APPROPRIATION BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 28 September 2010.)

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:04): I rise today to speak about the Appropriation Bill and, at the beginning of my speech, I want to talk about the locust plague that has already gone through primary industries support in this state. We have a premier who ran up to Orroroo the other day—I am surprised he even knew where it was. He flew in to make a big announcement about what is going on with the locust plague in the northern section of this state and throughout the Murray Mallee region of the state. Well, it is the government's job to be involved in locust plagues. We managed it under Rob Kerin in the year 2000, and it was very successful under Rob, where we beat most of the hoppers on the ground and millions of dollars were invested.

When the present minister for agriculture was asked about the locust plague when he was in the Riverland in April, he said, 'What locusts?' This coming from a man who said he was the best agricultural spokesman in Australia, and he did not know what they were. So, now the Premier is taking the lead on the issue in Orroroo to make it look like the government is doing something about primary industries in this state when, in fact, what we have seen come out of this state budget is an $80 million cut—like a plague of locusts—in the department over four years; also in that are cuts of 180 staff. I believe this comes on top of 200 staff who have recently left Primary Industries and Resources SA.

I have good friends who have been working for Primary Industries and Resources, Rural Solutions, and other sections, and the South Australian Research and Development Institute, who were told in June that they would be redeployed. A lot of these people have just been waiting for the golden handshake. The only good thing for these people is that this government has put up the most generous exit package.

In saying that, we are losing so much talent, so much history and so much intellect from the primary industries department. What are we going to do? Who is going to be at the core of the fight against the next locust outbreak in this state? There will be virtually no-one. There will be no experience. All the experienced people are going. The extension guys and the guys who used to come and do outreach in my own agricultural bureau down at Coomandook are very good men and they have seen what is happening. They get offered a package, they see that the packages are up, and they know darn well that the next round will be worse, so it is time to jump, long before they need to. They could be putting their knowledge around the state and into research and development and extension work for farmers across the state.

We have a government that pretends to be so concerned about the $2 billion potential crop production in this state. I do not think it will be concerned about the locusts until they start eating out the lawns in Springfield and Norwood.

Mr Pengilly: It won't be around the Parks Community Centre.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, it will not be around the Parks Community Centre, because the D9s will get there beforehand; it will be gone. This is a crisis in South Australia. We had the agriculture minister, minister O'Brien, state recently that he wants agriculture to be up there with defence and mining as an industry in this state.

Mr Pengilly: They've actually got to catch agriculture.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes; and it will not be because of the support that the government gives it: it will be because of the resilience of the people in the bush and surrounding areas of Adelaide who put their hearts and minds, their farms and businesses on the line.

Mr Goldsworthy: They're sold.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, they are sold, says the member for Kavel. They put everything into it. I know what it is like; I have been there. They lay it all on the line. They employ people and generate incomes for regional communities. You might be surprised about this, but farming happens outside Gepps Cross and Glen Osmond. That is where it happens. A lot of kids in high schools and primary schools, especially in the city, think milk comes in a carton. Well, a whole lot of other processes have to happen before it turns up in the carton.

Mr Goldsworthy: Where do their lamb chops come from?

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, where do their lamb chops come from? They come from Woolworths, Coles, Foodland, or somewhere else. They go to the grocery store and there is the food. Farmers would not do it, but it would be interesting to see if all the farmers in this state suddenly decided, 'We'll just cut production for a month. We won't market any grain, meat or eggs.' I was interested to note the other day that people were concerned about a shortage of eggs in this state, because so many cafes are promoting breakfast, which is a great thing. People can go out and have breakfast, mainly in the city. It is good eating produce.

Mr Pisoni: Good country eggs.

Mr PEDERICK: Good country eggs. However, we run the very real risk that all our industries will be under threat. We have seen this government just strip funding. They have closed the Streaky Bay office, Nuriootpa is under threat, the Keith office of Primary Industries is under threat, Jamestown is under threat, the Lenswood Research Centre (where is that going?), the Flaxley dairy research centre has gone, and we are fortunate in this state that Minnipa is still going. They are doing great research up there. I have been there in the last 12 to 18 months having a look at what is happening at Minnipa, and it is very vital, especially in the region on the Far West Coast and, generally, around Eyre Peninsula, which has had tough times, like the rest of the farming areas in this state, and so much production has been grown there and across the state.

We find that after nine pretty tough years generally across the board most farmers have not had a decent income since 2001; that is a long time. All of a sudden we find out that there is going to be less and less support for what is vital research and development for farmers in this state.

Farmers are expected to grow more and more per acre, or per hectare, depending on how you want to look at it, as time goes on, and they are doing it. If you go back 100 years there would have been only a few people fed from an acre of country. Now the number of people who are fed is manyfold, and it is done in a sustainable way, in the majority of cases. They have gone to single till farming, or minimum till farming methods, where farmers go across their land in only one, or maybe two, passes; whereas, in the past, it may have been six to 12 passes to put a crop in. There is an old saying in the Mallee that if it doesn't blow it doesn't grow. Well, I do not think that is a good saying, because when you see a tractor working country—well, you cannot see the tractor because it is covered in dust—there is far too much blow.

I believe that 99 per cent (if not more) of farmers are farming in a sustainable way. Some people are still using the old methods, but they are producing more food, harvesting more water as they need to in these dry years to produce their crops. And what do they get from this city-centric government? They get nothing.

The only reason that people have developed new technologies in the bush is because of the research and development that has been carried out in this state, otherwise, we would still see archaic methods being used, and they are unsustainable—

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, absolutely; we are leaders in agricultural technology in this state. For many years, for decades, we have exported our knowledge to the Middle East, Russia, the United States and other places, and we are known throughout the world as very good farming operators. But what support do they have in this state?

We have agriculture minister O'Brien make comments, which I was not happy about, about the $12.8 million that was being allocated for the locusts. Yes, I am happy about that, but I still believe it needs more. He also made a statement that I had asked for $20 million. That was from an interjection that I made to the Treasurer in this place, that they may need $20 million. The government keeps saying that there will be extra funding available. Well, I tell you, it better be available when it is needed, so that those planes can keep flying and put their ultra low volume spray out so that we can beat these hoppers, these locusts, on the ground, because once they are in the air they can be anywhere. They can move 500 kilometres in a night with a tail wind.

We have had the minister for agriculture saying, 'Oh, we won't need to worry about spraying on the West Coast; they won't get to Eyre Peninsula.' Well, I'm sorry, they won't need much of a tail wind and they will be over there, and they could come from the locusts that are coming down through the north or the ones that are coming across from New South Wales and Victoria into the Murray Mallee.

We have to be vigilant. There are teams out there. I believe there are well over 100 people and seven planes that will need to be vigilant right across the board. As I said, it will not just be agriculture that will be at risk; it will be everything in this state, the future of this state, I believe, if they do cut a swath through a potential $2 billion plus crop. This is the assistance we get from this government—no assistance.

We are told that 180 more jobs are to go, as well as so-called targeted voluntary separation packages. As I said, I believe that people will grab these packages now, and they will run because they know that, when the next lot comes around, there will be less. Not only that, but Rural Solutions, a vital part of the extension work and supposedly the profitable arm of primary industries, is going to full cost recovery. Over four years, $12 million will be taken out of Rural Solutions.

As I indicated, farmers have been doing it tough. How can they afford all the extra costs? Not only are we losing staff in the bush but also the government is increasing costs, so it will cost more if you do want to get any research and development or extension work done. The same thing applies to the South Australian Research and Development Institute, which will have cutbacks of $8 million over four years. I quote from the budget as follows:

SARDI will increase cost recovery and reduce costs, resulting in a reduction in research and development activity and service delivery across the broader spectrum of primary industries research. The savings will be achieved through the cessation of some research and development activities and workforce changes.

What that simply means is that the axe is being put to SARDI and the axe is being put to staff. We have a government that has been here for eight years, it realises that it cannot govern, so now it will just sack people willy-nilly.

What will happen to the expertise that we lose from research and development in this state? Will the expertise, the innovation and the benefits that can be grown in this state be contracted to interstate and overseas companies? Will the profit focus compromise the integrity of the research that is done in this state? What are the taxes that farmers pay used for? Farming can be profitable when you have good years. Where are these taxes going—to the city, the super schools, super hospitals, super highways and super entertainment facilities, because they are certainly not going out to the bush.

I was dismayed the other day at the Public Works Committee hearing on the Dukes Highway when we were basically told that it was not going to be dual laned to the Victorian border for another 30 years. I hope I am still here to see it; I hope that it is a lot sooner than that.

Mr Pengilly: In here?

Mr PEDERICK: Well, maybe not in here, but around. All I am saying is that, why are projects such as this not put on? We have the Northern Expressway; over $500 million was put into that project. The recent upgrade to the Dukes Highway cost $80 million, which would have funded at least 16 kilometres of dual lane and got it out to the other side of Cookes Plains, towards Coomandook (where my property is), and started to make it safer for everyone who travels along that road.

I want to talk about other costs, for example, commercial fishing and aquaculture: $1.3 million will be achieved over three years by raising the current fees charged to the commercial fishing industry to fully recover the costs of providing commercial fishing regulatory and support programs; and $1.9 million over three years by raising the fees and charges to the aquaculture industry to cover the full cost of regulatory and support programs.

This is coming from a government that now is increasing further costs on the fishing industry. We have recently had the debate both in this place and outside with the media with the fisheries minister—minister O'Brien, again—who has put out a statement talking about the alleged amount of money that southern zone rock lobster fishermen make. I think this is a terrible indictment that the minister makes against these people—the fact that they actually go out there and make some money. Well, what a pity.

These are people who are driving this economy. They are in a multimillion dollar industry. They put themselves at risk to harvest crayfish, and all the minister can do is give them a hard time about how much money they might be making.

Mr Goldsworthy: Criticise them.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, criticise them about how much money they might be making. The big issue with the southern zone rock lobster fishermen was that, with five weeks' notice, the minister pulled the month of October out from under them. Their industry is under more pressure and jobs are at risk and have already gone, yet they have to pay more fees.

If we look at biosecurity, this has more cost recovery, and I quote from the budget. They will increase revenue by $9 million over four years from improved cost recovery from livestock owners who benefit from existing animal health surveillance programs, and save $1.5 million through operational efficiencies. 'Operational efficiencies', to me, reads 'sackings'. Then there will be a further $1.3 million saved through biosecurity aquatic pest management efficiencies in aquatic pest outbreak response and surveillance activities. I also believe there will be cost recovery placed on our fruit fly inspections. This comes at a time when the people growing our fruit in the Riverland and other areas (the Adelaide Hills, for example) come under more pressure but they face more costs just to keep their industry going.

Here is the real clanger the government has put in. It may not be a lot of money but I think it is a vital support that is being knocked out by the so-called, self-proclaimed, best agriculture spokesman in the country. They will cease support to the Advisory Board of Agriculture. This is a man who lives in Springfield and his electorate is at One Tree Hill, and I know one day he said to one of our members in the other place, 'It's a long way out here to go to a meeting.' I wonder how many sets of traffic lights it is for the minister to go to his own electorate.

They will cease support for the Advisory Board of Agriculture that actually advises the government. So we have a government that thinks it does not need advice. Well, I could give it plenty. They are saying they will save $2.1 million over four years by rationalising programs that coordinate regional primary industries, related community development, building capacities and skills policy development. As I note, it includes the cessation of government support to the Advisory Board of Agriculture.

We also see $7 million cut from wine industry support and the cellar door subsidy. This will be reduced from something over $500,000 to $50,000 per producer from 1 July 2011. We note there is a further hit to the wine industry, which is suffering right across the wine producing regions. A further $2.3 million saving over four years will be made through 'a reduction in grants and programs relating to the agriculture, food and wine sectors' and 'assistance to food industry organisations and associations would be reduced'.

To cap it all off, a payroll tax rebate for exporters is going, and that will save $10 million; and the regional petroleum subsidy will have $50 million cut over four years, which will be a kick in the guts for people right across the regions, and it will make produce, building materials and everything that comes out of or goes into the regions more expensive.

I condemn this government for the attitude it has taken to the bush, regional areas and the farmers of this state. They should hang their heads in shame. I think it is an absolute disgrace. If this minister thinks he can get on without advice from bodies such as the Advisory Board of Agriculture and that agriculture can be the dynamic force it has been without this support, he is wrong.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:24): Some people have said that what was brought down was a Labor budget. It is not a Labor budget in anything other than name because, in many ways, it represents a betrayal of people who would normally support a Labor government. In fact, I have been quite surprised to see in the budget that a lot of the measures are really targeted against what some people would call battlers. I know it is a bit of a worn-out phrase, but this is not a budget focused on social justice. It is not a budget that is socially inclusive. In fact, in many ways it is quite the opposite. It is a Labor budget in name only and does not fit with any vision that I can see enunciated by the government.

We know that budgets are annual documents, but you need to have some overall vision and plan of what you are doing for the state. In this budget I see more ad hocery. The fundamental question that arises (and I do not believe it has been properly answered), is why, when you compare us with Western Australia and Victoria—and we know Western Australia has a very big minerals industry but Victoria has not—that we have to have this budget in South Australia, which has really hit the household pocket, when those other states, which have also had adjustment in GST, do not have such a budget?

As with any budget, in this budget there are some good and some not so good things. I will go through some of the various areas. The proposed removal of moneys from small schools could affect one of my schools, Clarendon, a wonderful school with 49 students. I commend it because, as part of their total education, they involve children in horticulture and a whole lot of very useful skills. It is a great school and I am concerned that in the cut backs to small schools the Clarendon school might be one that will suffer.

I cannot understand how a government that claims to be socially inclusive can get rid of adult re-entry from DECS schools. The Treasurer said that those people can go to private tuition—which by definition is laughable, because those people will not be able to afford to go to private tuition—or they can go to TAFE, but that is not primarily set up to cater for adult re-entry. Why you would want to make it harder for people who may have left school early—deny them a second chance and make it harder for them to educate themselves or improve their educational and skills level—is beyond me.

I come back to the original point. This budget has some measures in it which I believe are socially exclusive, and I hope the government reconsiders that, along with its plan to cut and get rid of the Parks. We often hear from members opposite that their government follows the footsteps of Don Dunstan. For all his faults, I can tell you that Don Dunstan would not have allowed a budget like this. He would be turning in his grave to hear what is proposed for the Parks. I believe he went down in 1996, from memory, to protest against a potential cut back by the then Liberal government. I question the claim that the current state Labor government is upholding the legacy and vision of Don Dunstan. I have yet to see much evidence of that.

I will talk about some of the negatives of the budget before coming to the positives, as there are some good things in it. In the health portfolio some savings are required, I think of the order of $118 million. With any of these savings I trust the focus will be on cutting out areas that are not part of the core business of those agencies, because over time the government has taken on something like 17,000 additional employees. I am not against an effective public sector as we need one, but any cuts should be specifically targeted at areas that are not part of the core business or front line.

We see, in terms of other cuts, for country people a cut in the petrol subsidy scheme, which equates to 3¢ a litre for petrol and 2¢ a litre for diesel, which will obviously increase the cost of living for people in country areas. There are quite a few other proposed cuts. The Department for Environment and Natural Heritage is taking an across the board cut of 20 per cent. That is a massive cut when you consider that the department has already been cut. What we will have is a department that cannot effectively carry out the tasks required, and that is ironic, given the focus on things such as climate change and species loss.

The government has a policy of no species loss, but how can it possibly manage and maintain national park conservation areas if it does not have the personnel and expertise? It is a contradiction and, once again, it moves away from what has been one of the great attributes of Labor governments in this state with people such as Don Hopgood and others, who helped establish a very fine record in terms of environmental management. So, we will see cuts there.

There was a suggestion in the local Hills and Valley Messenger that the government had looked at selling off Wittunga, the botanic garden at Eden Hills. Fortunately common sense prevailed, because I think people would be marching not only in the street but everywhere else if the government ever entertained such a silly proposal.

There are cuts in other areas but, as I said, I do not have a problem with targeted cuts if they are directed at getting rid off excess and wasteful practices. The list of cuts is quite substantial but there are also some areas where there is increased spending, and I welcome that provision. Some of the positives include the proposal to amalgamate three TAFE campuses at Tonsley Park. I think that has merit but, before it sells off the O'Halloran Hill campus, I urge the government to consider what many locals are arguing for, that is, the creation of an additional high school in the southern area at O'Halloran Hill.

The campus there, in particular the heavy vehicle engineering workshops, cost a fortune—I remember that I was the minister shortly after they were provided—and it would be a pity to lose that educational focus. I think there is an opportunity to create what could be an advanced technology high school on that site. One of the things I argued for, which I did not quite achieve, was for TAFE to actually sponsor some technologically-oriented high schools, and I believe that would be an ideal site. Consolidating Marleston, Panorama and O'Halloran Hill at Tonsley Park could be a very positive move if done properly.

Money for the duplication of the Southern Expressway is obviously welcome. This duplication needs to allow for greater access for people in areas adjacent to Happy Valley who want to travel south, but it is a very good proposal. I think the cuts to education amount to something like $145.7 million over four years, and I repeat that, if they are properly targeted towards reducing excess waste and duplication, I do not have a problem with that. However, I think there is an opportunity to save quite a lot of money if the DECS system focuses more on local school governance and local school management, and I urge them to look at that as an alternative to the currently concentrated head office approach to most decision-making.

The light rail and heavy rail projects continue, and that is very good. The upgrade of South Road is also welcome, as well as the extra buses. The area I represent could do with some more direct bus services to Marion shopping centre, but I welcome the purchase of new buses. I also think the provision of $12 million for new cycleways is a very positive initiative. The so-called 'share the road' concept has a very limited application, because if you use cycleways you find out that they suddenly end and you are left high and dry, literally pedalling your bike to nowhere. I have always argued that, wherever possible, we need decent off-road cycleways. I know it is difficult to retrofit but that is what you want—off-road cycleways. In my experience (and I have tried it a couple of times), mixing with concrete trucks when you are on your pushbike is not a good thing. A concrete truck usually wins.

I am pleased that the Minister for Transport through this budget has come good on his commitment to provide some bus shelters, both upgrades and replacement or new shelters. You cannot expect people to catch public transport if they are going to get wet in winter and scorched in summer, and so I welcome that $5.2 million for bus shelters. I think that is an excellent initiative. It might seem small in the scale of things but, as I say, if you want to encourage people to use public transport, you cannot expect people to be suffering when they are out there waiting for a bus to come along: either there is nowhere to sit or no shelter whatsoever.

As to the disability provision, there is quite a bit of money for disability services but, as constituents tell me, we still have a way to go. One example is a lad who needs speech therapy but, I am told by the parents, that that ceases once the child is of school age and this particular child did not speak until he started school. Then the speech therapy assistance is declined and not provided. The key thing with disabilities, as with a lot of other things, is early intervention and, whilst I welcome the government's increased commitment to disability funding, as a community we still have a long way to go.

The provision of more specialist maths and science teachers is one of the chronic problems at the moment. We do not have enough focus on maths and science in our schools; we do not have enough teachers. Likewise, in the technical areas we do not have enough teachers and we are not training enough. I trust that, in the establishment of the Tonsley Park Centre, we have a purpose-built training facility for technical teachers and those who go into what used to be called home economics but is often now under the general heading of hospitality training. We used to have it at Underdale until the University of South Australia made a foolish decision and destroyed those purpose-built facilities.

The provision of a southern community justice court will be an interesting innovation. I hope it works. This budget has provided some extra money to deal with graffiti vandalism, but it will not work unless there is legislation and a policing effort that is directed at dealing with those vandals. Only the week before last, we had hooded graffiti vandals attacking the Belair line train in broad daylight while it waited for another train to pass just south of Lynton Station. During the week, in broad daylight in the afternoon, they graffitied the train while it was waiting there. These hooded, brave people, these graffiti vandals, attacked public property and damaged it, and yet we do not seem to have the resourcing or the will on the part of the government to actually really get stuck into these vandals. These particular characters, as they could best be described, were not children; they were adults who clearly have some problem that needs to be addressed.

Within this budget and issues related to it, there are some measures which, I think, in the long term are going to cost this government dearly. In fact, next time I will be surprised if they win the election unless something dramatic happens. They are the two sleeper issues of water and electricity. Normally, they do not go together but in this case they do because the desalination plant is going to push up the price of electricity. I cannot see any additional generating capacity coming on line.

Water is already going up and will go up even further, so the household budget between now and the next state election is going to take an increased hit to the point where I think the government will have a real political problem on its hands come the lead-up to next election. I cannot see how anything that is being proposed is going to deal with that issue. In a way, the government is trapped. Trying to provide more water through desalination will put the price of electricity so high that a lot of people will not be able to afford to keep themselves warm in winter or cool in summer.

Emergency services did not seem to get any additional funding. Some of the CFS units in my area, and in the Adelaide Hills generally, feel as though they are not adequately equipped to deal with bushfires, and that is an issue that needs to be addressed.

I notice the budget is focusing on an extra 300 police. I do not believe that is necessary. I think if the police that we have did the front-line duties we would not need an additional 300 police. I think that has just become a bit of a catchcry: 'More police.' What we want is more police actually doing policing duties, rather than sitting behind a desk or getting involved in a whole lot of activities. I noticed at the Show—I am a great lover of band music—that there were 11 police standing watching the police band play. I have noticed on other occasions that there seem to be more than adequate numbers of police attending various functions and other activities, and so I question the need for 300 additional police. I do not think it is necessary. It is just a political catchcry to make the public think that they are safer.

What needs to happen is to address with early intervention the issues that give rise to crime, which are often things like people not being able to get a job because they cannot read or write, and having no prospect of a job because they have a very low level of education. It is not rocket science, but I do not believe simply providing more police is the answer.

As for the court issue, I have learnt from my own experience how expensive it is. For the ordinary citizen to even get a copy of a transcript is $6.60 a page. For a basic traffic matter like mine, you are looking at 200 pages times $6.60. The ordinary citizen has not a hope in hell of being able to defend themselves or be in a position to consider what happens in the courts. To that end—and I will be dealing with this issue in the forthcoming weeks—I have been very impressed with the Chief Magistrate, Elizabeth Bolton, in response to my suggestion that they need to establish a specialist traffic division within the Magistrates Court, because I understand about 40 per cent of the magistrates' work is taken up on traffic issues.

We also need to reform the expiation system, and I will be saying a lot more about that in the future. But if you had an independent panel to review expiation notices, then you would probably have fewer people wanting to go to court, and the savings to the taxpayer would be enormous. So, I do not think the answer is simply putting more money into courts, or putting more money into police. What we have to have is a smart look at how justice is administered in this state, so that we have a system that is fair and reasonable and accessible to every citizen. Currently it is not.

This budget is a mixed bag: some good things, some not so good things. I think, out of 10, I would not rate it as a pass. I think the student needs to do much more work and come back with a better budget next time.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (12:43): The 2010-11 budget was finally delivered by the Treasurer on 16 September, a long, long time after the election and some time after the beginning of the financial year this budget is dealing with. South Australia has been for some time the highest taxed state in Australia, but this budget significantly increases fees, charges and taxes. However, services are not spared. The budget slashes funding to certain local schools, the environment, country health and a range of other significant areas of public need. If you catch a bus, drive a car, consume water, pay insurance, are looking to buy a built house for your first home, or work in the public sector, you will be worse off after this budget.

The most disappointing thing, of course, is that these cuts would not have been necessary if the government had managed our finances better over the last eight years. The tax take that this government has had is significantly higher than the government that it replaced. I am going to compare figures from the 2001-02 budget with the 2010-11 budget. In the nine years since the last Liberal budget, payroll tax revenue has increased from $601 million to $930 million, a 55 per cent increase; property taxes have increased from $731 million to $1.689 billion, a 131 per cent increase; gambling taxes, up 32 per cent; insurance, up 58 per cent; motor vehicle charges, up 47 per cent. I also note that, as the state government benefits from GST revenues, South Australia's allocation of GST revenues in 2001-02 was $2,477 million and in 2010-11, $5,045 million. It has gone from $2.5 billion to over $5 billion—more than double.

Overall, government tax revenue has increased by 91 per cent. The times have not been shy of collecting taxes. It is how the government has managed its budgets over the years that has led us to the state we are in this year where the Treasurer has needed to make those cuts.

If only Labor had managed our finances during the years of extraordinary growth across the country, we would not now be seeing these brutal cuts to services and increases in fees and charges. As Liberal leader, Isobel Redmond, said:

Public debt of $7.1 billion and a $389 million deficit in 2010-11 means that South Australians will soon pay almost $2 million a day in interest payments on government debt. At a time when South Australia has seen rivers of gold flow through government coffers with billions of dollars in unbudgeted revenue, the Labor government has cut deep—deep into the livelihoods of hardworking South Australians. Education and hospital services have not been spared. This budget is about South Australians who have once again been let down by the Rann Labor government.

I will now turn to some of the particular lowlights of the budget. As the member for Fisher said, there are some good things in the budget—and I am thinking of the support for sporting and active recreation groups, which will be appreciated, but that is a very small part of the story. Cuts and increased revenue measures in this budget total $2.5 billion. Bearing in mind that the government went to the election saying that the Sustainable Budget Commission was in place to find $750 million worth of savings, the fact that we have now needed to go to $2.5 billion worth of savings due to the calls on state finances goes to the trust we can have in this government and the government's credibility.

Taxes are going to increase by $1 billion over the forward estimates. The government has put up the mining royalties rate, which may well put Olympic Dam in jeopardy. There are smaller things, potentially, such as cuts of $13 million to the arts sector by reductions to grants and programs. I saw the Premier tweet on budget day that the arts sector was really happy that it had not had the $30 million of cuts that the Sustainable Budget Commission had identified as possible. I hardly think the arts sector will be happy to find that $13 million of cuts to the arts sector are apparently necessary because of this government's reckless incompetence with regard to the state's finances.

One of the meanest cuts that we have seen in this budget is putting up parking rates at hospital car parks. So, if you park your car while you visit a family member in hospital, you will have to pay more for that, too. If someone is going to be in hospital for some time, that is going to be of significant concern when you want to visit an unwell relative. It is very disappointing.

I want to focus the rest of my comments today on the cuts to the education budget. One issue about which the member for Fisher has just spoken, and I have heard the member for Norwood speak publicly a great deal about this issue since the budget, and I commend him for his work, is the cuts to adult re-entry programs, which will save $8 million a year from 2012. They are very disappointing. In order to save this $8.2 million, the budget states:

Adults above the age of 21 will have limited access to schools and will need to access their education needs primarily through the TAFE system or from alternative providers.

What this means in practice is that those who have not completed their high school education and are above the age of 21 will no longer be able to access Marden Secondary College and the fantastic service that that college has provided to people who often do not have the funds to access the sort of private tuition that the government has suggested they might now be able to take up.

This will really hurt the efficacy of Marden Secondary College, and it will mean that no-one over the age of 21 will any longer be able to access that facility. I commend the member for Norwood for his fight to have this decision reversed. It is very important for adult re-entry participants in South Australia that this decision is reversed.

On page 116 of Budget Paper 6 we see the forced amalgamation of all co-located schools, which will save $8.2 million over two years (as it is listed), but I note that into the future, from 2013 onwards, this will save $5½ million a year. In the seat of Morialta, for example, this will affect the schools at Athelstone, the junior primary school and the Athelstone Primary School, and the Stradbroke Junior Primary School and the Stradbroke Primary School.

The Stradbroke Primary School and the junior primary school have formally dealt with this matter three times over the last two decades and each time they have formally rejected the department's suggestion that they might want to amalgamate. In fact, the most recent rejection came in 2005, and the governing council has indicated to the department every year since then that the school community does not wish to amalgamate.

If this government is to be taken seriously ever again when it talks about community consultation, then this is a budget measure that it should not have introduced. The Stradbroke Primary School community clearly does not want to amalgamate with the Stradbroke Junior Primary School; that should be a decision for the school community. It is a large school, and if the schools were not co-located they would be treated more advantageously with their funding into the future.

I note that the government also plans to save $5½ million a year through the cessation of continuous intake to its preschool and reception years. Again, its justification in the budget papers is that this brings us into line with every other state, but this is a clear example of the lowest common denominator being applied everywhere. Of course, every state has done this as a budget savings measure, but it is not done with the best interests of the children in mind. There is no educational reason why this is useful.

DECS head office efficiencies are set to save $22.9 million over four years. The green school grants (which were $1 million a year ) have been cut. The Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Learning Technologies Program has been cut $2½ million a year, and various new arrivals support programs are going to be cut by $7.3 million over three years, and this is very significant, particularly for schools—such as the East Torrens Primary School in the member for Hartley's electorate, for example— that have significant new arrivals programs.

It is not as if this work does not need to be done. It is not as if these new arrivals do not still need special arrangements to help them integrate into the school community. We already have significant community support for many of these programs, but they do rely on that government support as well. The cuts to this program are severe—$7.3 million. I am not sure what the government expects these students to do if they are going to fully integrate into those schools.

Fencing and security grants have been cut by $500,000 a year. Talk about penny-pinching! I know that one school in my electorate (Campbelltown Primary School) was very grateful for the opportunity to access this grant to build security fencing around the school. Since the fence has been up, its rate of vandalism has been cut significantly. The school community is very grateful for the support it has received from the security grants, and it is a shame that schools in the future will no longer be able to access this funding that has been cut.

Many other members have spoken about the cuts to small schools additional grants. There are a number of small schools in Morialta, and the Basket Range Primary School, Norton Summit Primary School and Thorndon Park Primary School come to mind. Those schools had their small schools grants cut some years ago and have been struggling to make do ever since. This saving of $3½ million a year will, no doubt, create similar challenges for schools in the electorates of other members. It seems that this government is focused on super schools, rather than on small schools, leaving a lack of parental choice, which does not seem to be a concern to the government but which is of great concern to me.

I would like to turn to the final education budget measure that I have significant concerns with: the multi and dual campus structures efficiencies, in which about $1.6 million—increasing every year with CPI—a year will be saved as additional above entitlement support that has been allocated to a number of schools that have multi and dual campuses will be reviewed and reduced, which of course we know is code for 'cutting'.

The multi-campus school in my electorate that is concerned by this cut is the Norwood Morialta High School, which has its middle campus in Rostrevor and its senior campus in Magill—again, the member for Hartley's electorate. Information provided to me, and other members of the Norwood Morialta High School community, from that school's governing council, based on information they received from the department, reads as follows:

In our school the Labor government budget cuts amount to $622,629 per year. That amounts to 5.8 per cent of the staffing budget. The staffing budget is 88 per cent of the total school budget which means that any cut to staffing threatens all programs in the school.

In 1993 there was an enforced amalgamation of the two schools, Morialta High School and Norwood High School. In recognition that it is not possible to operate a dual campus site separated by 3.2 kilometres without additional funding, the school was given 7.9 additional staffing...

In 2006, this was reduced arbitrarily to 4.5 staffing which equates to $622,629 in recognition that a dual campus requires additional staffing.

The document goes on:

As part of the specially funded super schools, created by the Labor government, there are additional three to five deputy principal positions in each super school. However, these schools will have a capacity less than Norwood Morialta High School and are being given preferential funding.

All of [those] schools are on one site and can share facilities such as laboratories, resource centres, art rooms, technology and associated staffing costs and sports fields, without maintaining dual campus costs, especially when the campuses are 3.2 kilometres apart.

It concludes:

The Labor government budget proposes that Norwood Morialta High School, which has more students than any of the schools identified above, is being targeted for budget cuts which will amount to $622,629 per year. If the school is forced by the Labor government to make cuts, our highly successful local school will have to make changes jeopardising the quality of education that has served this community for over 100 years.

I was contacted immediately upon this information becoming known by dozens of concerned parents, students and, of course, teachers, who are very concerned about this. I have had dozens of calls and emails. I attended a public meeting yesterday at which representatives from the student representative council, the governing council of the school, the parents and friends group and teachers were all in attendance. To give you a taste of the sort of concerns that they brought to me I refer to one email from a parent:

I write to you as a very concerned parent, member of the Norwood Morialta High School community. I am especially concerned as a parent because I have entrusted the school with the education of my two children, who are in years 8 and 12. I hope that you too share my concerns about—

and there is some detail that I have already read out from the governing council's information—

the potentially devastating impact the proposed funding cuts will have on the Norwood Morialta High School and you will assist the school in its efforts to prevent them from occurring.

Another parent writes:

I have a son at Norwood Morialta High School and I am disturbed at what I have read concerning the budget cuts and how it affects the school as a whole. I believe the Norwood Morialta High School has a legitimate claim to an increase rather than a cut in their existing budget, since the school operates two campuses. This cost-cutting seems to be without any logic. My son is one of the happiest students and is doing well at Norwood Morialta.

I seek leave to conclude my remarks at a later time.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

[Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00]