does the government do to recognise this fine institution, which has provided education to the people of Norwood for more than 100 years? It decides to cut its spending—and that is an absolute disgrace.

The government has broken the promise it entered into and the commitment it made to the school in 2006, when it committed to a funding cycle between 2007 and 2011 to provide additional money to this site, recognising that it is more complex and more costly to operate on two campuses than on one. The effect of this on the budget of the school is in excess of $625,000 per year, and that is an absolute travesty.

With only one principal and two campuses, it is essential that the school has a deputy principal on each site. Sorry, that will not be able to occur. One of the difficulties of the two campuses is providing curriculum leadership across both campuses is that you cannot have a head of English on two campuses and you cannot have a head of mathematics and science on two campuses. So, the government had provided, in its commitment to this school, additional funding, which would support some of these additional costs and the additional complexity of operating on two separate sites. This commitment was completely obliterated.

Was it done with any form of consultation with the parents, the governing council or the school? No; it was just announced. That is typical of this government, which, as the member for Cheltenham pointed out in that very informative article in the SA Weekend recently, this is a government that loves to announce and defend, rather than consult and decide. It is a pity the government did not listen to the member for Cheltenham—a fine member I am sure he is and great future leader he would make. It is a pity that the people in the Labor Party did not listen to the member for Cheltenham a little more before they came out and made—

Mr Williams: He's on the wrong side.

Mr MARSHALL: It is pointed out by our deputy leader that he is on the wrong side. Tonight, I have given just two examples of cuts to critical services in my electorate—there are many, many more—and neither of them were flagged before the election.

Our Treasurer announced to the people of South Australia a range of projects to the dollar value of $750 million over the four year estimates. Instead, we got much more: we got $2.5 billion worth of cuts and revenue measures over the forward estimates. Make no mistake, this was a deliberate and despicable act, designed to deceive and trick the people of South Australia leading up to the state election. It was one last trick to get the government one last pitiful term in office before it is consigned to a very long period in opposition.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (21:29): Being a new member in the house, I am amazed by the lack of response by the Labor MPs on the opposite side in this place. What would their constituents be thinking after the announcement of this budget? South Australia has been made to pay for this government's mismanagement of the state's finances—

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Order! Point of order, member for Croydon.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I just wish to raise a point of order made earlier by the member for Unley, and that is that the practice of the house is not to read speeches. Clearly, the member for Chaffey is reading his speech. I am just wondering what your ruling is on that, Madam Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Traditionally, the house has allowed the use of copious notes, so I think we will allow the member for Chaffey to continue. I did see a couple of pieces of paper in the member for Croydon's hand when I walked in. I am sure he was using copious notes also. Member for Chaffey, continue.

Mr WHETSTONE: Members on this side must be wondering whether there is a full moon tonight after the member for Croydon's outrageous speech.

South Australia is being made to pay for this government's mismanagement of the state's finances. Water charges are up by 32 per cent from 10 July. Average households will pay $84 more for their water next year. Average water bills have more than doubled under Labor to pay for the desal plant. That is not reducing the reliance on the Murray.

Land tax has more than tripled under Labor, despite the fact that the number of people paying land tax has almost doubled. Driver's licences are up and vehicle registrations are up, as well as increased stamp duty. It has all been said before today, but I will say it again: this budget was delayed to deal with the mismanagement of this Labor government.

South Australia is the highest-taxed state in Australia. It was 16 per cent above the national average in 2008-09. Public debt is $7.1 billion, and South Australia is soon to pay $2 million per day in interest. Unfunded super liability is $9.5 billion, and the workers compensation unfunded liability is $1.4 billion. Record revenue is flowing into this state, with $5 billion unbudgeted from 2002-03 to 2009-10, but huge cuts have been made.

Spending blowouts have occurred amounting to $616 million in 2009-10 and $1.2 billion in the 2010-11 budget. The budget is now in deficit despite the revenue. Where are the government's priorities? It is just out-of-control spending. We see $70 million per annum spent on government advertising. The health budget has overspent by $210 million in 2009-10. The RAH cost has blown out—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WHETSTONE: —to $3 billion. The Liberal's plan to redevelop the existing RAH would have saved $1 billion.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Please give the member for Chaffey the courtesy of being able to be heard. The member for Croydon will be quiet, as will the member for Kavel.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I did not say anything.

The SPEAKER: No, but you did before. I have a long memory. The member for Chaffey will continue.

Mr WHETSTONE: The Adelaide Oval cost blowout was $300 million; it is now $535 million. We see an increase in spending within cabinet. Job cuts total 3,750, and $354 million will be spent on targeted voluntary separation packages. From 2001-02 to 2009-10 public sector employment increased by over 18,000, but only 2,554 were budgeted for. What was the Treasurer thinking?

I turn to SA Water and the desal plant. The desal plant's present cost blowout is $2.2 billion, which is not reducing the reliance on the Murray. We have $2.4 billion going from SA Water into general revenue from 2001-02 to 2009-10. My goodness, what was the water minister thinking? There are also the vanishing infrastructure projects: the Mount Bold Reservoir expansion in 2007-08; the desal plant in the Upper Spencer Gulf; and the South Road underpass beneath Port Road and Grange Road. My goodness, what was the Minister for Infrastructure thinking?

There is a poor state of infrastructure in South Australia, according to Engineers Australia. Roads have been rated poor, rail is barely adequate and stormwater drainage is poor. Again, what does the minister think? In terms of the impact of the 2010-11 budget on regional South Australia, 400 Public Service jobs are to go across tourism, education and primary industries. We have an $80 million cut from PIRSA's budget and 180 jobs are to go.

It is a major impact on services to the rural industries. SARDI has an $8 million cut to its research funding. SARDI makes an important contribution to agricultural and horticultural research, and research and development keeps South Australia's rural industries competitive.

South Australia has been a global pioneer in agricultural and horticultural research—a necessity for the difficult conditions that we face. The conditions are becoming more difficult with climate change, so this government now cuts more funding. What were the ministers thinking?

Then to payroll tax rebate for the exporters by 2013. Regional fuel subsidies have been cut by $50 million over four years, to raise the cost of fuel by 3.3 cents a litre. What does the minister for agriculture think? The cellar door subsidy has been cut by $7 million; what does the member for Mawson think? The member is not here.

The small schools grants program has been cut by $12 million. In Chaffey, I have 28 schools, 21 of which are small schools. Where is their future? Again, regional South Australia is paying a heavy price for the Labor government's mismanagement. What do all of the ministers think?

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (21:35): Could I just say that, in my short time here, this is the first opportunity we have had to come back to the house after dinner. There is a whole different tone in the place and it has been most enjoyable. I have enjoyed the interchange and the contributions. It has been a lot of fun and it continues—most enjoyable.

The SPEAKER: You won't say that after about four or five years, member for Flinders.

Mr TRELOAR: After five years would be good. It would mean I would be in my second term. My congratulations to the previous speakers from this side of the house, in particular to the member for Chaffey who has just completed an excellent grievance debate, and also the few contributions that have come from the government's side, particularly since dinner.

The budget was roughly $8 billion when Labor came to office in 2002 and, over those eight years, it has roughly doubled to about $16 billion. The question is, how on earth have they got us to this point, where the taxpayers of this state will pay $2 million per day in interest payments on government debt?

I can think of many things to do with $2 million a day. One that I have spoken about in this house previously, is the patient assisted transport scheme, which is vital in assisting country patients to visit specialists in the city, often in very serious cases of illness or sickness.

The reduction in the small school funding scheme has been spoken about by a number of members already. Now, this is due to be cut by $12 million over the next four years. It amounts to a $30,000 per school funding stream to these schools. In the seat of Flinders, we have 23 state public schools. Of those 23, 12—so, in other words, a little over half—are classified as small schools, that is, schools with less than 100 students.

Now, another definition of a remote school is a school that is 80 kilometres or more from the CBD of Adelaide. Well, I can tell you that many of the small schools in Flinders are more than 80 kilometres from the next town. So in fact, the disadvantage will be keenly felt. It will have a severe impact on the funding streams available to these schools and, without actually officially closing educational institutions, it will mean that the governing councils will need to make some very considered and serious decisions about the future of their schools, and the education that they can offer.

As we all know, education is so very, very important. It is the opportunity we give our children, and country students are just as entitled to those educational opportunities as everyone else. Also with regard to education, we have the term 'school amalgamations' coming through in the budget. Now my belief is that, this is simply government spin, disclosing school closures. This would cut at the very heart of regional communities.

Funding is also due to be cut after 2013 to Regional Development Australia from the state government. There are three funding streams to Regional Development Australia at the moment: one from federal government, one from state government and one from local government. And my feeling is that, when the funding is withdrawn from the state government, once again it will severely impact on the funding streams and the capabilities of these boards to operate as they have been.

I think these regional development boards have been one of the success stories of the regions. They have been vital in assisting small businesses to start, to establish relationships between exporters and importers and generally provide support to business in rural and regional areas.

Water charges are due to go up. Cuts to the Public Service are forecast—3,749, if my memory serves me correctly. Unfortunately, from my perspective, 180 of these will be from PIRSA. PIRSA has been vital in providing extension to primary producers throughout South Australia. By 'extension' I mean the conveyance of opportunity and research to producers who adopt the latest technology and techniques and capitalise on those opportunities. Once again, the cuts to the Public Service and PIRSA will be keenly felt.

I turn to road funding. Unfortunately, there has been a longstanding $200 million backlog in road funding from the state government. There has been no attempt to address this in this state government budget, as far as I can see. The backlog continues to grow, and I will talk about a couple of roads in particular in my electorate, one being the Tod Highway between Karkoo and Kyancutta.

Mr Marshall: The two metropolises.

Mr TRELOAR: The two metropolises, as the member for Norwood rightly calls them. In fact, the Tod Highway would rival the Parade on a busy Saturday night, member for Norwood.

An honourable member: You could shoot ducks from it.

Mr TRELOAR: You could certainly shoot ducks this year: there is plenty of water around and plenty of rain. The crops are good. Quite seriously, the Tod Highway carries a large amount of traffic, much of it B-doubles or road trains, and the road is not much wider than the seat you and I sit on, member for Norwood. Quite seriously, it has deteriorated to a position where it could be regarded as highly dangerous. So the backlog is significant. Another road is the Wirrulla to Kingoonya road which, in talking to a constituent of mine just recently, is in as poor a condition as it has ever been.

Funding to tourism has been cut. My belief is that Eyre Peninsula offers one of the really great opportunities for tourism in this state, probably along with Kangaroo Island, the Riverland—

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: The Flinders Ranges.

Mr TRELOAR: —and the Flinders Ranges. The list goes on and on, in fact, member for Stuart. It is disappointing to see that the government is not prepared to support the opportunities that are there with regard to tourism. We have pristine coastline, a majestic landscape and isolation that is appealing, not just to intrastate visitors but also interstate and even international visitors. It is disappointing to see that.

I mention the fuel subsidy scheme. Unfortunately, the 3.3¢ a litre rebate will disappear. This will have an adverse effect, once again, on regional constituents. It will impact on their ability to travel to work cost-effectively, to send children to school cost-effectively and, in fact, to do business cost-effectively.

The last thing I would like to touch on is the Adelaide Oval, and we have seen the funding for that continue to blow out. I have a comment in closing. I quite seriously believe that most of my constituents have never attended Adelaide Oval, nor are likely to. The extraordinary amount of funding going into this development is really lost as far as the regions go, I am afraid.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (21:44): I wish to progress my earlier comments in regard to the Appropriation Bill and talk about what this government is proposing and, I believe, is well on the way to doing, that is, selling off two to three rotations of forestry. I will quote from sections of the budget:

The Department of Treasury and Finance market projects unit was established to progress initiatives aimed at realising the value of some of the state's assets. Measures included: to investigate selling harvest rights of ForestrySA plantations.

I further quote:

A significant improvement in net lending is forecast in 2011-12, reflecting the proposed sale of ForestrySA assets. Proceeds from the sale of Forestry SA's harvests have not been disclosed so as to avoid prejudicing the sales process.

I note recommendation 39 in the government response to the Sustainable Budget Commission's second report, page 20, which states, 'The commission recommends the government should sell Forestry South Australia' outright. While not supporting that recommendation the government 'reaffirms its public position of supporting the possible sale of two or three harvesting rotations'. In the original Sustainable Budget Commission report there was reference to more consultation. What is this: turn up and tell people; announce and defend? Have they decided to sell or not, is the question?

Recently on radio, treasurer Kevin Foley said that the government was still deliberating on the proposal to forward-sell up to three rotations of forest. Shortly after, his forestry minister, the nationally known expert—in his own mind anyway—said, 'The government has made a decision, we will be putting on the market two or three forward rotations.' I ask the question: is the Treasurer afraid to speak the truth about the proposal or is the minister simply wrong? Either way it is pretty unimpressive.

The issue we have with forward-selling of three rotations of forest, as indicated today by the member for Mount Gambier, is that this will be over 100 years of timber. It is essentially a privatisation. The Minister for Forests tried to indicate on radio the other day that it had worked in Victoria. The information provided to me is that it is not working, that logs are having to be imported in hundreds of thousands of tonnes for mills in Victoria because they are not being supplied by the private operator of the forests.

For the life of me, I cannot see how you can make an overseas investor, who will be the only ones who will have the money for a sale of this magnitude, because it will at least be in the many hundreds of millions of dollars—will they be worried about the mills in the South-East? Will they be worried about the upgrades that have to happen to these mills for more efficiencies? No.

So, it puts a whole range of issues in the South-East, where 25 per cent of local jobs are derived directly from forestry, and it affects 30 per cent of the economy. A sale like this will destroy the economy around the Green Triangle, especially in Mount Gambier; I am absolutely certain of that. This city-centric government, I am sure, will go down this path—this socialist government—selling off the future of people who live in this state, of not only their kids but their grandkids and their great-grandkids.

I also want to make mention of the cuts to the small schools grants and the savings of $12 million and the amalgamation saving of $8.2 million in regard to co-located schools. The cuts to the small schools grants will just mean that smaller schools will disappear. I recently had a letter from the Morgan family at Geranium, concerned that their small school will disappear under this because it will lose its funding. Many members on this side have made the same point about small schools in their areas. I believe it will also happen under the co-located schools program.

It is interesting to note that the value of South Australian overseas exports fell by 15 per cent to $8.1 billion in 2009-10, similar to the national fall of 13 per cent. This is another issue where the government has taken away the rebate for exporters in this state, which will cost $10 million. The cost of living increased by stealth by the cuts imposed on agriculture and regional services will increase the costs for producers, and an increase in higher prices of produce from regional areas. This will result in a higher cost of living across the board for all South Australians.

I want to reflect on some comments made earlier today by the member for Light about comments made by our leader about getting an education under a gum tree. I tell you what: there is a school I went in to bat for—it was my home school. I declare my interest; it is where my kids (Mackenzie and Angus) go. That community has fought for eight years and honestly, the rooms those kids were in, especially year 4 and under—mice, rats and snakes could get in there. It was not until a major deputation by myself and the school community that those rooms have now disappeared because they were a great risk to students. Perhaps they would have been better off being educated under a gum tree.

I look in the budget and I see cuts to regional development funding by 2013. Here we go again with this government: no thoughts of the regions; no thoughts of what is happening outside of anywhere between Gepps Cross and Glen Osmond. How do they think we are going to make this place grow? As I mentioned earlier, the agriculture minister wants agriculture to be a powerhouse like defence and mining in this state, yet all this government does is defund the regions across the board, not just in agriculture but in regional development funding as well.

I note that the new Royal Adelaide Hospital is not in the budget. Has that gone the way of Mobilong Prison (which the government threatened to build with virtually no consultation with our side of the house and especially with me as the local member) or the Mount Bold Reservoir expansion? When I met with the former minister for water and the River Murray, probably two years ago or more, I said to the former minister, 'You're going to need 95 per cent of water pumped into that reservoir to fill it from the River Murray,' and she said, 'No, you won't, Adrian; I'll get you a briefing.' Well, I am still waiting for that briefing and I do not think it is likely to come.

Mr Goldsworthy: She's gone.

Mr PEDERICK: She's gone; I won't get it from her. Maybe I'll get it from the new water spokesman.

The Hon. P. Caica interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: It is not even in your budget anymore. It's long gone.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PEDERICK: I note the Adelaide Oval debacle where this government cannot work out how much money it is going to spend. First it is $300 million; then it is $450 million and not a penny more. All of a sudden it is $535 million and it will be more. It will turn into $700 or $800 million and they will have a project that will be 30 years out of date before the first sod is turned. It will be an absolute disgrace to the Adelaide Oval, and they will ruin it.

I note that the Minister for the River Murray and Minister for Water is in here tonight, and in my closing remarks I want to reflect on the river and just say that we are very fortunate that we have had rains in the northern basin and the southern basin. The southern basin is wetted up and I believe that that is the only real reason that we have water in the river. The dams have been filled in the northern basin and the southern basin and it is wetted up.

I would just like to complete my remarks by saying how much this government has disenfranchised the communities in the Riverland and the Mallee. There was a public meeting where people were programmed to talk on the levee bank proposals, on how the government was hopefully going to do something with the levee banks that are leaking and will continue leaking, but they did not send their spokesman along because they thought they might come to harm. How bad is that? The government has disenfranchised the people of this state that much—and that is true. That is exactly what happened.

The Hon. P. Caica interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: I'm not gutless. I know exactly how it happened. They have disenfranchised the people of the state that much. This is exactly how this government runs and how this government runs everything in the regions whether it is to do with agriculture, regional development or the River Murray.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired.

Motion carried.

Estimates Committees

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton—Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for the River Murray, Minister for Water) (21:54): On the behalf of the Deputy Premier, I move:

That the proposed payments for the departments and services contained in the Appropriation Bill be referred to Estimates Committees A and B for examination and report by Thursday, 14 October 2010 in accordance with the following timetables:

APPROPRIATION BILL

TIMETABLE FOR ESTIMATES COMMITTEES

ESTIMATES COMMITTEE A

7-13 October 2010

THURSDAY 7 OCTOBER 2010 AT 9.00 AM

Premier

Minister for Social Inclusion

Minister for Sustainability and Climate Change

Minister for Economic Development

Minister for Arts

Minister Assisting the Premier in the Arts

Minister Assisting the Premier in Cabinet Business and Public Sector Management

Legislative Council

Joint Parliamentary Services

House of Assembly

State Governor's Establishment

Department of the Premier and Cabinet (part)

Administered Items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet (part)

Department of Trade and Economic Development (part)

Arts SA

Auditor-General's Department

Treasurer

Minister for Defence Industries

Department of Treasury and Finance (part)

Administered Items for the Department of Treasury and Finance (part)

Defence SA

FRIDAY 8 OCTOBER 2010 AT 9.00 AM

Minister for Families and Communities

Minister for Housing

Minister for Disability

Minister for Ageing

Department for Families and Communities

Administered Items for the Department for Families and Communities

Minister for Consumer Affairs

Minister for the Status of Women

Minister for Government Enterprises

Minister for State / Local Government Relations

Attorney-General's Department (part)

Administered Items for the Attorney-General's Department (part)

Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure (part)

Administered Items for the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure (part)

Department for Planning and Local Government (part)

Administered Items for the Department for Planning and Local Government (part)

MONDAY 11 OCTOBER 2010 AT 10.15 AM

Minister for Health

Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse

Minister for the Southern Suburbs

Department of Health

Department for Planning and Local Government (part)

Administered Items for the Department for Planning and Local Government (part)

TUESDAY 12 OCTOBER 2010 AT 9.00 AM

Minister for Volunteers

Minister for Multicultural Affairs

Minister for Youth

Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation

Attorney-General's Department (part)

Administered Items for the Attorney-General's Department (part)

Department of the Premier and Cabinet (part)

Administered Items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet (part)

Minister for Industrial Relations

Minister for Mineral Resources Development

Minister for Urban Development and Planning

Department of the Premier and Cabinet (part)

Administered Items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet (part)

Department of Primary Industries and Resources (part)

Administered Items for the Department of Primary Industries and Resources (part)

Department for Planning and Local Government (part)

Administered Items for the Department for Planning and Local Government (part)

WEDNESDAY 13 OCTOBER 2010 AT 10.00 AM

Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries

Minister for Forests

Minister for Regional Development

Minister for Northern Suburbs

Department of Primary Industries and Resources (part)

Administered Items for the Department of Primary Industries and Resources (part)

Department of Trade and Economic Development (part)

Department for Planning and Local Government (part)

Administered Items for the Department for Planning and Local Government (part)

ESTIMATES COMMITTEE B

7-13 October 2010

THURSDAY 7 OCTOBER 2010 AT 9.00 AM

Minister for Education

Minister for Early Childhood Development

Department of Education and Children's Services

Administered Items for the Department of Education and Children's Services

Minister for Infrastructure

Minister for Energy

Minister for Transport

Administered Items for the Department of Treasury and Finance (part)

Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure (part)

Administered Items for Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure (part)

TransAdelaide

FRIDAY 8 OCTOBER 2010 AT 9.00 AM

Minister for Small Business

Minister for Gambling

Minister for Industry and Trade

Minister for Correctional Services

Department of Trade and Economic Development (part)

Independent Gambling Authority

Attorney-General's Department (part)

Administered Items for the Attorney-General's Department (part)

Department for Correctional Services

Minister for Tourism

Attorney-General

Minister for Justice

South Australian Tourism Commission

Minister for Tourism

Attorney-General's Department (part)

Administered Items for the Attorney-General's Department (part)

Electoral Commission SA

Courts Administration Authority

MONDAY 11 OCTOBER 2010 AT 10.00 AM

Minister for Environment and Conservation

Minister for Water

Minister for the River Murray

Department for Environment and Natural Resources

Administered Items for the Department for Environment and Natural Resources

Environment Protection Authority

Department of Water

Administered Items for the Department of Water

TUESDAY 12 OCTOBER 2010 AT 10.00 AM

Minister for Police

Minister for Recreation, Racing and Sport

Minister for Emergency Services

South Australia Police (part)

Administered Items for South Australia Police (part)

Attorney-General's Department (part)

Administered Items for the Attorney-General's Department (part)

WEDNESDAY 13 OCTOBER 2010 AT 10.00 AM

Minister for Employment, Training and Further Education

Minister for Road Safety

Minister for Veterans' Affairs

Minister for Science and Information Economy

Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology

Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure (part)

Administered Items for Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure (part)

South Australia Police (part)

Administered Items for South Australia Police (part)

Attorney-General's Department (part)

Administered Items for the Attorney-General's Department (part)

Motion carried.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton—Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for the River Murray, Minister for Water) (21:55): On behalf of the Deputy Premier, I move:

That Estimates Committee A be appointed, consisting of Ms Fox, Messrs Griffiths, Odenwalder and Pederick, Mrs Redmond, Ms Thompson and Mrs Vlahos.

Motion carried.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton—Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for the River Murray, Minister for Water) (21:55): I move:

That Estimates Committee B be appointed, consisting of Ms Bedford, Messrs Gardner, Kenyon, Piccolo and Pisoni, Ms Sanderson and Mr Sibbons.

Motion carried.

At 21:56 the house adjourned until Thursday 30 September 2010 at 10:30.