APPROPRIATION BILL

Estimates Committees

Ms FOX (Bright) (10:36): I bring up the report of Estimates Committee A and move:

That the report be received.

Motion carried.

Ms FOX: I bring up the minutes of proceedings of Estimates Committee A and move:

That the minutes of proceedings be incorporated in the votes and proceedings.

Motion carried.

Mr KENYON (Newland) (10:37): I bring up the report of Estimates Committee B and move:

That the report be received.

Motion carried.

Mr KENYON: I bring up the minutes of proceedings of Estimates Committee B and move:

That the minutes of proceedings be incorporated in the votes and proceedings.

Motion carried.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Treasurer, Minister for Federal/State Relations, Minister for Defence Industries) (10:37): I move:

That the proposed expenditures referred to Estimates Committees A and B be agreed to.

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen—Leader of the Opposition) (10:37): Here we are at the end of another enlightening estimates process.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: It was what you made of it.

Mrs REDMOND: No, it is not what we made of it. More than ever, what it exposes is that we in this state have every reason to be concerned about what the budget and the estimates processes reveal, about the lies told by this government, about the things kept hidden from the parliament, the people and the PSA about its poor economic management and about this government's priorities or lack thereof.

I will just let the house know at this stage, Madam Speaker, that I am the lead speaker on this budget response. The estimates process itself, I think, is an appalling waste of money and time for far too many people. I do not think I commented on it in my first year because I was sitting there somewhat gobsmacked through my first estimates; indeed, I still remember going home and trying to read the budget and being bewildered. The estimates process was certainly a learning curve that year but after that, I think virtually every year, I have made comments about the estimates process and its failings.

The Hon. K.O. Foley: Let's get rid of it.

Mrs REDMOND: The Treasurer says, 'Let's get rid of it.' No, let's not get rid of it; let's improve it so that it actually becomes a better process. It seems to me that we have made it clear that it is the government's budget and that, except in the most extraordinary circumstances, we are going to pass the government's budget. They are, after all, the government, and they have the right to make the decisions about the running of this state: no question about that. Equally, we, as the opposition, have the right to understand, to question and to hold them to account. That should be what estimates committees are about.

What happens instead is that we are given very limited time in which to ask questions; we are required to read the omnibus questions in as part of the record; we go through this farcical business of signing people in and out, taking unnecessary time; we go through Dorothy Dixers. I defy anyone to provide a good explanation for why there should be any Dorothy Dixers in this process. What is more, shadow ministers who happen to be members of the Legislative Council are not allowed to come in and ask questions on their own part. Probably the most important and appalling thing about the estimates process, however—

Members interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: Madam Speaker, I would ask that you keep members of the government under control whilst I am—

The SPEAKER: They are being very rude; I will ask them to control their comments.

Mrs REDMOND: The most appalling thing is the incredible waste of time involved for very senior (mostly) public servants in this process. I know from things I did before coming into this place as a member of parliament the sort of urgency and anxiety that attaches to people at the head of departments and agencies, and so on, when it is budget estimates time. They have to prepare so comprehensively for budget estimates, and then they come and sit in the chamber in case a question is asked. I might ask for a response from this side of the chamber whether anyone here asked any questions during estimates to which a minister said, 'I will bring back a report' or 'I don't know the answer to that.' Did anyone get that sort of response?

Mr Williams: Many.

Mrs REDMOND: On some occasions, there were up to three dozen public servants here. So, not only did they have to spend an inordinate amount of time preparing for budget estimates, but they had to come and sit in the chamber for the very purpose of being called on for an answer in case a question was asked by someone on this side to which the minister did not happen to know the answer. But, instead of getting an answer, what did we get? We got, 'I'll bring back a report' or 'I'll find out the answer,' or whatever. The whole purpose of having those people in the chamber is so that an answer can be provided during the estimates committee process.

I do not know what the appropriate mechanisms are. However, I just want to make the point that I cannot see that it is a sensible use of the time of our public servants, who no doubt have much more important things to do than sit here in case a question is asked and they are possibly asked to give an answer. There must be a better way to manage this whole process. As I said, we absolutely acknowledge the right of the government to bring down its budget, but the government, surely, must acknowledge the right of the opposition, on behalf of the people of South Australia, to question the government and to hold it to account about the decisions it is making on the spending of their money.

I think that is sufficient to make the point as I make every year in relation to this process. I will also make a couple of points about where this government has got us with this budget. We have had confirmed through the estimates process some of the horror stories that this government has tried to keep hidden simply by the Treasurer getting up every little while and saying, 'We're good economic managers,' when the reality is that this government has had almost a doubling of its income over the time it has been in office.

When the government came in, there was about an $8.5 billion budget. It is now a $16 billion budget and, therefore, the government should be in a pretty sound financial situation. Instead, we remain the highest taxed state. Taxes have gone up under this government by 76 per cent and we have a debt level which is just extraordinary. Our debt level overall—the absolute debt of the government—is about $7.5 billion in the forward estimates but, when you add on the unfunded liability for WorkCover and the unfunded superannuation liability, it is about $20 billion, or about $11,000 for every individual in this state. That is an appalling record, yet the Treasurer keeps saying, 'We're good economic managers.' They are anything but good economic managers. We are now paying close to $2 million a day in interest, and I invite all those on the other side to contemplate what any of the communities they represent would be able to do with $2 million a day were it not being wasted on interest.

The government wants to have its cake and eat it too. The government wants to be able to say, 'We're good economic managers and look how we survived the global financial crisis,' but in the next breath blame the global financial crisis for all the woes of their financial mismanagement. The fact is: South Australia has the second-worst budget of all the states, and our budget deficit this year is due to be $389 million. We are not doing as well as the other states on a whole range of factors. This government cannot have it both ways. It cannot say, 'We're good economic managers and it's all the fault of the global financial crisis, and look at all the other states and how they're going.'

Most importantly, today I want to talk about the broken promises of this government in response to its economic situation. We are all aware, of course, that the Premier gave a written promise before the March state election that there would be no forced public sector redundancies. He gave it, I suspect, only under sufferance and only because the Liberal Party gave one before the Labor Party did. The PSA had the letter from us and, therefore, was able to leverage the letter out of the government. However, it did not worry this government because members have to bear in mind, of course, that this is a government whose Treasurer was very proud to stand in his place in their first year and say, 'Your trouble is you don't have the moral fibre to break your promise. I have.' Anyone who can, with a straight face, stand up and deliver that message as something to boast about is just the most extraordinary person to hold public office in this state.

Of course, he may not hold public office much longer, because we know that the PSA and the AWU, and a number of other people, think that Jay Weatherill and a whole lot of people should move up.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mrs REDMOND: They are sitting there pretending nothing is going on behind closed doors, but we all know.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mrs REDMOND: To be fair, is it any surprise? Mind you, it has taken them seven years after the Treasurer said, 'You don't have the moral fibre to go back on your promise. I have,' for them to figure out that, 'Maybe this is a guy who shouldn't be in a leadership position on our side.' One might worry about the ethics of the group on the other side but, anyway, the PSA and the AWU have certainly figured out that they do not want certain people in the leadership any more; and there is a significant degree of turmoil on the other side. So they have had the moral fibre yet again—and it has been quite frequent, really—to go back on their promise.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mrs REDMOND: It seems to be a regular occurrence. The PSA perhaps should have known that it was not a good thing to rely on a written promise from this government about what it proposed to do because, of course, having guaranteed no forced redundancies, right up front in the budget speech itself, what do we find but, 'We may need to revisit that promise.'

I put it to you that the only possible reason for including a statement like that in the budget speech is the sure and certain knowledge of this government that they will have to revisit that promise. If they thought for an instant that they could skate through without revisiting that promise, and breaking it, they would not have put that statement into the budget speech. But they did, and it signals a firm intention on the government's part to change its mind about what it promised in writing before the election.

Of course, also leading up to the election, they had been negotiating new enterprise bargaining agreements and did not say anything to the PSA during those negotiations about an intention to cut the annual leave loading by 17½ per cent or long service leave entitlements from 15 days to nine days per year. They kept all that hidden. It was not actually a broken promise: it was just kept hidden.

They also kept from the public, as well as from the parliament, the $1.7 billion hospital. Anyone remember us going to an election with a $1.7 billion hospital? Of course, during the estimates process, but through the Auditor-General's Report, we found out that this cabinet had actually approved back in November last year an increase of at least $100 million on that figure. They knew about it for months and months before the election, but went right through, not just—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mrs REDMOND: It is not that they just did not mention it, however; it is that they actually went out and positively described the figure as $1.7 billion, not just once accidentally but incessantly in the lead-up to the election. They kept using that figure of $1.7 billion when they all knew—they all knew—that it was a lie. It was a deliberate lie and deception on the part of this government in the lead-up.

Members interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: Of course, they also did go to the election—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: Point of order, standing order 131, in respect of the member for Croydon. I cannot hear the leader.

The SPEAKER: I am sorry, I missed that, but I presume you are bringing a point of order about the member for Croydon and his interjections, and I will uphold that point of order.

Mrs REDMOND: I do thank you for your protection, Madam Speaker. Of course, that was not the only lie they took to the election. We would all remember the oval and the $450 million, 'not a penny more', and then we had to slightly increase it by the odd $85 million, and then we have to take out some of the works that were going to be included and they will be funded under a different line.

There was a promise—and this is probably more important to many of the people out there—I do not know if anyone on that side remembers it, but certainly on this side we remember it: the promise not to absorb the one-off pension increase. Anyone remember that? That's right. There was a one-off pension increase, and the government promised that they would not actually increase the rentals, but what did they do? They had the rent assistance cancelled. So they are going to rip another $28 million over three years out of the pensioners, after making a promise.

An honourable member: The member for Croydon smiles.

Mrs REDMOND: Yes, the member for Croydon always smiles at what they do to the poor, the destitute, the homeless, the pensioners, the disadvantaged. The member for Croydon thinks he is a protected species because he works so hard going to all these multicultural functions, but he does not care about what their decisions do to the poor and the most vulnerable in our community.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kavel!

Mrs REDMOND: Did you notice also that in the lead-up to the election they did not happen to mention anything about mining royalties about to increase? They just neglected to say that. I am sure that they had approaches from the South Australian Council of Mines and Energy—as we did—and they asked specifically about proposals to increase mining royalties. Government did not mention it—no mention whatsoever until after the election.

Remember when the Gillard government brought down their original 40 per cent tax that they were going to impose? What did Kevin Foley say at that point? The Treasurer said, 'We are about to introduce increased royalties. We can show that for months and months we had been proposing and working on a significant increase to the royalties regime in this state.'

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: Just forgot to tell the public.

Mrs REDMOND: Just forgot to tell the public, as the member for Stuart points out. But then, of course, they do tell the public all sorts of things about the mining industry and what a boon it is for this state. The only thing is the mining exploration sector—we have not even got to the mining boom that they have been living on for the last eight years—has lost jobs and lost its portion of the income that it had in this state under the government's watch. They are just extraordinary, and Jan McMahon—now, there is someone I like to quote—stood on the front steps of this parliament a week or two ago and said, 'You can't trust this government,' and that is exactly the case.

So, what else have we found out during estimates? We found that only 10 per cent of the air warfare destroyer defence contracts will actually be spent in South Australia. I do not know how many times I have heard Mike Rann talk about the $40 billion of defence contracts in this state. In fact, he gave an extraordinary speech at the Town Hall for Francis Wong. Francis and Suzie were celebrating being in this city for 20 years, and the Premier got up and made the most extraordinary speech that had everything to do with air warfare destroyer contracts. Watch your back, Kevin, watch your back!

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mrs REDMOND: Now, that is a pretty picture.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The leader will sit down until there is some quiet. I did not know the leader thought so fondly of our Treasurer—such acclamation! Also, someone in the gallery is taking photos. Could they please put that camera away.

Mr PICCOLO: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The member for Morialta—

The SPEAKER: Just a moment, member for Light. The person up there taking photos, can you not take photos in the gallery, please. The member for Light.

Mr PICCOLO: Point of order, Madam Speaker. If the member for Morialta is taking photographs, does that mean that we can take photographs of them as well?

The SPEAKER: Is the member for Morialta taking photographs? If he is, he is in serious trouble. I did not see that.

Mr PICCOLO: The member for Morialta took a photograph.

The SPEAKER: Order! All right. Yes, it is against the rules to take photographs from the gallery—it is against standing orders—or in the chamber. Please, if anyone has cameras, put them away before I see them. Now, have we got some quiet? The Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs REDMOND: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I do apologise for the uproarious behaviour of those members on my side, but they just cannot help thinking that what we see across there may well be something that we see on a more permanent basis in the near future. The Treasurer, no doubt, has heard that wonderful saying that in politics one should keep the friends close but the enemies closer. I am sure that he is choosing to demonstrate that this morning for the benefit of those of us sitting on this side.

Dr McFetridge: What do we see over there?

Mrs REDMOND: What do we see over there? We see all sorts of possible permutations as to what this government might look like before too long.

Mr Pengilly: A clapped-out sheep dog and a young pup!

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Finniss will behave himself.

Mrs REDMOND: I will call on the member for Finniss to behave himself, but I do note that comment about a clapped-out sheep dog and a young pup. I think that there is a great deal to be said for it, so I have now made sure that it is on the record.

The SPEAKER: Order! We do have standing rules.

Mrs REDMOND: I was talking about what was hidden from the public before the budget and the estimates process. Most extraordinary of all, and perhaps relevant for the honourable member opposite, is the Parks Community Centre, because, of course, the Parks Community Centre in the north-western suburbs serves some 20,000 people a month, yet this government chose through its budget to decide that it was no longer worth keeping.

It helps the disadvantaged, the poor and the vulnerable. It is in the heart of a Housing Trust area. It is an area where there are lots of refugees and lots of disadvantaged people. I thought that I would read into the record something that the government chose not to look at from the Sustainable Budget Commission. Of course, the Sustainable Budget Commission gave its report, and the government looked at that report; and, you would remember, Madam Speaker, that, the day before the budget came out, there was the disaster of the leaked report.

The government chose, it said, to take on board some of those things and not take on board others, but, obviously, it did not take on board this the bit—this is bit in the beginning of the Sustainable Budget Commission's report. There was a letter to the Treasurer from the members of the Sustainable Budget Commission, and it said this:

The commission would like to bring to your notice, and that of the government more generally, the particular perspective of Monsignor Cappo on the savings available to the government. Monsignor Cappo is very concerned that the decisions of the government regarding the savings choices do not negatively impact on individuals, families and community social cohesion.

He cannot support decisions that reduce or diminish services available to vulnerable and disadvantaged people or that diminish the social fabric of South Australia. So to that end Monsignor Cappo urges that a social and community needs filter be applied to the government's decisions on all savings measures.

That was what the letter from the Sustainable Budget Commission said to this government in delivering its report. This government clearly chose to take no notice whatsoever of that and to proceed instead with an announcement that it would completely dismantle the Parks Community Centre. They then said that it will not dismantle it after all, and after several attempts they decided to be fairly firm about that. They could even give you a letter, I suppose, but what value would a letter be in circumstances where, before the election, they had given a letter to the PSA?

Mr Gardner interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: As the member for Morialta says, we could ask the PSA whether a letter from the government guaranteeing that it would not close the Parks is any comfort whatsoever to anyone who uses that facility. We know that people out there have had their contracts renewed until mid-March. Strangely, that is when they were planning to close the centre. Funny thing that! Yet, apparently the entire cabinet applauded and endorsed the decision of the Treasurer—

Mr Williams: Unanimous!

Mrs REDMOND: Yes, a unanimous decision. They all stand proudly by that decision, and then they managed to do a backflip and a double pike. That is what they did—with twist and spin.

Mr Williams: In unison.

Mrs REDMOND: Yes. They should go into the synchronised swimming and diving. They could probably take out a gold medal at the Commonwealth Games if they get over there quickly, because they are certainly the best team I know at synchronised twisting, spinning and double backflips.

When you look at the detail of the budget, there is a funny thing about the proposals in terms of how much the government will earn from fines. They need for everyone to be breaking the law as often as possible so that they can get the money they intend to get from fines. They actually have built into their own budget a disincentive for people to respond to road safety measures. They want us to pay; the budget will be out of kilter if not enough people break the law. There are some bizarre things in this document.

They talk about wanting to be an education state and they set up all sorts of committees and commissions that cost a lot of money, but by removing the adult re-entry process they are depriving people over the age of 21 years from being able to do their South Australian Certificate of Education. That is a most telling indictment of this government's priorities or lack thereof.

They have massive cuts in industry and trade. One wonders where they think the future of this state might be coming from. They are cutting the industry and trade portfolio: 78 of the 200 jobs are to go. They will increase payroll tax for exporters. They are getting rid of a lot of business enterprise centres and migration programs. One wonders where their heads are at in terms of their proposals for the future of this state and trade and industry.

As to the regions, this government ignored them for eight years—absolutely ignored them. Since becoming leader I have made at least four trips to Mount Gambier, a few over to Eyre Peninsula and up to Port Augusta on several occasions, and to the Riverland on half a dozen occasions. I have travelled as extensively as I can through the regions of this state, and constantly the people in those regions are bemoaning the fact that they believe this government focuses only on the area from Gepps Cross down to the Southern Vales—and it is trying to make more landfill down there, with more housing in all those areas.

The regions are copping a particular battering from this government in its budget. When you look at just the increase in country petrol prices, going up by 3.3¢ a litre—and of course country people have to travel longer distances—that alone is an imposition. Then you add things like the paltry cuts, but cuts that mean so much, to country hospitals. Now I am sure that the deputy leader and others will talk about these cuts and the importance of them to those country hospitals. They say, 'It's a private hospital, it's not our problem. We are the government, we are not here to fund private hospitals.'

Minister, let me tell you that you are not funding private hospitals. These are community hospitals which are run by community-based boards, genuine local boards, and those people give of their time as volunteers—they do not get paid to do that. They get a very small amount of money from the government and that helps them to provide things like accident and emergency services in the country.

When you remove that little bit of funding, it could be that some of these hospitals are forced to close. That will mean, surprise, surprise, that the people currently using those hospitals will go to public hospitals. What this government is going to do by taking away that little bit of funding that keeps these hospitals alive is save a penny to lose a pound. It makes no sense whatsoever, but this government is too short-sighted and it has got itself into such a financial dilemma that it sees this as the way out.

It is not the way out: it is the way to disaster and, most especially, it is the way to deprive our regional people in this state of even more services they have every right expect. Do not forget that the regions comprise a fair bit of the income of this state, with agriculture, mining, aquaculture, and all the things that go on out in the regions. That is where a lot of the money for this state comes from. The people who live there have every right to expect some level of equity in the provision of the services that come to them, but they get nothing.

This government continues to perpetuate the myth that Shared Services is somehow going to be some sort of reform: it is not. It is a Shared Services disaster; it is well behind any budget estimates that were originally given. It will never, in my view, achieve the savings that were promised and what it is going to do is further rip jobs and money out of our regions—and add that to the increases for the fishing and agricultural services and less support for the wine industry. In fact, for the first time in years, there was no regional Budget Paper. That is how strong the evidence is that this government has chosen to ignore the regions.

I know that, when I went to the Riverland on a previous occasion, the cameraman, a young guy, said he had been working in the Riverland for two years and he had never seen the Premier. That is how keen our Premier is to be a premier for the whole stale. He actually just scurries from his office to his home in Norwood, or wherever it is; it is certainly not out in his electorate. Then we come to what they are going to do with water. The government plans to increase water prices by a further 32 per cent. We have already had a massive increase. Isn't that about 32 per cent, deputy leader?

Mr Williams: Yes.

Mrs REDMOND: Yes, the deputy leader confirms that we have already had an increase of about 32 per cent, but now, on top of that, we are going to get another 32 per cent. An increase, on average, of $252 over three years above the prices that people paid last year. Wait until those bills start to come home. In fact, under this government, since it came to office, the cost of water in South Australia has already trebled, and I cannot wait to see what happens once we get this desalination plant going. I do not know that it is going to make much difference at all to what is happening to our water supply or our reliance on the Murray. In fact, we know it will not make any difference to the reliance on the Murray.

What it will make a difference to is how much people are going to have to pay. In the meantime, as if all of that was not enough, they have managed to get us to the highest unemployment rate in the nation. All that good economic management by this Treasurer, we have the highest unemployment rate in the nation. The question which is constantly asked is: what would we do? As I said when I opened my response to this debate on the budget, we came to the election with an entirely different agenda from what the government presented.

I will not go through all the details of that again, suffice to say, Liberals always prefer smaller government, putting more money out in the community, providing more front-line services. Be it health, education, law and order, whatever you want, we always believe in putting more of our money into the community because it is not anything but their money. At the end of the day, it is the community's money. They deserve having it spent on providing services for them. Of course, we also have the belief that an individual knows how to spend their money better than government. If any government ever amply demonstrated that fact, it is this government—it has certainly done it.

How we would be different also, in a more philosophical sense, is that I do not make promises I do not intend to keep—and that is what this government did. That is what this government did over a number of issues through this budget and estimates process. They made promises that they knew they had no intention of keeping, and they kept from the public of South Australia information about a range of issues that they knew might very well affect the way those people would vote in the election. They kept that information from them quite deliberately, and that is an indictable attitude to the people of this state.

Of course, they also did things in bad faith, in my view. They were negotiating with the PSA, and it was on the radio this morning that the PSA really thinks that it could have been in bad faith. That is something I can promise I will never do: I will never intentionally make a promise I do not intend to keep or negotiate in other than good faith. This government stands indicted for its behaviour.

The budget and estimates process have exposed the failures of this government. They are dishonest, disingenuous and untrustworthy. They are still not listening to the people they purport to represent. They said after the election, having had such a close shave, 'We are going to reconnect.' So, they went out and reconnected with the people in the Parks , and the people in the Parks said, 'What we want is for you to close our community centre.' No, they did not really say that.

They did not actually listen at all. They still do not listen. They still have no idea of what the people out there might be saying, and they still make decisions. The member for Cheltenham gave that famous address in which he said—

An honourable member: The pagans.

Mrs REDMOND: Yes, he made an address to the pagans at the winter solstice dinner in the western suburbs. It was funny how it was reported so comprehensively. I suspect it might have been part of his manoeuvring. In that speech, he said, 'We have got to move from this "announce and defend". We have got to move away from this "announce and defend".' Obviously, the government has not learnt any lessons from the election or from Jay's indictment of them in a speech he gave. I wonder what the party room walls were doing that day. I would love to have been a fly on the party room wall the next day he came in.

Mr Goldsworthy: Atko was a sacrifice.

Mrs REDMOND: If only Atko was a sacrifice at that pagan feast. I will close now. I do not think it is important for me to say much more than I have already said; that is, this government should hang its head in shame. They are pathetic economic managers. They have absolutely the wrong priorities. They fail to listen to the people of this state on a continuing basis. They continue to make decisions which are simply indefensible, and they continue to waste the money of the people of this state. They are not to be trusted. They should never be trusted, and they should really be hanging their heads in shame for the rest of this year and probably the rest of their term.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (11:13): This grievance debate in response to the estimates committees gives everyone a chance to make some observations about the budget, following the estimates committees. What do the estimates committees tell us after nine Labor budgets? The estimates committees tell us that we have more debt, more taxes, less services and less jobs as a result of nine Labor budgets.

It is my observation, having gone through these estimates committees, that there are two issues that the public should be concerned about with this government. There are essentially two key issues; one issue is what this government tells you, and the other issue is what this government does not tell you. It goes to the element of trust—the issue of trust.

What the government tells you, and I think the estimates committees show, is that that you just cannot believe this government anymore. We are going to have a rally out the front today by the various union movements. Janet Giles, from the union movement, is in the press saying that this government is untrustworthy and that this government is dishonest.

For the union movement, the funders of the Labor Party, to come out and say that about this government I think shows the level of frustration in the community about the total dishonesty, arrogance and contempt that this government treats the community with. They think they can simply say anything and people will not remember in four years' time. That is the strategy in this budget: they were hoping to deliver the bad news now so that in four years' time people would simply forget what they tell them. Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not think that will happen on this occasion.

You cannot believe what this government tell you. They talked about the Adelaide Oval before the election being a $450 million project; we now know they knew before the election it was going closer to $535 million. Before the election they were running around telling everyone the Adelaide hospital was going to be a $1.7 billion project; we now know that before the election they had already increased the public sector comparator capital figure to $1.8 billion. They knew it was likely to be a higher cost.

They told all the Housing Trust pensioners, 'Don't worry, your rents won't go up before the election because of the increase in federal money.' After the election, of course, they have put the rents up and are collecting another $24 million, I think was the figure the leader used, over three or four years. They said to the Public Service before the election, 'Don't worry about your redundancy; we'll give you a letter guaranteeing your redundancy,' and, of course, after the election they threatened to take away redundancy. On the saving measures, they said $750 million worth of savings before the election; after the election they are talking about $2.5 billion in savings and taxes.

The estimates committees show that the first problem you have with this government is you cannot believe what they tell you, and the second problem is what this government does not tell you. This government did not go to the election saying to all those small school communities they were going to slash their funding by $12 million over three or four years. They did not go to the small country hospitals saying they were going to take away the funding for the Keith, Moonta, Ardrossan and Glenelg hospitals. They did not say that during the election.

There are a whole range of things where this government have announced massive cuts to programs after the election that they refused to outline before the election. So, on the fundamental question of trust, the estimates committee process shows that the South Australian community have two major problems: that is, what this government tell you cannot be believed and, of course, what the government do not tell you—what baseball bat is around the corner for this government to come and crush the community in their next announcement?

So, when we go to the next election, the public have a real right to ask the government, 'Why will we believe what you are saying now and what are you hiding at the 2014 election that you are going to deliver to us in 2015, 2016 and 2017 if re-elected?' Because what the government has done in this budget is not only shown that you cannot trust what they say before the election but watch out for what they are going to deliver after the election. Watch out for what they are hiding.

Let us get this absolutely crystal clear: the Treasurer let the cat out of the bag when he said that all of the cabinet decisions were unanimous on the budget. They were all unanimous on the budget. So, if they do their shuffle over there; if the union movement get their way and decide that the Labor leadership needs to change—interesting question, Madam Deputy Speaker, who is running the state, the unions or the Premier? We will come to that later. However, if the unions get their way and shuffle the Premier and the Deputy Premier, do not forget, whoever the new person is, they all signed off on this. They all signed off on this unanimously. It is the same ship. It is the same Labor ship.

It may well have a different skipper come 2014, but it is the same ship, the same policy, the same cabinet decision and the same saving cuts. So, whoever goes into the chair, if the Premier happens to go, they supported the cuts to small schools, the cuts to the Parks , the cuts to the Public Service, the slashing of the redundancy. These were all unanimous, according to the Treasurer, in cabinet and it is an issue the public should not forget.

There are some other examples of things that were not even announced during the election. Another issue of trust are the things that were not even in the budget. The good work of my other shadows have raised such things as other savings measures in the department of environment that not even the department of environment could actually explain to the Budget and Finance Committee in another place. The department of environment could not even explain why they were not in the budget papers. So, we even have the situation where savings measures that are not in the budget that has been presented will ultimately have to be found by the departments concerned.

Playford Capital is getting cut, but that is not in the budget. The member for Waite did some excellent work on this activity and put out a press release. It goes to this issue of trust. If the government is putting its cuts in the budget, then why not put all the cuts in the budget? We have the estimates committees so that we can ask about the cuts. If you hide the cuts, how do you get to ask about them? Ultimately, you need a leak from the Public Service, or whatever. It goes to this issue of trust. This budget and these estimates committees show that you cannot trust the government.

There was one grand admission from the Treasurer during the estimates committees. If anyone goes back over the last eight years of Hansard, they will see lots of statements from opposition members to the effect that the government does not have a revenue problem, it has an expenses problem. The reality is that this government, over nearly nine years, has collected $5 billion in unbudgeted revenue. So, it had $5 billion more in its pocket than it ever expected in its budgets—$625 million a year extra revenue.

What have they done with it? That is the question that we have posed for eight years. You are getting all this extra revenue; what are you actually doing with it? We kept on saying to the Treasurer that he had an expenses problem and, lo and behold, in his ninth budget, as a result of questions, the Treasurer finally admitted that he had a budget problem. In fact, when we asked him if he should have controlled his expenditure far earlier in the budget process, the Treasurer said, 'Well, yes, you are absolutely correct.' When we put to him that he could have taken action in 2008 or 2009 to address some of his expenditure issues, he said again, 'You are absolutely correct.'

So, we are here today, with this level of cuts to expenditure and this level of taxation required over the next four years—a taxation increase of $1 billion—because, essentially, the government has admitted during the estimates process that it was too lazy to take action in the earlier years. I can tell you what the Treasurer will say: his line will be, 'The health expenditure is growing at 9 per cent every year.' There is an element of truth in that, but we are talking about whole of government expenditure increasing at between 7 and 9 per cent, not just the health expenditure. The Treasurer has taken his eye off the ball for eight years and, as a result of that, has had to take some action, ultimately, in this budget.

There are some other issues that I want to touch on—some key topics. I refer, first of all, to one of my favourites, Adelaide Oval, details of which the Treasurer forgot had occurred before the election. The question for the government now concerning Adelaide Oval is this: the Treasurer has told this house that if they get any money from the federal government it would be netted off against the state government's $535 million.

We know that the project was taken off the Treasurer, because he was going so well with it, and given to the Minister for Infrastructure. The Minister for Infrastructure and others have been in contact with Canberra saying, 'Julia, Julia, can you bail us out? We've got a capital hole in our Adelaide Oval project. We suspect it's at least $105 million.' So, the question comes, and I ask this question of the Treasurer: is it still the government's position that if it gets money from the federal government towards Adelaide Oval it will be netted off against the $535 million?

The Treasurer went right around that issue and was uncertain, and essentially he said, 'That will be a matter for cabinet.' So, the question then becomes: are they changing their position? The Labor backbench, I know, has an interest in this because the Labor backbench moved the motion capping the state expenditure at $535 million. It was quite extraordinary that the backbench of the Labor Party had to move a motion to control its own cabinet because cabinet could not control itself, but that is what they did. The question now arises: is cabinet starting to change ground on the issue of netting off the federal funds against the $535 million?

The second issue is that there is another pool of money the government is seeking. It is seeking money towards the $105 million blowout in capital funds. The question now is: if it gets money towards the $105 million capital blowout, will that money be netted off against the $535 million? When I asked the Treasurer that he said, 'That's a matter for minister Conlon; ask him.' So, the ground is still moving in relation to the federal money. There are two lots of federal money the government is chasing and it will be interesting to see where that lands. We will certainly be tracking that as we go through question time and the process in parliament over future months.

Another issue I want to raise is the Parks. I think the Parks issue symbolises this government in so many ways. The arrogance of this government to think it could get away with closing the Parks Community Centre because it was in a safe Labor seat. It was simply taking those voters for granted: it will not matter, they always vote Labor down in that area and it simply will not matter. Close the Parks and it will save us $4 million a year and bring in $17 million through the sale of the land. The arrogance of the government on the issue of the Parks tells so many stories. It goes to the issue of: what do you believe about this government? That issue did not last two weeks.

This government delayed the budget until September (in the middle of the footy finals) so that it could consider the Sustainable Budget Commission report and, having considered it carefully, having read the letter about Monsignor Cappo's view, as part of that submission, it is a unanimous decision of cabinet to sign off. Even the local member who represents the Parks area and who is in cabinet signed off on it, because if you believe the Treasurer—and you do that at your peril—it was unanimous.

Then what happens? Two weeks of protest, two weeks of complaint and the government backflips. The government calls in, not the local member to save it, they do not call in a cabinet minister to save it—no, they bring in the political shield, Monsignor Cappo, to save it. How can a cabinet be so out of touch that, having delayed the budget until September, it announces the cuts to the Parks and within two weeks it has backflipped. It says a lot about this government and its commitment to projects.

We are still waiting for the Mount Bold reservoir expansion; we know about the prison project that was abandoned; the tunnel down South Road/Port Road, that big tunnel has gone; the WorkCover levy on schools, that was popular, until we asked three questions in the house and Jane Lomax-Smith rolled over on it, so that budget measure went. This particular issue of the Parks says so much about this government: it is not listening to the electorate; it is taking its own electorate for granted; cabinet does not listen; and, when it gets into trouble, you do not see a minister front it—no, you see a political shield and Monsignor Cappo goes out.

Monsignor Cappo, for goodness sake, was on the committee that dealt up the original submission. Admittedly, he expressed his view. The government did not listen to the letter where he expressed his view, why is it listening now? It is listening now because the community quite rightly became outraged about that particular issue. the Parks issue is now going to be that the government is listening; it is going to spin this to say that the government is now listening. It is synchronised spinning and the public should not fall for it at all.

Another issue I want to raise is in relation to Shared Services. Shared Services has ripped a lot of jobs out of regional communities and plonked them into the city. We were promised $60 million a year in savings but, after six years, we are $100 million short in savings. That process has caused a lot of upheaval in the public sector and regional communities and, again, that program needs to be well scrutinised.

The last issue I want to touch on is the Royal Adelaide Hospital. Of course, the Royal Adelaide Hospital essentially is not in the budget. It is going to be a public-private partnership, assuming that cabinet signs off that the tenders (which the Treasurer seems very confident about) are below the public sector comparator, which we now know is $1.8 billion. The Royal Adelaide Hospital was a key element of the election.

There were at least three key elements of the election—one was about trust, one was about the Adelaide Oval, and one was about the Royal Adelaide Hospital—and the government has been found out on all three elements. Trust, I dealt with earlier; with the Adelaide Oval, we had a motion of no confidence in the Treasurer about his misleading the house and his handling of the project; and, with the Royal Adelaide Hospital, we now know that the government has known all along that the cost it should have been talking about was $1.8 billion before the election, not $1.7 billion. Of course, they were running around saying that our costings on the hospital could not be believed, all the time knowing that its costings could not be believed either.

The government had actually signed off in cabinet in November, before the state election, for a higher public sector comparative cost of $1.8 billion, not $1.7 billion. So, regardless of all the individual issues—whether it is the Parks , shared services, the hospital, Adelaide Oval—these budget estimates committees showed me one thing about this government; if you like, it crystallised it in my mind and I think in the public's mind. The public has had a gutful of this government because the public knows that it can no longer trust this government. This government does not tell the truth. This government misleads the people.

The government may well try to change the captain of the ship, but the ship will still be called Labor, and every single one of its members is the public face of that misleading; every one of the members is the public face of that distrust. After nine budgets, South Australia is left with more debt, more taxes, fewer services, and fewer jobs, and a government no-one can believe and no-one can trust.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (11:32): One of the most important privileges of government is to have the opportunity each year to make a decision about who they get the money from and who they distribute it to. That is the purpose of the budget. It is approved by this parliament and, by tradition and precedent, we approve the government's decision on that matter.

One of the most important responsibilities of the government is to protect and provide for the vulnerable, and that includes the disadvantaged and disabled. There are many aspects of this budget which indicate to me—and I am sure to other members—that this government has failed to take that responsibility. the Parks , rental increases for pensioners, breaches of promise by the Premier in respect of the latter, the closure of services to the most needy and poor in the community of the Parks , etc., are all clear examples.

However, today I wish to address the issue of the disabled, and the equipment which this government has been so ready to rush to the public with headline announcements about but has not delivered. Even more concerning is what has been disclosed through this budget process, during which we have received the Auditor-General's Report, a most serious matter.

It is important to remember who we are providing for. One of the finest examples of someone in this state who was born with disadvantage and who had an acquired disability was Mr Garnett Wilson OAM, who passed away in the Lyell McEwin Hospital in the early hours of yesterday morning. I mention him because he not only made an outstanding contribution to the state but he also had a life which was extraordinary and which ought remind us why we are in the house—to recognise the important of those for whom we are providing.

Garnett Wilson was the first baby born at Point McLeay hospital on 7 January 1928. His father was a good shearer and, had Garney not fallen out of a tree at 12 years of age, suffering horrific injuries and pain for life, he would have been as well. Six and a half years of operations and hospitals left him with one leg shorter than the other, but it did not stop him from a career in the shearing sheds.

Many will know—and I am sure there will be discussion about this over the forthcoming week—that Garney was the first professional Indigenous wool classer in South Australia, and our family consider it a privilege that he worked on Kangaroo Island for my father for many years. He was acknowledged with an Order of Australia medal on 26 January 1984 for his services to Aboriginal welfare, and his work as chairman of the Aboriginal Lands Trust is well known.

Garney had one leg shorter than the other. He had built up shoe to be able to work. He lived in pain throughout his over 80 years of life, and he made an outstanding contribution to the state. And, yet, only two years ago, I had to plead, on his behalf, while he was living in the Aboriginal aged care service, for an electric wheelchair to be provided for him. The importance for South Australians with a disability to have access to equipment is well known to all of us and ought to be well known to the government.

What they have chosen to do, however, is instead of making an adequate annual provision in their budgets for equipment to provide people like Garney with an opportunity to have a life in employment—voluntary or otherwise—which is absolutely critical, no, the government's decision, in the lifetime of this government, has been to make this fantastic big one-off announcement for funding for disability equipment.

Preceding the 2006 election, I recall there was major outcry from the disability advocacy community, and the government responded by saying that they were going to make a contribution. Again, in 2010; but what do we find? One-off, pathetic announcements. In 2010, just over $7 million was going to be applied, and we have seen how that has been drip fed out to the people who are most needy.

We have Kelly Vincent in the Legislative Council, a member of the Parliament of South Australia, representing the disabled and calling for the government's contribution in this regard, but it falls on deaf ears. What is stunningly, I think, shameful of the government is that not only are they prepared to drip feed this out to the people most in need, but the way in which they have done it over the last few years ought to remind us about how sneaky they are about pretending to actually give a damn about these people.

What has occurred in the Auditor-General's Report recently revealed—and it has been confirmed by statements made by the minister Rankin during the course of estimates—is that money was deliberately stashed to avoid carryover policy as funding given too late in the year to be spent. I want to refer to the Auditor-General's Report and to quote:

The Cabinet approved funding for disability equipment was received too late in each of the financial years to provide the manageable opportunity for the orderly purchase of disability equipment before the end of the year. It is understood that this factor, together with the risks either of not receiving the funds or not retaining the funds through an approved carryover process, were the motivating factors for the practice of one-off grants to JFA and their subsequent recovery.

Members would be aware that JFA is the Julia Farr Association, which provides public policy services to the state, and it also has a housing association, which assists in housing, and it is a very important association. It had a very much more expanded role prior to this government cutting up its areas of responsibility but, nevertheless, it continues to provide very good services to South Australia.

What is important to understand, though, is that the Auditor-General disclosed in his report that a total of $5.1 million in two separate parcels—that is, $2.92 million in June 2007 and $2.15 million in June 2008, when, I might mention, minister Weatherill was the minister in charge—had been given to the Julia Farr Association for disability equipment at a time when the Julia Farr Association did not provide that service. Money was handed over to an NGO that had no responsibility to provide disability equipment to people on the list.

It was put to minister Rankine last Friday that she had told the estimates committee in the preceding year (2009) that $2.1 million went to the Julia Farr Association, which she claimed had been for disability equipment at that time. She looked rather puzzled last week, but the reality is it is there in Hansard. She made it absolutely clear in 2009 that that had gone to the Julia Farr Association. So either she is completely clueless or she knew about it and did not tell us the full truth during estimates in 2009.

When you transfer money into another entity, you lose control of it—that is the reality—and that is why it is so important that we have rules and that, when we set a budget, it is to be applied according to the budget approved by the parliament. It is important that the application of those funds and the responsibility therefore are supervised under the strict rules and very clear guidelines set by the Treasurer. Stashing money in the accounts of a non-government organisation is a disgrace and undermines the accountability of government.

You do not have to believe me on that; again, the Auditor-General makes it very clear. He identified, on quizzing the department about these matters, that the money ultimately did go to organisations that provided disability. He said that the practice, however:

...did not meet the principles and responsibilities expected of the public sector agencies in relation to the financial administration and accountability process.

This is particularly important, because I want to outline what the rules are. Grant payments over $1.1 million must be authorised by a minister. That is in a published written Treasurer's Instruction. If we were standing here in May 2002 with the government's first budget, you would expect that if they made a mistake on this and did not actually understand it they might have had some reason; they had not been in government very long. But this is a government that has now been in office for eight years, and some ministers have been there for years.

The Treasurer's Instruction is very clear. In fact, last week I asked minister Rankine what is the position in relation to approving grants, and she confirmed it again; she knew what the rules were. The rules were that, if it is over $1.1 million, the Treasurer's Instruction specifically provides that any purchase or contract between $1.1 million and $11 million must be approved by cabinet or the minister, and there are some delegation powers—but they are the rules.

The other interesting aspect of this involves another Treasurer's Instruction, Treasurer's Instruction 15, which makes provision as to what happens with money in the appropriation of funds and who has authority for the payment of grants. That is also an instruction that must be considered, as I am sure the Auditor-General did when he referred to a failure on the part of the department relating to the financial administration and accountability process.

But the other matter, I think, is even more telling; it is the Treasurer's Instruction with which the government is very familiar and which states that, if the department does not spend its money on a particular project before the end of the financial year, it has to give it back. Of course, they can make an application to the Treasurer to explain why they have not spent it, and in some circumstances the Treasurer can and does allow those funds to be retained, notwithstanding the Treasurer's Instruction. It is a pretty simple rule, one which has been made abundantly clear to this government, because they, of course, have been through the stashed cash affair number one.

We are now up to the stashed cash affair number two. Members will be very familiar with the Kate Lennon case that involved the application of funds by Ms Lennon as CEO of the Attorney-General's department. Ms Lennon placed those funds in the Crown Solicitor's Trust Account with the intention of ensuring that they would be quarantined from the Treasurer's Instruction and be able to be applied to the original purpose of those funds just before the end of the financial year.

Not only was that matter given enormous public coverage, which the government members, particularly the Treasurer, condemned Ms Lennon for, but it raised a number of questions about the competence of the then attorney-general and whether he was even awake during the time he was having briefings with Ms Lennon as his chief of staff on this issue or whether he was too busy reading the TAB guide. We have heard all about that huge debacle, but what was clear from that exercise was that the Treasurer was outraged that this should have happened. In fact, he made that very clear in this parliament. He was hot to trot to come into this parliament and express his condemnation of what had occurred.

On 23 November 2005, in respect of the CEO's action and in reference to whether the attorney-general had been aware of what had happened, he said:

The Auditor-General was informed, investigations were being put in place, actions followed, a CEO was dismissed, and I make no apology for that. It is a message to any CEO under this government's administration that, if they want to fiddle the books, if they want to falsify documents, if they want to shift money around, they will be dismissed.

That is what he said. That is what the Treasurer said when he found out about this issue and was answering questions in the parliament about why this had happened, why there had been a defiance of his Treasurer's Instruction. I ask now, why is it, having received the Auditor-General's Report, that we have had stunning silence from the Treasurer on this issue? I have not heard a squeak out of him on this issue. He has not come rushing in to say, 'I've read the Auditor-General's Report. What's going on here? We have another stashing of cash here. What's going on?'

It may be that some clue is exposed by the fact that the man who was in charge, the minister who was in charge as at June 2007 and as at June 2008, and who is referred to as a minister who had discussions about this matter in the Auditor-General's Report, is none other than minister Jay Weatherill. He was the contender for the deputy leader's position after the 2010 election. He is the man who challenged the Treasurer for his job.

I have never known the Treasurer of this state to be a scaredy-cat. I have known him to be difficult, I have known him to be outspoken, I have known him to make statements in this parliament which I think have been inappropriate and in which I think he has gone too far in his expression and his, I think, abuse of the parliamentary process in his description of others in the community. That is my view; it may not be shared by others. But I have never known him to be a scaredy-cat; I have never known him to walk away from what is a clear breach of his own instruction which is been paraded for the world to know in South Australia as an unacceptable practice.

Yet he is absolutely mute; not a word. Minister Weatherill, of course, is the person who has a lot to answer for. He was the minister in charge at that time. We need to know when he signed these authorisations and if he did not, why he did not, because we know what the Treasurer's Instruction clearly says. We need to know why that money was stashed.

The Auditor-General clearly says it is because it was to avoid having to pay it back under this instruction. The Auditor-General makes it very clear about the government practice of throwing money in at the end of the financial year and expecting anybody to be able to apply those funds to the needy people of the community who are waiting for disability equipment—some for months, some for years. We know that, and the Treasurer knows what the rules are. The minister could not have escaped the scandal that surrounded his government during 2007-08, and he needs to come into this house and give us an explanation as to what went on and why and whether all the money was recovered.

Who got the interest on this money while it was stashed over there in an NGO? That is just one question I have. When you have $5.1 million, there is a hell of a lot of interest on that. We have a lot of questions to be answered by minister Weatherill, and I have a few for the Treasurer as to why he has been mute and silent, which is clearly out of character for him.

Mr PICCOLO (Light) (11:52): I speak in support of the motion before the house. I would just like to make a few comments about the process itself and I would just like to echo, before I go into a bit more detail, the comments made by minister Caica, whose views I share and who made these comments during the estimates committee process, and I quote him from Hansard:

People might say from time to time that estimates are a waste of time, but they quite rightly give an opportunity for the opposition to scrutinise the budget and to ask questions about the budget. I also say that, whilst it occupies the time of the officers within my office and those within the department for a period of time in the preparation and lead-up to this, it is a valuable exercise for them to make sure that they understand exactly what is going on but, more importantly, to make sure the minister understands exactly what is going on.

I do support the estimates process and I think it is important, though, that for the process to work you also need a good opposition. That is where perhaps the process does fall down.

What I would like, while endorsing that, to indicate is that during the whole estimates period, the whole estimates committees hearing, we heard member after member of the Liberal opposition saying how much more they wanted to spend in this particular area. They wanted to spend a few million here and a few million more there. They opposed cuts, which is understandable, but nowhere—not once—did they say where the extra income would come from.

In the budget response, the Leader of the Opposition provided two—two—major savings: the Thinker in Residence and a couple ministries. They were going to fund their whole new program with these savings.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PICCOLO: I will get to that in a second. This opposition says it is ready for government, but there is no evidence that they are ready for government because they cannot even be honest with the people and say, 'This is the alternative budget.' They have not put up an alternative budget. What they have tried to do is pick up on some community discontent—which is understandable—but they have not actually been honest at all.

This gets to the issue of trust, which the member for Davenport raised. He asks us whether we can be trusted on this side. The Leader of the Opposition states today that she can be trusted. Let us see how far we can trust the Leader of the Opposition; this is what she said today:

Then you add things like the paltry cuts, but cuts that mean so much, to country hospitals.

And I quote further:

Minister, let me tell you that you are not funding private hospitals. These are community hospitals which are run by community-based boards, genuine local boards, and those people give of their time as volunteers—they do not get paid to do that.

That is what the Leader of the Opposition said today, probably an hour or so ago. We should be able to trust her when she says that. On the 28^th of last month, this is what the Leader of the Opposition said in response to the budget, 'How about the removal of the money from private hospitals?' These are her words, 'This is a really paltry amount. It is a saving of $1.2 million per year, and the government—'

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Pengilly): Order!

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Unley, you are testing our patience.

Mr PICCOLO: The member for Unley is obviously not keen on the community hearing this because they cannot be trusted and they can get caught by their own words. This is what the leader said:

...and the government is going to take away the money from little country private hospitals, such as Keith, Ardrossan, Moonta and Glenelg.

Two weeks ago, they were private hospitals. That did not quite work for the Liberal Party spin machine, so it had to change that. So, she comes into this place today—

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

Mr PICCOLO: No, she did not say that today at all.

An honourable member: She said they are not private hospitals.

Mr PICCOLO: She said they are not private hospitals.

Mr Griffiths: You don't understand it.

Mr PICCOLO: I do understand it.

The ACTING SPEAKER: Order! The house will come to order. If the member for Light continues to goad, he will only get a reaction from the other side. So, if we can all just calm down and get on with the proceedings, we will end up being in time for lunch at 1 o'clock.

Mr PICCOLO: We have a leader here who wants to be trusted. The member for Davenport said that it is a bit of a synchronised spin. On the Liberal side, they cannot even synchronise their spin; it is ad hoc spin, it is all over the place, because they do not have a coherent response to the budget at all. One week, they are not private; the next week, they are private. It suits their argument.

On one occasion, the leader said she could be trusted, she would not spin, she would not mislead the people. Well, she speaks for herself, does she not? She did that very clearly today when she had to spin her argument because it was not quite right, and it was not getting out the message she wanted. This is a leader who cannot be trusted at all, but we will get to that a bit later—there is more to be said.

This opposition has not accepted the responsibility it has in terms of providing an alternative budget. All it did was whine its way all through the process. It put up no ideas and no alternatives. It is going to cut a couple of ministries and the Thinkers in Residence—that is its bold vision for this state. That is what the opposition said. That is all it has put up so far.

The opposition has not suggested any expenditure cuts, so I am not sure how it is going to fund the multimillion dollars worth of things that it talked about in the estimates committees. I have to agree: a lot of those things are laudable, but you need to balance a budget. In not one area did the opposition actually say, 'We're going to cut here to make savings there to fund this program.' It has just added on. This is an opposition that is not ready—and never will be—to lead this state.

There are a couple of other things I would like to mention. This is an important point, and I am sure that this will get the member for Unley going. This is what the Leader of the Opposition said in the same response, and this is important, because it symbolises what this Liberal Party is about; it symbolises what this Liberal Party would do to working-class areas if it got into government; it symbolises how it will actually attack those in traditional Labor areas who cannot defend themselves. This comment goes to the heart of what this Liberal Party means:

The government builds so-called super schools, which cost a lot of money. Education is about teachers and students; it is not about having flash new buildings.

I repeat:

...it is not about having flash new buildings. My view is that you can actually have a good education sitting under a gum tree, provided you have good teachers.

This is the education policy of this Liberal Party. Had they been elected in 2010, there would be no new schools.

Mr Bignell: There would be lots of gum trees.

Mr PICCOLO: There would be a lot of gum trees.

Mr Bignell interjecting:

Mr PICCOLO: That's right. So, rather than have super schools in my electorate, the John Hartley and Mark Oliphant schools, we would have the John Hartley forest and the Mark Oliphant reserve, probably.

Mr Bignell: Gumnut high.

Mr PICCOLO: That's right. But it is interesting that they only target the super schools. New facilities are okay for country schools. In fact, the member is quite right: a few weeks ago he stood up and supported a report I put on behalf of the Public Works Committee about new schools and new facilities being built in country areas—and rightly so. This government supports it and is funding those areas. Despite what the member—

Mr Odenwalder: Burnside.

Mr PICCOLO: That's right, including Burnside. Yes: we have to help Burnside as well. Burnside needs a lot of help at the moment. The reality is that they support schools in country areas and in the eastern suburbs but, when it comes to the northern suburbs, what do they say? They say, 'These super schools cost too much money. We should only plant out a few trees. The kids out in the northern suburbs could actually learn under some trees.' That is their education policy. Talk about a disgraceful policy! The Leader of the Opposition stood in here and said that the kids in the northern suburbs in my electorate, or the kids north of Gepps Cross, only deserve a few gum trees and they can play with gumnuts. They can get a few sticks that they can fly around at lunch time.

Mrs Vlahos: It's a quaint idea.

Mr PICCOLO: It is a quaint idea. I suppose the Leader of the Opposition does come from a quaint part of Adelaide. This is what she is saying.

Mr Odenwalder: The leafy parts.

Mr PICCOLO: Right. Well, I am trying to make ours leafy as well. So, this is the policy. We have to take the Leader of the Opposition at her word because she said today, 'This is what we would do.' She actually said that. She said that they would not build any new schools in my electorate or Napier or Taylor or Little Para—of course not—because those areas do not warrant new facilities.

Mr Griffiths: That's not true.

Mr PICCOLO: Well, that is what she said. Read what she said. The Leader of the Opposition went on to say today that the Liberal Party has a different agenda to ours. Well, she is quite right. She has a different agenda. We are going to build schools in my electorate. We are going to build new schools and fund new areas. They will not, and she said that. So, when it comes to a question of trust, to which the member for Davenport referred, I am not sure if even the members for Waite, Goyder, Bragg and Davenport actually would trust their own leader. Why would they?

Mr Griffiths: I certainly do.

Mr PICCOLO: I am glad you do. That is the issue. Rather than have tens of millions of dollars invested in public education in my electorate, the Liberals will give us a few trees. Then they have the audacity to stand up in here and try to take the Parks issue as their own. When you talk about working-class areas, this is what these people would do to us and people in my electorate. I am going to be much more balanced than the Liberal opposition in response to this estimates process. I have to say that I have concerns about some parts of this budget, which I will touch upon. I can understand the government's decision to—

Mr Griffiths: You could have done that during the budget reply speech opportunity.

Mr PICCOLO: I am doing it now.

Mr Griffiths: Nobody wanted to talk on behalf of the Treasurer two weeks ago.

Mr PICCOLO: Well, I do it now.

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Pengilly): Order! I will give the member for Goyder ample opportunity to respond with a full salvo after the member for Light has finished, chapter and verse.

Mr PICCOLO: And I hope—

The ACTING SPEAKER: Go on, member for Light. You are wasting your time.

Mr Pederick: He's wasting our time.

Mr PICCOLO: Yes, member for Hammond. The schools re-entry issue is a major issue in my electorate: there is no denying that, and it has to be addressed. We cannot have a school, which is a normal school, but to which most of the students are not going for their SACE. That is just a reality, unfortunately. That does not mean that you close it down or you do nothing, because the programs at those schools still are important programs.

The answer is not that the minister would say, 'We will use a standard school to do that.' I have already discussed this with the Minister for Education and he agrees that there is a range of programs that are run in those schools that are important, and over the next 12 months we need to make sure those people are not disadvantaged. That is important because there are a number of people who, if not for that centre, would be doing nothing much meaningful with their life. I am committed—and I have no doubt that this government is committed—to making sure that the government responds in an appropriate way. That is one area of concern.

The other concern is the area of money for business organisations. This government has quite rightly announced that we are going to establish a commission for small business to help small business protect themselves in their dealings with other businesses, particularly larger businesses which is important and which I support. I am hoping that the opposition would support that as well. That is one of the key recommendations to come through one of the committees which the member for Goyder and I sat on in terms of franchising law reform. It is important.

Last week I went to the annual dinner of the NABEC Women in Business. I was one of the guest speakers at that dinner. That was after the announcement of the BEC, so members can appreciate that a few people there were less than pleased with the government announcement. Again, it is a decision which I understand, because when you are in government you have to make the tough decisions. We do not have the luxury of being in opposition where you do not actually have to commit to anything, let alone be consistent within a two-week period.

My concern with that decision—which is a uniform decision—is that I think there is probably a good case for a review because there are a number of social and development objectives that can be met by retaining some of those funded BECs. I will have those discussions with the minister.

Mr Griffiths: Some or all of the BECs?

Mr PICCOLO: I can speak only for my patch, and I make no apology for that; my primary responsibility is to my electorate and to my region.

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

Mr PICCOLO: Well, I am not as familiar with the issues across all the state. The member for Goyder may be, but I am not; I accept that, but I know my patch quite well. There are a couple of BECs which, I think, could mount a case for some funding to achieve not only economic objectives but also, and more importantly, some social objectives which this government is committed to, and I will be having those discussions with the relevant ministers.

The member for Goyder and others have quite rightly raised questions about the DPA process, and that is a proper line of questioning to scrutinise the process. What is interesting, though (and this is not a reflection on the member for Goyder because they were not his comments, but generally Liberal Party comments), is that, while they criticise all these processes, they do not offer an alternative. It is a really lazy opposition; it did not offer an alternative.

They nitpick. When it came to Gawler East, they stood on the fence. Right through the whole election period they stood on the fence. They were scared to have a position—except for the Hon. David Ridgway, who did say in the other house that they support it. However, when it came to local politics and local issues, they sat on the fence a bit. They did not actually state a position, because they are not prepared to make the decisions which are required for the welfare of this state.

They criticised the Gawler East DPA process—and there is some scope for criticism there, and I accept that. What they have not done, interestingly enough, is raise any questions. The Liberal Party—and in this case also the Greens—has raised no questions about a DPA raised by the Gawler Council for the southern parts of Gawler. The honourable member stood up and talked about infrastructure, but members opposite did not raise the issue about the DPA process itself.

The council has had to admit to me that it did not actually follow the process. It broke section 25 of the Development Act and section 41 of the Local Government Act in its process, but not one Liberal raised a question about that. Not one Greens member raised a question about that. Now, it could be a coincidence.

Ms Bedford: I am shocked.

Mr PICCOLO: You are shocked? So am I, because they have been so focused on the ministerial DPAs that, obviously, the councils can do no wrong. I thought, 'Why would the Liberals and the Greens not raise any questions about the Gawler Council DPA?' I thought about it. Well, it is obvious: because both the Greens and the Liberals have candidates who sit on that council. Why would you expose your own candidates to public criticism? Why would you do the right thing by the community when there is a Liberal federal member and a state Greens member on that council?

Both are parties to this decision. Why would the Liberal Party and the Greens not raise it? If they are going to be consistent, if they are going to be an alternative and if they are to be trusted, they would actually have to be fair and look at it all. But, no, this is about spin; this about creating a climate where the government is seen not to be effective. So, while the town of Gawler goes on its merry way breaking the law, the Liberal opposition sleeps, lets them do it and does not raise it.

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

Mr PICCOLO: I have. This is what the council said, 'Yes, we admit we got it wrong, but it is only a small thing, only minor and we didn't know about it, and our lawyers say it's not a major issue.' The council said that it was not a major issue. It did not know about two things: first, it said that the law about DPA was too complex and that it was hard to know what it was doing—that was its answer, I have it in front of me—and, having said that, they said it was actually minor.

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

Mr PICCOLO: Oh, no, the culture has changed since I was there—don't blame me. I can start at Wakefield with your council, too, if you like, but we will not go there, member for Goyder. So what do they say? Here, this council is prepared to risk $300,000 of ratepayers' money in a Supreme Court challenge to a ministerial DPA, and is prepared to make that decision, but claims that it does not understand the process.

Who is to be believed or trusted? All I can say is that the Liberal Party cannot be trusted—we found that out today—and certainly their mates and their Greens mates on the council cannot be trusted either, which leaves us in government, and that is why we were elected: because we can do the job.

Mr Pisoni: Because you lied.

Mr PICCOLO: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, he said I am a liar. He did say that. Will he withdraw it?

The ACTING SPEAKER: I did not hear the member. If indeed he did say it, I suggest he withdraw it.

Members interjecting:

Mr PISONI: I was making comment to the member for Goyder sitting next to me.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER: Everyone will sit down for a minute, please. Member for Unley, I did not hear it, but if you used the terminology, whether directed at the member for Light or anyone else, it is unparliamentary in the chamber. Apparently, it was audible. Although I did not hear it, I suggest that perhaps you withdraw it.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (12:12): I withdraw. Give me a moment or two so that I can dry myself off after the wet lettuce leaf attack from the member for Light on the opposition in that tirade we have just heard. It was interesting that the Leader of the Opposition in her response today spoke about the pagan festival at Semaphore, where we heard the education minister say that this government was making decisions, announcing them and defending them, and that is not good enough. At the pagan festival, they were celebrating the winter solstice, but I wonder which member of the right wing of the ALP they were thinking they could roast on the spit for the sacrificial lamb.

We already know that the member for Croydon stuck himself on his own fork for the spit by stepping down from the ministry after the election. Obviously Don Farrell and Peter Malinauskas said, 'Mick, you've had your time. It's time to step down and let some other right-wing mate of yours have a go.' At that time he also announced that he would resign at the next election, but then we read in The Australian on 19 June this year that he will do what Malcolm Turnbull did: he changed his mind and will run again in 2014. I suppose we are all very pleased to hear that.

I am certainly very pleased to hear that the member for Croydon will not be resigning and will be here for another term. I would miss the correction of my grammar in this place if the member for Croydon were no longer here, and I would also miss the involvement he has in politics in Unley. He has told colleagues of mine that he is participating in the council elections in Unley, and I will be very pleased to see him supporting candidates in Unley because we know then that that will be the kiss of death for those mayoral candidates in Unley.

The interesting point about the estimates process is that it is a time of scrutiny. I was very interested in the points made by the member for Light who was so scared and frightened of the scrutiny that we would be putting the education minister under that he even insisted that a supplementary question of mine be counted as a question—three for each side. I was so surprised that, with everything we hear about the education minister and the future that he is holding for the Labor Party in South Australia, he loaded up the estimates committee with more than 50 per cent of the questions (that is Dorothy Dixers) to stop scrutiny from the opposition and transparency.

I had so many questions I wanted to ask at the estimates committee but I was not able to because the chairman of that committee was very strict—three questions on our side; three questions on the government side. What was interesting was that there were written answers to every government question—and they went on and on. I was very surprised that that was happening, because I tend to judge a minister's ability by the fact that they do not need Dorothy Dixers to protect them from opposition questioning.

It was interesting that the further education minister did not require a single Dorothy Dixer. I had free range, 2¼ hours of asking questions of the further education minister—another person who the member for Croydon says is a potential leader of the Labor Party. The member for Croydon, in The Australian article, went on to say that Treasurer Foley could be the premier if Rann stepped aside. He also nominates education minister, Jay Weatherill, from the party's left; trade minister, Tom Koutsantonis (that will be interesting), a right power broker, as a contender for the job; and Jack Snelling, former speaker and now employment minister, as a contender for the job.

It is interesting when you compare the contenders from the left with the contenders from right for the Labor Party leadership; that is, those who are positioning themselves for the push or the retirement of the Premier. When Don says, 'That's it, Mike, you've got to go. That's it, you've had your time,' that is what Mike will do—'Yes, Don, whatever you say.' Wasn't it interesting that the unions had such a strong presence when Stephen Howard was being interviewed live on ABC television as the unions were sticking the knife into Kevin Rudd just before the federal election? It was all about what the unions wanted.

We now see the unions talking about who it is they want in South Australia. We know that it has been reported that the talent is on the left but the numbers are on the right. According to The Advertiser article yesterday, we have the sparkle and charisma with Mr Weatherill and we have the ability with Mr Snelling, the further education minister, but he does not have the sparkle or charisma. The unions have some real decisions to make about the Labor Party.

It is interesting that all these people are putting their hands up for the job on the Labor Party side and we have the unions, the financial backers of the party, out on the steps, out there now. My brother is one of them. He said, 'Come down and say 'g'day, David. I'll be there at 12.30 from the CEPU.' I will be down to say g'day, Simon. The unions, the very funders of the Labor Party, telling the Labor Party, 'Get rid of Rann; get rid of Foley; get rid of that mob who are running the state at the moment. They have lost touch with their grassroots in South Australia'—

Mr Piccolo interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER: The member for Light has given us 20 minutes of his expertise, it is now the member for Unley's turn.

Mr PISONI: They remember who put them there. Those who are there have achieved where they want to go through the Amway pyramid that happens throughout the union movement and the ALP. Remember, the more members you have at the base of the pyramid, the more chance you have to get a seat in parliament.

Mrs Geraghty: You know nothing about unions, let me tell you—this is all drivel.

Mr PISONI: The member for Torrens says I know nothing about unions. I was a union member when I was a very young man. I was forced to join a union, without my choice. I could see that this is nothing more than a multilevel marketing campaign. This is not about what is good for workers or members: this is all about how I, as a union official, can get myself a seat in parliament. If I can control a bloc of votes bigger than the next bloke, I will get that seat.

Mr PICCOLO: Point of order.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Pengilly): Point of order: the member for Unley will resume his seat. What number, thank you?

Mr PICCOLO: Relevance.

The ACTING SPEAKER: And the number?

Mr PICCOLO: I am sure you know the number. It has been used with you a number of times.

The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Light, I think that the member for Unley has probably strayed a little bit, but then you had that lenience as well, so I will continue to listen with interest.

Mr PISONI: The member for Light might not like what I am saying, but he should be defending my right to say it. This is a country of free speech. We sent men to two world wars for free speech, but he does not like it. If he does not like it, he wants to shut it down.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PISONI: When looking at this budget, I started talking about the government's style of announcing and defending. We saw that with Glenside in my electorate, and we have seen that with so many of the decisions that were handed down in the budget on 16 September.

Yesterday, I was at the adult re-entry rally at 4.30 on the steps of Parliament House. There were several hundred students and teachers of adult entry who knew their time as students in the education system was limited. Since the budget has been announced, I have been trying to determine just where these students will be able to achieve their SACE, and it has been a very, very difficult task to get that information out of the education minister, who made the decision.

He announced that decision, and is now defending it, to cut $20.3 million out of adult re-entry programs. He told radio that he did not expect TAFE to offer SACE. Then he told the estimates committee, 'with the changes we have made to SACE the lion's share of SACE can be completed at TAFE'. When I tried to confirm that with the minister for further education—another leadership contender—I was not able to get an answer. The minister insisted that VET was the pathway to university through TAFE, not SACE.

We need to go back to the history of adult education here in South Australia. It started in the 1990s, and it is interesting that Mike Rann should sit as the Premier of a cabinet that has taken this facility away because he was a member of the same cabinet that made the decision to introduce it. There were very good reasons for introducing it at the time, and it is not right for the government to say—as a matter of fact, it would be a lie—that this is bringing South Australia into line with other states.

The fact is that adults in other states use the resources of their education department to go to school and get their secondary education certificate. The difference is they have a number of schools, in the Eastern States in particular, that participate with the senior high schools, so adults can go to school with 16, 17 and 18-year-olds—it is not a problem. The problem we have in South Australia is that kids start going to our high schools at the ages of 12 and 13, and it is not appropriate for someone in their mid-20s or their 30s to be going to a school with those students.

That was one of the major reasons why these adult education centres were set up by the former Bannon government. It is why they survived the cuts that were forced on the government in South Australia when it came to office in 1993 and when it only had a budget of $5.3 billion to save the state from the collapse of the State Bank and being on the verge of bankruptcy. This program survived those cuts; not only did it survive those cuts, it thrived under the Brown-Olsen years in government.

We saw more and more students pulling themselves out of the situation they were in, getting qualifications, getting engaged in education, learning how to learn—I think that is an important point here: learning how to learn—then going on to university, contribute to society and be taxpayers, rather than those who consume welfare in the state. It is a great program. As someone who is a strong supporter of empowering the individual, I for one am very sorry to see the government make this decision for some of the most vulnerable in our society.

My colleague the member for Davenport raised the issue of the small schools and the school amalgamations. There was no talk of that in the lead-up to the election, but now we learn that 68 schools will be amalgamated into 34 schools. We have learned that seven of those amalgamations will be the amalgamation of high schools and primary schools.

Parafield Gardens Primary School, for example—another one in safe Labor territory so that the government can kick those people without any fear that they are going to lose that seat—will have 1,400 students in a single school. Do not forget that this super school model was rejected in the Iron Triangle by an overwhelming majority when there was a huge push before the last election to introduce super schools into our regions.

There were 171 schools in regional South Australia targeted for mergers and super school status before the last election. They failed to convince parents that this was a move in favour of education, and parents rejected it. They rejected it because they wanted their children to be known by the principal. They wanted their children to have a connection with the school. They wanted a connection with the school. Overseas experience tells us that the bigger the school, the bigger the bureaucracy, and the further the distance between parents and their children's education. There are plenty of studies out there.

We were told when the super schools were first introduced that this was a great education measure, but this budget tells the truth. The real reason that super schools were introduced was simply as a cost-cutting measure because we are saving tens of millions of dollars with the amalgamation of schools in the forward estimates. So, we see the truth of the motivation for the government in a super school program: it was driven by Treasury not by education.

An interesting point to raise in the department for further education is that it seems to be an absolute dog's breakfast when it comes to management and administration. We heard about a restructure that was happening within one of the employment areas of the further education department. I was told by the minister that my sources were wrong, and the minister corrected my sources. We did not go from three ASO8s to 13 ASO8s; the minister said we went from 10 ASO7s to 21 ASO7s—maybe the detail was not quite there. I must say this is still only in draft form, so maybe what I received was the first draft.

The minister told us that four staff were moving up from ASO6 to ASO7, but we were seeing a reduction of ASO6s from 18 to 13, but do not forget that we saw four of those moving up to ASO7. We are seeing what is known affectionately as 'classification creep' by those who find it hard to understand why this is happening within the department of further education.

There seem to be review panels reviewing the way things are done, and the major outcome from those review panels is to re-classify a certain number of people another classification up—in other words, a pay rise. So, I think we can see that the cuts that have been introduced in this budget that affect people deeply, the most vulnerable in this state, many of them could have been avoided if ministers were capable of managing their own ministries.

I think it is fair to say that the education department is an absolute disaster, a bureaucratic mess, where there is a 'them and us' attitude between Flinders Street and schools. The damage that has been done to teachers with the prolonged dispute with the former minister and the current Premier is still not resolved; there is still a lot of animosity there. We have also seen cuts in the area of further education that affect frontline services, but we have seen no attempt to fix the classification creep and poor management practices that we know are rife in both of those departments.

Mrs VLAHOS (Taylor) (12:31): I rise today for my first opportunity for an estimates address. As a new member to this house, it has certainly been an educative experience sitting through full days of the estimates hearings. The thing that I took away from the process, apart from it being a longstanding tradition that we go through the process, is that people's characters are very much on display during the estimates procedure and the way they conduct themselves during the questioning and answering is quite revealing about how they, potentially, may behave if they ever form government in this state.

On the first day of the hearing I certainly saw some bad temper that I thought was particularly petulant on some sides, and I saw some exceptionally good behaviour, on both sides, about being forward thinking in trying to gather information for useful productive directions for this state. So, I will restrict my comments to that.