APPROPRIATION BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr PISONI (Unley) (12:34): It is lovely to be back here once again. In the previous debate, my colleague the member for Davenport, the shadow treasurer, spoke on a broad range of issues as to why this is a Labor budget, high in debt, high in taxes, high in deceit. His description of the off balance-book debt, such as the desal plant and the hospital, reminded me very much of a story back in the days when I was an employer.

I had a very talented young cabinet-maker working for me who we were paying well above award wages. He said, 'Well, I just can't live on the salary that you are paying me. I need a pay rise.' I said, 'Let's sit down and do your budget; let's see where your money is going.' So, we ran through rent, electricity, food, entertainment and all those other bills. Then we got to petrol and he said, 'Petrol does not cost anything because I put that on the credit card.'

When the member for Davenport reminded this house that the desalination plant and the hospital commitments are not included in the $8.2 billion debt, it reminded me of that story, that, 'No, don't worry about the petrol, I don't pay for that, that goes on the credit card.' I think that is exactly the attitude that this government has to the budget. We have seen debt increase year after year after year under this budget. We are now heading to a stage, once the hospital kicks in, where there will be over $3 million a day that will be spent on debt and other finance commitments.

If we look at just what is in this budget for education—and, remember, it was the member for Ramsay, as the leader of the opposition, who said that he wanted to be the 'education premier'. We had a 30-minute budget speech from the Treasurer, and we had about three minutes that related to education in that budget, and it was to boast of a school electricity cost in the budget implementations section of the budget; $16.59 million, or just over $3 million a year from this year onwards.

To understand how disingenuous that promise was as a new spending initiative, you have to go back to 2008. I have some media here from The Advertiser of 8 July 2008, where it is reported that the South Australian Secondary Schools Association principal, Jim Davis, said:

The rise in electricity bills and the loss of up to $18 million in bank interest because of the state government's decision to keep the interest for its coffers would have an impact on school budgets. According to the South Australian strategic plan, all state government agencies are required to meet a target of 25 per cent reduction of all electricity usage based on 2000-2001 payments.

So, this was the great 'green plan' of the Premier, Mike Rann: let's be green, let's reduce the amount of electricity that schools can use by 25 per cent in 2008, of what they used in 2001. Of course, it was not long before we saw schools struggling to manage their budgets with such a dramatic cut and no offsets.

The minister of the time, the Premier and the cabinet suggested, 'Don't worry about those cuts in your budget, because we are going to give you $3 million in green grants that will help you with the solar schools program,' and, of course, wind turbines on schools were going to generate electricity as well. Then in October of that same year in a Public Works hearing we found out about an extension to the Victor Harbor High School, where the wind turbines simply did not work. Wind turbines were planned to go into the school but they were not going ahead.

It was not long before that Public Works hearing that we heard that the Premier, Mike Rann say that the turbines would be monitored for a 12-month period—these are the ones on the various buildings around the place. He told The Advertiser that they did not know how much electricity was being generated from the project. Then, of course, Mr John Chadwick, the department of education's infrastructure director, told the committee that turbines would not be installed in the new capital works program—despite the promise and the cuts to electricity prices to counter that—because there was a problem with the contract, and they weren't available. He went on to say:

I understand a government contract has not come through and, of course, plans across the whole of government had collapsed for the wind turbine programs.

So, the justification for the cuts in electricity was, 'Don't worry about it—solar panels, wind turbines on schools and green grants will be able to make up the difference.' Just a few months later, we work out that the wind turbines do not work, and we were also told in that same Public Works Committee meeting that the solar panels were purely for demonstration. As a matter of fact, if the wind turbines did work, you would actually need a sunny, windy day to generate enough electricity for a single computer. Yet that was the justification for the government cutting $18 million out of the budget in 2008 for electricity and removing the interest that schools gained on their accounts as they were forward planning and managing projects, whether they were maintenance projects or whether they were education projects in their schools.

Then we had this good news announcement this year—this came out before the budget, because it was good news—that there is about $3 million a year for electricity in school budgets. We need to go back to a media story in The Advertiser on 22 June 2009, where figures for five government schools showed they were more than quarter of a million out of pocket because of the cuts to electricity funding in the previous year. Urrbrae Agricultural High School, which is basically a working farm, an industry, was $124,500 out of pocket; and other schools ranged from $15,000 to $33,000.

I was on the governing council of Unley High School, and it was $26,000 in deficit, which equated to $26 for every child at the school, in order to pay that missing electricity money. Here we see this as being a new initiative, but what it is is an acknowledgement of a mistake that was made. The government simply could not take the pain of it any longer and so we saw that money being put back in the budget.

To really see the impact the budget has had on education, we need to go back to last year's budget, which was only nine months ago, where we saw cuts to the adult re-entry program, saving $20.3 million over three years. There is still enormous confusion as to just what products are available to students at the adult re-entry schools throughout South Australia. We saw cuts to the basic skills tests grants. These are state government grants that were there to help kids who were struggling with the NAPLAN testing, and the excuse given there was, 'Don't worry about it because there is federal money coming,' but guess what: in the last federal budget that federal money was cut as well.

That is a shame for South Australia, because in last year's NAPLAN testing we saw South Australian schools failing to meet the national average in 19 out of 20 categories, and years 5, 7 and 9 had the worst performance in numeracy of all mainland states. So we need that resource; we need that money, but this cruel government has mismanaged our budget for the last nine years. It said it has made the tough decisions to correct its mistakes; it has cut basic skills testing grants for schools in last year's budget.

We saw bus services in regional areas cut in last year's budget. We saw money supposedly saved by amalgamating schools, and then we saw outcry in schools right across the state, whether in the member for Goyder's electorate or in the seat of Florey with Modbury High School, which put up a very good fight and so far believes it has prevented the amalgamation of Modbury South Primary School and Modbury High School.

A very important point was made by Julie Caust, the chair of the governing council there, that in that area, where there are super schools all around as the only other choice, it is the only traditional high school left for parents, and its enrolments are increasing because of that. She ran a very strong campaign, and I congratulate her, but she is still waiting for confirmation in writing that that school will not be forced to amalgamate. I notice that money has been brought forward for school amalgamations in this budget.

Despite the fact that a lengthy process was put in place in the legislation by this government back in 1998 to ensure that there is an inclusive process and that schools agree to the amalgamations, we are seeing more money being brought forward in the budget to fast-track that process. So, we are seeing more desperate measures from a desperate government.

We go back to the measures that affect this year's budget that were announced last year. The green schools grants: as I mentioned earlier, there is $4 million being saved. There are multi and dual-campus savings through there and that, of course, affects my colleague, the member for Morialta, with the Norwood Morialta High School losing hundreds of thousands of dollars towards leadership in their two campuses.

New arrival support in schools: at a time when we are seeing increases in new arrivals into South Australia, we are actually seeing $1.9 million of cuts to the budget over the forward estimates. They start kicking in in this 2011-12 budget year. New arrival transport services: you would think that the first thing you would want to do when new arrivals come to South Australia is engage them in the community as quickly as possible so that they have the confidence to learn and become members of our community at a very early rate. Here we see $5.4 million being cut from that program.

The out-of-school-hours care program: there will be more costs for parents because, of course, if we are seeing less government money in those projects, we will actually be seeing more money coming from parents. We know that these programs cost money to run. The money comes from two areas in the school system: it comes from the government or it comes from parents. It is interesting that this budget announces that more than $25 million will be collected in extra school fees over the forward estimates—an extra $25 million from parents in school fees.

The DECS annual report also identifies that we are still seeing increases in students going to non-government schools. You have to ask yourself why that is happening. We would argue it is because parents want to have a say in their children's education. They want to be involved in their children's education. They want autonomy for their governing councils, they want autonomy for their principals and, under this government, we are going backwards. We are going backwards with school autonomy. It is harder for principals now to even form a committee to move a teacher from one classroom to another or to designate that classroom for a different use with their personal advisory committees that come into play this year. It is even harder for principals to manage the very small amount of discretionary income that they have in their resource entitlement statements for the benefit of the school.

We saw policy development funding support cease for very important programs such as drug education in schools, health food guidelines and responsible gambling programs. So, here we have a situation where the health minister goes to France, spends tens of thousands of dollars flying to France and travelling in luxurious trains and meets up with the designer of the French EPODE program—which they have renamed OPAL here in South Australia—who happens to be a director of an advertising company whose major clients include Coca-Cola, McDonald's, Nestlé and others. The minister brings a program back to South Australia at a cost of $22 million, of which they are going to spend $4 million evaluating. We were told, in a briefing that we had with Dr Borys and the health minister, that the program works, yet we are spending $4 million evaluating it here in South Australia—20 per cent of the cost of that program—after we see in the budget that there have been cuts in the education budget to support these particular programs.

Then, of course, we see, with preventative maintenance programs, that they are not going to really attend to school maintenance until the buildings are virtually falling down. The rental assistance program: we struggle to get experienced teachers, in particular, into our rural and regional areas, yet we are seeing it is going to be even harder to attract those teachers because they are saving $3.8 million through rental assistance programs being taken out of the education budget.

Security grants: here we have a situation where, almost monthly, particularly during school holidays, you will see vandalism occurring in our public schools, yet we are saving $2 million in school budgets by skimping on security. Of course, more money is pulled out of small schools and there are more cuts in teacher professional development programs. We have an advertising campaign telling everyone what a wonderful profession teaching is, yet the minister does not recognise that in real terms because he is saying, 'We are not going to help you develop your skills further for the benefit of the students you are teaching in schools.' I think there are some real issues for education in this budget. It is a long way from an education budget, and, as my colleague the member for Davenport said, it is not a family budget. There are more costs being pushed onto families who are sending kids to school.

Getting beyond the school process and into TAFE, you will see that the budget is collecting an extra $57 million in fees over the forward estimates. I am very concerned about the budget meeting its targets, because the budget figures also tell us that there 30 extra people working in the minister for further education's department this year than there was last year, despite the fact that the government had earmarked savings of several hundred people who would be offered voluntary separation packages. We know that it is a very top heavy department and has been poorly managed for a very long time.

The budget figures show that it is struggling to manage its budget, with increases in TAFE fees, and we are seeing increases in staff at a time when all other offices have been told to shed staff. The government announced 3,750 voluntary separation packages for last year and this year added another 400 of those packages, yet the man who is to implement those savings has actually had a growth in his further education and employment department.

This is not good news for South Australians. This is a budget that has resulted from nine years of excesses, nine years of budgets that have been saved only by windfall surpluses. The government has not been able to keep its spending within budget in any previous budget; as soon as the money comes in, it is out spending it. What we are seeing now is a government saying, 'We have to make some tough decisions for tough times.' Every other state in Australia is in the same tough times, but for some reason South Australia has the highest unemployment on the mainland, the highest youth unemployment.

Youth unemployment has been at very high levels for a very long time. Only 40 per cent of our apprentices are completing their trades, yet we have a huge skills shortage in this state. I was up at Nyrstar on Friday and they were very concerned there about two things, the carbon tax and skills shortages. However, if the carbon tax is introduced, I do not think they will have a skills shortage because there will not be jobs for the people they are planning to utilise in their Port Pirie smelter. This is a bad budget for education, a bad budget for TAFE and further education, and, as the member for Davenport explained, it is a bad budget for small business, the major employer in this state.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (12:53): Today I speak on the Appropriation Bill 2011 and in anticipation of the Statutes Amendment (Budget 2011) Bill in which there are amendments to legislation to ultimately facilitate the announcement of the Hon. Jack Snelling 10 days ago in the budget. I indicate that I will address the some $1.5 billion allocation in this budget—out of a $16,000 million budget—for the provision of services under the Department for Families and Communities. This is a department responsible for the protection of children, for services to the disabled, for the provision of juvenile justice facilities and, substantially, for services to the aged.

I wish to thank all of the parents, husbands, wives, partners, carers and guardians in this state who provide services to other members of the community who cannot provide for themselves—that is, children, some in our community who have a disability, the frail aged, the homeless, the poor and those who suffer some impediment—so that they are able to be financially independent and/or living independently.

I also wish to thank those in the community who are neighbours or friends, or even those who are transient in a street or community, who observe from time to time those in our community who need help or protection and report that to the Department for Families and Communities. The department is part of our government services to South Australians who are legally and morally responsible for a number of those in the community who need that support, notwithstanding that the overwhelming majority in the community either provide for themselves or for members of their family and community without assistance. We are talking about a relatively small number overall in the population who actually rely on the direct services of the Department for Families and Communities, but all of the community expects it to do its job properly and make sure that it provides for those in the community for which it has responsibility.

That responsibility essentially rests with the cabinet of the government of the day. There are some key players in that area of responsibility. We have the Treasurer, we have the Minister for Families and Communities and we have the Premier. Let us start with the treasurers. I say it in plural because, for the last nine years, the Hon. Kevin Foley was the person with the responsibility of carving up the money and, with the blessing of his cabinet, he has done so.

Every year, we have seen an increased allocation to the families and communities portfolio, which is hardly surprising as we have had an increase in the overall budget. We have had an increase from about $7 billion a year to a budget now of over $16 billion a year. It is hardly surprising that, as a major area of responsibility of the government, the overall cost would go up. One would hope that, with the initiatives announced by the government, there would be a corresponding decrease in the number of people utilising services in that area of responsibility, or that, if they did use the services, they would be better delivered and more efficient.

I will not dwell on Mr Foley as the former treasurer, suffice to say that, over the term of his office, that amount of funding increased but that, over this period, the service delivery actually decreased, and I will refer to that shortly. He has, of course, been relegated to obscurity or, as I heard this morning, 'consigned to the dustbin of history', I think it was. I thought that was rather cute. In any event, he is out of the picture. He has some other roles in government, but he has been taken away from the money, thank goodness. Whilst he will, of course, say that he had a great era of maintaining AAA credit ratings, I think he has been an embarrassment to the government overall and a failure in his financial management of the state. Quite simply, in his era, he has spent all the money, run up the debt, sold off most of the assets and, what few are left, he has announced they are to go.

We then come to the Hon. Jack Snelling who, if one were to read the budget speech and look at the impressive presentation of these budget papers, would be seen as some financial phoenix rising from the ashes. He has presented himself as being conscious of family views and values and he believes that this is a budget sympathetic to them. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am sorry, father Snelling, but you will not get the Father of the Year award for this. Plucking out a photograph from the album and applying it like some band-aid to a gaping wound is not going to resolve what is a massive financial insult to the people of South Australia, particularly those who are most vulnerable in the community. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

[Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00]