APPROPRIATION BILL 2013

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:40): Illustrative of the government's incompetence that I had outlined in respect of the Appropriation Bill and, in particular, the mismanagement of the finances of this state, was the rail electrification project to Gawler. Members will recall that in 2010 the state Labor Party promised South Australians that there would be an electric train service to Gawler by 2013.

An honourable member interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: If you were to rule, sir, that I have already spoken to the 20 minute debate and sit me down, then I think that others might want to continue the debate and I will make some comments later. I invite you to sit me down—a once-in-a-lifetime!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, if you would sit down, that would be appreciated. We will now look to the government side and we have got the member for Mitchell.

Mr SIBBONS (Mitchell) (15:42): Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. I am very proud to be a member of a Labor government that has again delivered a responsible and carefully considered state budget with a focus on the things that are most important to South Australians: health, education, housing, and perhaps, most importantly of all, jobs.

A secure job is a very important part of our life. It means we can earn a reliable income to pay the bills, feed the family and keep a roof over our heads. A secure job enables us to be active contributors to the world we live in and provides us with an opportunity to learn new skills. It often provides a social network on which we rely and by which we can learn safety, tolerance, cooperation and teamwork.

Given that most Australians spend more time each week with their workmates than they do with their families, a secure job is very important to our general health and wellbeing. Therefore, any mass redundancies are obviously painful whether it is public servants, finance sector workers or vehicle builders—it hurts us all. It hurts the people themselves, their families and their communities. It hits them in the hip pocket and in the heart at the same time. It is devastating and the choice for South Australians is becoming clearer and clearer every day when it comes to who is looking out for their jobs.

Our big build investment in major infrastructure projects designed to a world-class standard is done right the first time and continues to keep South Australians in jobs. The budget sees investment in roads, rail lines and other works to improve public infrastructure which will support 8,700 jobs in the next financial year alone—not like the legacy of those opposite, their idea of infrastructure investment being a half-baked, half-funded, one-way expressway.

This budget extends the $8,500 housing construction grant and enables an affordable housing program. This not only supports jobs for local tradies and contractors but also improves the opportunity for South Australians to realise the dream of owning their own home.

There is also a package to support small businesses, including tax cuts, red tape reduction and assistance to win more government work. This pays real dividends for local businesses. I recently met with a local manufacturer whose business has grown and now employs 30 people, tendering and winning contracts for both the Adelaide Oval and the Tonsley redevelopment. This government does not take the slash and burn approach so favoured by the Liberal Party as a quick, unimaginative and cutthroat way to save a quid by forcing people out of their jobs. You only have to look at Queensland to see the massive cuts in Public Service numbers and the resulting reduction in frontline services. That is the modus operandi for Liberal state budgeting.

Then there is the contrast between Labor and Liberal on manufacturing. The state government is investing in helping the South Australian industry develop and transition their businesses to capitalise on niche markets using advanced manufacturing. Advanced manufacturing is generally thought of as highly skilled, highly valued, most certainly involving technology, and the creation of value-added processing to provide a competitive edge. The state government's advanced manufacturing priority has been supported in this budget with a package of measures to assist with the transition to an advanced manufacturing future.

Then there is the future of our automotive manufacturing sector here in South Australia. Nearly all of my working life has been spent working in the car industry. I have experienced firsthand the shattering effects of a vehicle manufacturer exiting the country and the economic and social price that is paid. Without government support, the Australian vehicle industry is destined for a slow and inevitable decline, and thousands of vehicle workers and their families will continue to live and work under a cloud of employment insecurity.

We need to be honest about whether we actually want to sustain automotive manufacturing in this country. There is one simple truth about this sector: without industry support from government and without the appropriate policy setting in place you will not have a vehicle manufacturing sector. This is a global certainty and an economic reality.

Every single country in the world that builds cars provides government assistance to its automotive industry. Of the 13 nations that have the capacity to design and build automobiles, each and every one of their governments provides industry support through tariffs, direct support, coinvestment and non-tariff trade barriers. Without similar government support to our Australian vehicle industry the sector will continue to decline.

The federal Liberal Party recently announced that it will take an axe to the current industry support coinvestment platform to support Holden until 2022. Their spokesman, Ms Mirabella, has said that we must end all subsidies to prop up the car industry. Funnily enough, this echoes former Liberal leader John Hewson's statement to the auto sector back in the early 1990s that, 'If you need tariffs and subsidies to survive then I don't want an automotive industry.'

The state Liberals have defended their federal counterparts and have offered no commitment to Holden, other than the establishment of an automotive task force. The federal Liberals will set up another review of the sector within the Productivity Commission. However, this is time for action rather than words, and the Liberal's position is as plain as the nose on your face. They are content to sit back and let the automotive manufacturing sector wither and die. They will not provide government support, and there is not a country in the world making a car that does not have government support.

An estimated 16,000 South Australians will lose their livelihoods if Holden's shut down. That is what reducing industry support will do. That is what the Liberals are offering the South Australian people. Adelaide's manufacturing suburbs are also home to nearly half of the people who are unemployed or on disability pensions. So, the closure of Holden's would also economically devastate some of our most vulnerable communities.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr SIBBONS: If the choice is industry support or bust, the Liberals say 'bust'. Given this is the same party which wanted to sit back, do nothing, and wait and see what happened, when the global financial crisis hit, rather than move to protect jobs and our economy, it is hardly a surprising attitude. But what is the alternative? The answer is industry support, something that the state and federal Labor governments are offering. Dr Remy Davison, the Jean Monnet Chair in Politics and Economics at Monash University, notes—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr SIBBONS: He notes this:

No country has ever become a developed industrial economy without an auto industry. Not even Switzerland. From Belgium, to the Netherlands, to China, the employment, skills and export potentialities associated with car production are enormous. That's why South Korea under Park Chung-hee in the 1970s invested heavily in auto production. South Korean car imports surpassed Japanese imports in Australia in the 2000s. That's also why Indonesia and Malaysia in the 1990s sought to build and develop their own car industries. It's also why China places so much emphasis upon its own auto industry as an avenue for employment growth, foreign joint ventures, direct investment and technology transfer.

Dr Remy suggests that we remove or cut GST on locally made vehicles; reduce registration costs for locally made vehicles exclusively; increase R&D tax credits for local car manufacturers and automotive components firms; and introduce significant tax credits for exports and technology licensing.

I also believe that there is merit in looking at significantly increasing the tariff on all imported vehicles. As an incentive for Australian vehicle manufacturers, the tariff should be reduced significantly or even removed for companies that manufacture a minimum of 50,000 vehicles per year on Australian soil. This would give the remaining manufacturers at least a sporting chance. It might even lead to Ford reconsidering its decision to shut down Geelong, although I feel it is too late.

A research paper from the University of Melbourne, entitled 100 Years of Tariff Protection in Australia, says that tariffs have occupied as much time in parliamentary debate as almost any other topic. As an economic tool, I acknowledge they are a blunt instrument. However, they do make a difference, and economic modelling by Latera Economics in 2008 showed that reducing tariffs below 10 per cent would do more harm to Australia's economy than good. I acknowledge that tariffs alone will not have the necessary impacts unless they are just one aspect of a broader industry support package.

But we must completely understand the underlying value that an auto sector really contributes to our economy. ABS Labor force figures from march this year show that vehicle manufacturing accounts for more than 50,000 jobs across Australia, with another 260,000-plus people employed in associated industries such as automotive parts retail and wholesaling. Indirectly, the job head count this industry supports is even higher.

The multiplier effects of this sector's investment and turnover upon Australia's economy is significant. There are more than 110,000 businesses in the Australian automotive sector. The annual turnover in the Australian automotive industry exceeds $160 billion. The industry pays more than $10 billion in tax to Australian governments each year and is the largest contributor to manufacturing, research and development within Australia, investing around $668 million in 2009-10.

There is also a training and skills factor that has a spillover benefit for other major industries, including the defence, mining and aerospace sector. Dr Remy notes that auto manufacturing generates a skills base comprising mechanical, process and materials engineering, fluid mechanics, CAD/CAM designers, welders, and fitters and turners, alongside specialisations in chassis systems and lubrication products. So, if we lose automotive manufacturing, we inevitably also lose skills that are transferable to other key industries in South Australia such as mining and defence.

When we lose the capacity to make cars, what other manufacturing might we be losing into the bargain? Will defence manufacturing and mining suffer as a result of the lack of training and skills? How will manufacturing research and development fare with the loss of its most significant investor? The automotive sector drives demand, sustains capabilities and stimulates innovation across the manufacturing sector. Once these manufacturing capabilities are lost, they are lost for good.

Our competitors in the automotive sector are actively protecting their car industries as much as they possibly can. Australian government support is minimal compared to that of our competitors. In the US, both the Bush and Obama administrations have thrown billions into the auto industry, effectively saving both GM and Chrysler from bankruptcy. Billions more in subsidies have been given in the form of sales tax relief and partial tax deductibility for locally produced vehicles.

Japan subsidises green auto technologies and has employed many non-tariff barriers to make foreign market entry into Japan's auto sector difficult. China only does joint ventures, and the EU uses a state aid system to subsidise its auto sector across 27 countries. Thailand, also known as the Detroit of Asia, has taken a deliberate policy to support and attract automotive manufacturing to Thailand. An example is offering a new manufacturer generous tax and import concessions in return for agreed minimum quotas of locally manufactured vehicles.

So our competitors are not arguing about industry and government support. On the contrary, they are doing everything within their power to ensure they hold onto their auto sector. Yet, here in Australia, we continue to debate the benefits of industry support by government, while the Liberal Party advocates abandoning it entirely.

Another recent red herring once again being tossed into this debate is that the cost of labour within Australia makes it unpalatable for the automotive sector to manufacture here. That's just rubbish, and we need to get some facts on the table. Wages contribute approximately 15 per cent to the total cost of vehicle manufacturing in this country. This is not a significant percentage in terms of overall cost.

Holden workers are currently on a wage agreement that provides a 3 per cent wage increase per year for three years. This is on the back of incredible labour adjustment due to the GFC that hit them a few years back. ABS statistics from November 2012 tell us the average full-time adult annual earnings were $72,436 per year. The majority of Holden workers are at or below the average weekly wage.

Car manufacturers do not set up shop—or, indeed, go offshore—because of labour costs. They set up shop because of domestic market share, export potential and government support. The facts before us right now are very, very simple. A Liberal government will dump $500 million worth of targeted industry support that has been negotiated with our car industry, including a coinvestment by GM Holden of more than $1 billion into its Australian operations.

Under a Liberal government GM will close its doors and 16,000 South Australians will lose their jobs. It will be a final death blow to a sector already challenged by the global economic climate and with increasing protectionism from our competitors our car industry will be lost once and for all. Under a Liberal government future generations will never have the opportunity to purchase a car that was proudly built on Australian soil by Australian workers. That is the simple and plain truth. This budget, like this Labor government, invests in jobs, opportunities, skills, and a manufacturing future—the opposite do not.

Bill read a second time.

Estimates Committees

The Hon. T.R. KENYON (Newland—Minister for Manufacturing, Innovation and Trade, Minister for Small Business) (16:00): I move:

That this bill be referred to estimates committees.

Motion carried.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON (Newland—Minister for Manufacturing, Innovation and Trade, Minister for Small Business) (16:00): By leave, I move:

That a message be sent to the Legislative Council requesting that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries (Hon. G.E. Gago) and the minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation (Hon. I.K. Hunter), members of the Legislative Council, be permitted to attend and give evidence before the estimates committees of the House of Assembly on the Appropriation Bill.

Motion carried.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: I note the suggestions from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don't let them interrupt you!

The Hon. T.R. KENYON (Newland—Minister for Manufacturing, Innovation and Trade, Minister for Small Business) (16:01): I won't move them but they should be worthy of consideration by the house at a later point. I move:

That the house note grievances.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:01): I will continue some comments in relation to the Appropriation Bill 2013. Illustrative of the government's financial incompetence was my reference to the rail electrification to Gawler project. Members will recall that in 2010 the Labor Party promised that there would be electrified trains to Gawler by 2013. Well, here we are and, of course, we haven't got them—what went wrong?

Last year, in 2012, after some $400 million had been spent on train upgrades to the north, including resleepering and the like, the government announced in its budget that it had run out of money—I paraphrase that by saying that they would need to defer the rail electrification to Gawler and that they would have savings of some $315 million by delaying it. It was not an abandonment, it was a delay.

The government then went through about an eight-month process of having to try to negotiate with minister Albanese to keep its money. It was required to be sent back, and I think over $40 million was ordered to be returned. This year they have announced that they are going to not restore the project. Having put up poles without their wires out north and abandoned the project last year, this year they announce that $152 million in the budget is to electrify the railway to Dry Creek.

You would have thought there might have been some enthusiasm from people in the north in thinking perhaps it was on its way. Well, here's the reality: the reality is that depot that the government had redeveloped at Dry Creek was necessary in order to be able to service the electric trains running on the Noarlunga line and, of course, they have to get to Dry Creek.

Some absolute genius in the department has presumably gone to the minister and said, 'Well, actually, minister, we are going to have to electrify the line from Adelaide to Dry Creek otherwise we have to tow the trains by diesel train up to Dry Creek to be maintained and serviced or, alternatively, build another (at enormous cost) in the south to do that.'

So we have this rather humiliating situation where the government, having built half the project, abandoned it and then said it would do a bit more—having left poles in the air—we now have the people in the north not getting their electrified rail service to Gawler any sooner but, in fact, will have the hideous situation of having to watch trains go back and forth across to Dry Creek from Adelaide—from a spot at Mawson Lakes or somewhere there in the north—and see trains go back and forth but, of course, not being available for passenger delivery. The other concerning aspect of this project is that yesterday, when I asked about the total cost of electrifying the Gawler rail line, the Minister for Transport said:

That project is not in the budget and the government has no plans to go all the way to Gawler, so I do not have up-to-date figures.

That is almost unbelievable, to think it is a multimillion dollar project and the Minister for Transport does not even know what the total cost is to do it. Why would you make a decision to even do the Adelaide to Dry Creek section, with an indication that there would be further work done at a later time, and leave that available, without having some idea of the total value? Of course, suffice to say, we are back here today—no mention of what that total price is.

It is inconsistent, I would have to say, with statements that have been made by the Premier since the budget announcements, which have confirmed repeatedly that the government does have plans to proceed with it. The people of South Australia clearly need to know what is going on. Of course, we are no closer to being able to identify anything about this project. Members may not be surprised to hear that, yet again, under freedom of information, we have been denied any timely provision of information on this particular project.

Some months ago, I FOI'd the reports prepared in respect of reviews of the rail electrification that included reports prepared by Interfleet on that process. The response from the department was that they would need an extension of time of some months to find one particular report—one report. Further inquiry indicated that that would be needed. That was referred to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman agreed with us that it was perfectly reasonable for them to go down to wherever they store their reports—on a computer or in the basement somewhere—and deliver the report in a reasonable time. They still did not do it.

Those months now, that they said that they needed, have expired. They still have not produced the report and, of course, we will go through the usual process of lodging a review et al. Months later, on a current project that the government and, apparently, the cabinet have already signed off on to do—they actually started and cancelled it and restarted a bit of it—we are still denied access to this information.

We were not provided with information in a timely manner either by the minister in this place, either by inquiry by correspondence, either by the timely response to questions—and I notice from the Minister for Transport Services I got answers to questions that we asked in November last year that were tabled here today—nor, indeed, through the FOI process.

The denial of some reasonable access to information is very concerning, and it is heightened by the fact that just recently I had reported to me—it is interesting the information that comes to the fore to the opposition—that the new tactic of the department, allegedly under the instruction of the minister's office (you start to wonder who is running the show here), is that the way to thwart Vickie Chapman's FOI applications is to stamp them with the stamp 'draft'. That will stop her from being able to get access to that information.

I have had every trick in the book. I continue to go to the District Court. With the District Court, I am pleased to say, and the Ombudsman I think we have had many more wins than we have had losses; but I will say this: every trick in the book. I even had an application for an FOI rejected on the basis that it would compromise Aboriginal heritage, after putting in writing in the initial application that there would be no such attempt whatsoever to interfere with that.

I made a simple inquiry as to what protection that alleged information had had from other members of the department reading it. It was like the Hindmarsh Bridge all over again—the secret letters, who read it, and who did not read it, all designed to stop getting information, in that instance, about child protection on the APY lands and the alleged drug abuse in those circumstances. That data was rejected on the basis of it being in breach of Aboriginal cultural interests. I have had every trick in the book thrown at me about the information and it is not acceptable that, as a representative in the parliament, this sort of tactic is used to try to subvert any reasonable information to the public.

To give you a second illustration closer to home: for 11 years I have been in this parliament and for 11 years I have been going to the government to say, 'You need to sort out the Britannia roundabout.' It is a traffic nightmare. RAA put it at No. 1 on its recent Risky Roads survey. There is something like 59,000 cars a day that go through it and there are 60 plus accidents a year, on average. It is clearly a road safety hazard. We all know that. So, what happens? They come up with the twin circle solution this year—the cheap option. I should be grateful we got something, I suppose, because, regrettably, the former minister for transport's twin signal proposal was dumped by the minister now member for Elder.

I should be grateful that something is being done. Signage alone will surely help the safety aspects there. What is extraordinary is that, each year I write to whoever is the minister for transport and ask for regular briefings and, until a couple of years ago, I was given regular briefings. The last correspondence I received in December of last year from the then minister for transport now member for Elder, was, essentially, 'We are still working on it. We are looking at overways. We are looking at grade separation. We are looking at a whole lot of projects.' He did not mention anything about a twin circle solution.

Mr Hook has told us publicly on the radio that it just popped up as an idea from some engineer and was sort of thrown into the mix. That is totally inconsistent with information given to me by the former transport minister in correspondence in December of last year, and guess what? 'No, we are not going to be giving you a briefing in relation to what is happening in your electorate. We are not going to tell you what is happening, because we have not made any decision about what work we are going to do yet', and the allegation in the correspondence that that could be misused or misinterpreted.

This is the new government tactic: not to let anybody know what is going on in their own electorate. Recently, when I put questions to the Minister for Transport on upgrades in the electorate, I was given the same answer. It is not acceptable that we have that information concealed from the public.

Time expired.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (16:11): I want to make some comment in my grievance debate about the government response to the budget, in particular the contributions by the heavy hitters, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Transport. It was sort of the Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis response to the budget, and I want to explain why I would make that reflection.

The Minister for Finance came in and essentially read, on my understanding, a summary of an article that was in the Australian Financial Review some time ago. I read the same article. It was about a group of economists who had a particular view about what has and has not worked in Europe. I think the government itself has said at times that, the problem with getting 10 economists in the room is you get 11 opinions. So, while I appreciate the minister coming in and putting on the table his view about why that particular economic report might be of value, I would much rather look at what the Minister for Finance is actually saying. What he is really saying is this: 'Don't worry South Australia, we can afford to do what we're doing, everything is okay'.

I just want to reflect on where we are. What this government has delivered is this: it has delivered the highest debt in the state's history. It has delivered the highest deficit in the state's history. We are the highest taxed state in Australia. The business community has the highest WorkCover levy in Australia. We have the highest electricity prices in Australia. We have the highest capital city water prices in Australia. South Australia, according to the Queensland Audit Commission, pays the highest amount on its interest in Australia.

What the Minister for Finance is saying is, 'Don't worry South Australia. Your cost of living might go through the roof. You might have the highest taxes in Australia, highest water prices, high electricity prices, highest WorkCover prices, but don't worry it's all under control.' What he cannot answer is this: if it is all under control why has the government announced a $949 million cut to health? Why have they done that if things are under control? Why has the government announced a $250 million cut to education, and why has the government announced a $150 million cut to police?

The government cannot have it both ways. If everything is under control, why are they cutting $1 billion out of health, why are they cutting $250 million out of education and why are they cutting $150 million out of police? The answer to that question is simply this: they have mismanaged the budget.

Only yesterday, the Treasurer came in and had to correct his own budget, this year's budget, increasing the amount the government overspent to $637 million. It was not a revenue problem this year. This year, all the government had to do was spend what it budgeted to spend and this state would have been $637 million better off—that is an Adelaide Oval project.

The poor old Minister for Finance comes in. It was a magnificent economic theory out of a Financial Review, based on an international report, but let us go back to what the Minister for Finance himself said about his own state management of the finances. What the Minister for Finance said, as told to The Australian, is this:

We are actually having to borrow to pay wages...that is unsustainable...We are in a position as a government if we were being financed by the banks, they would pull the overdraft on us because we are currently, year on year, operating in the red.

That was not Her Majesty's loyal opposition, that was not some economist examining the European market: that was the now Minister for Finance commenting on his own government's budget management.

My suggestion to the government is they concentrate more on budget management and less on the Financial Review, because they have run six deficits in seven years—a total budget deficit of $3,000 million just on the operational side of the budget. Don't worry about the capital, don't worry about the Southern Expressway or the superhighway or the desal plant or Adelaide Oval, that is on the other side of the budget. Just on the departmental side of the budget, the operational side of the budget, this government has overspent by $3,000 million.

The Minister for Finance says, 'Don't worry. We have only overspent by $3,000 million, but we've got the right model.' Well, if people out there want to know why their water price is so high, why the price of their driver's licence and why the price of their car registrations are so high—why do you think they are all too high?—it is because the government has to charge higher taxes to recoup the interest on our debt.

We have a bigger debt now than at any time in our state's history, and we are going to be paying as a state $952 million a year in interest—that is more than we are going to pay the police. It is more than the police budget. Commissioner Burns wishes he was the bank interest line. He would have another $60 million or $70 million in his police budget. What the Minister for Finance wants us to believe is that they are such good managers and that it is good management to spend more on interest than on the police budget.

The other heavy hitter I want to talk about today and respond to is the infamous Minister for Transport, who is running around with a scare campaign saying, 'Will you rule this out? Will you rule that out?' All I want the Minister for Transport to do is explain why the government cannot keep a promise. Why can they not keep a promise?

They have promised a surplus in every budget, and they have delivered deficits. They have promised $2.6 billion in surpluses; they have delivered $2.4 billion in deficits. They promised seven budget surpluses; they have delivered six budget deficits. They promised to keep the AAA credit rating; they have deliberately lost the AAA credit rating. They promised not to run up a credit card debt; we have got the highest debt in the state's history. They promised that South Australia would be a different place when BHP expanded and, of course, they could not deliver the deal. They promised no more privatisations on that famous pledge card given to every South Australia and, guess what, they have sold the Lotteries, they have sold the forests.

They promised cheaper electricity prices, and we now have the highest electricity rates in the world. They promised no more increases in water prices, and water prices have gone up 249 per cent. They promised Adelaide Oval would cost $450 million and not a cent more; that project is well north of $600 million. They promised the new Royal Adelaide Hospital would be $1.7 billion; it is adding $2.8 billion to our debt.

They announced a prisons PPP project and, guess what, they scrapped it. Then they promised the expansion of the Mount Bold Reservoir and, guess what, they scrapped that. Then they promised the Sturt Road-South Road overpass in the 2006 election and, just in case we missed it, they promised it again in the 2010 election and, guess what, they have not scrapped that once, they have scrapped it twice.

Then they announced the Grange Road-Port Road-South Road upgrade, a $122 million tunnel; they scrapped that because they were going to do the Darlington end of South Road. Then when Tony Abbott announced the Darlington end of South Road, guess what, they scrapped that and ran back to the other end of South Road and said, 'Now we've cancelled that. We were going to do this, we'll cancel that, and now we're going to do this at that end.'

Honestly, can this government keep a promise? They announced the Darlington interchange, and they cancelled it. They said that there is no way that South Australia needed an ICAC and, guess what, we've got one. They said that South Australia did not need a desal plant and, guess what, we've got a really, really big one. So, the only question I want the Minister for Transport to answer, the only question the media have to ask him every time he pops his head up with a scare campaign is: why can't this government keep a promise?

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (16:21): Gee whiz, the shadow treasurer has just brought out a corker.

Mr Gardner: It's a warm-up.

Mr WHETSTONE: It's a warm-up! I would like to continue my remarks on the Appropriation Bill. Yesterday, I was cut short as I had just started talking about the lack of budget support for rural roads. Rural roads are almost the artery for infrastructure and commodity movement here in South Australia. Sadly, for the last 10 to 15 years, what we have seen is a centralisation of a lot of the grain terminals and wineries. We are seeing a centralisation of most commodity industries. They are starting to move to larger towns and, in some cases, they are moving interstate because of the cost of doing business here in South Australia.

What we are seeing is increased road traffic. We are seeing increased numbers of trucks and we are seeing specifically increased numbers of EB trains or B-doubles. The reason we are seeing that is economies of scale; we are seeing cost efficiencies coming into play. But what that means is that we are seeing more trucks on the road, more wear and tear on the roads, but we are seeing no more maintenance. We are seeing no more money put towards the maintenance of our country and regional roads.

I live on those roads. I live on the Sturt Highway, which is the main highway from Adelaide to Sydney, and I am seeing an increased number of trucks on almost a daily basis. Every trucking operation I visit and every transport operation I talk to, their numbers are increasing. They are putting on more trucks, more trailers and more drivers because we are using road transport more often, but we are not maintaining the roads. We are not looking after the roads that are moving our produce and freight from terminal to terminal, and it is becoming dangerous.

The Sturt Highway is a federal road; yes. It is a much more busy road than it was five years ago; yes. We have got the federal maintenance programs underway, but when we look behind the scenes at our state and council roads, they are continually being degraded. I think, as every regional member here would know, the biggest issue on our state roads are the shoulders. The deterioration of those shoulders is due to trucks passing and the roads getting narrower and narrower.

I have issues with trucks banging mirrors on corners and I have issues with trucks not having a line of sight going around a corner. We are seeing continued injuries and road accidents on our regional roads and yet we are now seeing a road maintenance backlog of well over $200 million. We are seeing our road fatalities increase on regional roads; we are seeing our accidents increase on regional roads, and yet we are seeing no more funding, no more support being put into the maintenance of those roads.

That is something that is very, very disappointing particularly. The regional bent on this budget is almost a highlight that it does not matter: it is out of sight and it is out of mind. Again, I call on the state government to put some priority into maintenance and upkeep to keep our roads driveable but, more importantly, to keep our regional roads safe.

The government has taken $100 million from the Motor Accident Commission to prop up its road safety, yet MAC is supposed to be a dedicated fund to look after people injured in road accidents. So the government has actually gone to MAC and agreed to take the $100 million and I will say that MAC has given it willingly so that money can actually be put towards dedicated funds, but it is not what that organisation is there to do. It is about the government taking responsibility; it is about the government being smart with getting commonwealth funding to upgrade our roads.

I notice that the Premier and the Minister for Infrastructure were at an opening of a mine recently down at Mindarie and people came up and said, 'Oh, it's great to see that the state government has upgraded the shoulders on the roads away from the mine.' It was a federal government project, the Black Spot Campaign, that upgraded the shoulder. It was not the state government.

By the way, the road does not finish at Karoonda. The ore that comes out of the Mindarie mines does not stop at Karoonda: it goes all the way to the ports; it goes all the way to the export terminals to be exported overseas. Again, that just highlights that the government is hiding behind a federal campaign saying, 'Isn't it wonderful that we've upgraded this road away from a mine?'

The Risky Roads campaign was organised by the RAA here in South Australia and seven of the 10 problem roads that are part of the Risky Roads campaign—believe it—are regional roads. Why are they regional roads? Because we have not got a budget for the regional roads maintenance program. Again, it is just another thing that really does grind my gears when I have to travel on those roads. My electorate is ever-increasing in size; the roads are ever-decreasing in quality; they are ever-decreasing in safety, and it is something that really does need to be put on the agenda.

The government cannot continue to ignore the condition of our roads. Yes, it is fine to do the upgrade of superways and duplication of southern expressways, but they also need to have that balance. They need to make a priority of looking after our regional roads. It is becoming dangerous; it is becoming ever-increasingly busy, but we are not looking at making those roads safer, particularly for the cars, particularly for our youth.

We have L-platers in the regions on a federal highway because that is how they get from one town to the next; they have to drive on a federal highway. They are dealing with B-doubles; they are dealing with oncoming traffic; and they are dealing with traffic that is doing 110 km/h. Recently I had some young friends of my children up to visit and they could not believe the number of trucks on the road and the danger they faced just leaving my driveway onto the Sturt Highway. They came back almost in a sweat, not realising just exactly what they were up against on those roads.

We deal with the lack of width of lanes and we deal with the challenging conditions of road surfaces. We are dealing with the poor condition of many road markers. It is not about dealing with them, it is about dealing with them not being there. We deal with the need for road upgrades and the continual repainting of white lines, and the markers are missing, the reflectors are missing and the white posts are knocked over.

We have agricultural machinery and wide loads coming down the highways knocking over kilometres of white posts. Six months later those white posts are still lying in the bushes because they have not been fixed, so there is an issue with priorities on our roads. It is about dealing with the hazards and the danger that people are continually being faced with—whether they are truck operators, constituents driving from town to town, or young L-platers or P-platers having to deal with a very dangerous situation.

As I have already said, there are an increasing number of trucks on our regional roads. As the member for Hammond would know, one thing that was highlighted when we were on the grains committee was the danger of carting grain on our roads. There was the danger of trucks passing on the bends, knocking one another's mirrors off and not being able to see sight of vision around the corner because of overhanging vegetation. Keeping our roads safe is about putting a budget towards that overhanging vegetation.

There are issues with country health. Again, we see numbers being reduced in our country hospitals. If we look at education, obviously there are going to be hundreds of full-time jobs lost with these budget measures. If we look at grassroots sport in our regions—something dear to your heart, Mr Deputy Speaker—we see a $3.6 million reduction in funding for recreation, sport and racing. Yet, these are the priorities: a $3 million lift at Adelaide Oval. Where are the priorities? Grassroots sport is what this state was built on. If we look at some of our premier sportspeople, where do they come from? They come out of the regions. I will have to finish my remarks another time.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:32): I rise to make another contribution in regard to the recently-delivered budget. The seat of Hammond is very much linked to agriculture and other industries, so I will reiterate my concern about the primary industries' budget being cut by another $11.5 million and 120 employees going from primary industries. This means that many hundreds of employees have been cut from primary industries over the last four years, as well as $80 million from the budget. In the budget, we see that rural services, SARDI and Biosecurity South Australia are some of the hardest hit areas.

We have seen regional development cut by $4 million. We have seen no new road spend in the regions, other than some money spent on some upgrades to a road to the APY lands, and that is great, but what about the rest of regional South Australia? There is a minimal amount of money being spent on rural South Australian roads in comparison to what is being spent in the city.

In regard to the subprograms in agriculture, food and wine, we have seen a decrease in the budget by nearly $2.5 million. Just in that subprogram there has been a decrease in funding since 2010-11 of $8.5 million, a decrease in full-time equivalents by 10 people, another hit on industry of $2.5 million and another $1.5 million cut to meet budget savings targets.

If we look at Fisheries, we have seen full-time equivalents decrease by four. We have had some of the best-managed fisheries in the world, yet the government is going to implement its marine parks program and use the environment department instead of the primary industries and the fisheries departments to manage fisheries. Our fisheries have been managed sustainably all the time and it is just a matter of shifting the deck chairs in this case.

Let us look at the decrease in the full-time equivalent numbers at the South Australian Research and Development Institute. Full-time equivalents have decreased by 57. This year alone there is a $2.1 million decrease in the budget to meet savings targets. Just while I am talking about SARDI and budget cuts, I was pleased to attend a meeting in Victor Harbor last Friday night with the member for Finniss and others.

Mr Pengilly: Don't you pinch my speech.

Mr PEDERICK: It's alright, I will just give a little bit. There was Professor Sonia Kleindorfer, who has been doing great work at Flinders University, and has researched for over two decades, especially in light of impacts on Little Penguins, and it was great to hear her story, but I question, why hasn't SARDI being doing this work with government funding? Here we have a government cutting funding all the time, so we see universities having to step up and do the research to see what is the impact on the Little Penguins, especially in regard to New Zealand fur seals.

We look at rural services and the decrease in full-time equivalents by 52, and we look at their budget being cut by $2.6 million in a rationalisation of services. We get a lot of people talking about biosecurity. Everyone seems to have a bent on biosecurity these days but we see here that there has been a $5.8 million decrease for it in this budget, and there has been a $1 million decrease in the budget to meet savings targets.

We have also seen in this budget the forestry sale in the South-East, affecting the seats of Mount Gambier and MacKillop, where the government realised $670 million, and it has just gone into the black hole. It is only about two-thirds of one year's interest on the debt. So for all the pain the South-East has been through over this issue it is such a waste that these forests were sold for only around half of their value. It is just ridiculous. I have already talked about the impact of money being sucked out of regional development, with $4 million being taken out of regional development in this budget.

An issue that needs to be looked at more closely by this government, because they do not have enough appreciation of regional areas, is health spending, as I said, especially in the regions. We see plenty of money spent, we see billions being spent in the city for the new Adelaide hospital, and other items, but in the country things are sneakily getting wound back a bit. I see services for mental health getting funding cuts just quietly in areas like the wellness centre in Murray Bridge, which has lost funding for a staffer to keep those doors open to service the many hundreds of visitors who come through there each year for different programs.

I have also just learned that they are shutting down another bed at the Murray Bridge hospital. Why would you do that when more health services should be available in rural South Australia? Is this what is happening because of the thousands of jobs we are hearing are going out of health, and does this mean that 200 of those jobs are going in regional South Australia and will impact on all of us in our regional electorates?

We look at another issue in my electorate that I share with the member for Finniss about the after hours emergency work done by the Goolwa doctors, after they have worked their normal shifts with appointment and other work, whether it is surgical or otherwise during the day. They are then expected to do all the emergency work, and are then expected to turn up the next day. The government does not want to fund that appropriately and now the doctors have threatened to pull the pin, essentially, and to quit. This affects emergency referrals through to the South Coast District Hospital in Victor Harbor.

Mr Pengilly: Shame.

Mr PEDERICK: It is a shame; it is a great shame. It is a growing area and a lot of people retire in Victor Harbor and Goolwa and surrounding areas, and they need decent health services. Here we have a government, just because of budget reasons, I believe, which does not want to pay for the appropriate locum services in the area.

I want to look at some of the issues around education, and I spoke about them in my previous speech. I think education management needs a full revamp. I warmly welcome the autonomy policy of the Liberal Party, because then we might see some real outcomes for public education in this state. I look at things like the rainwater policy imposed by the government. Anyone would think rainwater was poisonous. I have looked at the DECS policy—or DECD, whatever acronym it is this week—and it is atrocious. I have been drinking rainwater all my life and it hasn't shrunk me at all.

Members interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Exactly. It doesn't hurt you, I tell you. The biggest problem is that we have people who are risk averse, even though the testing is done by the appropriate plumbers, and now money is going to be wasted at schools like where my children go at Coomandook. Thousands—probably tens of thousands of dollars—will be spent to plumb in new pipes because they have to put on mains water.

I talk about issues like our road infrastructure, and I commend the member for Chaffey for his comments. There are far too many roads in our electorates where the shoulders are not wide enough, and he was right in mentioning the truckloads of mineral sands going to Adelaide from the Mindarie mine. The road does not stop at Karoonda and they have to keep going, and it is atrocious as you go through Karoonda and head to Murray Bridge or Tailem Bend and you hit the patch at Wynarka.

It would shake the hell out of a truck, I can assure you, because it shakes the hell out of cars going along some of that road and around some of those corners there. Instead, what we have as far as a road maintenance program in South Australia is the government just turns back the speed limit 10 km/h so that you have to drive more slowly. I will also look at what else is happening with the budget, just quickly, in closing my remarks.

It is an absolute disgrace that this government, even though they say they are contributing to Murray River reform and the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, are bleeding $14 million out of that plan and not supporting it appropriately as well. You cannot say one thing and do another. It just does not work. The Murray River was in grief for many years. I was right at the forefront of that battle and, if you say you are going to support something, you just cannot bleed funding out like this as the state Labor government has.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (16:42): This morning, I made some fairly broad remarks about the budget. I would like to narrow that down this afternoon to, particularly, the tourism industry in my electorate, both on the Fleurieu Peninsula and Kangaroo Island. I am desperately concerned about the reduction of money put into tourism by the state government. I think it is a bad move. Tourism is a great industry. It is a word-of mouth-industry. It is a fun industry, but it is a lot of hard work. The people out there involved in the tourism industry, in particular in my electorate but more widely across the state and the nation, know just how much work it is.

On any given weekend, whether it be summer, winter, or whatever, there are thousands of people who go over the hill at Willunga or over from Mount Barker down onto the Fleurieu into the member for Hammond's area at Goolwa or across to Middleton, Port Elliott and Victor Harbor and across to Yankalilla and Normanville and all points in between. It is the big employer down there, along with the aged care sector, and many jobs rely on tourism.

In saying that, they also rely heavily on marketing. Miranda Lang, from Fleurieu Peninsula Tourism, works very hard, as do the tourism people on Kangaroo Island. I think Whaletime Playtime is a classic example. A couple of weeks ago, you could not move in Victor Harbor for families and kids. The steam trains were on the go and, right on schedule, there were whales. It was a terrific opportunity and it brought a bit of vibrancy to that town, and across to Port Elliot and Middleton as well. It is just such a vital industry, and needs encouraging.

Not only do people go to look at that but also they go to Alexandrina Cheese Company or down into the Hindmarsh Valley cheese places and enjoy the fine products from there or drink the wine. They might come through to my electorate from McLaren Vale. It is an industry that I believe does not get enough support from this government by a long shot.

I noticed that the tourism minister was talking in this place today about regional tourism. The Fleurieu tourism industry is looking to capture more of the international market that goes through there and I think that is very worthwhile. I know that tourism in South Australia is looking at bringing airlines from China straight into Adelaide, to introduce the Chinese market to South Australia. While I applaud that, I will make a few other comments shortly about that aspect.

On weekends, visitors can visit the Fleurieu. Indeed, there are members in this place who regularly visit the Fleurieu and have a great time. However, that does not happen over on the island simply because of the cost of getting there and the fact that you have to take a ferry ride, etc. While the Fleurieu continues to bubble along over winter, on weekends particularly, it really comes to a halt on Kangaroo Island. As I mentioned this morning, the cost of travel plays a big part in that. Also the availability of ferries reduces in winter, as do flights.

I now turn to the island's tourism and I would like to comment on the international side of it. Having had some involvement in tourism before I came to this place, I had a lot to do with international visitors, particularly Europeans—French, Italian, Swiss, German, Italian honeymooners—and the list goes on. There were also considerable numbers of Americans and increasing numbers of Canadians. What we have seen in the last few years is a large increase in Indian tourism—a number of resident Indians in Australia, I might add—and now there is a push for the Chinese sector to come in.

I will pose a word of warning. I am a little bit concerned that the big push for Chinese tourism by some may well be at the expense of our traditional markets such as Europe, the United States and North America. I do not think that we should ignore them too much. Indeed, the United States' economy is starting to turn around and pick up and, from what I glean from some of the operators, some of the European market numbers are slowly increasing, which is good.

However, the Chinese market in particular is very price sensitive. They screw down operators to the last cent in order to get better deals. They screw them down on accommodation costs and tour costs. That is fine; that is the way they operate and I can understand that. I am just suggesting that we need to make sure that we put plenty into our traditional markets. By all means we should support and accommodate Chinese tourists who are coming into Australia, and if we can get an airline from China flying into Adelaide that is all for the better.

I know that the council on the island is trying to achieve a $17 million grant to do something with the airport. I have raised concerns about that. I think that needs a lot more thought. I am not privy to the business case and I am not sure about pursuing the federal government for that sort of funding, to bring aircraft from interstate to land at Kingscote. My view is that the airline industry is based on spokes and hubs: the hubs being the main centres like Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney and the spokes being regional centres like Port Lincoln, Kangaroo Island, etc.

Spending millions of dollars on the airport over there needs to be very carefully thought out. That could well be at the expense of the only airline that operates there, Rex, which local people need to use as well. I urge caution on that and think that it should be thought through.

The notice in the Gazette—that government charges are out—I am going through and scrutinising that, particularly on park entry fees. The parks on the Fleurieu Peninsula are, to all intents and purposes, free of charge to enter. That is not the case on the island. Places like Seal Bay, Kelly Hill Caves, Flinders Chase, Cape Borda and Cape Willoughby are all at a cost. Seal Bay, for example, is a gold mine for the Department of Environment, etc.—an absolute goldmine. They have nearly thrown the baby out with the bathwater financially, because the numbers have reduced substantially in Seal Bay and Flinders Chase. They have just made it too expensive. They are trying to cream off the money; they are actually making it difficult for families.

I believe that tourism into all areas of my electorate is for families as well as others, but I think they need to be very careful, this department. They are making it an elitist destination, and families simply cannot afford $70-odd to go to Seal Bay. They cannot do it; it is just beyond them. I think it is greed and mismanagement by the Department of Environment. I would say that places like Seal Bay have been taken out of local management. They are managed from ground management, but the business side of it is now stuck here in Adelaide—surprise, surprise! I think it is spoiling what could be a good experience for many more families. Yes, the numbers are monitored on the beach, but they are making it an elitist destination.

There is another thing that the government have failed on in this marketing program. Yes, they did a large marketing program over there last year, and they are doing one in the Barossa now; that's good. However, what pops up pretty regularly for the island is Southern Ocean Lodge. That costs $1,800 per night per couple. That is well beyond the workers who work around Adelaide in manufacturing, and any other place. It is beyond them; they cannot do it. It is beyond me and probably beyond most people in this place, with the exception of a couple. It is fantastic—

Mr Pegler: Name them.

Mr PENGILLY: The member for Mount Gambier said he's going to stay there, I think. It is beyond most people. You need to be very careful about what you are doing in the tourism industry and not break its back. By all means, the government needs to put more money into it, but in the case of the island do not make it an elitist destination. Someone in the current government needs to talk to these fools in the Department for Environment and tell them to get their heads back out of the clouds and encourage your average visitor to go back to Seal Bay or Flinders Chase. It is just too expensive, it is a foolish move. I am very supportive of tourism, always have been, always will be, and I will continue to be, but in the meantime this government needs to take a long hard look at where they are going with it all.

Mr PEGLER (Mount Gambier) (16:52): I might say that I have heard quite a few say in this house that they have degrees in economics. Well, I can certainly assure you that I do not; I went through the school of hard knocks instead. I do have grave concerns with this budget. The net operating deficit for 2010-11 was $427 million, and then the next year it was $284 million.

Of course, this year we have spent $1,314 million more than what we have earned. It was predicted to be a deficit of $867 million; so there is certainly some major concerns there on where we are going financially. Of course, on top of that, you have the sale of the pines in the South-East, and the lotteries. With those pines, it took our forebears 100 years to build that estate up, and we have blown that money in six months, which is quite incredible and an indictment on us, and future generations will wonder what the hell we were doing.

The net debt of this state over the last six years has gone from $82 million to $659 million, to $1,587 million to $3,217 million, to $4,282 million, and now, $5,611 million. It keeps going up and up, and we have to arrest that at some stage. What really worries me is the projections into the future of the budget forecast, with a forecast next year of a net operating deficit of $911 million and a debt of $6,951 million.

This could really blow out, given that the state final demand is predicted to rise by 1.25 per cent, when it has actually fallen by 2.6 per cent in the last year. On top of this, total revenue is predicted to rise by 5 per cent in 2014-15, by 9 per cent in 2015-16 and by 6 per cent in 2016-17. I feel that those figures are quite optimistic and if those growths in revenue do not happen the impact on the end result will be quite dire.

I believe that many of our financial woes go back to pre the global financial crisis. Our government at that time overspent and overcommitted future governments. There was a time when they should have been putting a lot of money away. I know they did reduce debt, but they should have been putting money away then for when times were tougher, and, of course, they allowed the public sector to grow by 21 per cent in 10 years, which is way above what our population growth was in that time. So, that is where most of the mistakes were made.

Governments themselves and the management of the finances of governments are different to private enterprise in the fact that during good times in private enterprise there is a lot of money to be spent on infrastructure and on getting your house in order so that when things are tough you can go through and, of course, you get the tax breaks while you are doing it. Whereas with governments, I do believe that when the times are good they should be salting that money away for when times are tough so that they can then spend money on infrastructure, which keeps the whole economy of that state going. So, governments certainly have a responsibility to be flush when things are tough so that private enterprise can be the beneficiary of those government bills.

I believe that in this state we have major problems with compliance and regulations costs for both government and all businesses. The more we bring in rules on how we go about business, both in government and private enterprise, the greater the costs and the greater the reduction in productivity. I feel that we are over-governed and we should be looking at that properly.

I also believe, and I have said this in every budget, that we need a complete review of how we go about doing our business so that we can gain productivity improvements. At present, we have a dictate, basically, that every department has to have an improvement of 1 per cent on productivity. I do not think this is the way to go about it because I believe that there would be some departments that are extremely productive and the 1 per cent is an imposition on them, and then there are probably other departments where much greater improvements could be made.

There is no point in having a set rule. What should be happening is there should be somebody from outside of government looking into every department to see where those productivity gains can be made, and that is not necessarily about getting rid of people or anything like that, it is about making sure that we do business in the best way possible. I hear quite a few people talk about reductions in Public Service numbers. We have to have teachers. We have to have nurses and doctors. We have to have policemen. We just have to make sure that in the administration of those organisations we are doing it in the best way possible.

I congratulate the government on the reduction in payroll tax. I know it is only in for two years but the future government can make that permanent. That reduction in payroll tax is certainly going to make us very competitive with other states, in particular New South Wales and Victoria. I think in New South Wales the payroll tax cuts in at $689,000 and it is at 5.45 per cent and in Victoria it kicks in at $550,000 and is at 4.9 per cent. So, we are certainly going to be very competitive with other states into the future as far as payroll tax goes.

I hear a lot about there being nothing for the regions. I have heard this all my life, when we were being governed by both Liberal and Labor governments. People out in the regions have always said that there is nothing for the regions, but, when you have a look at the budget, it is a $16.18 billion budget, and 31 per cent of that goes into health, another 26 per cent goes into education, 8 per cent into social security and 10 per cent into law and order. So, three-quarters of the budget goes into all those things that happen out in the regions and within Adelaide. The last 25 per cent is spent on roads and all those things, so there is not a lot of money left.

Anybody who criticises how the money is spent, I think, has to come up with alternatives rather than just being critical. As far as Mount Gambier goes, the government made $1.85 million available for marine facilities at Port MacDonnell. I see the federal government just announced yesterday or the day before a further $750 million for that, so there will be a $2.5 million build there. Of course, the ambulance station is going ahead and we have heard about the gaol and the hospital build.

Whilst we all complain about our roads, one of the great advantages I probably have is in living so close to Victoria. If you go across the border and you see the roads there compared to what we have in South Australia, we should feel quite proud. I know there are a lot of roads that need doing, but they are in nowhere near the shape that they are in Victoria.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: It's the opposite when you drive to Queensland.

Mr PEGLER: Yes, it might be the opposite when you drive to Queensland, but I don't drive to Queensland from home too often. I also congratulate the government on setting up the food and wine clusters in both the South-East and the Riverland. I think it shows a little bit of faith in an industry that is so important to this state. Too often, I think that agriculture in this state is forgotten. We continue to see cutbacks in research and development and biosecurity, etc., to an industry that is really the backbone of this state. Of course, the government has been very good with grants for various sporting clubs, but I am quite upset that the regional sports grants may finish.

Time expired.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (17:02): One of the first points I would like to address is that, when the current major projects come to an end—the upgrade of the railway lines, the Adelaide Oval, the new hospital and the Southern Expressway—we will face a major issue in terms of ensuring that the construction industry is kept going in this state. It is going to be a challenge because the state budget, from now on, is going to be very tight and, if there is a change of government federally, then I think money to the states is going to be somewhat curtailed.

The point I was making yesterday in this place links in with that. I think we have to be careful in terms of net debt and deficits—I know that—but we cannot allow, and the government should not allow, the economy to grind to a halt, particularly with construction projects. Spending has to be prudent, but I think there are some projects that need to be considered. One would be the duplication of the Dukes Highway, which should have happened years ago.

I do not have a problem with spending money on projects and on activities that are productive and create wealth, but the construction industry will shortly be facing a major challenge. We currently have a lot of Victorian companies coming over here to try to get work, but our own construction people are going to be under a challenge in the very near future.

Some of the other infrastructure that could be engaged in includes roads that need upgrading. The member for Hammond mentioned the section of road between Murray Bridge and Loxton. That road needs a major upgrade. It is a very busy, major arterial road now and it is still lacking, particularly when you look at the use to which that road is put. There are other roads that certainly need attention, but the Dukes Highway duplication is one that should be considered in the very near future.

In terms of other infrastructure, I agree 100 per cent with the member for Finniss that we need, and the government needs, to focus more on supporting local tourism. I know we all enjoy going overseas, but we have here in South Australia some fantastic areas, not just the Mount Lofty Ranges and the Fleurieu Peninsula. As I have mentioned recently, just going up to a place such as Mannum for a few hours is fantastic. Even if you are there for only a few hours, you are spending money and helping the local country town survive.

Down in the Fleurieu, we have wonderful towns and wonderful produce, and we need to be promoting them more. I see in the Melbourne newspapers that the SA government is promoting the Barossa; I saw an ad the other day. We need, and the government needs, to do a lot more of that to encourage not only South Australians but people interstate to come here to have a look at what we have and to see the produce we have available. We have fancy shops in the city selling imported jams and products from overseas; we have better quality locally-made products than what is brought in from overseas.

We need to get our own people to visit and stay in some of these regional areas, and that would be helped, too, if the airports in the key tourist areas were upgraded significantly so that they can take the largest jets or close to the largest jets. A lot of people in other parts of the world do not have the same length of holiday as Australians enjoy, and they do not have a lot of time to spend, so you would need to be able to fly them close to those tourist areas so that they can enjoy what is offered and they can have easy access by way of aircraft to those areas.

In regard to other matters that are linked to tourism—and I stand to be corrected—I do not believe that the government supports SteamRanger to any significant degree. That is the sort of tourist activity that should be supported and encouraged. The government has withdrawn funding for the National Trust, yet the National Trust looks after a lot of properties which are owned by the state. Much of what the National Trust owns is not ever put on display because it does not have the resources to display all of those heritage items. The government should be supporting the National Trust rather than withdrawing funding.

Linked in with this, of course—one of my hobbyhorses—is that we still do not have in South Australia a comprehensive social history museum to showcase what this state has achieved and will continue to achieve. I think that it should be integrated with traditional Aboriginal culture—we have fantastic Aboriginal artefacts—and we could have living displays as well. We have, I understand, the biggest collection of Aboriginal artefacts anywhere, yet they are not shown to the public. The government, along with the Adelaide City Council, needs to get serious in having a place where we can showcase what has been invented and developed here. I do not have an objection if they can get Rupert Murdoch to come on board because News Limited started here.

We as a state have pioneered a whole lot of things that have contributed and added to the welfare of people not only in South Australia but throughout the world, yet nowhere is it showcased the fact that we invented a whole lot of things here, such as the stump-jump plough and the photocopier, and developed political processes, including the secret ballot and the Torrens title, all of those sorts of things, yet people coming to the state know nothing about it, and tourists, as well as locals, want to see those things. If I visit a country, I want to have a look at what that culture has generated, yet we do not highlight those particular achievements.

But it goes beyond tourism, and one of my concerns is the decline in a lot of our country towns. They are fantastic places, but sadly a lot of them are losing population and services, and we should be encouraging (and the government should be encouraging) people to live in those country towns—whether they are retired, or otherwise. The infrastructure is already there, the housing is often there and with modern technology it should be possible to create employment opportunities in some of those country towns. It saddens me to go to country areas and see towns which are literally dying before one's eyes.

In relation to traffic issues, as I said yesterday, I think the Minister for Road Safety is coming onboard in terms of improving signage, but we need to go beyond that in terms of catering for cyclists and motorists alike who, particularly during the warmer months, are out in their hundreds on the Hills roads enjoying a bike ride, yet some of the roads are not suited to having cars and cyclists on them at the same time.

You cannot pass a lot of the cyclists. Legally, they can ride two abreast, but in fairness they often go in single file. I fear that there are going to be tragedies on some of these country roads, through the Hills in particular, because motorists cannot get past, there is no provision for them to get past, and you have cyclists who are legitimately out enjoying themselves and doing the right thing. People are going to take risks and we are going to see some tragedies.

So on the popular cycling routes through the Hills there needs to be some attention given to catering for the cyclists so they can enjoy their bike ride and, likewise, motorists can get on with what they want to do without being jeopardised, either, with people trying to overtake on double lines and that sort of thing.

We need improved signage. I have been trying to get improved signage on the freeway. Between Hahndorf and Callington there is no reminder of the speed limit. That is where the police like to catch people. For some reason that is beyond me, the department does not want to spend $80 on a sign to remind people what the speed limit it is. I think it is important to remind people of the speed limit; we need better signage in many places, and should follow the example of New South Wales where they do it really well.

In terms of some local road improvements in my area, the junction of Chandlers Hill Road and Bishops Hill Road needs attention, and we need an extra lane on Flagstaff Hill Road. I know money is tight, but they should be in the planning phase at least with improvements to those particular roads. So there is a range of issues that a future budget would address.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (17:12): I would like to use this budget reply speech grievance opportunity to focus on issues in corrections. As I mentioned yesterday in my main budget reply speech, this budget does include money going towards Correctional Services which is a very positive thing. It includes $2.9 million over four years for bail housing, 30 beds, $66 per bailee per day (which I think is an exceptionally low budget) and $6.3 million over four years for the operational costs of the 20 beds that are nearly completed at the Adelaide Women's Prison.

Of course, it is fair to ask, 'Well, that prison has been planned to be built for a very long time, so why wasn't that operational money put earlier into the budget?' There is $6.1 million per year for the operational costs of 108 new beds at Mount Gambier, which are also nearly complete. So one can ask the same question: why wasn't that money put into previous budgets? I suspect the answer is, so it would look like they might end up in surplus, which, of course, they haven't.

There is $25.4 million over four years to build 60 more beds at Mount Gambier, in addition to the 108, but no additional operating funding for those beds. So if they are actually to be built within the next four years, why isn't there some money in the budget explaining exactly how they are going to be funded and run? It also includes $6.2 million for operational costs of the 20 new beds at Port Lincoln prison, which are already operational. They are already up and running, but now we are just getting money into the budget for their operation and their running. Clearly, that is very poor financial management but, unfortunately, that is not the end of it. Probably even more important is the fact that, unfortunately, these beds will not be enough, based on current prisoner growth numbers.

According to FOIs that I have put in and received the information back, our prison system reached full capacity on 9 April this year when there were 2,267 prisoners in custody, and our prison system has the official capacity for 2,266 prisoners. The system is clearly under enormous stress and, of course, what has had to happen is that the hardworking people from the Department for Correctional Services have had to put in temporary beds at Mount Gambier and the City Watch House, and perhaps even other places that I am not aware of, so that they can manage this demand in excess of supply.

ABS figures tell us that this growth in prisoner numbers is all in secure prisoners, at the top end. These are the people who require being put into prisons and it would not be acceptable to put these people into bail housing situations, as has been proposed. I certainly hope that this oversupply—if that is the right word—of prisoners is not going to mean that some people who require secure incarceration are pushed down into low security or no-security facilities.

Growth in prisoner numbers over the last 10 years has been 3.9 per cent per annum, and in the last two years it has been 4.1 per cent per annum. Let's say that a very good indicative number is 4 per cent per annum which, based on current prisoner numbers, is 90 prisoners per year. The extra beds that I have just mentioned, which the government has announced the building of, are not going to keep up with that growth. The extra beds that are in the budget are made up of 60 additional beds at Mount Gambier, 108 additional beds at Mount Gambier, 30 bail beds—so even including those very low-security beds—and 20 at the Adelaide Women's Prison. That adds up to 218 beds.

At current growth rates of 90 prisoners per year we will reach that capacity, if all of those beds were built immediately, in two years and five months and all those beds would be full. The budget says that these extra beds will be built over four years, not two years and five months. However, even if they were all done straightaway, in two years and five months—which is a little bit over halfway through the budget forward estimates period—all the beds that are planned to be built, plus the existing ones, will all be full.

Our capacity will get to 2,484 beds, but that capacity will all be needed in two years and five months, which puts extraordinary pressure on the prison system and on the police. As I mentioned before, not only are many of these beds funded to be built but not funded to be run, they will not actually meet the demand that is necessary. They will not be sufficient to cater for the number of prisoners that are required.

What is the government going to do? Perhaps next year it could announce some more funding. If we are in government, perhaps we could announce some more funding, but the budget is going to be under extraordinary pressure. I challenge the government and the minister to come out and say how he thinks that what he has in this budget is going to be sufficient to meet the demand, because clearly it is not. The other thing the government could do, of course, is say, 'Well, we are actually just not going to grow our prisoner population by 90 per year.'

That 4 per cent seems to have been pretty steady for a decade or so, so let's assume that crime continues as it does and let's assume that police do what they have been doing for the last 10 years. How on earth is that going to be done? You obviously cannot tell the police, 'Look, don't go and catch as many crooks.' You obviously cannot have a system where the people who require medium to high-security imprisonment do not get that and go into low-security imprisonment. This is a problem that is very serious and very genuine, and I challenge the government to come out and explain exactly how it is going to deal with this issue.

Mr BROCK (Frome) (17:19): I also would like to speak on the Appropriation Bill. Whilst I understand that everyone, including this state government, is facing very trying times with finances, but we need to keep a good control on our expenditure. I, along with the member for Mount Gambier, am concerned about the ever-growing deficit; however, I feel that if there is to be a deficit, it needs to be in infrastructure, not in social justice and things like that. However, the people of regional South Australia and, in particular, the electors of Frome are very appreciative of these challenges and understand them very clearly, but it is very disappointing to read that regional South Australia again has not received any large amounts of funding that will directly assist the people in the regions who are facing very hard times, with the ever-increasing cost of utilities and associated activities.

It is pleasing to see that extra work has been carried out on the Whyalla hospital with regard to new and enhanced cancer facilities and equipment but, as stated in the budget, this is very generously assisted with commonwealth funds. This assistance is needed in the country. Cancer is a very personal and invasive issue and we need to get as much help as we can out into the regions to allow people to get treatment closer to their homes. I encourage the government to not only look at Whyalla but look at putting more of those facilities in other hospitals.

The electorate of Frome is pleased to see funds continue towards the establishment of the Port Pirie GP Plus centre, a project that has been on the agenda for many years, and this goes back to before I joined this house, in my time as the mayor of the Port Pirie Regional Council. Again, this is a project that has been going on for many years. I am also very appreciative of the previous funds allocated under the Black Spot Program for some road junctions across the electorate of Frome and look forward to other funding from the Black Spot Program, which is a partnership of both the state and commonwealth governments.

There are several issues that have been previously applied and relocated to Adelaide from the regions, and one of these is Shared Services, which was to achieve vast amounts of savings, but in actual fact has achieved the opposite. It is now costing more to operate than previously and has been very detrimental to the regional areas. I ask that the government reconsider the operation of Shared Services and look at bringing it back to where it was before. There is no shame in saying 'We got it wrong. We made a mistake; let's go back to the best opportunity. We can handle these issues in regional South Australia.'

Small business operators are doing it tough and, even though there has been some relief in payroll taxes, it may be too late in some cases to allow some of these small business operators to survive. To be able to feel secure in your employment in the regions, you need to have a successful employer and, unfortunately, there are many business operators in the regions that are not growing but are just hanging on.

I will mention again that I am disappointed there has been no nominated road funding for Frome. In actual fact I see very little for regional South Australia. Our resources for the state are produced in the main from regional locations and it is getting harder to be able to transport these products to an export location due to the deteriorating road infrastructure and declining rail standards. This, coupled with the lack of another nearer port, is making it very hard for the emerging mining companies to get their products efficiently to the markets. The road system in regional South Australia—and I will mention roads in my electorate—is getting to the degree that in many areas there have been more opportunities for fatal or long-term injuries to occur. There are many roads in my electorate which have been neglected over many years: Yacka to Clare, Port Broughton to Bute, and also Bute to Kulpara.

I took the member for Goyder to the previous minister for transport—two country members united—to lobby for some work to done on the Bute to Kulpara Road. Unfortunately that did not occur in this budget. These roads have not deteriorated overnight. They have been deteriorating for many years due to a lack of maintenance by both major parties. These roads have to be utilised by our transporters to be able to transport goods from their home locations to the market areas. If this infrastructure is not maintained to the highest level, then we will be facing major challenges in getting our export commodities to the relevant port or location for shipping.

I have several regional roads that are utilised largely by the grain industry and also regional bus services getting people from the regions to Adelaide, whether it is for recreation or health. Some of these roads are nominated in the top 10 worst roads in South Australia, and the member for Goyder is very aware of two of those roads, because one of them was the Bute to Kulpara road. Even if these roads were nominated to have some work commenced, which would allow for the regional communities to understand that they are being considered, people do not expect the roads to be reconstructed immediately. They understand it will be time before they are completely reconstructed, but a time frame giving these people in the regional areas some hope would be beneficial to their concerns.

We only have to look at road infrastructure being implemented at South Road and also the southern metropolitan regions. This is a tremendous activity for those living in these areas. However, I would hope that these road infrastructure improvements continue to move north of Gepps Cross to accommodate the ever-increasing demands from those residing in the northern areas.

We need to place more moneys in regional South Australia and, whilst I agree we need to provide the required recreational facilities within the Greater Adelaide area, we should not forget parts of regional South Australia. Again, I reinforce that regional South Australia appears to have been neglected for many, many years—and not only by this government but, also, previous governments. I think both major parties need to really look seriously at where we allocate our funds.

Another area that is of concern to me is the current land tax imposition and, whilst I understand there needs to be revenue collected by the government of the day, I question how this system actually works. The tax is calculated on the capital value of the land in question—

Mr Griffiths: Site value.

Mr BROCK: Sorry, the site value of the land in question, thank you member for Goyder. Whilst this is great, there are numerous instances in the residential development of regional areas where developers have established estates and, due to the economic situation, there are many blocks that have been serviced ready for sale that cannot be sold but they are still paying not only council rates but also the land tax. These developers are not only paying council rates but, as I said earlier, they are levied land tax each and, in some cases, in excess of $2,500 to $3,000 a block. After a couple of years, that makes a project unviable and, in actual fact, I question why people would want to go into land divisions in the regional areas.

In many cases, the values of non-earning properties continue to escalate and in many of these cases the increase does not equate to any extra revenue coming in to be able to pay the increased taxation that has been imposed. Whilst I agree that we need to be very aware of our expenditure, we must also remember that to be able to create more employment opportunities, provide resource capabilities and also allow for production of not only our food produce but also our export opportunities, we need to spend more money in the correct areas to allow for growth in these areas.

I am very fortunate in my electorate that we have many opportunities for growth in the resource sector, and I would look at getting more infrastructure to accommodate this growth or we will lose all the opportunities. The more assistance that we give to areas where people can choose a 'lifestyle' and live will only assist the issues that the Greater Adelaide area will encounter in the next few years.

I request that regional South Australia not have any further cutbacks and that the government looks at our growth in revenue (export earnings and royalties) and where it is going to come from. It will come from regional South Australia. We as a state do not appear to have a concrete vision or a plan for regional South Australia with regard to infrastructure growth.

There is one area that I have been very persistent about since coming into this place, and that is for a review of the Patient Assistance Transport Scheme (PATS), and I am very pleased that the Minister for Health is undertaking a review of this to ensure that it relates more to those who require assistance in getting to specialist services outside their locations. Well done to the minister, and I am looking forward to a very good outcome from this review.

The global situation has been under great uncertainty across the whole of the globe. However, this state has very large amounts of wealth in resources that the world is looking for, and we as a nation should be looking forward to value adding our products, not digging them up and shipping them to other countries and then importing the final products at a very inflated price to what we have exported in the first place.

In closing, I understand that we are facing very trying times but expenditure should be allocated to areas more so that provide the resources. We need to be very strategic in allocating moneys where we can assist the state in growth and employment opportunities.

In closing, I thank the Premier and minister Koutsantonis, plus the commonwealth government, for allowing me to continue to lobby and continually pester them for the result that has been achieved to provide an in-principle support for an opportunity to allow for a new technology plant at Port Pirie. For this, I am grateful, as are the people of Port Pirie.

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (17:29): Each year appropriation speeches provide an opportunity to comment on the budget and the budget process. While others are half-empty people, I am afraid this year I am trying to look on it as being half full. That is because I do not think any budget is as bad as the opposition is saying and carrying on about. Appropriation has allowed the opposition the opportunity to attack, and that is all they seem to be able to do. Nothing in the budget appears to have provided them with any joy.

The government's priorities are to do the best it possibly can for the people of this state. That is what happens with a budget. Projects and initiatives are prioritised and rated and, after rigorous scrutiny and evaluation, they are adopted, delayed or discarded. This happens for two interrelated reasons: priorities change, as do circumstances. There is no doubt that circumstances have changed globally, as the member for Frome just said, and they also change nationally.

If—and it is a big if—we had the gift of accurate prediction of the future or hindsight, no-one would ever be wrong. The budget is prepared on the advice of departments that are run by our state's Public Service. I am able to say that I have great faith in that Public Service. This government values the Public Service and has always valued its work and knows how important its contribution is. This side of the house has always recognised the Public Service and will not stand by as its role and service are denigrated by the opposition.

No-one (and I mean no-one) puts together a budget that is as incompetent as the opposition would have you believe this budget is. Confidence in South Australia and its capacity is vital. We know we live in one of the world's most liveable cities—not our rating but a rating by a recognised external body with a reputable reputation.

We know and value the role of small business and have always recognised the important part it plays in employing South Australians and keeping SA great. No government goes out of its way to aggravate small business operators when we know they are the backbone of our economy and, in a seat like Florey, even more so.

The leader claimed that South Australia is at the bottom of the pack. I believe South Australia has always punched above its weight and when evaluating statistics there are many ways to express what is happening. Opportunity is an important factor in planning for the future, and recognising and taking opportunities, as well as creating them, is something that this government is committed to do.

At the same time, it is important to recognise that 'community counts'. My original campaign slogan, which remains my mantra to this day, is that 'We live in a community not just an economy.' While keeping an eye on the future we must make sure we all get there and bring those less well placed or unable to progress, along with us.

This government is committed to education and health, jobs and shelter. Education reforms have been part of our agenda forever. Our Premier's recent commitment to the Gonski reforms underlines this, giving every child the best possible opportunity to succeed and excel. We have in this budget preschool upgrades, support for child care and work to support and keep families at risk together, particularly with work on the APY lands and the challenges that remote delivery of services presents and continues to present.

In health, the new Royal Adelaide Hospital and the developments on North Terrace provide exciting opportunities, and the relocation of the University of Adelaide's Medical School and the University of South Australia's research precinct is something that will provide unlimited opportunities and present the right settings for discoveries of the ilk of penicillin and produce the Floreys of the future.

The South Australian health plan provides a framework to deliver efficient, functioning and sustainable health services into the future. When people say we have a Third World health service in South Australia I am astonished. Third World means that there is often no-one there when you get to a hospital. I am also very disappointed when people have adverse medical experiences. I am very sorry whenever it happens and I want to work with them to make sure we have the best possible outcomes for everyone. This can only be done by evaluating the problems as they present themselves.

I also want people to recognise that they can do things to help their own health and I ask them to make sure that they look after their own health as much as they can, because prevention is far better than cure. It is only when you lose your health that you realise how fragile life is. That is why our cancer and heart research will be such a valuable resource and industry—as they have said this week—an employer of people well into the 21^st century.

This government is committed to jobs. Every government knows the importance of jobs and employment and does its utmost to maintain every job in this state. Every job is important to the community, and I want to put on record the value of every person's contribution to making this state great. Mining is and will be an important contributor into the future, and manufacturing too. Places like Holden's is working hard to keep their place at the moment in a world environment that is continually changing, to continue to provide stimulating employment in this sector into the future.

Infrastructure is one area about which this government can hold its head high. No-one can accuse us of not placing an emphasis on infrastructure. It is the very nature of progress that booms often happen, and we are certainly experiencing a boom here in Adelaide at the moment. There are great roadworks, especially the South Road upgrade, and there is the Torrens to Torrens, the Tonsley Park public transport hub, and work on the APY lands. In my own electorate of Florey there is the O-Bahn car park, which has been long awaited, and we have upgrades to the Modbury Hospital accident and emergency section. Work at the Lyell McEwin will also be vital for the people in our area. We have the Adelaide Oval and the Riverbank upgrades. We know what that is going to do for us here; it is going to completely revitalise the city.

We also have upgrades in the cultural precinct of North Terrace. I still hope to see the Constitutional Museum come to life again in another venue, providing learning opportunities and tourism potential for people in South Australia, highlighting, as the member for Fisher says, the number of firsts that South Australia has created. In particular, I would like to make sure that South Australia is recognised for its world first, when our women won the right to what we call the dual franchise—the right to both vote and stand for election.

In the arts, this budget commits $6.1 million over three years to upgrade the Festival Centre, and this underpins our emphasis on the importance of the arts. Our calendar of events in South Australia extends well beyond 'mad March' now, and places us as a city that really recognises the importance of art in a vibrant city. Our focus is also on tertiary education and being a university city, engaging students and creating links with students from all over the world. Our tourism and clean, green food industries are another important part of this drive and is another way that South Australia excels.

The Leader of the Opposition, in relation to this budget, accuses South Australia of taxing and spending into recovery while not seeming to appreciate the impact of stamp duty and payroll tax changes we have made. We must also as a government pay our bills on time; this is a very important aspect. As well as connecting government to business, this budget puts an emphasis on cutting red tape, and undertakes to do just that.

I want to talk a bit more about jobs as well and the importance of making sure that we keep the focus on creating employment wherever we can. We also need to commit to doing more to keep our young people here. They want to travel and gain experiences all over the world. I do not think we can stop them or prevent them, or want to prevent them from doing that, but we also want them to come home, and many do come home. To ensure this keeps happening into the future, this budget is creating Hub Adelaide, which has been established to promote and provide a network and to create opportunities and experiences for this very purpose. The North Terrace developments will be a big part of this new initiative.

Good government works hard to provide good outcomes and to provide opportunities. I believe this government has done its best to do both, and it continues to do so with this budget. We care about the environment and we care about the River Murray and sustainability, and this government has a proud record in those areas; they remain some of our major concerns. Safer communities are another one of our priorities. A new court building provides better opportunity for justice, and we continue our commitment to policing into the future.

We must always do our best to strive harder to do more as we encourage better productivity throughout the state as part of our 'growing the pie'. We in this government will always do our best to underpin those processes and to work hard on behalf of all South Australians.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (17:39): My recollection is that the member for Florey, when she first spoke, said that she was a glass full person, I believe, or glass half full?

Members interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: No; you were trying to define yourself. This is not a criticism of you, I am just trying to define what you said.

Members interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Glass half full. I try to be an optimist also, so I am a glass half full person.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order. All remarks should be addressed through the chair, not to members directly opposite.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sure the member would concur with that.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am wondering who I should apologise to. I just wanted to be sure that I quoted the member for Florey correctly. I am also a glass half full person and I am going to start off by saying that there are two things that I am pleased are in the budget. One is the announcement of $15.9 million to assist six sites for preschoolers that are being moved in the state. I am lucky enough that one of those is in my electorate; it is, indeed, in the town in which I live. So, I do put my thanks on the record, minister, for that investment having been made.

My kids were beyond kindy when I moved to Maitland, so I have not had the physical involvement there, but I have spoken to the parents group that is associated with that and it was a front page headline in the school newsletter last week when the budget came out. So, I offer my thanks for that commitment to the area.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: The budget delivers.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am not sure if I will say that much. I also thank the member for Kaurna, as the previous minister for health, for the commitment made to a chemotherapy unit at the Wallaroo Hospital, which is about to open, I believe. That is also a very good investment in the area. As a regional person who wants to see as many services as possible based in the community, I am grateful for that because those who are suffering terribly will be assisted enormously.

The member for Schubert has asked me to acknowledge that it is wonderful to see some young people in the chamber from Faith Lutheran College in the Barossa. So, well done. Having a Lutheran school at Maitland and seeing the outstanding young people who come from that school, I have no doubt that you are wonderful future leaders of the state. Thank you for coming into parliament this evening. There are some criticisms, of course, or some concerns from me about budget figures.

Ms Bedford: What about suggestions? Call them suggestions.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Well, if I can, a suggestion. It is a frustration also, member for Florey, from a decision made a bit over two years ago about Regional Development Australia. I am very much pro that group. I recognise, having been involved previously on several of the boards that currently exist and with the Business Enterprise Centre for the short time that I lived and worked in New South Wales, that economic development authorities around the state have actually done great work in the past.

The Business Enterprise Centres that operated in metropolitan areas have suffered their funding cuts already, and that came in 12 months ago, but for the RDA groups 30 June is the D-day date where they lose $4.1 million and are suddenly left to fend for themselves based on the funding support they receive from the federal government and from their local government partners. The position on the funding for that will be a key issue for me when it comes to policy for regional development.

I am a believer in what they do. I have seen so many great examples where the network of people they know and the hard work, initiative and skills shown by their staff have made an enormous difference to a business not only being able to stabilise itself in challenging times but a chance to grow and a chance for new business to establish. As somebody who stands in here continuously thinking about regional communities, I am concerned about the impact of the decision from 1 July when they lose that level of funding. It averages out to about $585,000. The funding varies between the seven of them, but it will make an enormous difference.

I also want to talk about the RAA roads report that came out a few weeks ago. There have been many people in this chamber who have expressed concerns and raised issues about the quality of our road network. As a previous shadow in this area, I know that the challenge for the minister is enormous in trying to determine where the funding goes across the whole network to provide not just the safety required but the expectation from communities and business opportunities about an improved road vision.

The RAA public consultation had, I think, about 2700 people. Two of those roads are in areas that I am very familiar with in my electorate and are of concern to me. There are a lot of people out there, and not just the ones who contact me or the ones who might choose to contact the minister and his predecessor, who have taken that chance to express their frustrations and their desires. No matter who is in office from March of next year there is a very strong expectation of delivery. Regional people want some return for the tax money that they have paid over a lot of years. Yes, there are the intangible things tax dollars go into that they cannot see that we all know occur behind the scenes, but it is some of those key infrastructure areas that they want to see happen.

Can I say that I am also pleased about the extension of the $8,500 housing grant. As a parent of two young people who had already bought their homes before this grant was available—they were 20 and 21 when they did that—I am so pleased that there has been this level of support shown for the construction industry and for the civil contracting industry, by association with this. So, that is a good move, finishing at the end of December. I hope that it brings with it more confidence to the sector, and those looking for an opportunity to buy and build a home, and that it helps drive our state forward.

I was lucky enough, with a few other members of parliament, to have visited the Holden's site at Elizabeth, probably about two months ago. We met with Mr Devereux and some of his senior staff, we walked across the workshop and we looked at the production lines and saw the commitment from the staff there. It is of great concern, no matter where you are based, to understand the implications of what is occurring at the moment.

I have listened to the contribution from the member for Mitchell and other people who have spoken about this and to the members of the opposition. There needs to be an approach taken where state and federal governments work cohesively to make sure that motor vehicle manufacturing in Australia actually has a future.

The Ford decision and the impact that will have in Victoria in particular is significant. For South Australia's future to be as bright as I believe it actually will be, it is important that we get it right, not just for those 2,000 workers who are at Holden's but for all those other people who are associated with the components industry. I know the Premier has talked about 16,000 people being impacted by this. It is of such critical importance to our state that we actually get it right that it has to transcend bipartisan issues and we have got to work together.

Can I also talk about marine parks. It has been talked about for a long time, but it is still a key issue in communities. There has been some adjustment made, there has been some delay in the implementation of the sanctuary zones until October of next year, but there are still some communities that feel gutted by it.

In my own electorate, Port Wakefield is one of those. They have put their case quite well, I think. They have talked about the impact on the future for them as a community that has been driven, in many ways, not just by the travelling public that go through there and the roadhouses that exist but by a long-term history of professional fishermen and recreational fishing opportunities.

When you look at the spatial closures for snapper and the issue about blue swimmer crabs that is occurring within the gulf and predominantly on the other side of the peninsula, it is a really important issue and these people are going to keep fighting for it. They are going to ensure that, no matter where you come from, as a representative of the people, you understand their issue and it becomes a key election issue as we approach March.

Can I also just note the member for Frome, who talked about PATS—that is, the Patient Assistance Transport Scheme—and the review that has been announced by the Minister for Health. As a person who has contacted the government about this many times in the past and had one particular lady from my electorate who has been very strong on the need for this to be a more appropriate system that works better and provides a greater level of support, I am fully supportive of the review that is being undertaken.

My great frustration is with the financial situation. I think, in 2010, we took as an election policy an additional $1 million per year to go into supporting PATS. My fight within what I talk about with people is to try to ensure that that additional money is available because it is an absolute key.

I am lucky enough to have a health bus that operates in my area. It leaves from Yorketown, collects people who need expert medical treatment, takes them to Adelaide, leaves very early in the morning and gets back late at night, but, for a lot of people, the health bus is not the option because of their particular illness and sickness and the level of support that they need. So, PATS has to be a system that actually provides the level of financial need to recompense these people, even though it is only fractionally, for the travel component and often the accommodation component of what they are required to do overnight.

I look forward to the passage of the budget. I am hopeful that there is a chance for another party to put forward a different budget next year, which is also going to face enormous challenges but will be one that I know is going to be driven by the need of the people of South Australia to make us a great state.

Mrs VLAHOS (Taylor) (17:49): I would like to speak today on the Appropriation Bill for 2013-14. This is a budget that, despite tough economic times, stays true to core Labor values and is a reflection of my own personal values. It is an example of this government's commitment to provide South Australians with the best support and the best services. It is a commitment to giving our children the best education and a commitment to maintaining high-quality health services in our community. It is a commitment to training that will expand job opportunities for many and a commitment to keep our communities safe. Treasurer Jay Weatherill has taken on challenging financial circumstances and delivered a budget that makes sound, reasonable financial decisions, while protecting jobs, industry and development, to ensure a better quality of life for all South Australians.

We understand that many families struggle with cost-of-living pressures, and we are working hard to provide the support we can. This year's budget has delivered several initiatives to help ease the financial pressures on the families in my electorate, including $21.1 million over four years for increasing water concessions to pensioners and low income earners from 25 per cent to 30 per cent for those eligible, starting from 1 July this year. Compulsory third party reforms will reduce the cost of registering a typical family car by $148 over two years from 1 July this year. Further to this, a new monthly direct debt payment system for car registration will help spread the cost over the year.

These initiatives demonstrate the choice we have made to listen to our constituents. We have and always will put their needs first, and we will continue to work with them to build a strong future for our state. This choice will steadily return the budget to surplus in 2015-16 without jeopardising our local jobs, our state development, the construction sector, the health and safety of our local communities or the education of our children.

Education is a key for a brighter future, and it is something I truly believe in. I benefited from a good education, and I want to make sure the children in Taylor have this as a key priority in their life as well. It is certainly the case for our government by its having 'Every chance for every child' as one of its seven strategic priorities. That is why I am so very pleased about the commitment to rebuild the Sir Thomas Playford Kindergarten at Elizabeth South Primary School. The $2.6 million relocation of the kindergarten will directly benefit so many families in my electorate.

When I was first elected to parliament in 2010, I visited Sir Thomas Playford Kindergarten, and I immediately knew that the building needed to be improved in order to provide a high-quality learning environment. Since then, I have been working hard, alongside the kindergarten's director, Kate Walker, to ensure that this could be made possible so that the families in my electorate would be provided with the services they need and deserve.

I am so proud that now the kindergarten will be able to accommodate 20 more children after the relocation, which is due to be completed in April 2015. This will provide space for 66 children, and it is invaluable to our growing local community. This investment will not only provide a new building; the relocation to Elizabeth South Primary School will help parents with more than one child to make one-stop drop-off and pick-up easier for working families. It will also ease the transition from kindergarten to primary school by allowing children to stay in the same location from preschool all the way through to year 7.

I am thrilled that this government has chosen to invest in our children and to support families in my area. This kindergarten is just one part of the $32.7 million investment to upgrade 15 preschools across the state. I am sure that no-one in this room would disagree on how important it is to invest in these young children.

For the wider north, an investment of $46,000 at the John Hartley School will go towards the $2.3 million construction of a new building to build a better learning environment for both teachers and students. This is great news for students of the north, and I know that it will be particularly well received by several families in my electorate who live in the Andrews Farm-Angle Vale area.

I would like to talk about Skills for All for a moment. I commend this year's budget for making a statewide $27 million extra investment in the Skills for All program. Skills for All is an excellent program that provides courses to improve job skills to meet industry training needs. Education and training are crucial for local business and industry and, in turn, for the future of our state. We have chosen to continue our commitment to training that will help open up job opportunities for all people in South Australia.

I would also like to speak about the Lyell McEwin Hospital. It is a fantastic health provider in the north, and it is an essential part of any community, particularly in my area. The ongoing investment of $50 million towards the $177.7 million stage C redevelopment will provide much needed inpatient accommodation, a new multideck car park and the expansion of support facilities. Access to good health care is crucial for the wellbeing of all South Australians, and I am glad that we continue to invest in the north, in Lyell McEwin.

Community safety and public transport are things I often hear about in my electorate office. The 2013-14 budget also reaffirms a clear commitment to keeping our communities safe and increasingly connected. These are highlighted in several areas. First, for the fourth year in a row, $1.44 million has been invested in making sure we are installing new bus shelters statewide. In fact, there is one right near my electorate office that people are using right now. This continues to be a great investment to make sure public transport is both easier and safe, regardless of the weather conditions.

Secondly, forward estimates for the 2013-14 year include 28 new buses to replace old buses and seven additional buses will begin supporting public transport services from July next year. Investment in public transport plays an important role in keeping our local communities connected, and that is a challenge in the north.

Other projects like this ensure that we are on track and that we have a bright future in relation to rolling out the bus service for 407s, last year's budget commitment. A new project to provide $6.4 million over four years to emergency services communications will aid increased capacity to take calls and dispatch support for our 000 response system.

There is also an ongoing investment in our police force with $3.5 million of the $4.48 million for high-tech crime-fighting equipment. This equipment will include hand-held computers, a portable fingerprint system and an automated numberplate system for our police. I know the police in my area are looking forward to this additional technology.

This budget works to provide better services for transport, emergency and safety, but it also gives a sense of security to South Australians so they can feel safe living and travelling in our local communities, knowing that these services are ready for when they need them.

At a glance, budgets are a set of numbers on a piece of paper but these decisions are critical to the quality of life for South Australians. Irrespective of the financial challenges, the 2013-14 budget has given children in my electorate and many others the opportunity for an education in a growing, learning environment right from the start and a continuing commitment to good quality, easy access to good health care at the local hospital.

Statewide, this budget has chosen to invest in skills and training to help job opportunities for the future and actively keep transport, emergency services and police services as a priority to keeping our communities connected and safe. This budget supports every South Australian and I urge the house to support the bill.

[Sitting extended beyond 18:00 on motion of Hon. A. Koutsantonis]

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (17:57): There are some special guests in the chamber tonight: the principal of the Faith Lutheran school in the Barossa, Mr Gavan Cramer, his lovely wife Sue, and the two head prefects and the two deputies. Can I say how pleased I am to be associated with this very fine school. Gavan is only the second principal of this school in 25 years, or thereabouts. Brian Eckermann, of course, was the first inaugural principal of the school and Gavan has been there for seven years. They head-hunted this fellow. I wondered who was going to replace Mr Eckermann, but I am very pleased; they certainly came up with a cracker here.

When I became the member for Schubert to represent the Barossa Valley in 1992, this school was brand new and it was on a greenfield site. When you see it today, approximately 25 years later, wow. The proudest moment for me was the official opening of the Brenton Langbein performing arts centre at the school. The Liberals were in government and minister Ingerson, after a very effective presentation led by the school's development officer, Mr Tim Clemow, gave an amount of money over four years. It was a large amount of money, but only a fraction of the cost of that fine building. Somebody dared to dream. Can I say to the members of the house: you must see this building to believe it. People walk in there and they cannot believe that a building such as this exists in regional South Australia.

An honourable member: I've seen it.

Mr VENNING: You have; it's impressive, isn't it? The equipment in this building is equal to, and better than, the Festival Centre alongside us here in the city. So it is a fine moment and somebody has dared to dream. I now remember who the captains are: Jack Crawford and Nadia von Bertouch, Ethan Moore and Maddie Savage. Welcome to Parliament House. I look forward to an evening with these people here tonight. It is the last time I will have the honour of doing this after many years, and that is sad.

Again, I really have enjoyed my association with this very fine school. Families in the Barossa are so lucky to have the opportunity to send their children to a school like this. I congratulate all those involved with the school—principal Gavan, the staff, the head prefects, the deputy prefects, the prefects and all students, and of course the Lutheran Church and the Lutheran community—for the way they support this fine school. I will leave this job in March 2014, but I hope to have a lifelong interest in this school.

I will move now to another very positive story after a very negative week. This is another very good news story, together with the Faith one. I am pleased to bring a very positive story to the parliament. I rise today to speak about a wonderful and spectacular piece of our state's musical history that is now housed in Tanunda. It is being well cared for and restored back to its former glory. I refer to the Hill & Son grand pipe organ that was erected in the Adelaide Town Hall in 1877 and was there until 1990, when it was dismantled, stored and advertised for sale. It remained in storage in the Adelaide Hills until March 1995, when I first saw it, when it was offered to the South Australian committee of the Organ Historical Trust of Australia. If they did not take it, it was going to go to the tip—an absolute disgrace.

The organ measures approximately eight metres in width, five metres in depth and 10 metres in height. It weighs in at approximately 20 tonnes. It is truly an awesome site. As you can imagine, it is a massive instrument. William Hill & Sons were the most prominent British organ builders of the later 19^th century. This organ was commissioned in 1875—it really is a big part of our state's history—and it was designed to add prestige to the Adelaide Town Hall. At the time, it was the largest of its type in the Southern Hemisphere, and certainly the largest in Australia at the time.

The city organ was used almost daily in those early days, making the city organist the most important musical figure in the city. It was taken out of the Adelaide Town Hall in approximately 1990 after it was ruined by electrifying the action, thus destroying the organ's soul. The new organ now in its place does not have the same pedigree as the original Hill & Son. Once restored to its former glory, it will have a great appeal for all sorts of audiences. Matched with the lovely acoustics of the Soldiers' Memorial Hall in Tanunda, it should prove to be as popular in the future as it was in the past.

The organ will soon be available for many purposes, including teaching, competition use, recordings for media broadcasts, and as a tourism attraction for both historical and musical purposes, and recitals and concerts. It is the trust's intention to restore the organ fully to its 1875 condition, which has involved accurate reconstruction of its missing bellows, sound board and all the action. As I said, this was all but destroyed—at least its soul was—when the organ was so-called 'renovated' back in the 1960s, when all the mechanical action was replaced with electronic operation.

My late music master at PAC, the late Roland May, and Dr Peters were the two most famous organists in the state, and they just loved this instrument. They were the best organists we knew of and they were very disappointed with what happened when the organ was renovated. Almost all of the original pipework is present, but the case pipes will need to have the original decoration restored. The original organ had pale blue pipes with gold features and the body was made of natural wood. Most people can remember this organ in the Adelaide Town Hall when it was painted this ghastly white. I do not know what they were thinking when they did that. Three months ago it had a small number of limited playings.

When I heard the organ three or four months ago, only four stops of the 37 were working, and it sounded magnificent. I have heard the instrument played several times now and I have been very impressed. I also heard it before it was taken out of the Town Hall many years ago. I went to the very first Festival of Arts—that is how old I am—and I heard the organ played then, and it is going to be a lot better than it ever was. It makes a majestic sound; however, more funding is needed to ensure the organ will be fully operational. I have given a large donation to the restoration of the organ myself, as have many people in the Barossa, yet approximately $50,000 is still needed to complete the job. There is still a way to go.

Two weeks ago, I had a private demonstration with Mr Stephen Kaesler when 80 per cent of the organ was operational. It gave me goose bumps; it was absolutely fabulous, and there is still 20 per cent to go. I would love to see this wonderful piece of musical history completed and totally restored to its former glory before I retire. It will be such a great achievement for so many volunteers who have given their time and made donations toward the work, to finally see the project completed.

I will again be publicly appealing for assistance with funding to complete the job once and for all. To have this spectacular piece of history restored to its original beauty and to bring it once again to full voice would be of great interest and bring renewed enthusiasm for our musical heritage. Organs of this size and grandeur are often referred to as the king of instruments. This one certainly is. It has a new soul, and all its intricate workings are visible behind a new plate glass facade down in the cellar, all built and donated by Ahrens Ltd.. What a generous donation!

One of the last things I want to achieve before I retire is to attend the grand recommissioning concert. I pay tribute to Steve Kaesler, the members of the Organ Historical Society of Australia and the many local citizens on a wonderful achievement. I hope the $50,000 can be forthcoming so the organ can be debt-free when it becomes a vital part of the musical heritage of the Barossa Valley.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (18:06): The big announcement recently about funding for disability services across Australia is something that the Liberal Party in South Australia strongly supports. I want to put that on the record because there are some people out there who are saying there may be some issues with it. In fact, a press release was put out yesterday by the Disability Speaks Steering Committee and the Intellectual Disability Association of South Australia which says:

We believe our local Liberal Opposition Leader, Steven Marshall, is genuinely sympathetic and we expect a very positive response when we meet with him...

It goes on to say:

...despite the financial zealots in the Liberal Party who abhor community support programs like NDIS.

I put on the record in this place that everybody in the Liberal Party strongly supports the NDIS, or DisabilityCare Australia, as it is now known, and to have this in a press release is, to say the least, very disappointing. I know a lot of people in disability services, and the former shadow minister, the member for Morialta, and I have been speaking to them, and they trust the Liberal Party to do the right thing by people with disabilities in South Australia. We all support the NDIS and we will be doing everything we can to make sure it works.

I know there are some concerns about the way it is going to work. We want to make sure that the money that is available goes to people with disabilities and is not sucked up by a large bureaucracy as we often see when these schemes are set up. We have seen 300 jobs created in Geelong at the DisabilityCare Australia facility there; now let us make sure that the money that is available is not only paying wages for a bureaucracy. Let us make sure the money is going to the people who need the care, who deserve that care, and they certainly want that care.

The role of DisabilityCare Australia is going to be to make sure that that money goes to those people, and the Liberal Party will be watching to make sure that that is the case, and I know that my federal colleagues are of exactly the same mind. So, can I put to rest any concerns from people in the disability sector in South Australia about the future of the NDIS or DisabilityCare Australia. It is going to be delivered in the best, most efficient possible way as the Liberals can see it being delivered, so that the people who need it, and the people who deserve it, get that service.

There will be about another 12,000 people in South Australia who will be receiving care under DisabilityCare Australia, up from the current 20,000. We are concerned. Where are those people now? How are we going to get the staff to look after those people? How are we going to attract and keep staff? They are genuine concerns, because we want to make sure that this system works. I assure anybody who has any concerns about this after what I have said today to contact me, come and sit down with me, and talk to me about their concerns so that I can allay those concerns, because this is a great thing for all Australians and, particularly, for us here in this parliament, for South Australians with disabilities. It is long overdue and we strongly support it.

I will talk about some of the issues in the state budget that affect my electorate of Morphett, particularly the extra funding for dredging down at the Patawalonga. I was surprised to hear this in the budget because it has not been raised with me in my office as being a particular concern. Obviously, with the drainage going into the Patawalonga and the Barcoo Outlet working the way it is, the flushing of the Pat has been working well and the boating and recreation on the Pat has been getting more and more frequent. Every weekend, if you go down there you will see people with everything from their model boats to canoes and kayaks and their pets swimming in there. I went for a swim in the Pat a number of years ago with the then member for Unley when it was officially reopened after the Barcoo Outlet was in place, and the water was fine.

I remember there was an issue with a fish kill in there a number of years ago because there was a very large thunderstorm after a long dry spell and the oxygen depletion in the Pat killed the fish. The member for Colton should get his line out and be down there fishing because there were huge mulloway in there. Honestly, without any exaggeration—no fisherman's exaggeration—there were metre-long mulloway that had, unfortunately, died. The fish that were in there were absolutely incredible. To me, that emphasises the health of that river system.

The Pat was the second-most polluted waterway in Australia until the Building Better Cities program—which was a Hawke government program, I shall say. The then member for Morphett, John Oswald, was able to get funding and there were tonnes and tonnes of silt removed from the Pat and it was stored by the airport. Where it has gone now, I do not know. The Pat, after many years, was returned to pristine condition and the building of the Barcoo Outlet, which was a concern for a lot of people, improved the bypass and flushing of the Pat so that the system could work as we all wanted it to work, and that was as a pristine river system.

We did have the return of the milk carton regatta once and I would love to see that come back. I am desperately trying to get the birdman rally back down at the Bay. We have it at Moomba. You see the Red Bull Flugtag flying days around the world and insurance problems are not an issue for them, so getting the birdman rally back down at the Pat is something that I am very keen to see. You can go onto my Facebook site and look at 'bring back birdman' if you want to look at some of the shots of the wonderful machines that they had back then.

There is other money that has been put aside in former budgets. In the 2011-12 budget, there was $4.3 million put aside to modernise the lock gates, and those are the gates adjacent to the Holdfast Shores development. The old lifting mechanisms are in big concrete gantries. I understand that the new gates that will be put in there will be centre pivot gates similar to what is at the Barcoo. It will look a lot better than it does now and be a lot more open and, certainly, it will be a great improvement. That is something that this government has done in my electorate of Morphett that is very good.

It is one of the very few things that has been done down there, unfortunately. I remember a number years ago there was funding for local road upgrades, and I had a photograph on my website at one stage of me standing on the centre strip of Brighton Road with one foot in Bright and one foot in Morphett, and you know where the bitumen ended—it ended in Bright: it did not go on into Morphett. You can see the same sort of thing as you go from Ashford into Morphett on the north. Actually, it might be from West Torrens into Morphett on the north-eastern corner. As the new bitumen went over Morphett Road where my boundary is, it went a couple of hundred metres and stopped at the bridge there.

The roads in Morphett do require a lot of upgrade. The government has spent some money and is doing some work at the moment at High Street, and at the Augusta Street and Brighton Road intersections, but when you go down Anzac Highway, Oaklands Road and Morphett Road, they should rename some of these roads Rodeo Drive because it is like riding a bucking bronco going down there. The potholes and undulations are quite severe. I look forward to the government spending more money on not just road maintenance and patching up potholes but also re-laying the bitumen and making sure the good taxpayers, ratepayers and electors of Morphett get what they deserve down there and it is better than what they have got now.

Another hotspot that has affected the members for Bright, Mitchell and Elder, and certainly me, is the Oaklands Crossing. I remember, as a candidate, lobbying for the upgrade of Oaklands Crossing and I think the first form of upgrade that was envisaged was 27 years ago costing $1 million. Since then, it has got more and more expensive and more and more convoluted, and what do you see the government do? In the last term of this government, they spent $4 million on moving the railway station at Oaklands 400 metres towards the railway crossing, which compounded the problem, with a bus interchange. It all sounds good; it all looks good but when you see the traffic jams there—in fact, you can go onto my website and see the video of the traffic jams that occur at that intersection. It is an absolute disgrace.

May I congratulate the member for Mitchell for having the courage to voice his concerns about what his government was not doing down there. He got a bit of a bollocking, or so I am told, for speaking out, but good on him for doing that. It is just bad luck that this government will not do it. Perhaps with a Liberal government in March 2014 we can work towards doing that.

I certainly cannot promise it because we do not know what the books look like, but it is an infrastructure issue that should be a real priority for both the federal and state governments. We do not know when we can do that sort of thing but it is like many things to do with transport in South Australia, it is going to have to be done at some stage. As we saw 27 years ago, it was $1 million and now it is about $100 million; the longer we leave it the more expensive it is going to get.

I will mention another piece of infrastructure that is being put down along my electorate boundary along the beach—the sand pumping pipelines. We got half as much and it cost twice as much and now we have the pipes going alongside Glenelg jetty. A number of months ago I tweeted about the oil terminal look along the jetty and I suggested that that they extend the jetty out to the south with a walkway and move the handrails across. I am glad to see that is happening but why it was not in the original design I do not know.

It is certainly good to see that the sand is going to be pumped around the place rather than having thousands of trucks going up and down the beaches and the local roads carting that sand. There is that south-north peripheral drift that has been going on for thousands of years. It is going to continue, and sand pumping is a sensible way of at least ameliorating the problem.

I am privileged to be the member for Morphett. I look forward to representing that area for many years to come and I certainly hope to be doing that from the government benches after March next year. If that is the case then the issues that I have been talking about now will be receiving a much higher priority than has been the case with this government.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (18:17): I am pleased to continue my remarks from yesterday afternoon in relation to the budget bill. It looks like I am the lucky last speaker in the house this afternoon.

Mr Gardner: I think the member for Brighton wants to have a go, too.

The Hon. C.C. FOX: No, I'm good.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Right, okay—last but not least, as one might say. Yesterday we saw the leader announcing a new policy initiative. Not everybody but some sections of the community are continuously calling on the leader and the state Liberal Party to release policy—and that is what we have been doing; we have been doing that continuously. Yesterday's announcement again evidenced that fact: the leader announced that upon achieving government that a state productivity commission would be established.

This state trails the national labour productivity average by a staggering 14 per cent. This state is 'tail-end Charlie' on a whole range of economic indicators. It is not good enough. This government does not have the way or the willpower to pull ourselves out of the current dire situation, the mire of economic mismanagement that the state is currently in with record deficit, record debt and an interest bill of $952 million which equates to $2.6 million per day. They are staggeringly bad statistics.

As the leader highlighted yesterday, the commission will conduct reviews of public finance, produce reports on government services as requested, advise on red tape and regulation—that is going to be specifically, I think, a significant focus of a future Liberal government—devise business regulation and impact statements, and undertake cost-benefit analyses. That is all very important and crucial work that any government should be undertaking. But, alas, what have we seen from this government? They are stuck in the economic models of the 1950s and 1960s, where they think the way forward and the way to pull themselves out of economic difficulty is to tax, borrow and spend. As I said yesterday, that just does not work in the current economic climate that we find ourselves in. It has not worked federally. The previous prime minister, Kevin Rudd, with this stimulus package, and so on, said it would shield us from the GFC.

Mr Gardner: The once and future prime minister?

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Yes, perhaps. Then prime minister Rudd said the stimulus and the BER, the pink batts schemes—and you name it, he had it—were going to shield us from the GFC. Now we've got—

Mr Gardner: $900 cheques.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Yes; $900 cheques which, arguably, went to pay off Visa card bills, buy plasma TVs, LED TVs, and so on. Now we have the current federal Treasurer saying that all our economic woes are because of the GFC. Well, you cannot walk both sides of the street. You cannot say that the stimulus shielded us from the GFC, but you have got the current Treasurer saying all our economic woes are a consequence of the GFC. You cannot have it both ways.

We understand and, certainly, the leader coming from a business background understands, that the productive sectors of the economy need to be cranking along, as I said, instead of the tired old way the Labor government operates. One of the ways to stimulate the economy for the 140,000-plus businesses in South Australia is to assist them and stimulate their activity. We know the engine room of the South Australian economy is small business, just like the engine room of the parliament is the House of Assembly. That is perhaps a comment for another day.

I want to further my comments in relation to some of the issues that my colleagues on this side of the house raised in their contributions about funding for the regions and for primary industries. We see very little funding, if any, in the regions, apart from specific schemes in the Riverland, the South-East, and perhaps Upper Spencer Gulf.

Members on this side of the house are passionate advocates for primary industries. We know on this side of the house the significant contribution that primary industry makes to the state's economy. It is something like $4 billion a year on average, and that is just in net production, not value adding through vertical integration. There is the multiplier effect on that of some significant factors. My understanding is that it is about $4 billion that primary industries and agriculture inject into the state's economy. That is a significant amount of money, and that sector is certainly worth supporting.

But what do we see from this government? They have pulled back funding and they have sold off research centres. The Lenswood Research Centre, in my electorate, always has a question mark over its future and the services it provides and whether it is going to be retained or sold. There is a significant concern in the Adelaide Hills region, I know, from local farming communities about the future of that facility. That will be a real loss to the horticultural sector and other associated industries if it does fall away.

I also wanted to speak about funding for road infrastructure. I refer to Budget Paper 1, Budget Overview, page 7: Infrastructure investments in partnership with the Commonwealth Government. It states:

The budget commits significant funding over the forward estimates to road and rail projects under the Nation Building 2 program.

It talks about the South-Eastern Freeway and '$24.9 million over three years from 2014-15 to improve the safety and efficiency of the freeway'. That is obviously necessary funding. The Mount Barker council and the Adelaide Hills Council have been calling on this government for a long time to see further improvements carried out on the freeway corridor.

That does not get away from the fact that we still have at least a $200 million, if not more, backlog in road maintenance in South Australia—it is probably in excess of $200 million now. You only have to look at the headline on the front page of the Stock Journal of last week. There was a headline emblazoned across the front page of the Stock Journal about how the roads in rural areas of South Australia are literally crumbling away.

We have had this debate previously in the house, and previous ministers for road safety have discounted the importance of the conditions of roads, saying that they do not contribute to crashes and so on. I think it was the member for Newland, the road safety minister at that stage, who was severely embarrassed in the media as a consequence of his comments along the lines that the specific road conditions do not contribute to road crashes. One of the best ways to improve road safety is to improve the conditions of your roads. If you talk to anybody in the road safety sector, that is a common message.

As I said, in the forward years we are talking about almost $25 million, and part of that is commonwealth funding, to upgrade and improve the freeway corridor. I want more details about the proposal to upgrade the existing entry/exit ramps at the Mount Barker freeway interchange and more details about a proposed second interchange at Mount Barker. My office has contacted the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure's office several times seeking a briefing on those specific issues and we are yet to get a response.

Time expired.

Motion carried.

Estimates Committees

The Hon. C.C. FOX (Bright—Minister for Transport Services, Minister Assisting the Minister for the Arts) (18:27): I move:

That the proposed expenditures for the departments and services contained in the Appropriation Bill be referred to Estimates Committees A and B for examination and report by Wednesday 3 July 2013, in accordance with the following timetables:

APPROPRIATION BILL

TIMETABLE FOR ESTIMATES COMMITTEES

ESTIMATES COMMITTEE A

26 June-2 July 2013

WEDNESDAY 26 JUNE 2013 AT 10.30 AM

Premier

Minister for State Development

Minister for Public Sector

Minister for the Arts

Minister Assisting the Minister for the Arts

Treasurer

Legislative Council

Joint Parliamentary Services

House of Assembly

State Governor's Establishment

Department of the Premier and Cabinet (part)

Administered Items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet (part)

Auditor-General's Department

Department of Manufacturing, Innovation, Trade, Resources and Energy (part)

Arts SA

Department of Treasury and Finance (part)

Administered Items for the Department of Treasury and Finance (part)

THURSDAY 27 JUNE 2013 AT 9.30 AM

Attorney-General

Minister for Business Services and Consumers

Minister for Industrial Relations

Minister for Planning

Courts Administration Authority

Attorney-General's Department (part)

Administered Items for the Attorney-General's Department (part)

Electoral Commission SA

Department of Treasury and Finance (part)

Administered Items for the Department of Treasury and Finance (part)

Independent Gambling Authority

Department for Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (part)

Administered Items for the Department for Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (part)

FRIDAY 28 JUNE 2013 AT 9.30 AM

Minister for Finance

Minister for Emergency Services

Minister for Correctional Services

Minister for Road Safety

Minister for Police

Department of Treasury and Finance (part)

Administered Items for the Department of Treasury and Finance (part)

Department of the Premier and Cabinet (part)

Administered Items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet (part)

Department for Correctional Services

Department for Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (part)

Administered Items for the Department for Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (part)

South Australia Police (part)

Administered Items for South Australia Police (part)

MONDAY 1 JULY 2013 AT 10.30 AM

Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills

Minister for Science and Information Economy

Minister for Recreation and Sport

Minister for Tourism

Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology

Department for Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (part)

Administered Items for the Department for Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (part)

South Australian Tourism Commission

Minister for Tourism

TUESDAY 2 JULY 2013 AT 10.30 AM

Minister for Manufacturing, Innovation and Trade

Minister for Small Business

Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion

Minister for Volunteers

Minister for Disabilities

Minister for Youth

Minister for Social Housing

Department of Manufacturing, Innovation, Trade, Resources and Energy (part)

Department of the Premier and Cabinet (part)

Administered Items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet (part)

Department for Communities and Social Inclusion (part)

Administered Items for the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion (part)

ESTIMATES COMMITTEE B

26 June-2 July 2013

WEDNESDAY 26 JUNE 2013 AT 10.30 AM

Minister for Health and Ageing

Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse

Minister for Defence Industries

Minister for Veterans' Affairs

Department for Health and Ageing

Defence SA

Department of Treasury and Finance (part)

Administered Items for the Department of Treasury and Finance (part)

THURSDAY 27 JUNE 2013 AT 10.30 AM

Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy

Minister for Housing and Urban Development

Minister for Transport and Infrastructure

Minister for Transport Services

Department of Manufacturing, Innovation, Trade, Resources and Energy (part)

Department for Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (part)

Administered Items for the Department for Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (part)

FRIDAY 28 JUNE 2013 AT 10.30 AM

Minister for Education and Child Development

Minister for Multicultural Affairs

Department of Education and Child Development

Administered Items for the Department of Education and Child Development

Department for Communities and Social Inclusion (part)

Administered Items for the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion (part)

MONDAY 1 JULY 2013 AT 10.30 AM

Minister for Agriculture, Food, Fisheries and Regional Development

Minister for Forests

Minister for State/Local Government Relations

Minister for the Status of Women

Department of Primary Industries and Regions

Administered Items for the Department of Primary Industries and Regions

Department of the Premier and Cabinet (part)

Administered Items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet (part)

Department for Communities and Social Inclusion (part)

Administered Items for the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion (part)

TUESDAY 2 JULY 2013 AT 10.30 AM

Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation

Minister for Water and the River Murray

Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation

Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources

Administered Items for the Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources

Department of the Premier and Cabinet (part)

Administered Items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet (part)

Motion carried.

The Hon. C.C. FOX (Bright—Minister for Transport Services, Minister Assisting the Minister for the Arts) (18:27): I move:

That Estimates Committee A be appointed, consisting of the Hon. M.J. Wright, Ms Bettison, the Hon. J.D. Hill, Mr Marshall, Mr Odenwalder, Mr Treloar and Mrs Redmond.

Motion carried.

The Hon. C.C. FOX (Bright—Minister for Transport Services, Minister Assisting the Minister for the Arts) (18:28): I move:

That Estimates Committee B be appointed, consisting of the Hon. L.R. Breuer, Ms Bedford, the Hon. P. Caica, the Hon. P.F. Conlon, Mr Goldsworthy, Dr McFetridge and Ms Sanderson.

Motion carried.