SUPPLY BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (15:54): I believe that, prior to the luncheon adjournment, I was talking about the environment that needs to exist within South Australia to support business growth, and I just want to continue a little on that, especially as it relates to some of the portfolio areas that I have responsibility for. I will talk about small business first, if I may.

I am really fearful of what Labor's position is on small business. As I have quoted many times in this chamber, 130,000 small businesses in South Australia need that support. At a difficult time when the nation is struggling with the challenges of the global financial crisis and the impact that is having on businesses, as well as the export opportunities in our state and the reduced amount of available expenditure that families and individuals have, instead of supporting small business opportunities, we found in the last budget (and, sadly, it flows through to the next budget, so that is the link that comes with respect to the supply debate) a withdrawal of government services to support small business.

Even more amazingly, the Minister for Small Business (Hon. Mr Koutsantonis) in the Hansard of 23 February this year confirmed that the Liberal Party is the party of small business. It truly is. If the Minister for Small Business is recognising that his own party is not supporting small business and talking about the opposition being the party for small business, that is a message we will continue, because we are here, we are open and we want to make sure that small business has opportunities to grow; but to do so it needs to ensure that government principles, policy and financial resources are there to support it.

It is interesting that a recent report of the Sensis Business Index identified that only 6 per cent of small businesses are actually supportive of government policy. That is a damning statistic that shows that only one in 16 (or thereabouts) businesses actually believe that government policy is supporting them in running their business and having the opportunity to grow.

Above anything else, that means that government has to rework what it does about small business. But, instead, what have we found? The minister has taken away support for small business. We have lost the Small Business Month. We have lost the funding that was there to reduce—

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: I will get to that. We are abolishing the funding support for business enterprise centres that comes from the state government. The amazing part for me in this is that the Business Enterprise Centre (BEC) network has existed for a good number of years. There is a belief within the community that the business enterprise centres are there to support business. I know that, in a meeting that the Leader of the Opposition and I had with one of the BEC members last week, it was enforced upon us that, across its network, the BECs actually take in 70,000 telephone calls per year from small business looking for assistance. That is 70,000 calls.

If those resources are no longer there because the state government is withdrawing from 30 June this year its funding support for the Business Enterprise Centre network, who is going to pick up the slack? The Office of Small Business within the minister's area has seemingly been reduced. There is no Small Business Month. There is seemingly a 21 per cent decrease in staffing levels within the small business Big Impact program. Who is going to be there?

Small business is desperate. It wants to succeed. In many cases it is mum and dad businesses; it is single-person operators with maybe one partner. It is those people who are so busy doing the work that they need to know there is someone at the end of a telephone to give them some guidance. The BEC network performs a wonderful role in doing this and it does it free of charge.

There will have to be a complete rethink about the BEC network. I know that four of their number are actually looking to combine to continue to service all of the BEC network areas. They are going to struggle financially. There is commitment from federal government dollars there that will take it through to mid-2012; and certainly a hope that the federal government continues to recognise and give respect to the Business Enterprise Centre network because those people are out there. They have got contacts with the community. They have been giving assistance for many years. Their name is well known. The fact that they can get confidential advice is well respected, and the fact that they can help support small business and help it grow is one that needs to happen.

So I want to reinforce the message that, from what the opposition is hearing, it is obvious that the minister does not support small business. He has acknowledged publicly in Hansard that the Liberal Party is the party of small business, but it is still an opportunity for change. I hope that, with a new Treasurer in place, there is indeed going to be a change in the principles behind some of the policy decisions that the Treasurer will make and that an increasing social awareness will give respect to small business and we will have a turnaround and an improvement.

Mr Pisoni: No.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The member for Unley suggests to me that we are doubtful about that. We live in hope, though.

I will briefly comment on regional development—another example of where funding support from the state, flagged in last year's September budget, is again continuing through the forward estimates period and it will have a detrimental effect. History reflects on the fact that regional development has been a difficult portfolio area for the Labor government. There have been, in fact, seven different ministers over the last eight years. Continuity is needed. Change creates opportunity, I understand that, and different perspective comes into it, but you need to ensure that, within that ministerial role, you have people who see opportunity and fight for programs and financial support, and who can see the great opportunities in regional South Australia and take the struggle into cabinet meetings to ensure the resources that are needed flow through to it.

It concerns me that, when I look at the State Strategic Plan, I can see very few references to regional South Australia. One is the fact that 18 per cent of the population of our state will remain within regional areas. That, in itself, sounds okay but, in effect, it makes very little difference to the number of people who live in the regions now. In effect, it is a downwards percentage movement, and that frustrates the life out of me.

The opposition really has a strong focus on the fact that we want our regional communities to grow. The government, it appears, is prepared to let them become dormitory communities with no growth and no future, and that cannot be allowed to continue. We have to ensure that our population goes up. The state is working towards that, but let us also make sure that regional South Australia gets a share of that.

The Regional Development Australia network is a recent amalgam of the regional development boards and the area consultative committees, so it is federal, state and local governments working together. But, again, the budget decision of last year, impacting through the forward estimates and coming into effect from June 2013, is a withdrawal of funds from Regional Development Australia.

I know the minister (Hon. Michael O'Brien) did some good work in the time that he was there. He no longer holds the portfolio, regrettably. It concerns me that I need to ensure that the ministers in the cabinet room are fighting for more money that is needed, and it flows through every possible area. The Regional Development Infrastructure Fund (only about $3.5 million per year) has been underspent in recent years. It amazes me that you can have dollars available for a state government project to support infrastructure. We should have made sure that it got out there.

The Liberal opposition, as part of its 2010 election campaign, committed 25 per cent of royalties money from mining operations to go into a regional development infrastructure fund—$43 million in the first year and then growing as forward estimates grew for mining royalties. That would have created tremendous opportunities for the really important infrastructure that will be needed to translate opportunity into reality.

I use as an example a discussion I had with an iron ore exploration company that is looking to operate just north of Kimba. It has told me that, in the first of three stages of development, on the basis of two million tonnes per year going out of South Australia and working on a $160 per tonne sale price for the iron ore, to get it from the site and road freight it to just north of Whyalla, put it on the rail, take it by Genesee & Wyoming down to Port Adelaide and ship it out will probably cost in the vicinity of $110 per tonne.

All members in this chamber should shake their head in frustration at that because, indeed, how do you encourage business to look at setting up mining opportunities when that outward cost is going to chew into their revenue so much? That is where infrastructure is really the key. Infrastructure is not cheap when you look across the regions and the metropolitan area at building what is needed for a vibrant future, but you have to look at opportunities where state government and private enterprise can work together to ensure this money flows through.

The company I spoke to talked about the possibility of another deepwater export port being based on the eastern coast of Eyre Peninsula. They tell me that Chinese people will put up the investment money that is required, but let us also look at opportunities where there is a level of appropriate investment to ensure that projects happen through state government funds to make sure that these mining opportunities do have a future and, indeed, that the communities that will be close by, or the communities in which the people who work within these enterprises will live, also have a future.

I also want to reflect upon a couple of things from last year's budget that really frustrate the life out of me, which have commenced and will flow through to forward years, as it affects the region, and I refer to the removal of the regional metropolitan subsidy scheme. An amount of 3¢ or thereabouts per litre might sound a small amount in the budget papers. After coming into effect on 1 January this year, the net effect, though, is that, over the 3½ years of the forward estimates, for people who live and travel through regional South Australia the additional cost of petroleum will be $49.8 million (50 million bucks in round figures) over 3½ years. That is what it is going to cost you to live and travel through regional South Australia. Those of us who live in the regions suffer terribly from an often poor transport network. It is important for us—

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: And an expensive one—the member for Finniss is talking about getting back to Kangaroo Island, and there is no doubt about that. It is important that we recognise some of those challenges and that we keep some support in place. The removal of that petroleum subsidy scheme, which has been there, I think, for some 13 or 14 years, has not received a very high profile. It has frustrated the life out of me that some of the media people have not picked up on this because it has a direct effect on the pockets of everyone who lives in regional South Australia and, indeed, the vast number of metropolitan-based people who travel through our great regions. So, let's make sure we improve some things.

I also want to talk briefly about the funding cuts as they relate to the community private hospitals—two are in my electorate and one is in the electorate of the member for MacKillop, at Keith. In my case, for Goyder it is the Ardrossan and Moonta hospitals. It may be that (and the minister has certainly talked about this in the chamber), as a result of assistance provided now by Country Health, there is a greater level of return from the federal government for aged-care facilities provided by those hospitals.

However, I am looking at the fact that, for that first three or four months in particular after the announcement made in the September budget, those communities at Moonta and Ardrossan thought their future was seriously at risk. They still have grave fears about whether, structurally, they will still have sufficient revenue to provide aged care and emergency services and the bed facilities they have. It is that uncertain.

So, instead of just announcing things and then, after the community starts to rally against it, come out and say, 'Yes, we'll give you support to work on business plans to give you a financial future,' why can you not do that beforehand? Why can't you be proactive and, instead of just identifying a target opportunity and saying, 'I'll take $1.174 million out of four different hospitals,' why don't you actually work through it proactively before these budget announcements and tell the boards of these hospitals, 'Okay, we're considering this. We feel, though, there is an opportunity, if we work with you, to get around any short-term financial problems you have in place.'

You would then not have 1,000 people at Moonta, as there was, or 250 people at Ardrossan or, indeed, probably 1,000 people on the steps of Parliament House, as a first step showing the parliament how much it does not like this decision. For the Keith community, in a different electorate to mine, they are going to keep up the fight, because for them it is a critical one. I just want to enforce the fact that there is a way for governments to do things. Instead of just deciding and then defending its decision, how about real consultation and real support for communities, be they metropolitan-based or regional, to ensure that we get some positive outcomes.

Finally, in the last few minutes available to me, I want to talk about some transport and infrastructure issues. Significant dollars are being invested, but history will reflect upon the fact that there have been many times in the past where announcements have been made by the Rann Labor government about transport infrastructure being put in place and that not translating into work on the ground.

For me, one of the greatest points by which I can enforce this is an announcement, which I believe was made in August 2005 or thereabouts (I might be a few months out), where both the Premier and the Minister for Transport talked about the fact that, as part of their vision for transport, they would put $40 million into widening South Road between Port Road and Torrens Road.

I am not a permanent resident of Adelaide. I do travel through the city many, many times now, being a member of parliament. I have a sister and brother-in-law who live just about immediately adjacent to this section of road, so I have been on it at peak times, slower times, night and day. I have seen the difficulties it presents through creating a bit of a bottleneck and through the power lines there, and the polls that support those lines, because of the lie of the land actually angling in fractionally and the camber of the road.

Motorists are told now that the only way they can travel safely, if it is a large vehicle, is to be in the middle of the road and, in this case, they cannot be on the western side of the road. That is how there was a very serious accident not that many months ago, and that is how, sadly, a person was killed. None of us in this chamber want to see that happen, so when dollars are being committed to projects, especially in blackspot areas like that, but do not translate to work on the ground after a five or six-year period, we really have to start raising questions. This is not political point-scoring: this is a fact of life. The Labor government committed to those dollars being spent as part of its vision. We are now some six years down the track and it is still not happening.

There is work occurring on South Road—I recognise that. An enormous amount of dollars is being spent on the superway at the northern end of South Road, but this is an area that has killed someone now. This is an area where traffic is very congested and we have boom gates from the train line just a bit south of that, before you hit Port Road. This is a very busy area at most times of the day and there is a high number of very large trucks travelling along this road. This is an important project that needs to happen.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Hear, hear!

Mr GRIFFITHS: The member for Croydon supports that, so I commend him on that.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes. If you make the promise, actually make sure that you do the work.

Mr Marshall: Has he been arguing for it in cabinet?

Mr GRIFFITHS: Good question: was he arguing for it in cabinet? Another obvious issue for us to talk about is the backlog on maintenance for the Transport SA network. In about 2005, the Royal Automobile Association put out a report entitled, I believe, 'Backwater Benchmark' which highlighted, at that stage, some $200 million in backlog on road maintenance work for our transport network. I cannot see the improvements from any money that has been spent since then. There is a desperate need for those dollars to be allocated.

Again, the Liberal Party—and I am pleased that this is part of the transport policy that we took to the election—committed $10 million, $12 million, $14 million and $16 million across the forward estimates and, on top of that, in the six years out beyond that period, identified another $152 million that was going to be invested in that $200 million backlog to actually ensure that we put in as many resources as we could to maintain that basic infrastructure.

Roads are what we travel on all the time. Roads are the lifeline between our communities. Roads are what carry all of our freight. Roads are what the nation makes an enormous amount of money on. As we are using roads by an ever-increasing amount, the freight load is going to double over the next decade. There will be a continuing pressure on our road network. Unless investment continues to occur, I have serious concerns about the capacity of the road network. The ongoing backlog will be enormous. There will be pavement failure. It is an investment that needs to happen.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (16:12): The budget was delivered six months after the election, and what did the government do when it delivered that budget? It took South Australians to the cleaners. However, this morning we heard how badly cleaners in our schools in South Australia have been treated. Let me just tell a story. You are not looking very animated, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am always animated, because the excitement in here is phenomenal, but I was actually trying to work out who was interjecting more: the members on my right or the members on my left.

Mr Pengilly: It's over there.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You dibber-dobber, member for Finniss. Carry on, member for Unley.

Mr PISONI: I always enjoy the banter, Madam Deputy Speaker. We heard that the cleaning contractors were forced to pay their staff higher salaries due the federal Labor government. They were told by the department, 'That's bad luck. You've got an existing contract and you've got to honour it.' When they contacted me 12 months ago, that is what they told me the department was telling them to do.

Cleaning is a very competitive business. There are a number of competitors and, because of that, margins are very tight. We would see losses of some $20,000 to $30,000 by some of these small family businesses in order to honour these contracts. Eventually, the department realised that it was those companies that were in an unsustainable position but, instead of tearing the contracts up and starting again—which is what the cleaning contractors wanted—it reduced the hours that cleaners worked so they did not have to pay penalty rates.

The intention of the federal Labor Party was to pay the lowest paid workers more, and then the state Labor Party, under a minister who claims to believe in social justice (minister Weatherill), says, 'Look, I'm having trouble managing my budget and meeting these cuts that we all agreed to as a state cabinet.' According to Mr Foley, everybody agreed, including Mr Weatherill, and I remember he specifically pointed Mr Weatherill out as agreeing to these budget cuts, and so instead of actually renegotiating these contracts for the same amount of work to be done for more money, they then instructed schools to not have those contractors in after hours. So, here we have kids doing maths and science experiments competing with a vacuum cleaner, competing with the broom, competing with the banister brush!

It is a ludicrous situation, and the minister said on radio this morning that it is a transition period. There does not need to be a transition period. Tear those contracts up! Allocate more money. Pay the cleaners more, pay them what Julia Gillard promised them, and renegotiate those contracts. That is the intent of the federal laws that the federal Labor Party introduced, and yet this government is so devoid of funds to be able to manage its budget that it is now asking the lowest paid workers in our society to forego their penalty rates because they cannot afford them, rather than renegotiate their contracts and find cuts in the bureaucracy where people are earning six-figure incomes. They will not find cuts there, but they will very quickly and easily find cuts for those people who are earning very modest incomes of $25,000 or $30,000 a year.

I think that is indicative of a government that is out of touch, and that is why we have had a budget released that will see the introduction of increased licence fees, registration, stamp duties, water, electricity, public transport, TAFE fees; all going through the roof, through the Rann government maladministration. Millions of dollars in unbudgeted revenue still comes in, and yet the former treasurer and the new Treasurer cannot balance the books.

Isn't it ironic, the debate we are having at the moment over the carbon tax in Canberra, where the Labor Party in government is criticising the Liberal Party for playing hard on the carbon tax? Remember the GST debate? Let's compare the GST debate and the carbon tax debate. In the first GST election in 1993, John Hewson was crucified because he could not clarify the price of a birthday cake after the GST, and yet Julia Gillard cannot even tell us how much electricity will cost! It is a major contributor to this economy and she cannot even tell us how much electricity will cost. Yet Labor in opposition demanded to know how much the candles on a birthday cake would cost and said if John Hewson did not know that he did not deserve to be the prime minister of Australia—and of course, he paid the price.

Let's have the comparison that we hear between the GST debate and the carbon tax debate. We have Labor in opposition opposing a tax that was replacing the existing tax, but a modern tax that every other OECD country in the world had adopted years earlier. They opposed it, for all sorts of reasons, not once, but twice; two elections, two GST elections. John Howard as prime minister, of course, said, 'I will take a GST to the election. If I am returned in 1998, you will have a GST.' Of course, he won that election, but Labor still opposed it. They opposed it in the 2001 election as well, and they lost that.

What did Julia Gillard say? She said, 'There will be no carbon tax' before the election. Then there is a carbon tax after the election, and yet you hear the Labor party supporters saying, 'Well, John Howard said there would be no GST' as some sort of comparison. That is the hypocrisy of the Labor Party, comparing how they operate in government and how they operate in opposition. When they are in government, anybody who argues with them is extreme; when they are in opposition, they oppose everything for political purposes. There is a big difference between the way we operate and the way they operate.

What did the former education minister say when we announced our school autonomy policy in the lead-up to the election? That it was a backward policy. She said that it took us back to the Olsen-Brown days. 'The Liberal Party only wants to go backwards when it comes to education.'

Mr Marshall: Where is she now?

Mr PISONI: Where is she now?—a 15 per cent swing. I know the member for Croydon is upset about that. I know he is still recovering from the removal of Jane Lomax-Smith from this place. I know he is very upset about it and I do sympathise.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: I am.

Mr PISONI: Yes, I acknowledge how upset you are, and I know that you are in regular contact with the former member for Adelaide. That is what she said before the election. What did the new education minister, Jay Weatherill, say? That he wanted to introduce more autonomy for principals in schools. We get a lot of press releases from this government, but we see very little action. There is a lot of talk but very little action. Finally, the people of South Australia are waking up to that and that is why they have stopped listening. This is what he said on 8 June 2010 as part of a press release:

Education Minister Jay Weatherill says he is concerned the current system of teacher recruitment does not give principals enough say and leads to good teachers leaving public schools or the profession.

He goes on to say:

Principals have been raising concerns with me that they don't get enough say in recruiting teachers to their schools—and that matching teachers to schools is critical.

He makes some good points. There are some real issues that principals have in managing their schools. There is too much department control and too much centralisation of the education system here in South Australia. That is why we support school autonomy. That is why we are the owners of school autonomy. Johnny-come-lately Julia Gillard and minister Weatherill have got on the bandwagon, but they do not understand it. Minister Weatherill does not understand it, because this memo on the new personnel advisory committees (PAC) went out to principals just a couple of weeks ago. He goes on to inform principals:

A PAC must be established in each school. The PAC is fundamental to ensuring effective staff consultation occurs within schools and is a key forum which contributes positively to decision making processes on matters pertaining to human resource management.

Let us look at who is on the personnel advisory committee. Remember, the minister who sent this out is the same man who says he wants more autonomy for principals and who wants principals to be able to run their schools. I refer to the South Australian Education Staff (Government Preschools and Schools) Arbitrated Enterprise Bargaining Award 2010, which is the award where the government caved in to the teachers' union because it was getting close to an election. The government accepted some of the conditions, and this is one of the new conditions:

Each school will establish a Personnel Advisory Committee (PAC) comprised of the following membership:

(a) the Principal...

Thank God the principal has a say on this committee, but who else has a say? A nominee elected by the AEU. Then, of course, an equal opportunity representative elected by school staff. So, here we have the principal who has to get the okay for resource management of his school from the AEU and other staff members, and yet the minister is telling the public, because he knows parents want school autonomy, 'We believe there needs to be school autonomy.' Instead, what we get is less autonomy for principals. We have an actual committee made up for the smallest of resource changes that happen within a school.

If a non-teaching staff member's position is discussed, if she is moved from the administration area next to the canteen to the administration area next to the library, according to this provision in the enterprise agreement it may require a meeting of the personnel advisory committee to discuss whether that is in the best interest of the school and staff. For heaven's sake, that is going backwards, not going forwards. Why doesn't this government like school principals? It appoints them into these positions but then it does not trust them to run its schools; just like it does not trust governing councils to make the real decisions that schools need to make, as concerned parents who have a stake in the performance and education outcomes of the students at that school.

There was a classic example when I attended the meeting put on by DECS last night, when 80 parents, students and former students turned up to discuss the positioning of the expansion for 200 students at Marryatville High School. It was an absolutely pointless meeting, because, in the end, the governing council could only make a recommendation, and it was very clear to all those in attendance that the department was pushing option 2, which was to build a monstrosity in front of that beautiful heritage building. Do you know what the department said? Best value, it said it was best value.

So, there is the minister for education sending out his department heads to tell the people of Marryatville High School, 'You must make a compromise because we made an election pledge on the run, without doing the work, to combat what the Liberals were offering at the last election. You must make a compromise so that we can honour that election pledge within our $60 million budget over the four schools that we promised to expand.' That is what that is all about.

Apparently, there is now a new regulated size for an oval. A reduced oval in front of the building is now a new regulated size, the Marryatville oval. You can still play footy on it, although I am not sure if the footies are the same size; they didn't talk about the regulation size of the footies being reduced. I know that people like the member for Hammond and I might be a bit big to play on that team but, according to the department, you can still play footy on that oval because, although smaller, it is still a regulation size for football and cricket—despite the fact that they already have to retrieve balls that go out onto Kensington Road.

Of course, then there is the Adelaide High School expansion. The press release at the time was big: it said that there would be an expansion of Adelaide High School of 250 students and that there would be no encroachment on the Parklands. The governing council was asked to consider five options by the department; four of them encroached on the Parklands, and the one that did not meant they had to knock down a heritage building. Every single condition that the government promised prior to the election was thrown out by this minister in a desperate attempt to honour a cobbled-together election promise to counter the very sound election promise the Liberal Party made for a second city high school in Adelaide.

If the member for Croydon put his constituents before the party he would support that, because he knows that there are many people in Croydon who would love to send their kids to Adelaide High School. They can't, because they are not in the zone and there is no room for them. As a matter of fact, there is not even enough room for those in the very small zone. This is what it has come to. At the next election Labor will have been running this state for 33 of the last 44 years, and this is what is has come to. It has come to penny pinching on school cleaners, making election promises on the run, and then expecting school communities to take discount packages in order for the government to deliver it. That is what is has come to, after 33 years of Labor government in this state.

Some interesting facts came out with the My School website. We have seen a lot of criticism from the AEU for non-government schools for having so much money. This is politics of resentment that the AEU is very pleased to push in its disdain for the non-government school sector, but let us look at the figures provided by the department to the My School website in the actual resource entitlement statements—if you like, the profit and loss statements that cover the amount of money the school actually receives.

Let us look at what the department told the My School website operators that the budget was for the Kangarilla Primary School (and I know that the member for Finniss will be interested in this). The My School website says that school receives $817,000. Do you know what the resource entitlement statement says? It says $553,000—a 32 per cent difference. The department hangs on to 32 per cent of the money allocated to that school. But that is not all. You move to Murray Bridge High School—and the member for Hammond would be very interested in this—the My School website says that $11.734 million is allocated to Murray Bridge High School. Do you know how much Murray Bridge High School actually receives? It receives $7.98 million—a 32 per cent difference. Thirty-two per cent of the money allocated to Murray Bridge High School does not reach the school.

This minister says he wants more school autonomy but we are seeing less school autonomy and more centralised control of our schools and in that time we have seen a drift of 10,000 students to the non-government sector from the government sector. When I asked the education minister what provisions he has made for schools for the 12,000 homes at Buckland Park, he said 'None'. They have wiped their hands of providing public education in the 30-year plan. Where is another city high school as part of the 30 year plan?

If the urban infill ideas that they have for Marryatville High School are an indication of what they plan for urban infill as part of the 30-year plan, God help us, because the criteria seems to be best value. We know what best value is: blue board and a five star rated air conditioner. That is what we are going to see popping up all around in front of our heritage buildings and streetscapes in our inner suburbs, in my electorate of Unley, the electorate of Hartley, and in the electorate of Norwood. This is all supported by the member for Hartley—she is very keen on the 30-year plan. I know she supported it in cabinet—because cabinet speaks as single voice, and if she didn't I would be very keen to hear her correct me.

To finish off, before the election we heard a promise by this Premier of 100,000 new jobs in South Australia. The latest job statistics are coming out on Thursday—you can bet your bottom dollar that if it is a good figure we will hear from the Premier, and if it is bad figure he will leave it to minister Snelling to deal with it. With February's figures we saw the unemployment figures rise to 5.8 per cent when we saw stagnation around the country. We saw an increase of half a per cent of unemployment here in South Australia. There are fewer people working in South Australia now than when Mike Rann made the promise of 100,000 new jobs. There are more people unemployed, and fewer people working than when he made that promise 12 months ago of 100,000 new jobs. So, when you hear these promises from Labor, take them with a pinch of salt.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (16:32): I appreciate the chance to rise and speak on the Supply Bill. Of course we will support it. As you know we will support the Supply Bill because that is the convention and that is what is required to keep the state operating. It certainly would be remiss of me not to point out what a difficult, dreadful situation the state is in financially. I would go so far as to say that I do not believe that there is one member of parliament with a place in this chamber who actually does think that the state is in a good financial position.

Members and ministers can talk about the services and the different things that they are providing but, if you look at the state, if you look at the debt, if you look at where we are heading, if you look at the trends, I do not think that anybody could say that the debt that we have—heading towards $2 million a day worth of interest—could be acceptable by anybody's standards. The state has had rising income throughout the term of this government but spending has been going up even more, and it really is a situation of mismanagement with regards to finances.

There is difficulty everywhere. If you look at the results of the last budget—and I do not think that anybody would have ever seen the sort of backlash from unions, such a broad cross-section of unions against the government and against the budget. There is difficulty in the city. The unions and the public service cuts and the deceit with which they were handled, I think, is really shameful. The vehemence with which the public sector unions, particularly, but certainly many others, felt about the way that they had been treated was very clear on the steps of parliament house week after week.

Another city example—and as members know here I do not normally stray into city issues, I normally concentrate on the country—is what occurred with the Parks Community Centre. That was just dreadful, and I think it really highlights how difficult this is and what a bad situation the government is in with regard to managing its finances. You would never, ever have expected the government to do that to the Parks Community Centre. To its credit, it turned around only because it had such a dreadful backlash from its own voter heartland.

I know a bit about the Parks Community Centre. I lived in Croydon, in fact, for a few years when I lived in Adelaide. I used to go to the Parks Community Centre very regularly to use the gym and the exercise facilities, and I saw all the other good work that went on there, so I feel quite comfortable, while I am the member for Stuart, talking about that place. I think there are two good examples—the dealing with the Public Service and the Parks Community Centre—that highlight what a difficult situation things are in when that is required in the city.

I would like to focus on two key directions that this government is pushing towards because of the financial situation that it is in at the moment. One is with regard to red tape. When finances are in a dreadful situation, as they are, the government has no choice but to reduce services unless it wants to increase taxes, and we are already the most highly taxed state in Australia, so I do not think it saw any option there.

The government must find a way to reduce its services, and one of the things this government has done is move towards the user-pays system, and I can understand. I have got a strong business background and I have done lots of things in corporate life and in my own small business involvement. I do understand that you need to try to put the costs where the costs belong, but what this is leading to at the moment is an extraordinary impost on industries and an enormous amount of red tape.

The reason for that is the government is still setting all of the regulations but trying to put the cost of administering them and imposing them on industry. Consequently, it does not have a vested interest in keeping that cost down. The government, broadly speaking, needs to provide the regulations and provide the money to put them in place, or allow industry to set the regulations and cop the costs. Either one of those things will get a far more efficient outcome than what we have at the moment, where the government still seeks to impose the regulations and oversee and set the rules, but tries to push all the costs towards the industries. I give two specific examples of where this has really gone haywire. We have a situation at the moment where the government is proposing a biosecurity levy, but the primary production industry will have to pay. In reality, biosecurity is an issue that affects the whole state. Every single person who lives or travels through the state is affected, potentially could cause harm, hopefully benefits from far more than that.

Biosecurity affects the entire state, and yet the cost of the levy will just go to primary producers and agriculture and industry. Yet, on the other hand, you have got the River Murray levy, where people who do not draw any water from the River Murray at all are paying the levy all over the state. So, you have got one situation where industry pays and everybody benefits, and you have got one situation where everybody pays and lots of people who do not benefit at all are included in having to pay. That is causing all sorts of red tape and inefficiency, and I really do think that is an outcome of the state being in a very dire financial situation. As I said, poor finances, having to decrease services, trying to push a user pays system, and the government is trying to still impose all of the regulations.

The other direction that I really want to focus on, that comes out of being financially strapped, is priority setting. It is no different to a household or a child's pocket money, all the way up to a state or federal budget. There is never enough money, I accept that. There is never enough money to do all of the things that you would like to do, and that would be true whether it was a Liberal or a Labor government. But when you are really under pressure your choice of priorities really comes under pressure as well. What we are seeing at the moment is that the government, which typically favours the city over the country and the outback areas anyway, is really pushing shamefully down that path.

The city is in trouble with regard to funding money to provide services that it deserves, but the country and in the outback areas are in a diabolical situation at the moment. It is not much fun just pointing out problems if you do not have a solution or you do not want to contribute. There are two very easy things, and these are not things that people here have not heard before but they are worth highlighting: $535 million going towards the Adelaide Oval. It is not necessary.

At a time when we are looking for money to provide services for the state, and particularly in the country, spending $535 million is absolutely not necessary. It might be necessary for the SANFL so that the AFL does not take over its football licences. It might be necessary for SACA so that it can get rid of its debt much more quickly. I can understand how nice it would be to have a city stadium and to have football in the city.

I have no trouble with that whatsoever, but it is not a priority when you do not have the money; it is not a priority when you have to try to forward sell the forests in the South-East to make it happen. Add to that the RAH. We can all consider what the costs might be, and the government has not been brave enough to bring forward its costs, even though I am sure it would have them, absolutely positive that it would have them, but it will not tell the state, the taxpayers and the parliament what they are.

What we do know is that, from the calculations that both sides did before the election, there will be about a $1 billion gap in the cost of rebuilding the Royal Adelaide Hospital on site where it is now versus building a brand new one. We can talk about how high or how low the costs might have been, and we will find out eventually, but what we know is that it is about $1 billion more expensive to do what the government has done.

Between the Adelaide Oval and the Royal Adelaide Hospital, we have got $1.5 billion being spent that does not need to be spent—$1.5 billion. Imagine what that could do for all of South Australia. Imagine what that could do in Adelaide and in the country and in the outback. If the government did not feel the need to build its icons, if the government did not feel the need to build these facilities in its own honour but provided the services or save $1.5 billion, imagine how much better off the rest of the state would be.

Imagine how much better off the finances would be, even if you did not spend any more money on extra services and things. I think specifically about my electorate, the electorate of Stuart that I represent, and I will just list a few towns. These towns are very geographically diverse, they are socially diverse, they are population-wise diverse. I think about Peterborough, Kapunda, Eudunda, Marree, Lyndhurst, Cadell, Morgan, Blanchetown, Yunta, Wirrabara and Orroroo, just to name a few.

I think of some of the smallest places like Bower and Cockburn and, of course, the biggest in the electorate of Stuart, the regional city of Port Augusta. They would all benefit enormously. All the towns of Stuart would benefit enormously if they had a small slice of that $1.5 billion, and the rest of it could be shared around the other 46 electorates in the state. The issues that are really burning in the country at the moment and could without any doubt receive more money and benefit very well from it include country health. The government took away the small schools grants in the last budget. Why would you do that? A relatively small amount of money it had to take away from small schools, and particularly small country schools as far as I am concerned.

We do not have enough regional police. The government took away the 3.3¢ a litre fuel subsidy from country areas. Aboriginal communities could certainly benefit from more resources. In the country we have great difficulty providing mental health services and special needs teachers. That is a really big issue in the country that a lot of people are not aware of. If you have a child who needs special support for his or her learning, it is near on impossible to get the support that you need. We do have some special needs teachers who do the very best they can, but there is just not enough of them. They are overstretched and overworked, so then, of course, it is even harder to attract others to come into these jobs because there is not funding for that sort of thing.

Think about the Remote Areas Electricity Scheme. As everyone here knows, we are in the midst of the government removing a subsidy so that it will increase the cost of electricity to 13 different communities around South Australia. The Provincial Cities Association just Friday, or perhaps yesterday (I forget which), came out really strongly opposing it. Thirteen communities from tiny places like Cockburn, all the way through to significant towns by regional outback standards like Coober Pedy are really going to suffer. Their tourism is going to suffer.

Domestic consumption, obviously, is a great difficulty. Businesses are the lifeblood of these towns. People cannot live in such remote places if their businesses are not successful because they need the services that the businesses provide, but they also need the employment. If you live in a small country town or an outback town where there are no businesses, you have no jobs there. You do not just drive to the next suburb or the other side of town. You do not have the headache of saying, 'My job is the other side of Adelaide and I have a half hour or 45 minute commute every day.' You have nothing: you have absolutely no choice. I think the government really underestimates that. As I mentioned before, the proposal to forward sell the wood in the forests is going to have an enormously detrimental impact on the communities in the South-East.

I will refer to outback roads, which people here know I talk about all the time. The government completely underestimates the value of these roads, and I will give the example of the Birdsville Track. My opinion is that the government looks at that and says, 'Well, it runs from Marree to the South Australian-Queensland border and there are only so many cattle stations between here and there and there are only so many people up there, what is the issue? How much money do you really expect us to spend on those roads?' That is completely missing the point.

Just north of the Queensland border is the town of Birdsville, an exceptionally successful town with regard to tourism. Tens of thousands of tourists every year go to Birdsville, and guess what? Those tourists are very often from South Australia also. Some of them come from Brisbane, Sydney and Adelaide but an enormous number of the tourists that go to Birdsville go to the Flinders Ranges and other outback South Australian places, and even as far down as the wine districts of Clare and the Barossa, for example. If they cannot get to Birdsville, some of those people will not come and be tourists in South Australia.

There is another really shortsighted view with regard to outback roads, and I use the Birdsville Track again as an example but it is relevant all over the place. The government says, 'We don't need to provide that road and spend money to maintain that road so that Queensland cattle growers can use it. That is the Queensland government's problem. Let them go to Brisbane.' That completely ignores the multiplier effect associated with the sale of beef.

I am told that, for every dollar earned through the sale of beef at the market, there is a seven to one multiplier. So that means that, if a South Australian beef producer sends their beef to market in South Australia, we get $8 of benefit in our state—the $1 per kilo that went to the grower and then the other $7 that comes from transport, slaughtering and the sale yard, all the way through to the steaks and sausages going to the butcher shop or supermarket. If we get the Queensland cattle coming into our state, which we should be seriously encouraging, we do not get the first dollar but we get the other $7. If we can encourage them to come into our state and send their beef through our processors and local markets, we get the entire multiplier effect. So, anyone having a view that we do not need to provide that road for other state's cattle stations is really short-sighted.

I think there is an enormous undervaluation, underestimation and under-appreciation by this government of the value of regional and outback South Australia, and I think that mistake leads to under-investment and under-provision of services in country and outback areas. I looked at some ABS figures, for example (and I looked at this number very quickly so I hope I have got it correct), and it is staggering to think that something like 38 or 39 per cent of the state's mining revenue is generated in the inner eastern suburbs of Adelaide. That is not the government's fault, but we need to look very closely to try to understand exactly the full value.

If it is happening with mining—and it is very easy to pick out mining because we all know that there are no mines in the eastern suburbs of Adelaide but, understandably, that is where the head office and the accountant is so that is where the income is reported—how many industries does that apply to as well that are very hard to pick out because there might be some of that industry in the city area or the broader metropolitan area but the income is actually generated and the services and investment need to be provided in the country so that it continues?

That undervaluation of what the regional and outback areas of our state contribute to our state economy I think is leading to an unfortunate under-investment in and under-supporting of these areas and really focusing on the city. As I said before, when money is exceptionally tight, as it is because of the government's mismanagement over many years, the people that I represent, and others in the country, really miss out.

Another example is power outages. We have had really serious and extreme power outages in the Upper Mid North just lately. For the last two to three months, we have had a very high number of planned and unplanned power outages affecting about eight towns, all north of Laura and up between Laura and Carrieton and that area, and we are told quite clearly by ETSA that it is old power lines, old insulators. It is a situation where, basically, the porcelain insulators are getting dry and cracked and getting water into them. We need some investment.

What we need to do is to see the value of our country areas. We need to make sure that it is a priority—that it is a priority that the man at the Orroroo general store does not have to throw out hundreds or thousands of dollars of food from his freezer because he has had an unexpected power outage. We have to understand that people in the hospital should not have to run around in the middle of procedures trying to flick on their emergency generator and that sort of thing. We should be investing in infrastructure and spending money in country areas.

I raised the Kapunda Primary School quite a few months ago. The chair of the Kapunda Primary School governing council told me that the governing council budget has to contribute to the school's electricity bill because the budget the government and the education department gives the school just is not enough and has not been enough for years. It is something in the vicinity of $10,000 that they have to pay to top it up. There is just not enough priority.

I recently had a meeting with a delegation of mayors from the central region Local Government Association. We all know that there has been really, really unseasonal and devastating floods. They have asked the government whether it would be able to help, through the state government's resources or with support from the federal government, to get funding to support the maintenance of these local council roads. Right now, the bill for this group of councils is up around $40 million. I urge the government to support those councils. The councils absolutely cannot do it themselves. They need the government's support. I have not had an answer yet. However, if we get a negative answer, it will be another issue to add to this list of low priority in country areas.

Everywhere I go, community leaders, whether they be councillors, church leaders, sporting leaders, or whether they be the average man or woman on the street, feel completely dudded by the government, and I think that is a great shame. I understand the realities of the financial situation the government has got us into, but putting all of the priorities into the city and not focusing on the country is not acceptable.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (16:53): I am certainly pleased to make a contribution this afternoon concerning the legislation before the house, namely, the Supply Bill. Obviously, this is an annual piece of legislation that we deal with here. It is critical to the state in ensuring that the required moneys flow to the various agencies and areas of the state until the main budget is brought down later on in the year.

As other speakers, particularly on this side of the house, have highlighted, I also want to reinforce some actual facts in relation to the financial situation this state finds itself in. Looking back at the Mid-Year Budget Review, when it was brought down at the end of last year (and this has been highlighted by previous speakers, particularly the leader), on all of the three accounting measures, the 2010-11 budget is in deficit. The net lending is in deficit; there is a cash deficit and there is a net operating deficit. I do not need to traverse the actual dollar amounts because speakers highlighted them previously.

According to the mid-year budget papers, South Australia's budget deficit is $104 million worse than it was three months ago, at budget time reaching $493 million. That is an indication of the really quite tragic, I think, financial situation we find ourselves in. When we look at the revenue aspects of budgetary matters, from 2002-03 to 2009-10, the government has collected a massive $5 billion more than it anticipated. These revenue windfalls are masking unbudgeted increases in expenses, as has been highlighted by the Auditor-General. We have communicated this to the house. We have spoken about this in the house previously. The Auditor-General's Report 2008-09, Part C, page 12 states:

Over the past six years the state has received large amounts of unbudgeted revenues that enabled net operating surpluses.

I think that encapsulates it. We have said in this house for many years that the government does not have a revenue problem, it has an expenses problem. Talking about state taxation, under the Rann Labor government, South Australia has become the highest taxed state in the nation. I have said this before and I will continue to say it, because it is the fact of the matter: it is a hallmark of Labor governments right around this country, both federally and state, that they are high taxing, high spending governments.

I remember that as a young man, as a teenager, when we had to suffer those years under the Whitlam federal government. There was enormous taxation and enormous spending, a complete waste of money on a whole range of initiatives that had to be then hauled back into shape by the Howard-Costello government. Keating tried it when he was prime minister, but he did not achieve much. The financial situation had to be hauled back into shape by the Howard-Costello federal government—the prime minister and the treasurer. The Liberal federal government was responsible for hauling the financial situation of the nation back into a really outstanding position.

If we look at taxation revenue—and this is again quoting from the latest figures that the government has provided in the Mid-Year Budget Review—in 2001-02, the general government taxation was $2.193 million and, in 2010-11, it has increased to a staggering $3.846 million. That is a massive 75 per cent increase. However, what situation do we find ourselves in? We find ourselves in a deficit on the three accounting measures that are taken into consideration. All that means is financial mismanagement.

When we are looking at balance sheets and profit and loss statements, and so on, having been a bank manager in a previous career, I have an understanding of how to read these types of papers. I have highlighted some revenue figures, but we also need to look at the expenses. Expenses control has been extremely poor since this government has been in power. No sooner does the money come in than it goes out the door. Again, I will quote from the Auditor-General's Report 2008-09, Part C, page 40:

A major risk to the budget and, in particular the forward estimates, is the outcomes from enterprise agreements and control of FTE numbers.

That is obviously in relation to Public Service issues. As I said before, this government has not had a revenue problem; it has had rivers of gold flowing into its coffers, but it has always had an issue with controlling expenses. As I said before, the hallmark of all Labor governments has been high taxing and high spending.

Another point I want to make is in relation to the excuse that the previous treasurer used for the current state of the budget in terms of falling into deficit. The excuse that he used is that it is a consequence of the global financial crisis (GFC). I just want to raise a question in relation to this matter. We have the federal Treasurer, Wayne Swan, saying that the nation has been insulated, protected, against the effects of the GFC through the stimulus packages, the BER and all the massive spending initiatives rolled out by the federal government.

So we have the federal Labor government—Treasurer Swan—saying that through its initiatives, through its policy direction, there has been a cushion, an insulation, a protection from the GFC. However, we have state Labor here in South Australia using it as an excuse, that because of the GFC we have fallen into this terrible financial situation. The point I am making is that you cannot have it both ways. Either the GFC has caused the effects here in South Australia or the federal government's initiatives have protected us from the GFC. You cannot walk both sides of the street. We know what happens when you try and straddle the fence. I will leave that up to the imagination of individual members.

I want to move on to issues in relation to the areas of portfolio responsibility that I have on this side of the house. I want to talk about emergency services first up. It is public knowledge that there was a press conference here a few weeks ago. The Country Fire Service Volunteers Association has made a submission to the government, and I think it is part of the budgetary process. I have not seen it, but I understand it is part of the budget process and is calling for additional support for our volunteers.

Everybody in this place agrees that volunteers are absolutely essential for the very important role that the CFS and the SES play in our community. Without volunteers, those agencies would absolutely collapse. There is not one member in this place who would disagree with that. However, under this government, CFS volunteers have been struggling for funding. They have been struggling for funding, and I note the previous minister for emergency services, just prior to the election last year, announced a $9.2 million funding package for the CFS, I think. The majority of those moneys were to improve IT connectivity and other communication tools within the brigades.

The feedback I received was that that was not actually the highest priority of the volunteers. They actually need increased funding to meet their training needs, and as a consequence of meetings that I and some other members of the opposition had, at the election last year the Liberal Party announced a $13 million funding package to support CFS and SES volunteers. That is our current policy. That is over and above the $9.2 million that the government announced.

We were happy to maintain that $9.2 million, but we announced an increase in funding to the CFS and SES volunteers of $13 million. I think that shows who understands the needs of the volunteers and who is actually committed to meeting the needs of the CFS and SES volunteers. I get a lot of contact from volunteers within the CFS in relation to unmet training needs, and some figures that came my way show that only a relatively small percentage of the 423 CFS brigades meet their minimum training requirements. Courses are cancelled due to resource issues, they are not reorganised, they are not rescheduled, and so the volunteers suffer as a consequence of that. I have a meeting with the executive of the CFSVA this week, so I hope we can discuss some of those issues. It will be a pleasure to raise those issues publicly on behalf of the volunteers.

I also want to speak about some of the capital works projects that we have seen fall into serious problems. We have seen the refurbishments or rebuilds of the Wilmington, Hamley Bridge and Balaklava CFS stations experience some real problems. The problems have come from the building company having financial difficulties, and other issues having an impact, so those capital works stopped. In talking to my colleagues who represent those communities, the member for Stuart and the member for Goyder, there was real frustration within those communities that the CFS station rebuilds had just stopped dead, and the government was floundering around for quite a while trying to find a way to remedy the problem.

In Balaklava, I understand, they had the equipment scattered around at about three different locations—the fire truck in one place and some other equipment somewhere else. I recognise the commitment that the volunteers made through these difficult times, but having all that equipment spread around in different places within a town is not an ideal way to run an agency and to support your volunteers. I know the government has contracted Sarah Constructions, a construction company, and the works are proceeding, and I think things are relatively back on track in terms of the schedule that was re-negotiated to see the completion of these works.

Another example I want to raise is the blowout in the budget for the construction of the new Port Lincoln station for the MFS, CFS and SES. There was a significant blowout in the construction of that station. You might say, 'There is often a hiccup with these things,' but it goes to the issue of how this government manages projects. We have seen time and time again that it is a pattern with this government of mismanagement of projects, from large infrastructure projects like big roadworks.

Mr Marshall: The Mount Bold reservoir.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: That is right, member for Norwood, the Mount Bold reservoir. Well, that was scrapped. That did not even get off the drawing board.

Mr Marshall: New prison.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: New prisons–all those issues. Relatively small projects, compared to major road infrastructure works, are mismanaged. It goes to the core of how this government operates, because my understanding is that not one member on that side of the house has had any real practical experience in the community. Not one of them has run a business, I do not think, apart from the minister for agriculture—he has run a business, I beg your pardon. However, there is a small percentage of government members who have had any real experience running a business or being part of a corporation. They have basically come up through the union movement, joined a Labor member's staff or a minister's staff, and then progressed up into the ranks of MPs.

What I am saying is that they do not understand how to manage things. Clearly, going back to my statements in relation to the budget, they do not know how to manage the budget. We would not be in the financial situation that we currently are in if that was not the case. I see that the clock is winding down, but there is another aspect I want to talk about in relation to emergency services, and that is bushfire mitigation work, particularly cool burning in public lands. Information has come to us—we get a lot of information coming to us at the moment; that is a symptom of a government in turmoil—that only about 50 per cent of identified public lands are cool burned compared to what the government wants to achieve.

Obviously there are a number of reasons for that. It is a resourcing issue, you need people who are experienced and trained in those processes in order to conduct the cool burns properly, but I recall that during estimates committees last year the department for environment and heritage was looking to reduce the number of national parks officers who had the responsibility of managing the cool burn program. Now if you are only achieving 50 per cent of fire mitigation work you want, why would you expose the community to further risk by reducing the number of people who have the experience to carry out that work? I do not know, but it is an interesting question that the government needs to address.

All in all, the inadequate manner in which the government is dealing with the state's finances has been highlighted, and it will continue to be highlighted by this side of the house. I believe the government is drifting. It has no direction. It is disengaged and out of touch, lazy and divided. We see the continual turmoil government members are experiencing—the left is leaking on the right and so on—

An honourable member: The right is leaking on the right.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: The right is leaking on the right, as well. As a consequence, this state is suffering.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (17:13): It is with pleasure that I rise to speak on the Supply Bill today, a bit over a year since the election at which I, along with a number of other members, came here for the first time. I note that, between supply bills, addresses in reply and appropriation bills, this is about the fourth time in about 15 or 16 sitting weeks that we have had debates in this chamber on broad topics.

The Supply Bill seeks $3.332 billion so that the government can keep functioning across all areas of the Public Service between 1 July and whenever the Appropriation Bill is passed. Of course, when that Appropriation Bill is discussed, we will have a fifth opportunity in a little over 13 months to have this same sort of debate again. However, it does give us an opportunity to consider the direction in which the government is heading and to look at ways that the state might be better served by taking some other directions.

I start by making this observation. This is a tired and enervated government with an insipid approach to public policy. In looking at this Supply Bill, of course we have the money for it to continue as it has been going for nine long years. It is a government lacking in inspiration. On a good day some of its ministers might fire up in question time and potentially give an impressive speech in the house, or they might take it up to the press gallery in an interview, but on matters of deepest importance for good public policy it is stuck in a rut.

The government seems to be focused on personalities and character. We do not see the development of policy, the exciting radical ideas, the fresh approach that might lead to improvements in South Australian public policy. What is missing from the debate are those sort of radical exciting ideas, and hearing about their aspirations for South Australia's future. How can we do better should be something that South Australian politicians in this house should constantly be looking at.

Over recent years, we have seen that approach taken by the opposition. The Liberal Party has suggested a number of ideas that after initially being decried as wasteful and pointless by the government have eventually been taken up. We saw that when the opposition pointed out that the Commonwealth Games bid and the World Cup bid could be helped through having a new city stadium the government decried it as unrealistic for a long time. It promised hundreds of millions of dollars for AAMI Stadium and other projects, before eventually coming up with the Adelaide Oval project that we have seen run into all sorts of problems and cost blowouts, and we are yet to see how much that is going to cost.

We saw a similar stance taken with desalination. When the opposition suggested a 45 or 50 gigalitre desalination plant to meet Adelaide's critical human needs as a part of Adelaide's water solution, the government decried it as unnecessary for a long time. The member for Kavel was just talking about the Mount Bold reservoir plan that went nowhere, but eventually of course the government saw that there was a potential opportunity to try and take on that Liberal policy. It could not release the same policy, so it had to introduce a new bigger and better 100-gigalitre desalination plant, that is costing South Australia a huge amount of money and will cost South Australians extraordinary increases in their water bills for years to come while, at the same time, potentially having environmental consequences that a smaller desalination plant, such as the Liberal Party initially suggested, might not have.

We have seen the government look at the Adelaide High School proposal for a second campus, as promised by the Liberal Party at the last election, and decry the need for that, only during the election campaign to decide, actually this is going to be a problem for us. The member for Adelaide's election showed the popularity of that policy, amongst her other attributes, and the government took on its own version of the policy. Again, it could not do the same thing that the opposition had promised, it had to come up with something new, so it came out with something worse, something less good than our solution would have been.

As the member for Unley, the shadow minister for education, pointed out in his contribution, the Labor government's policy during the election was for an increase in numbers at Adelaide High School but they promised that their new buildings would not encroach on the Parklands. They then put to the school council five options, four of which encroached on the Parklands, and the fifth which involved the demolition of a heritage building.

Clearly, in taking on Liberal policies, twisting them around, missing the point of what they were supposed to achieve, the government has demonstrated time and time again that it is interested in policy only in as much as it might impact on a headline, as it might somehow try and steal the Liberal Party's thunder, and it does not have any greater strategic view as to what the policies are supposed to achieve. That is why the government, when it is trying to put these policies in place, is continuously stuffing them up.

On a broader front, I want to use this opportunity to speak about some of the directions concerning me about where our state is travelling, and some areas for consideration and improvement. One objective measure by which you might judge how South Australia is travelling is to look at our net migration figures. We have seen for years that people are voting with their feet. This is something that has been of great concern to me since long before I entered this place. When I first became a candidate and decided that I wanted to run for parliament, it was for a number of public policy reasons, that I spoke about in my maiden speech. One of them was that I have a sincere concern that many of our best and brightest do not see a future for themselves in South Australia if they wish to pursue a career in their chosen field and achieve the best possible outcomes for their family. Many of them do not see the opportunity to do that in South Australia.

I was a teenager when the State Bank disaster befell our state. At the time, there was a huge rush of net interstate migration away from South Australia because people did not have optimism or confidence in our economic future Throughout the 1990s and early into the next decade that started to turn around. We went from having a net migration loss to other states of over 3,000 a year up to, I think, about 4,000 in the early to mid-1990s, which was improved to basically a net loss of almost zero by the beginning of the last decade.

Even in that context, when the situation had improved, I know from my own personal experience of finishing university in the late 1990s, a significant proportion (probably three out of four) of the people who I went to university with had to go to Sydney, the Gold Coast, Brisbane, Melbourne or overseas in order to pursue the sorts of careers they wanted and the opportunities to better themselves. Many of them are lost to South Australia forever. Particularly once people meet somebody, get married and have children interstate or overseas and start building a life for themselves, they are often lost to our state forever. When we have the head office of only one of Australia's top 200 companies in Adelaide, it is easy to see how that might occur.

I note that Rann Labor government did notice as its figures started to get worse throughout the last decade and we started to go away from a zero net migration impact to the figures that we are approaching now. The Rann government put in its strategic plan target to 'reduce net loss to interstate to zero by 2008.' Of course, it failed dismally in reaching that target.

In the last 12 months, as of the figures from the last couple of weeks, we saw the 3,307 people left for interstate in the last 12 months—it just continues to get worse. Even once you take into account migration from overseas and the birth rate, South Australia's population only grew by 1.1 per cent over 12 months. Net interstate migration is three times higher than it was under the last Liberal government when we were recovering from that State Bank fiasco.

This has a real impact on South Australia's future, because, as I say, once you lose those people it is very hard to get them back. But why are they leaving? They are leaving because they see their opportunities to improve their careers interstate and overseas as being better. I would like to quote from Isobel Redmond's response to the Mid-Year Budget Review, because she makes a very good point in relation to this. She said:

It is a dire reflection on the Rann Labor Government, that today there were more mining jobs in South Australia in 1985 than there are today. If [South Australia] had kept pace with national jobs growth under the Rann Government, there would be 40,000 more jobs in [South Australia]. South Australian exports and our share of the national economy have declined under the Rann government.

And that is absolutely true. We have the highest unemployment rate in the nation at the moment.

During the last election, when I was elected, it seemed that the government's main strategy in getting re-elected was to continually talk about this figure of 100,000 jobs that were to be created under the Rann government. Well, it has had a pretty bad start in the first 12 months of its four years, with 4,400 more South Australians out of work today than there were 12 months ago. The South Australian unemployment rate has gone up to 5.8 per cent, the highest in the nation and our highest rate of unemployment since August 2009 during the global financial crisis. It is a dire indictment on the performance of this government in unemployment, particularly with a view to the state of youth unemployment and the fact that we want young people to see their future in South Australia.

I took the opportunity earlier today to use what is more often than not a young person's medium to discuss the issue. I asked people who are on Facebook what they thought and I got a couple of responses from young people in their teens, early 20s and one in the 30s that I want to share with the house. The first person's comments I want to share, and I would rather not share his name, said:

I'm nearly 19 and I have applied for 78 jobs and got turned down from all 78 the reason was my age! That's unfair, if I'm capable of doing the job why should my age matter. I have just received a job but no thanks to Centrelink or my job agency, it's all thanks to the person my grandparents know.

That is a very sad indictment on employment opportunities for young South Australians. I think it is particularly concerning that the government's approach to job creation seems be focused on the idea that it is government that creates jobs and opportunity, whereas we on this side of the house believe that, in fact, it is business that creates jobs and career opportunities.

Government can employ public servants and government can employ trainees for a time, but ultimately that has got to be paid for out of the taxes of the non-government sector. Meaningful employment growth requires the conditions for business to thrive and prosper, and I do not see the focus of this government being on that.

One of the people who commented on my Facebook wall was, in fact, our 2011 Youth Parliament Governor, Samantha Mitchell. Her comment, I think, was fairly poignant. She said:

Youth retention rates in South Australia. Let's develop industries such as advertising and marketing (for example) which are dominated by the eastern states. Sooo many qualified people—

And I note that she has three 'o's in the 'so', to express emphasis, I believe—

are moving interstate where the work is. Let's keep them here.

Again, that is a function of the fact that marketing, advertising and those sorts of industries tend to be dominated by eastern states companies because, of course, it is in the eastern states where those head offices that make decisions about their advertising or marketing campaigns are being made.

The opportunities for young people in South Australia to pursue a career require in many cases for them to move interstate, and there is no prospect of it getting better. I note that the shadow employment minister, the member for Unley (David Pisoni), put out a press release pointing out that job ads are plummeting under Labor. He made the point that South Australia's job advertisements plummeted a staggering 32.3 per cent (that is over the last 12 months) compared to a national decline of just 3.7 per cent.

It is extraordinary. I suggest to every member of this house that our employment opportunities are actually getting worse, and what sort of a message does that send to young South Australians? The third comment that came up on my Facebook a couple of hours ago when I was looking at this was from someone who commented on how employment might be helped. I will quote Taara Reedman, who said:

Stop culling the public sector!!! There is point at which 'efficiency measures' create massive inefficiency; for example, highly paid senior professionals doing routine admin work because departments can't afford to employ admin staff.

That is also a function of this government's mismanagement of the public sector and its budgets over the last nine years. We saw in last year's budget the government having to take measures to remove 4,000 public servants from the payroll, but, of course, this is following nine years where the Public Service was increased by 18,105. Only 2,554 of those jobs were in fact budgeted for.

I note that the former treasurer (now the police minister) during the estimates committee on 7 October last year said:

There is no question that the blowout in expenses is our problem. There is no question that expenditure overruns are the biggest threat to public finances.

In nine years in government the Labor Party has been unable to control its spending. It has gone over budget by a total of $3.5 billion since 2002. So, of course we end up in this situation where, having gone so extraordinarily over budget, it has a couple of options: it can increase taxes, increase charges and levies; or it can cut the Public Service.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

Mr GARDNER: The member for Norwood points out that it has had to do both through its incompetence and mismanagement over nine years. The tax, of course, is a real concern, because, when the government increases the tax rates, that is actually a disincentive for businesses to invest in South Australia, and it also directly leads to less employment and fewer career opportunities for those young people in South Australia.

The Institute for Public Affairs in December 2010 released its State Business Tax Calculator, and it made the general point, first, that jurisdictions with a relatively high business tax load tend to maintain relatively weak economic performance over time compared to low-taxing states and territories. Where does South Australia fall on this ladder, I wonder? Well, we pay more than double the state and territory averages on land tax. We have payroll tax that increased from $601 million to $956 million last year. Particularly in relation to South Australia, the IPA has made the point:

To create an economic climate more conducive to economic development and innovation, the government should reduce its above-average tax liabilities.

I do not see the opportunities for radical reform of our tax system that might actually improve our outlook in economic terms and, most importantly, improve our employment outlook coming from this government any time in the future—this government that has wasted money and mismanaged the economy so much that taxes on property have increased from $731 million in 2001-02 to $1.6 billion in the Mid-Year Budget Review for this year.

This is at a time when our GST take has increased from just over $2 billion when the Labor Party took power to $4.7 billion in the coming year. The government has more money than it has ever had before and it has spent it so unwisely that it is having to increase the tax take that is hurting business and the opportunity for employment.

In the limited time I have left, I contrast this with one measure that the Western Australian government took a couple of years ago. It gave small businesses, in particular, a full or partial rebate on their 2009-10 payroll tax, and about 4,500 employers who had an annual payroll of less than $1.6 million (so generally up to about 28 employees on average earnings) got a full refund of their 2009-10 payroll tax.

It cost that government about $100 million, but what an effect it had! They had unemployment slated to reach 6.75 per cent in 2010-11, and what happened? I noticed in The West Australian on 10 March, a couple of weeks ago, that unemployment in Western Australia, far from reaching the heights predicted two years ago of 6.75 per cent, has dropped to 4.2 per cent, its lowest rate since the middle of last year, and it continues to go down. Unemployment is falling around Australia. It fell in New South Wales to 4.8 per cent (a state that saw a cataclysmic result for the Labor Party due to its mismanagement). In Victoria it has fallen to 5 per cent, in Tasmania to 5.6 per cent and in Northern Territory to 2.3 per cent. In Queensland it has stayed steady, but in South Australia unemployment has gone up to 5.8 per cent.

It speaks volumes about the competence of this government, and it really concerns me that I do not believe they have the capacity for a fresh approach. I do not believe they have the capacity for any sort of radical ideas or radical policy development because they are too focused on their own internal difficulties and problems. I believe that South Australians deserve better and, particularly, young South Australians deserve a future where they can build their careers in South Australia.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (17:33): Like others, I rise to indicate my support for this bill. It is a critical bill, unlike some others. I commend the member for Morialta, whose speech I listened to, for his conscientious efforts and his commitment to the cause and the matters that he raised. So, well done to him.

Year after year we come into this place and, seemingly, speak about the same things. I wonder where this government is going with its expenditure. It seems to be meandering all over the place. It seems to need a road map to get back on track. It has changed treasurers. However, we have the ludicrous situation today, which the member for Davenport raised yet again in the house, of the current Treasurer trying to make light of some remarks he made on the weekend.

It is a serious business in this place, and it is highly important that members have the opportunity to say a few words on matters relevant to their electorate, particularly in the case of the Supply Bill. Once again, it is a time when local government is going through their budget process. It is a time when they are trying to do more with less, and it is a time when they seemingly get less and less from the state government, due to the causes the state government seems to be running down and what it wants to spend its money on. However, let me remind the house that a lot of it is actually the taxpayers of South Australia's money, and there are a few taxpayers who actually live outside the metropolitan area. Quite frankly, at the moment, I think the current government makes the Sheriff of Nottingham look like a generous man!

I am not impressed. The councils in my electorate are absolutely struggling to maintain their infrastructure, and they are struggling to provide the services they need to provide. I have letters coming in that express concern about some council's level of debt. That is a matter the councils have to work through, but they are limited by their rate and levy income and whatnot. It is a serious matter when roads are run down, and they are not receiving the attention they need, principally because local government does not have the resources to fix up those roads.

In saying that, I want to talk about the overbearing and omnipresent bureaucracy in the state government area. We make laws in this place, some of them good, some of them okay and others stupid, in my humble opinion. The local councils are being forced to carry out more and more responsibilities, with legislation from both the state and federal governments, they are ill-equipped to deal with. They do not get it right all of the time; in fact, I think we in this place possibly need to have a good, hard look at where local government in South Australia is going. It concerns me that we let it meander along.

In the last 12 months, we have seen the debacles at Burnside, and we have seen fights between Mitcham council and West Torrens council, for example. We have issues out in the country. What needs a good, hard look at is the Local Government Association. I do not think it is providing enough possible reform mechanisms, through giving advice to the state government, to achieve more. I hope the new Minister for State/Local Government Relations, the Hon. Bernie Finnigan in another place, will have a good hard look at it. We have seen some shenanigans in the Adelaide City Council, and we see ongoing fights between the executive government and the Adelaide City Council. I do think it is something that has to be thought about. Turning to hospitals, I have to say that I am fortunate that I have only two hospitals in my electorate, both of which are particularly good facilities. Kangaroo Island is an exceptionally good facility, with a multitude of services, but even that facility struggles to accommodate everything that is required. Similarly, the south coast health services at Victor Harbor provides an excellent service.

The point I would make on this matter is that what we do not need, nor do we want, in the country is the centralisation of services, such as in health, where more and more country people are being required, despite what the minister says, to come to Adelaide for all sorts of treatment or for services, which could well be provided in the country areas. Country people should not have to come to Adelaide for everything. It is not as simple as hopping on a bus down at Henley Beach, hopping on a train from Gawler or coming in from the south by train or bus. It just does not work like that in the country. There is little or no public transport to assist them. So, clearly it is a large and costly exercise, both in financial terms and in time terms for country people to come to the city for treatment. There are obviously treatments that people cannot have in the country, so they must come to the best care in the city-based facilities, and I acknowledge that.

I also think that we need to look at the entire system. It was brought to my attention only last Friday by someone who spoke to me in my KI electorate office in Kingscote that one particular person had seven or eight trips to Adelaide for a 15-minute appointment paid for by the taxpayer. To me, that is just a hideous waste of public money. There must be a better way of doing it.

Another issue that the government needs to address is the matter of police resources. I have heard the current minister and the past minister say in this place that there are plenty of police resources and that they have employed extra police officers and that they are doing a wonderful job. However, the reality is that we continue to be underfunded for police resources in the country. Police officers would tell you privately that they would dearly love to have more people working in their areas. I know that every now and then we get a hiccup on the South Coast, where something has happened and the police patrol just cannot get there. I acknowledge the fact that the police are out there but, seemingly, they are never—or rarely—in the right place when they are needed because they have to cover such a wide area. They are put under strain trying to get back to another incident, and then they bear a few grumbles and whatnot because they were not on site to deal with an incident because they were over on the other side of the Fleurieu.

Similarly, on Kangaroo Island this is also an issue. This is a double whammy as far as I am concerned. It was alarming on the weekend to hear of the number of drink drivers who were caught by RBTs. I fully support the police. I will just put on the record that I was recently stopped at an RBT, and I blew 0000, you will be pleased to know, at 11 o'clock at night. Quite frankly, if I or any other member in this place were so stupid to get caught driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, we would deserve it. I am not assuming that it will not happen to someone in this place. I certainly hope that it will not happen to me; however, should I be so stupid, it would serve me right.

On the weekend, just out of the town of Kingscote on Kangaroo Island, some of the local yahoos went mad and put blackies everywhere. The police just cannot be there and the kids have now wised up to this. They have one car following the police car—or nearby—noting its presence and letting everyone else know where they are by text message. So, if the police are busy at Inman Valley, the kids in Victor Harbor go to town, or drive around. They do not really do blackies down there. However, I can assure you that, on Kangaroo Island, if the police have to go to Parndana or Penneshaw, or wherever, the hoons in Kingscote cut loose. It is a sad indictment of where we are that this government is simply just not putting enough resources into rural policing. I feel extremely sorry for the officers in that they cannot deal with everything.

Just on that, the incidence of drugs and their availability really frightens me. If I had my way, I would commit a bit of Sharia law on some of these drug dealers and remove a few things that they value—and you can come to your own conclusions about that. I just think that the way kids are able to get drugs before their minds are mature enough to realise the inherent dangers is alarming. It is highly concerning. It goes well beyond marijuana. I know people who have smoked marijuana for 30 or 40 years and reckon they are okay. I can tell you that they are not; they have well and truly burned out their brain cells. Then it goes on to ice, that appalling drug that is around the place. The incidence of ice and methamphetamines is becoming more prevalent, and their availability is more prevalent, and I commend the police for the drug raids that they do right across my electorate, on both sides of the water. They have had a little bit of success lately with marijuana, which I am particularly pleased about. The marijuana season, I understand, has been extended by the cool weather and the fact that it is not ripening as quickly as it could.

I have a new neighbour and just the other day there were a couple of stray sheep wandering around that we tried to get, and we actually found some marijuana-growing activity—well, it is not growing at the moment—about 100 yards from my boundary, in the scrub. No-one was more surprised than me. I wonder where all this stuff is going to stop. We have to stop the stupidity on the roads, we have to stop as much as possible acts of arrant stupidity and people driving under the influence, so I urge the government to commit more resources to that.

I also raise the issue of funding for rural councils in such areas as foreshore protection and sand management. I met recently with the mayor and CEO of the City of Victor Harbor and we discussed a number of issues. I would like to read a letter that I have received into Hansard. It is dated 24 March and states:

Dear Michael,

Re: foreshore protection and sand management

On behalf of Mayor Philp and myself, I thank you for the opportunity to discuss a range of issues with you on 2 March 2011. Our primary purpose for the meeting was to discuss foreshore protection and sand management. In response to your invitation to put our concerns in writing, I provide the following.

Several weeks ago, there was some television news coverage regarding the sand relocation program on the Adelaide metropolitan coastline. The news reports made two important points:

1. The cost of providing the pipework and other infrastructure to pump sand in a relocation process along the metropolitan coastline had exceeded budget expectations. The intended project would be scaled back.

2. The future maintenance costs associated with relocating the sand along the metropolitan coastline were likely to be borne by the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board.

If this information is correct, it represents a real concern to our council, as it would other councils within that natural resources management board area. The City of Victor Harbor has its own sand replenishment challenges. Our annual expenditure may not be significant as we currently only do what we can afford. However, the real issue here is equity. Our communities all contribute to the board. Why aren't all coastal councils within that particular board afforded the same opportunity to have sand replenishment/coastal protection works funded by the board? Currently we compete for Coastal Protection Board funding. The following table indicates our expenditure—

and I will not go through that. The letter continues:

However, in 2010-11 the council applied for a $44,000 grant from the Coastal Protection Board to be offset against planned expenditure of $56,000. Our grant application was unsuccessful and our program of work was cancelled. However, our coast protection problems still exist and expand each year. Council would be appreciative if you could research and confirm the circumstances reported with regard to the metropolitan sand relocation program.

What I am alluding to is that the problem for rural councils is that the metropolitan councils are funded under the Adelaide's Living Beaches program, so it is a different kind of funding. The City of Victor Harbor does a good job, and this council and past councils and elected members all do their best to look after what they have got. So, I believe it is wrong for the government to reduce this funding or not make funding available so they cannot get on with the good work that they do.

It is a sad indictment and I suppose why I say that is, we have this ludicrous amount, I understand, of $8 million—and I stand corrected if that is wrong—that has been spent so far on a marine parks program that is not even in place. We cannot find money to look after our coastline and whatnot, but we can spend $8 million over the last umpteen years on this program which is still far from complete and does not even look like completion.

Mr Gardner: Wrong priorities.

Mr PENGILLY: 'Wrong priorities,' the member for Morialta says. He is quite right, it is wrong priorities. What we need is some equity going back into regional and country South Australia. We need a stop to this mad idea that everything revolves around an area south of Gepps Cross, west of the Tollgate and north of Darlington, because I can tell you that the people in the south feel as though they are missing out badly. Just recently, for example, in the Sellicks Beach area, which I now represent, there is a plan to put in some effluent drainage. Three attempts have been made by the mayor, the CEO and the council to meet with myself and the Minister for the Southern Suburbs, minister John Hill, to discuss this matter. The first two moves were cancelled at short notice, for various reasons. I know ministers are busy people. Remember that minister Hill is the member for Kaurna, but he is also the Minister for the Southern Suburbs. Talk about window dressing.

The letter that the council got back cancelling the last meeting said that it was not under his jurisdiction, it was under the jurisdiction of another minister. Why on earth would you have a Minister for the Southern Suburbs if you do not do that? It is absolutely ludicrous. It is a failure by this government. All it is doing is putting glitzy wrapping around things and having ministers for the south and ministers for the north and actually not doing a crumpet about it—absolutely not a crumpet.

This is where things are going wrong. This government is totally and absolutely toxic out in the community; it stinks to high heaven. We all know that it is three years before anything can happen on that score, so what I say to the government is get your priorities back on track, start doing some sensible things, and if you can sort your own mess out within your own party you might have a hope of doing that. That is something that is dragging back South Australia at the moment.

This announce and defend mentality that minister Weatherill talked about approximately 12 months ago is still ongoing. We had the ridiculous situation last week with the explosives factory, with minister Koutsantonis on his bandwagon, announce and defend. We have this ridiculous situation at the moment with the marine parks. We have yet another situation with Adelaide Oval where we are having this seemingly endless debate about what is going to happen. I am not going to get myself in too much trouble on that one, but I have my own views on that. We can find hundreds of millions of dollars for sporting grounds. We cannot find any money for rural South Australia, roads, councils, hospitals, schools or additional police services, but we can find money to do things to entertain a few people. To me, that is absolutely mad. I think it is ridiculous.

Mr MARSHALL (Norwood) (17:53): I rise to contribute to the Supply Bill debate before this house. The Supply Bill, of course, is to provide $3.32 billion worth of money to the government to operate between 1 July this year through to the time when the appropriation bill is passed, which is probably sometime in August. What we are essentially asked to do is to approve this expenditure of $3.32 billion without seeing the budget. I come from the commercial sector and, let me tell you, I am neither familiar with this practice of authorising expenditure without a budget nor comfortable with it. It seems completely crazy to me. My worry about this is compounded by the fact that we have a new Treasurer—the L-plate treasurer—who has only been in the job for a few months, and we as the parliament are being asked to basically take him on his word that he knows what he is doing and give him authorisation to spend $3.32 billion of our money without us seeing the budget.

So far, I do not think the Treasurer has performed particularly well in this house whatsoever. This was confirmed in a conversation that he had with the member for Heysen, the Leader of the Opposition, on the weekend, when he confessed to her, 'I hope this stadium deal doesn't go ahead; it will cause me a lot less problems.'

This does not sound like the words of a capable treasurer—a man who is in charge of $16 billion or so of our money to expend in the best way possible. He is certainly struggling, and he is under a lot of pressure—a lot of pressure from the South Australian community and from the Public Service union in South Australia. Of course, he is very much under pressure from his own party, the ALP, the broader membership, and from his cabinet colleagues. We know that the budget handed down in September last year was a very divisive budget. Not only did it divide cabinet between left and right, it actually divided right and right and left and left. Basically, it sent shock waves through that cabinet and it is leaking like a sieve. Never before have we had so many calls to the Liberal Party team regarding leaks from this government.

In fact, because we have such finite resources in the Liberal Party we have basically had to install an automated telephone system: press 1 if you have a leak against the Premier; press 2 if you have a leak against a minister; press 3 if you have a leak against the left; and press 4 if you have a leak against the right. It is a laugh. We have had to automate that system because we just do not have the resources to handle the number of leaks coming through at the moment.

As I said before, this was a very unpopular budget. In fact I put it to you, Madam Speaker, that it was so unpopular it actually caused the treasurer to lose his job. It caused him to lose his job because of his complete inadequacy over nearly nine years in that job. It was in September 2010 that the former treasurer brought down one of the most unpopular budgets in the history of South Australia. Of course, it was a budget that confirmed the deception against ordinary South Australians leading up to the election.

In the budget immediately prior to the election, and confirmed in the mid-term review some weeks before the election, the then treasurer maintained that he needed to put the Sustainable Budget Commission in place and look for $750 million worth of cuts going into the forward estimates. He confirmed that only weeks before the state election—$750 million worth of cuts. What did we get after the election? First, we had a delay in the budget for more than six months, which seems extraordinary.

Our budget did not come down in September even though we started operating on 1 July. When it finally came down, there were $2.2 billion worth of cuts and revenue measures over the forward estimates. At the time, the former treasurer was at pains to point out that this was not only his budget but that indeed it was unanimously supported by all of cabinet. In fact, I think he actually mentioned to the house that there may have been a standing ovation for him. I find that extraordinarily difficult to believe. There certainly wasn't a standing ovation from the people of South Australia. It has been an extraordinarily unpopular budget with all South Australians and the public sector. In fact, we have had so many rallies out the front of the parliament that (1) it has been difficult to get in, and (2) it has given South Australia a sort of 'Paris in the autumn' appeal because we have so many rallies and strikes going on. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.