APPROPRIATION BILL 2012

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from12 June 2012.)

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (12:06): We have had copious amounts of material presented to this house over this budget, and the longer it goes on the more I think the budget is a lemon. I will go on to say a few things about that and focus on some areas which are of concern to me in my electorate. In saying that the budget is a lemon, I point out that I (along I suspect with everybody in this place and the other place) am happy about the increase in the budget for Disability Services.

I think that is a step in the right direction, because it is something that needed doing and we can only go forward from here. I would add that I think the responsibility of this parliament at the moment to assist with Disability Services (from what I heard on the radio this morning) is lacking in that there is a failure to provide disability access to Parliament House of any consequence whilst the renovations are taking place in Old Parliament House next door. However, others can talk about that.

I want to talk about schools in my electorate. I constantly get told by school officials, from both the governing council and staff, that their schools are not receiving the amount of funding that they need or they are being dictatorially told what to do by central offices and regional offices. I am concerned that, in my case, the regional office is fiddling around on a few things, and I am concerned about where some of the money is going out of that regional office. I intend to make more of that matter in due course, but suffice to say that I am not going to put up with bureaucrats in the central office or regional offices using funds in other directions that should be used for the benefit of students. I will have more to say about that later on.

The issue of marine parks is very dear to my heart. We have seen a very strong campaign over the last year or two about the government's sanctuary zones. What has happened here is that, quite clearly, when the Premier took over he identified the marine park sanctuary zones as a disaster for his government and those who recreationally fish around the metropolitan area, where most of the government seats come from. He acted to do something about that, and the department, in my view, got sent away with its tail between its legs and to come back with a redraft of sanctuary zone proposals. Now, they have done that, but in doing so they have severely damaged, with these draft sanctuary zones, my electorate and, I would suggest, the electorate of the member for Flinders in particular, in the professional fishing sector.

I ask the government: do you really want South Australians and Australians to eat Australian fish, or do you want to bring increasing numbers of frozen garfish in from China, do you want to bring in frozen prawns from Vietnam, or do you want to bring in all sorts of frozen fish from Asia, not knowing how that fish has been fertilised, grown, or whatever? I can tell you, it is totally ridiculous; you are destroying sectors of the professional fishing sector.

In my electorate alone, the squid and scale fish fishery that operates off Rapid Head is going to be trimmed down almost out of existence. So, you can buy your frozen squid from overseas. It is stupid stuff; absolutely stupid stuff. Why on earth would you want to destroy the professional industry? I know that net fishermen in Upper Gulf St Vincent are also going to feel the squeeze. I can tell you that the rock lobster fishery in my electorate, which is substantial, is to lose, just in one area alone (Cape du Couedic on Kangaroo Island), some 30 tonnes of rock lobster. So, what does that do, for no useful purpose? That puts squeezes on fishermen.

They are talking about some sort of compensation but, according to my information, there is no compensation money in the budget this year. However, what they also do by this ridiculous activity is stuff up markets, so fishing companies that provide markets with rock lobster are not going to be able to provide the rock lobster. What is it going to do? It is going to come in from Western Australia, Tasmania or South Africa: you tell me. It is a ludicrous proposal.

Once again, the scale fishing industry is going to be put out by areas that have been put under the draft sanctuary zones. I refer to Shoal Bay, to the north of Kingscote on Kangaroo Island, where they are going to take out the garfish and scale fishery there, where one or two local operators get garfish to provide to the market—cheap fish. Also, the net fishermen and scale fishermen are going to be squeezed out of Shoal Bay.

If there was some good reason for taking Shoal Bay out of it, I could understand, but it is not much more than a mudflap with declining seagrass. Why put that in a sanctuary zone when the fools in the department of environment have conned the government into doing nothing off the metropolitan area, which is also bereft of seagrass? But no, they pick on regional electorates and destroy good, honest fishermen going about their business. I think it is disgraceful.

I know that the member for Flinders will probably speak about this matter as well, but the marine parks battle is not over by a long shot. The government may want it to be over, but I can tell minister Caica and others that we are going to come hunting them in the lead-up to 2014, and expose them for the fools they are in relation to what they are doing with these draft sanctuary zones.

You can sit over on the other side and hang your head, or do whatever you like, but if you want to put good, honest professional fishermen—a great industry in South Australia which has been a great industry for well over 100 years—out of business, you keep doing what you are doing. Do not come squealing to me when you get a gut ache from eating fish that have been grown in the Mekong Delta and fertilised with you-know-what, because that is what is going to happen. That is exactly what is going to happen; it is a ridiculous situation. I have probably said enough on that.

Mr Venning: Never.

Mr PENGILLY: I turn to the subject of health. I am concerned that copious amounts of money are being spent in the health sector. According to the minister and the government, the state budget is overwhelmed by the demand. I think we have to have a good, hard look at what we are providing in health. I am sure that, once again, the Premier saw the political damage with Keith hospital and sought to step in there. I congratulate him on that, but it is simply not good enough to screw regional health services and country hospitals in an attempt to prop up a failing system in the city. The shadow minister for health, Martin Hamilton-Smith, has successfully exposed flaw after flaw in the metropolitan health services, and I hope he continues to do that, because it needs exposing.

I just point out also that these HACs are useless. The health advisory councils are useless—totally and absolutely useless. I have members in my community on HACs in the South Coast Health Services and on Kangaroo Island and they shake their heads at why they go along. They have no power. The bureaucrats are running roughshod over the top and just doing what they like. They ask questions and get told that is not the responsibility of the health advisory council. So they get pushed to one side on that. They are not happy. It is an absolute fool of an idea.

You have taken all the ownership away from local communities and put it in the hands of bureaucrats without having any sense of a board that can run the health service and ask some questions and get some answers. Judging by recent media attention that has been given to the HACs, they are a fool of an idea across the state. We are getting regular feedback on that, and it is well documented that they are a waste of time.

On the budget, one of the things that really worries me is that this government has no idea how to run a business—absolutely no idea. The New South Wales state government delivered its budget yesterday and, if I am correct—I think I am: I heard it this morning on ABC radio, and I always believe everything they say on there—the deficit of the state of New South Wales with a population of 5.5 to six million I understand is the same as the deficit of the state of South Australia with a population of 1.5 million. It is an embarrassment to be in the place. They have no idea whatsoever.

The debt is ballooning out to $13 billion, with $4 million per day every day for the next eight years. It is a huge concern and a great worry to me that my children and grandchildren, and whoever comes after that, are going to live in a state bereft of opportunity and bereft of people, because anyone who wants to 'have a go' will go to another state where things are easier. If you want to run a small business you will not stay in South Australia: you will head off to another state. Land tax is a killer. The list goes on.

Then we have the wonderful federal government introducing another raft of taxes such as the carbon tax. You can see how popular the federal government is: they get it even more on the nose every day. I am really concerned about where this state is heading. It is not going to affect me for as long as it is going to affect my children, of course—and no-one else in this place, either—but there is no end in sight to the disaster that has been perpetrated on the people of South Australia, on the taxpayers, by this state government. It is a disgrace and, as I said at the outset, this budget is a lemon.

One area that does need some attention is the tourism sector. Only this week the figures have come out, and I will refer to my electorate because I am really concerned about where tourism is heading. There are some very good reasons but, if you look at the Fleurieu Peninsula for the year ending March 2012, international tourism is down 14.9 per cent. On Kangaroo Island it is down 34.9 per cent. Clearly, the global financial crisis is hitting home in the international tourism sector.

It is of great concern to our wonderful international tourism operators across this state and on Fleurieu Peninsula and the island. There will be jobs under threat—there is no question about that. There will be businesses under threat. Purely and simply, international tourists just do not have the finances to come as they used to. For example, the Italian honeymoon market, is enormous. The new season is coming up and I do not know what the figures will be in the next 12 months, but the way that Italy is going—and Spain and Greece, and the list goes on—is of great concern.

Domestic visitation to the Fleurieu is actually down only very marginally, from 1,170,011 people for the year ending March 2011 to 1,166,872 people for the year ending March 2012. That could well be a sign of things to come. I believe that people are more and more careful, but the impost put on them by the taxes in this state is continuing to belt them around the ears, and the visitation is down markedly.

That was the Fleurieu, but can I also say that visitation on Kangaroo Island was down from 163,993 in March 2010 to 136,926 in March this year—a dramatic drop. It is a dramatic drop. I know that the SATC has launched a $6 million marketing program to try to send people to the island. I dearly hope that it is successful but, at the end of the day, the thing that is really knocking the tourism across to the island is the cost of getting there, whether it be by air or sea, and until such time as governments of all persuasions come to grips with that nothing much is going to change in terms of costs. I get it day after day.

I know that the Fleurieu and the towns of Mount Compass, Yankalilla, Normanville, Victor Harbor and also Port Elliot and Middleton in my electorate rely heavily on domestic tourism, and they are working hard to encourage tourism and visitors from the metropolitan area to go down there because it is a great catchment.

We did talk a while ago about NRM levies, and I would also like to point out that there have been increases in council rates that are concerning. I do not know how you break these down. The councils are well equipped to give a briefing on how they are broken down, but I am seriously questioning how much of that impost comes through additional pressure put on by government (whether it be state government or federal government) requirements, waste disposal and things like that which obviously are adding to those costs.

I make it quite clear and I put on the record in this place that I have been on councils where we have put rate increases up well over CPI over the years, but I have one council where the rates increase is going up 7.1 per cent. It is a concern. People on fixed incomes, pensioners, etc., who are only getting CPI increases even though they may be getting rebates through their councils and other sorts of rebates, are still on very limited incomes and they simply cannot absorb costs over CPI. Somewhere they are going to crack.

I say, again, that I do not know, but it would be an interesting exercise to go through just to see where these costs are being imposed on them—whether, indeed, there is a great percentage of that coming through on state government charges. I do note with great interest the government's hopes in the mining sector for different types of ores and also for oil and gas exploration. I would like to spend a couple of minutes talking about the oil and gas exploration in the Great Australian Bight, which I know is supported by the state government. Permits are issued by the federal government.

I know that the member for Flinders and I, and other members, had extensive briefings from British Petroleum (BP) and also from Bight Petroleum. What concerns me is that the knockers, the extreme environmentalists, the extreme greenies, are out there trying to stop this. They are coming up with all sorts of reasons why we should not go ahead and search for oil and gas in the Great Australian Bight. I am over them. They have every right to make comment, they have every right to be critical if they wish to and they have every right to have their two bob's worth, but equally they have a responsibility to come out with the correct information. They have a responsibility to be environmentally sensible, and businesses must be economically responsible as well. I think that these things want some balance put into them.

Quite simply, I want my family (and I am sure other members in this place feel the same way) to have the same way of life that we have. We absolutely rely on energy sources—oil and gas, and we rely on coal. I am informed that the Great Australian Bight operation—much of it in the South Australian sector, where they are doing a lot of this exploration—could actually be bigger than Roxby Downs, if it works.

I hope it does work. I hope that in 50 or 100 years, we are sourcing large amounts of oil and gas from that area and we can put it into our economy to give our successors the same way of life that we have. As I say, we need to be environmentally sensible and the extremists need to think through that. Those who are doing it need to be economically sensible, and I am sure they are. I am most supportive of where they are going with this and I look forward to success coming out of it.

Just in the minute or so that I have left, I notice that under the government there is more money in the budget for the KI Futures Authority this year. I tell you that it is time they came out with some outcomes instead of talkfests. I am also concerned that I put in an FOI request last year which was due on 24 December for the minutes of these Kangaroo Island Futures Authority (KIFA) meetings. I am still waiting.

This is a deceitful government that wants to cover up everything. If we cannot put money into the state budget and then get information as members, I think it is disgraceful. As I say, I think it is a lemon of a budget. Obviously the opposition will be supporting the budget, but we could go on here for hours and hours. I thank the house for its patience in listening to me and I wait to hear other members' contributions.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (12:26): I certainly want to make some comments in relation to this budget. It is the 11^th state budget that I have had the dubious honour of commenting upon in this place during the 10 or so years that I have been the local member for Kavel. I want to make some remarks in relation to those areas of responsibility that I have on this side of the house.

The first comments I would like to make are in relation to Consumer and Business Services. We see it set out here in the budget in program 3: sub-programs 3.1, 3.2 and moving through. I want to just take the house back a number of weeks to when I highlighted some really significant shortcomings in the way this government was carrying out its responsibilities, particularly concerning the operation of Consumer and Business Services in issuing trade licences.

I highlighted a specific example where an apprentice plumber had finished all his skills training, all his time and so on, and he was waiting over four months for Consumer and Business Services to process his paperwork for his trade licence to be issued. It highlighted the fact that that particular person—only one out of many, I estimate—would have lost around about $5,000 in wages, which is the difference between an apprentice wage and that of a fully-qualified tradesperson. The budget refers to that in Sub-program 3.2: Occupational Licensing Services.

Then we have Sub-program 3.1: Residential Tenancies. I know the minister has issued a discussion paper, and I have it here: 'Review of the Residential Tenancies Act 1995—Proposed reforms'. I have read the report and highlighted some areas of interest in the proposed reforms in the draft report that the minister has issued.

However, I also want to again take the house back a number of weeks where another example of the deficiencies in the service provision from Consumer and Business Services was highlighted. That was in relation to the Residential Tenancies Tribunal taking five weeks for a matter to be heard where previously, when the operation of Consumer and Business Services was being conducted at a more satisfactory level, those matters were heard within two to three weeks of the application being lodged.

My understanding of the process is that a tenant has to be in arrears for a period of two weeks, a notice is issued to the tenant and then I think a week after that formal application is lodged with the agency for the matter to be heard at the Residential Tenancies Tribunal. So, the tenant is in arrears by three weeks' rent before the application can be lodged, and then it was taking five weeks for the matter to be heard, which is obviously a period of eight weeks.

You do not have to be a Rhodes scholar or have a PhD in mathematics to work out that, for a house with a weekly rental of $400, that is lost rent or rental arrears of $3,000 before the matter is actually heard by the Residential Tenancies Tribunal. I know we have bonds in place and so on, but there may still be some rent arrears lost because of the delays in service delivery of the Consumer and Business Services agency.

I have had a look at the budget, and we all know that part of the budget papers talks about highlights and targets. I would have thought, given the less than satisfactory or poor service delivery of Consumer and Business Services in both the occupational licensing services and the residential tenancies areas, that the 2012-13 targets might have covered the fact that there should be an improvement in service delivery. I would have thought that there may have been some performance measures under those headings of 'Targets' or some benchmarks to assess the agency's performance on a sustainable basis.

What do we see? Under Residential Tenancies we have: 'Targets 2012-13: develop and implement an online bond processing and inquiry system.' That all sounds very good. However, I suggest that that sentence could have gone on to say 'to improve service delivery by a measure of 10 per cent'. There might have been some quantitative measure of an improvement in service delivery. However, there is no such thing.

I also notice in the budget figures that there is a progressive reduction in FTEs under a number of these sub-programs. I presume that is a consequence of the government's decision to amalgamate the two agencies of the Office of Consumer and Business Affairs and the Office of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner. That was a recommendation of the Sustainable Budget Commission. I notice that, overall, there is a reduction in FTEs.

For the Residential Tenancies Tribunal, the estimated result from 2011-12 was 62.1 and in the 2013-14 budget it is 59.9. In occupational licensing services, we see that in the 2011-12 budget it was 28.8 and then an estimated result of 18.8. I do not know whether that is a typographic error or not, because in the 2012-13 budget it bumps back up to 28. The minister may like to clarify that at some point. In compliance and enforcement, we see an FTE reduction of about seven, and so on. My understanding is that is a consequence of the outcome of the Sustainable Budget Commission's recommendation, where the overall number of FTEs was to reduce as a consequence of the amalgamation of those two agencies.

In relation to its comments concerning the Residential Tenancies Tribunal, I know the minister has put out the discussion paper on proposed reforms to the act. However, those proposed reforms, unless I am mistaken, do not talk much about improving the performance of the agency. If you look through the paper—and I have read it and highlighted a number of points—it does not really look to address the performance of the agency. When I talk to people in the industry, that is where the majority of problems occur. As I have stated before, historically there has been an appalling level of customer service.

I understand the minister has taken some measures to improve that delivery of service, but I want to be reassured by the minister that that is on a sustainable basis and that they are not just pulling staff from one area within CBS and plonking them in an area of crisis, as we saw in the occupational licensing services and also in the Residential Tenancies Tribunal areas. I do not want to think they are just pushing staff here and there to meet crisis points and, once that has been met and the crisis has been dealt with, those staff go back to their normal role. I want to see an improvement in service delivery and the level of service delivery on a sustainable basis. I would like the minister to be able to assure me and the house that that will be achieved.

Turning to program 4 in the budget papers, headed Liquor Regulatory Services, I note that there have been some developments in the last 24 hours or so in relation to this area. It was part of last year's budget that the government made the announcement that there would be the introduction of a liquor licensing fee, totalling some $3.6 million in income. Whether you call it a fee or whatever, it is a tax, a new tax introduced by the highest taxing government in the country. So, do not let anybody have any misunderstanding of this: this is a new tax by this government on this particular industry.

That is factored into the budget. You can actually see under the income heading 'Fees fines, penalties' that the actual for 2010-11 was $1.3 million, the 2011-12 budget jumped up to $4.7 million, the estimated result was $4.7 million and the budget for this year is $4.9 million or thereabouts as a consequence of the $3.6 million from this new liquor licensing fee.

The minister made an announcement yesterday to actually reduce the impact of these fees on licensed premises, and I know that is welcomed by the industry. But the point I want to make is that there seems to be a pattern emerging here in relation to how the minister is managing this particular area of his responsibility: matters have to get to a crisis point before he acts. He has been reactive instead of proactive.

We have seen that the service delivery in the Residential Tenancies Tribunal area was appalling. The service delivery in the occupational licensing area in terms of trade licences and so on was appalling, and I have highlighted previously in the house that the minister's own staff even made a comment to one of my staff that the treatment of a particular tradesman was appalling with regard to how the agency had been dealing with that particular person's issues.

In relation to the liquor licensing fee issue, the industry had to make the strongest representation to the minister, and no doubt the Premier, to see some changes brought about to the liquor licensing fee regime. I would like to know what consultation the minister undertook with that particular part of the industry, being the small bars and clubs that open after 2am in the city and around the CBD and, no doubt, the suburbs.

I know there was some consultation with the AHA and with the restaurant and catering association, but I want to know what consultation was undertaken with the other part of the industry, being the small bars and clubs, because you could argue that it had to get to a crisis point. The paperwork was sent out only a number of weeks ago to all businesses that hold liquor licences to advise them of what their new fees would be and, as we know, there was this massive backlash from that section of the industry to the Premier's office and the Minister for Business Services and Consumers on the effect that fee structure would have on their businesses. It was actually going to be the knock-out blow.

The Premier wants a vibrant city with live music venues, small bars, clubs and so on, but the Deputy Premier's new tax was going to be the death of them, and I know they made a very strong representation. The minister needs to understand what consultation is all about. He took an enormous amount of time. It took time to send out the details relating to the fee schedules and so on, but as I said, what was the consultation that took place prior to that? Clearly, it went pear-shaped when the fee notices were issued, but is there a disconnect? That is the question. Is there a disconnect between the Premier's office and the Deputy Premier's office?

As I said, the Premier has come out in support of a vibrant city supporting establishment and the reduction of red tape and so on, so we can see these smaller bars and other venues being established for live music and other cultural activity. The Premier is fully in support of that, but the Deputy Premier (the Minister for Business Services and Consumers) imposes a fee regime which is going to bring about the death of those businesses. So, is there a disconnect, is there a lack of communication between those two offices? That is a question I would like to ask and I would like either the Premier or the Deputy Premier to answer that.

The clock is winding down and I know my colleague would like to make some comments before the luncheon break, so those are some of the issues that I wanted to highlight in relation to the budget. There are many more that I want to talk about as well and I will look to explore those in the next short period of time.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (12:44): Mr Deputy Speaker, each morning in this place, from the chair that you occupy, the Speaker asks us, collectively, to consider the true welfare of the people of this state. I put it to you today that this Labor government is not doing that. Unfortunately, it is yet another selfish budget. It is not about the welfare of this state, it is about them. The key figures and economic indicators in this budget illustrate the dire position of South Australia's finances. Unfortunately, the blame lies squarely at the feet of the Weatherill Labor government, after a decade of economic mismanagement.

This is what we face. These figures have been run through before in this place, but it is worth reconsidering them. For all the journalists who trawl Hansard and all the papers throughout South Australia that pick up contributions by their various members, people need to be reminded and people need to know what this Labor government is getting this state into.

We are looking at a $13 billion debt forecast by 2015-16; that will be the biggest debt in South Australia's history. We are looking at a deficit of $867 million for 2012-13; that will be the biggest deficit in South Australia's history and will be followed by a predicted $778 million deficit in 2013-14—big numbers. A surplus is predicted by the Treasurer in 2015-16, but I do not think anybody realistically believes that will occur under this government.

The state's AAA credit rating has been lost; it is now AA+, and this is after the previous Liberal government did all those hard yards to restore the state's AAA credit rating when Labor lost it after the State Bank debacle. It is so predictable. Everybody in this state, and indeed everybody around Australia, knows how predictable it is. Labor parties and Labor governments run up the debts. When they are in power, they continue to overspend, they spend more than their income and they run up the debt. Eventually, people see the light, vote them out of office, and the Liberal Party comes to office and has to reclaim the state's finances.

A recent piece in the Financial Review referred to a figure of $22 million in extra interest per year on a debt of $9 billion as a result of losing the AAA credit rating. It is not over the top to say these figures are truly shocking. The most telling figure of all (the member for Davenport has been using this, and rather than talk in billions he brings it back to millions, which are much better understood by most people) is $4 million per day in extra borrowings—each and every day an extra $4 million.

The electorate of Flinders is an inherently positive place and full of hardworking and down-to-earth people. Sadly, nobody on Eyre Peninsula, the West Coast or around the state is immune to the impacts of this government's economic ineptitude. As my leader quite rightly pointed out, if you drive a vehicle, if you pay for water, if you own a business, if you pay insurance, if you are buying a property or you are renting, then you are worse off as a result of this budget. I think that is just about everybody, isn't it? Have we covered everybody? If you drive a vehicle, pay for water, own a business, pay insurance, buy or rent, you are worse off—that is everybody. I do not think we have missed anybody.

Each year I have stood in this place to make a contribution on the Appropriation Bill I have lamented the manner in which the government has handled the state's finances. This year is particularly galling, and there is no relief in sight for families and pensioners facing increasing costs of living, while businesses suffer as a result of South Australia becoming the highest taxed state in the nation. Business must do well, as must small business, which we have said time and time again is the backbone of the economy, but big business must also do well.

The role of government, I firmly believe, is to provide basic services to society, but it also needs to provide the framework in which business can operate. Quite simply, that is not happening. So prohibitive are the regulations and the red tape that are in place that business is finding it difficult to operate productively or in a way that is financially healthy. Electricity prices are set to become the world's highest, and water prices are set to become the highest in any Australian capital. A lot of that is not about the price of water but the government charges and administration fees that go with the water bill.

Taxes will rise by $1 billion over the next four years, so it is clear to me that this government has ignored the warnings from the Auditor-General about such expenses, and former treasurer Kevin Foley admitted as much. He quite candidly stated that this government has an expenses problem not a revenue problem. Keep in mind that he was referring to a cabinet in which the current Premier has sat in since they came to power and a cabinet in which the current Treasurer (Snelling) has been a part of also. I put it to you that they simply cannot wash their hands of all this and blame Mike Rann and Kevin Foley. In fact, the new Premier and the new Treasurer respectively have been intimately involved in the decision-making process for a long time now.

There have been some meagre attempts to rein in spending. I guess it was the low-hanging fruit, the easy targets, which were the first to go—such projects as the Integrated Design Commission and the Thinkers in Residence program—programs that you could argue did not deliver very much at all to this state. I have a friend and neighbour who could be the thinker in residence and he would not charge anywhere like what the program has cost. The big ticket items, the ones in which the contracts are already let—the desal plant, the Adelaide Oval, the Royal Adelaide Hospital—are why the debt is blowing out and why we will be paying that debt for a long time to come.

I will briefly turn to some of the major issues affecting the seat of Flinders and one which is top of mind and is always top of mind is that of water. Water security is always very important for the critical human needs on the Eyre Peninsula and out on the West Coast, and it is very important that the water resources are sustainable for the agricultural industry—indeed, all industries and people in the region.

It is very concerning for me to see businesses and consumers hit with rising water prices over time. The unnecessary doubling of the capacity of the $2.2 billion Adelaide Desalination Plant has clearly had an impact on both the state budget and, as a result, households. It is my firm belief that the government panicked at the time and built the desal plant to double the capacity that was really required by this state. My dad farmed for a long time and he said that when it hasn't rained for a while, you always think it is never going to rain again—but of course it always does.

Mr Goldsworthy: It always rains after a long dry spell.

Mr TRELOAR: You are quite right, member for Kavel. It always rains after a long dry spell. Since 2002 water bills have been up 249 per cent and, since that desal plant that I have just referred to was announced, water bills have risen by a massive 176 per cent. This really hurts water consumers. Everybody in the state uses water, everybody in the state pays for water. The government cannot hide from the fact that this year's 25 per cent hike comes on top of annual increases over the last four years of 16 per cent, 21 per cent, 25 per cent and 40 per cent respectively.

As I said, it is frustrating to the residents of Eyre Peninsula and the West Coast when you consider that some parts of the region are not reliant on Murray water. We are still seeking clarification from the minister as to whom will be required to continue to pay the River Murray levy. My hope is that there will be parts of Eyre Peninsula that will be no longer required to pay that levy. We are still seeking clarification on that.

One issue that comes across my desk often is the price of water as it relates to livestock management. Essentially most of Eyre Peninsula is wheat/sheep or grain cropping and mixed farming. Sheep are the main livestock. The cost of carrying just one head of livestock through the summer through the water it drinks is quite considerable, so much so that people are talking about it making the whole enterprise unviable. It would be a sad day, considering that most of the cost of water is in government charges, levies and administration costs.

There was a time in this place way back in 2002 when the current government indicated to this house that they would be building a desalination plant on Eyre Peninsula. That was stated in 2002 and, in fact, the Hansard of the time indicates that that promise was written in blood. In fact, we have seen no desal plant built on Eyre Peninsula; it does not look like it is any closer at this point. I suggest to the government very strongly that something needs to happen to supplement Eyre Peninsula's water supply in the very near future.

On top of these increases to water bills are the skyrocketing electricity prices. In fact, as mentioned by several members on this side, electricity prices are set to become the world's highest. I suspect that the former premier Mike Rann's borderline obsession with wind power has not helped the situation. One of the many infrastructure areas in which this state is deficient is in the carrying capacity of our electricity lines.

Believe it or not, there are factories on the outskirts of Port Lincoln where they are wanting to install new freezers and cannot. Even though they can see in the distance the wind power generators at Cathedral Rocks, there is not the capacity to deliver that power into Port Lincoln. They cannot install up-to-date and modern equipment because they simply have not got the supply of electricity to their businesses. It is an extraordinary situation.

These increases in prices are tangible for consumers and they are really feeling hit in the hip pocket. Businesses suffer as well. It makes it so much harder to make a go of it and turn a profit when your costs are going up and up. Businesses need to be competitive. I will say time and time again that we do not operate in a bubble, we do not operate in isolation here in South Australia: we operate in a world market. The economy now is global and our businesses need to be competitive.

This government does not seem to understand this. The amount of regulation and red tape—and I put that phrase to you again—that is put in front of businesses and the hurdles they have to jump are quite extraordinary and impact on their ability to do business. To cap that all off, we have a federal Labor government introducing the carbon tax.

As we have heard in question time recently, and in several articles in The Advertiser, the impact of the carbon tax on the government's expenses will be significant even though they have suggested otherwise. The member for Bragg has recently obtained government briefing papers that reveal that the transport department's carbon tax will be $15 million—that is the bill. It all mounts up.

It has also been revealed that the carbon tax will force public transport fares to go up. It is staggering that the Premier, the transport minister, the Treasurer—you name them; the state Labor ministers generally—are tripping over themselves to state their support for the Gillard government's carbon tax. It is quite unbelievable that they would not stick up for South Australia's interests, because there is no escaping the fact that this carbon tax will hurt people.

Rex Airlines flies a regional service into Port Lincoln. I use them often and it is the preferred way of commuting between Port Lincoln and Adelaide for many residents now. Rex has recently indicated that the increase in costs they will be facing as a result of the carbon tax will be around $6.5 million. Consumers will pay for that and all of this is compounded by increased transport costs, about which I have spoken many times in this place.

Transport operators will be hit by a $45 million carbon tax bill and it is a very pertinent issue for operators in Flinders who, once again, must pass on these costs to consumers. So, right through this budget, right through the carbon tax fiasco, the consumers are the ones who lose. Even something as innocuous as getting your car's air conditioning unit serviced will result in increased costs due to the carbon tax, according to the Motor Trade Association.

The member for Finniss spoke briefly about marine parks. Actually, he did not speak briefly: he spoke at length about marine parks. What I will probably do is take the opportunity to speak about that more during the next part of the debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. I understand time is in short supply.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are seeking leave to—

Mr TRELOAR: No, I will not seek leave. I will wind up my comments there, but I will have the opportunity, as I understand, to speak later this week on marine parks.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. C.C. Fox.

[Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:01]