Bills

Appropriation Bill 2014

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 19 June 2014.)

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (11:03): It is my pleasure to stand here in this place on behalf of the people of Stuart and speak on the Appropriation Bill. I indicate that I am not the lead speaker. The Leader of the Opposition will be the lead speaker on behalf of our team but, while I am not the lead speaker, I, of course, do take this very seriously, as do all my colleagues.

This is the first day of a new financial year—a key date for many organisations running financial accounts. Not everybody works on a July to June year, but most do, so it is a critical year. It is a critical year as well for South Australians who may not be running companies or other organisations. For South Australians earning wages, trying to pay the bills, trying to put food on the table, trying to pay their mortgages and trying to look after their kids, it is a key day for them too, because it is 1 July and it is the first day of another year of higher taxes, reduced services and fantasy forecasts by our state Labor government.

I have spoken many times in this place about the never-ending stream of Labor government predictions of a budget surplus in two years' time which, of course, never materialises. We will have a $1.232 billion deficit for this 2013-14 financial year which has just finished. Mr Speaker, as I am sure you know, that was originally planned by the state Labor government to be a $480 million surplus. The surplus never came. The surplus was never likely to come and, instead of a $480 million surplus as predicted by the then treasurer, we now have a $1.232 billion deficit, so a $1.7 billion turnaround from what was predicted to what we are actually going to get.

But they tell us it is okay. They tell us not to worry because in two years' time there will be another surplus. With every budget we get for a long time there is another surplus forecast two years down the track but we know they do not come. The public of South Australia knows they do not come and, while they will never say it, members opposite know that they will never come. In seven years of predictions that we have on the books at the moment, there has been one surplus delivered—one surplus out of seven years, and that is a fact that all South Australians are fully aware of.

We have been speaking on this issue for years. We have been highlighting for years that it just does not happen, but people are very aware of how things work now and I understand that the Treasurer got a very rude shock in the budget lockup this year when he was told very directly by experienced commentators that his assumptions about economic growth and the budget were flat out wrong, that they would not eventuate. I was not there, obviously, but I am told that he was told very directly that the assumptions of growth upon which he has based his predicted surplus in two years' time were fantasy.

It is very much like trying to get a loan from the bank based on a predicted income increase in the next few years, trying to tell the bank that you are going to get a promotion or a pay rise or your household income is going to rise so, 'Could I please spend this money? Could I have this loan to spend this money?' The banker says, 'Go away and come back once you've got the promotion. Once we know that that income is secure, come and see us again—that would be great—but until then we don't want to talk to you.'

The difficulty is that the state government does not operate that way. It just keeps putting these predictions further and further out into the future and increasing its debt. This government has been warned by business, warned by the Auditor-General, warned by the public, warned by public commentators and warned by us, but it does not change its plans. In 2010, 100,000 additional jobs were promised by 2014 by this government. That promise was then extended to be delivered in 2016 and the government is still trying to pretend that it will fulfil the promise, but it is the only one who believes it.

In just over four years we have actually gone backwards in regard to jobs. We have fewer jobs now than we did in 2010. We have lost 19,600 jobs in the last 12 months alone. South Australia's unemployment rate is now 6.8 per cent, the highest of all mainland states. We have extremely poor business and consumer confidence. No-one believes the government's fantasy forecasts. To achieve the fantasy forecast of delivering an additional 100,000 jobs by 2016, this government would need to deliver 4,800 jobs per month every month between now and 2016 and, of course, nobody believes that is going to happen.

Only Tasmania has worse unemployment and a higher unemployment rate than South Australia, but they do now have something that we do not have. They have a newly-elected Liberal government and what has followed immediately on the heels of that newly-elected Liberal government is the highest business confidence in the nation. Tasmania has the highest business confidence in the nation right now.

They can all see that things have changed for them. They can all see that they are now on the right path. They are off the path of promise surpluses, deliver deficits and then say that it was somebody else's fault, and then again, promise surpluses and deliver deficits and say it was somebody else's fault. They are off that path; they are off that treadmill. They have the highest business confidence in the nation.

Business confidence is vitally important. We in the opposition do not support businesses just because we want business operators to be successful—it is not about that. If they are successful, that is fantastic and good luck to them. We support businesses so that businesses can create jobs. That is why it is important to support businesses—particularly small and medium-size businesses—because they create jobs.

Labor keeps mismanaging our state's finances; it keeps breaking promises, and is now trying to blame the federal government for its own problems. The federal government is actually increasing funding contributions to our state but not at the fantasy levels offered by the former Labor federal government. The Victorian government did not believe the former federal Labor government, so it did not factor the fantasy forecasts into the forward estimates and so it is now not having to try to make the excuses that our state Labor government is making because it wanted to believe them. If they reached into the depths of their hearts they would have known it was not possible. They would have known that they would not have eventuated, but they just wanted to believe them and now they are trying to blame somebody else.

State Labor chose to accept the fantasy, just as it still holds to its own fantasies of surpluses in two years' time and 100,000 extra jobs in two years' time. Victoria knew this promise from the former federal Labor government could never be delivered regardless of who happened to win the last federal election. Whether it was Liberal or Labor that won the last federal election, those fantasy promises from the former federal government would never have been delivered. The Victorians did not count on them and our government should not have counted on them either.

Our state Labor government now tries to blame all its deficiencies on the federal government: the deficiency of poor financial management perpetually spending more than is available, the deficiency of predicting fantasy growth rates within our economy, the deficiency of not reigning in spending when it is clear that these growth rates will not be achieved, and the deficiency of broken promises and cost blowouts identified by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow treasurer in our response to the budget.

We have identified 37 broken promises and cost blowouts from this government which are obvious from the budget which has just been released. There are too many in the time that is available to me to name, but I will touch on a couple. The promise of no privatisation is one which this government has made for a very long time, yet it sold the Lotteries Commission, the forward offtakes for over 100 years for the forests in the South-East, and this year, having promised no privatisation, the government is going to sell the Motor Accident Commission.

Another promise which I fear will be broken is that of no privatisation in our Correctional Services system. As a former shadow minister for correctional services this is particularly important. As a person who represents the electorate of Stuart with two prisons and an enormous number of people working in community corrections in our electorate, I asked the Minister for Correctional Services in question time whether he could confirm what I had been told on good authority: that services within the correctional services system would be privatised. He was not allowed to answer—the Treasurer answered saying that no facilities would be privatised.

However, I fear that we have another broken promise on the horizon: the privatisation of some services within our correctional services within this state and that concerns me, and members on this side of the house, very much.

Let me put it in context. Two years ago, when former treasurer Snelling was in office, he started his budget speech in this house by saying that South Australia would be in a very different place in a year's time—

The Hon. J.J. Snelling: Ten years' time.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: In 10 years' time.

An honourable member: No, it was a few years' time.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I do not think it was 10 years, former treasurer. We can check the Hansard, but suffice to say that the former treasurer said that South Australia would be a very different place because BHP's Olympic Dam project would be up and running. It is a shame that that project is not up and running, but to base budget estimates on those sorts of predictions before they are confirmed is just symptomatic of what is going on, and current Treasurer Koutsantonis is doing exactly the same thing. The government knows that it is doing the wrong thing, but it continues to do it.

Another deficiency is their being addicted to the belief that more and more debt will solve the government's problems; I think that is probably one of the worst. Broken promises are right up there, but trying to tell people that you can borrow more and more and everything will be okay is not going to cut it.

Another very serious deficiency of this government's financial management of our state is that they genuinely believe that it does not matter how much damage they do to our economy, that as long as they are re-elected it is worth it, even when they know that each and every South Australian will eventually have to pay the very high price attached to Labor doing whatever it has to do to stay in power, to look after itself rather than the state. How sad that is for the people of South Australia because the reality is that a lower price up-front is much better than a much higher price later, and that is what Labor is doing to the people of South Australia.

State Labor is now trying to blame all of its deficiencies on the federal government. An example of this is the Minister for Education, who recently visited the electorate of Stuart. I welcome all ministers to the electorate of Stuart. I genuinely try to help them; I make my office, my staff, anything I have, available to them so that their time in the electorate can be productive and useful. But instead of trying to be productive and useful, unfortunately on this occasion the Minister for Education continued this rhetoric of blaming federal funding decreases for the current government's situation with regard to the budget.

The reality is that, over the next five years, the federal government will actually increase its contribution to South Australian state government schools by 37 per cent. It will go from $334 million in the 2013-14 year up to $558 million in the 2017-18 year, a 37 per cent increase. That is very significant and very important, but still the government tries to paint it as if it is decreasing. The state government had already announced $240 million of its own cuts to education before the federal budget was handed down.

The Minister for Education, who, no doubt, has done this in other electorates too, came to Stuart identifying specific amounts of money that would be taken away from every single school in the electorate of Stuart as if that was the federal government's doing. Every member of this house knows that it is the government, the minister and the education department that identify how much money will be taken away from every school. So, to try to put a dollar value to school A, school B and school C as if Tony Abbott has somehow come in and wielded the axe in that school is deliberately misleading. It is the state government that makes that decision; it is the state government that has that control.

This type of rhetoric is just not credible, given the existing track record of financial mismanagement this government has: predicting surpluses that do not eventuate; the $1.2 billion deficit for the 2013-14 year, with no impact whatsoever from the federal budget on that 2013-14 year; predicting a fantasy $248 million surplus for the same year but delivering that $1.2 billion deficit—and that is after receiving $1 billion of extra GST top-up money from other states. The government actually spent well in excess of $2 billion more in the financial year that closed just yesterday than it had in income.

Nobody believes this government when they try to blame the federal government for their financial mismanagement. We are heading to over $14 billion of state debt, plus unfunded liabilities, which are real liabilities which the public of South Australia have to deal with. We are going to be well in excess of $20 billion when you add up all the exposure South Australians have to the excesses, the poor management and the broken promises of this government. It is actually South Australians who have to pay it. It is not the government doing whatever it can do and saying whatever it has to say, pretending to be all things to all people and not caring about the realities of financial management just so that they can get re-elected. Eventually, South Australians have to pay.

This goes straight to the cost of living for every South Australian household and every single person. In the last 12 years of this state Labor government, there has been a cumulative 40 per cent inflation—a 40 per cent CPI increase—yet housing rental has gone up 54 per cent, property charges have gone up 87 per cent, state taxes have gone up 92 per cent, gas bills have gone up 136 per cent, electricity bills have gone up 160 per cent (four times inflation) and water bills have gone up 227 per cent.

I started by saying that this day, 1 July 2014, is a very sad day, for many reasons. This budget comes into effect today. But guess what? So does another 4.4 per cent increase in our electricity prices. This is after the Treasurer forecast, only a few months ago, that South Australians would have a 0.9 per cent decrease in their electricity prices every year for the next three years. The Treasurer said electricity prices would go down by 0.9 per cent every year for the next three years, but they have actually gone up 4.4 per cent just for this year. That is the type of financial mismanagement that concerns me enormously.

The increase in the emergency services levy impacts on all people who pay the emergency services levy in our state and it is an absolutely disgraceful thing to do under the guise of emergency services. It is as if our emergency services professionals and volunteers are somehow at fault. It is just an increase in tax. It is an increase in tax right across the board. It is an increase in property tax: it is essentially the same as a land tax increase.

The emergency services levy increase, which is attracted by the ownership of property, goes to every household that owns a property, every landlord who owns a property, and every person who rents a property (because, eventually, the landlord will have to pass it on). It goes to every small business. It is a tax on small business and a tax on employment. Every business in our state that works out of owned premises is going to pay this extra tax. Every business that works out of rented premises is going to pay that tax, because the landlord will pass it on eventually through the rent.

The business will get this increase in the emergency services levy through its outgoings and commercial tenancy agreement. It will directly pay it straightaway, and it will add costs to that business so that that business is unable to employ people, which is what we really need. We need to be supporting businesses, not dragging them down, so that businesses can employ more people so our economy can grow. Take the handbrake off our economy so that people can have jobs in our state.

Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (11:23): I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill which is before the house at the moment. I indicate that I will be the lead speaker for the opposition and that we will be supporting this budget. In fact, it is the Liberal Party's position, as it has always been, that we will support the Appropriation Bill and always support the Supply Bill. It was nothing more than mischievous for the Treasurer to suggest to the people of South Australia in the lead-up to his bringing down the Appropriation Bill that we planned to block supply.

He was indicating to the people of South Australia that the Liberal Party had some evil plan to stop paying doctors, nurses, teachers and public servants here in South Australia, and nothing could be further from the truth. We never indicated that we would be blocking supply. We never indicated that we would be blocking this Appropriation Bill.

There are plenty of things that we are not happy with in this budget and there are plenty of things that the people of South Australia are not happy with in this budget, and we will have more to say about that when the Budget Measures Bill is introduced to this house, and I foreshadow that we will be talking extensively regarding some of the items contained within the Budget Measures Bill. However, I make the point that we will be supporting the Appropriation Bill, as we supported the Supply Bill.

South Australia is in an absolute world of trouble. Between last year's budget and this year's budget we have lost in excess of 19½ thousand jobs here in South Australia. That is absolutely shameful. We went to the election and both major parties said that the most pressing issue for South Australia was unemployment. We have the highest rate of unemployment in mainland Australia at 6.8 per cent and growing; the May figures saw a significant growth in unemployment in South Australia from 6.2 per cent to 6.8 per cent. It is going backwards under the failed policy settings of this government here in South Australia.

It is not just employment that is a problem here in South Australia, it is also our domestic economy. We know, from the ABS, that our state's domestic economy has shrunk in the last two quarters; in the December quarter we contracted, in the March quarter we contracted, and, guess what? We are on track—with these poor policy settings put in place by Labor—to have a further contraction in this June quarter. That is costing us jobs here in South Australia.

Not only do we have a contracting domestic economy and increased unemployment but our young people are leaving South Australia. Last year, in a single year alone, we had a staggering 30 per cent increase in net interstate migration. Our young people are giving up hope in South Australia, and that is why it was so important for this budget—this most important budget, the most important document brought down by government each and every year—to favour the business community, to favour jobs creation here in South Australia, and to favour our next generation.

We went to the election saying that we needed a budget in South Australia that backed business to grow the economy, that had substantial tax reforms in place, that reduced regulation, that focused on population growth, that focused on supporting our exporters out of South Australia, and that focused on a better framework for spending our finite capital here in South Australia. There is a way forward. There are six states in Australia, and five of them are currently governed by Liberal reformist governments. Guess what is happening in each and every one of those states? They are growing employment.

I have just spent the weekend with Liberal premiers from around Australia, and I can tell you that they are very exciting times in those states. On Saturday morning, I spent some time with Dennis Napthine; he has actually created 18,000 jobs in the 12 months to the end of May. Sound familiar? We have lost 19,600 and guess where they went? Victoria; 18,000 jobs have been created in that state.

Let me tell you what was contained in their state budget, which was brought down in the last couple of weeks: reduction in payroll tax. Why? Because they want to further grow their economy, they want to further grow employment in their state, they want to keep their young people in Victoria—more than that, they want to take our young people from South Australia into their state. Well, enough is enough.

This is a government that should know better. It should have some better economic policies in place to try to grow our economy. That is why we were all very excited about the budget coming down; we thought that here was an opportunity for this government, this 12-year-old government, to recalibrate and put the right policy settings in place to substantially grow our economy. Did they do that? No, they did not. We had more of the same, old, failed Labor policy settings in South Australia, more of the settings that have put us into the situation we are currently in here in South Australia, more of those failed policies put in place for another 12 months.

Let me tell you about them, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a massive betrayal of the people of South Australia. What did we see in the budget? We saw a stream of broken promises and increased cost of living pressures on everyday South Australians, broken promises that were made to the people of South Australia in black and white only three months ago when we went to the election.

Let's take a look at some of them. It is interesting that the Minister for Health is currently in the chamber; I think he should hang his head in shame—I think he is actually doing something on his iPad, but anyway his head is hung and we will interpret that as hanging in shame—because this is a government that has shelved the Modbury Hospital expansion, a $27.8 million dollar expansion shelved.

We cannot even get a straight answer from this government. We cannot get a straight answer as to whether they are even going to keep that hospital open. The Premier was asked in the media this morning, point blank, 'Will you be closing Modbury Hospital?' Well, guess what? No answer. We have had no answer from the minister, we have had no answer from the Treasurer, we have had no answer from the Premier.

The people of Florey and the people of Newland need to know: is this a government which supports the continuation of the Modbury Hospital in South Australia? The Liberal Party supports the continuation of Modbury Hospital, and it is about time the government stood up and told us their plans for health here in South Australia.

But it is not just Modbury Hospital, Deputy Speaker—which I know is an important institution for you and your constituents in Florey, and I will not pester you on that—but it is also the people who live in the south. The Flinders Medical Centre $100 million expansion has also been shelved, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital $125 million expansion has been shelved, and the Noarlunga Hospital $31.3 million expansion has been shelved.

We had a whole pile of promises before the election and a whole pile of changed circumstances after the election—and that is just typical of Labor. It is a budget filled with broken promises, but it is not just broken promises in terms of health expenditure. Do not forget that before the election the Premier went to some length to say that there would be no substantial privatisation here in South Australia. I do not know anything more substantial than the Motor Accident Commission; if there is, let us know—that might be in next year's budget with this lot.

Before the election, they made it abundantly clear that there would be no significant privatisation. Three months later, changed circumstances, and guess what? The Motor Accident Commission has gone. We have no indication whatsoever whether this is a good deal for the people of South Australia. The government, to try to avoid using this word 'privatisation', are just going to wind up the fund. They are going to wind up the fund in two years' time and magically there is going to be $500 million sitting there on the balance sheet which is going to be given to Treasury to try to bolster our terribly underperforming state budget here in South Australia.

How do we know that the taxpayers in South Australia are getting the best possible deal? It is a significant asset. Surely there should have been an exploration of the various options. If the government made up their mind to sell that, and if they want to deceive the people of South Australia, fair enough, but what about giving some options to the people of South Australia? How do we know that we have the best deal? We have no idea whatsoever.

We saw the SA Water debt transfer and we had the Treasurer telling us that we are going to reduce the overall debt in South Australia. Rubbish, absolute rubbish! Let me tell you what they are doing with the debt: they are taking it off one balance sheet and sticking it onto another balance sheet. The net debt in South Australia continues to go up. What did Dick Blandy say about this? What did he say about it? He said it was a fraud. He called them out. He said it was a fraud. The government does not care—take it from one balance sheet, stick it onto another balance sheet, the pea and thimble trick. Let me tell you that the people of South Australia are not in any way, shape or form convinced by this government.

Let's look at the big daddy of them all, the emergency services levy. That is what it is currently being called but let me tell you that it is a land tax, it is a sneaky land tax, and it was first envisaged by the member for Playford when he was the Treasurer. We have had a lot of treasurers lately; in fact, we have had three in the last 18 months, but certainly the member for Playford was one of my favourite of the three. When he first envisaged putting a land tax on the family home, he said that we would have a conversation with the people of South Australia. There was no conversation. He said that we would take it to an election. Well, guess what? He did not take it to an election. There was no conversation, it was not taken to an election, and now that is exactly and precisely what we have in South Australia.

We have a land tax on the family home, and what a massive increase it is. If you have a house with a capital value of $400,000, you will now be paying $241 per year. It is a 163 per cent increase and it is not paid once but every single year. If you have a $750,000 house, you will be paying $408 per year—a 219 per cent increase. The top rate, if you have a more significant property, continues to go up and up and up. There is no end to this whatsoever.

The revenue increase from this emergency services levy increase is $384 million, but guess how much of that is actually spent on emergency services? There is only $8 million worth of new programs envisaged in the budget, but $384 million worth of new revenue included in the budget. It is a shameful situation, and the Treasurer and the original architect of this land tax on the family home (the member for Playford) should hang their head in shame because it is just putting an added burden on the people of South Australia.

Of course, my favourite component—and I wait for it every single year—is the statement by the Labor Treasurer; it does not matter who it is because we have had three in the last 18 months and they all say exactly the same thing when they bring down the budget. They say, 'Look, this is a tough year. It's a very tough year but, don't worry, in two years' time we return to surplus.' That is one of the greatest frauds, one of the greatest fantasies perpetrated on the people of South Australia, and it is the same tune every single year. Of course, this year when I sat down here on budget day I was not disappointed because the Treasurer—bang, up he popped—said, guess what, 'It's a tough year but, don't worry, in two years' time we are going to be returning to surplus.'

Let me tell you about the accuracy of this government's projections in terms of surpluses. Since the global financial crisis, which occurred in 2008, we have had seven predictions of surplus, and they add up to a total of $2.6 billion. This is a government, on that side of the chamber and on the Treasury benches, which has said, 'We are going to deliver for the people of South Australia'—between 2008 and 2014-15 (next financial year)—'$2.6 billion worth of surpluses'. Remember that number; that is what they promised.

What have we actually got when we look at how they have performed over those seven years? It is $3 billion worth of deficits. The number is around the same, it is just that there is a big fat negative in front of it: $2.6 billion worth of surpluses promised but $3 billion worth of deficits delivered. That is the problem. So, the Treasurer goes to his budget lockup, he stands up in the house on budget day and says, 'Well, don't worry, it has been a tough year, but in two years' time we return to surplus.' Why should we believe this government? Why should we believe them when they have let us down time and time and time again—overpromising and underdelivering.

Let's take a look at what the other Liberal premiers are doing around the country. I had a great opportunity to meet with Campbell Newman over the weekend and look at what he has done. When we look at what he promised and what he has delivered, they are two completely different numbers, but they are not in the wrong direction: they are actually underpromising and overdelivering. When we look at the original budget net operating balance when he came to power, they were running deficits in that state, after the dysfunctional Labor government had essentially ruined their budget position, of around $4.5 billion per year. In the 2013-14 year, the year we have just finished, they set a budget to reduce that down to $3.7 billion. They were going to bring it down to $3.7 billion.

Let me tell you that when they finally brought down the budget, guess what the deficit had reduced to? It was $2.2 billion. They have actually outperformed by $1.5 billion in a 12-month period. They are underpromising and overdelivering, and guess what is going to happen next year? They are going to return their basket case budget in Queensland to surplus. Next financial year, Queensland, which has been running these massive deficits for an extended period of time, is going to be returning its budget to surplus.

I will tell you another statistic about Queensland; this is a really important one, and I hope that the Treasurer is listening to this. Campbell Newman has returned his budget to surplus, they have reduced their wasteful expenditure, and guess what happened to jobs in Queensland? You would never guess it, you would never predict this, but let me tell you that in the 12 months to the end of May the Queensland economy grew the number of jobs in that economy by 60,800 people. They have returned their budget to surplus and created jobs.

We have exactly the opposite situation here: we have these unrealistic, fanciful return to surplus predictions and increased unemployment here in South Australia. You have got it wrong. You have every single one of your policy settings wrong and every single South Australian is paying the price for your ineptitude. Sixty thousand jobs in Queensland; we lost nearly 20,000 jobs here in South Australia.

Let me tell you about the financial year that just ended. Labor promised that we would make—I can hardly say this with a straight face—a $480 million surplus last year. Well, guess what? It was a $1.232 billion ($1,232 million) deficit, the largest deficit in this state's history. We are heading in the wrong direction. We are heading in the wrong direction because we have a government which has not put its policy settings in the right place and every single South Australian will be paying for it.

This current financial year we are in, when this was originally forecast, they told us that we would be making an $840 million surplus, but every single announcement since then has diminished the size of this surplus to the point that we are now predicting a $479 million deficit this current financial year. They predicted $840 million in surplus, but they are now predicting—changed circumstances—a $479 million deficit. But that is not the end of the bad news. They have never delivered on one of those budgets yet. It is going to be significantly worse because they do not have the backbone whatsoever to bring their budget in as they have actually forecast it and that is the problem.

If we look at last financial year, there was $311 million in a single year of unbudgeted expenditure. Each year the government sets its budget. It is not like in a company where often the managing director will set a divisional manager's budget, 'Right, you've got to achieve that.' That is very hard to achieve, but it has been forced down. Here, they set their own budget, and each and every year they do not see it as a budget, an upper limit, they see it as a target and they blow it out of the water every single year. They go over and above every single year, but the problem is that they go over and above on their expenditure because they have no fiscal discipline whatsoever and that is the problem for South Australia.

Since they came to power, we have had almost $4 billion worth of unbudgeted expenditure. Imagine where our state would be if we had that unbudgeted expenditure back in our Treasury. Imagine where we would be. We could have bought the new Royal Adelaide Hospital with cash. We could have paid for it with cash. What are the holding costs? Four billion dollars worth of unbudgeted expenditure over this state is absolutely incredible and that is what is holding our state back; a complete and utter lack of fiscal discipline by this government over an extended period of time.

How are they going to achieve this budget? Well, there are not that many people out there who think they have any shot whatsoever. This is a budget which produces a whole range of predictions. We know there is no economic modelling capability within Treasury. For some reason that has been hived off to the DPC. We are trying to find out why this is the case because we are not served well. We are not served well with the forecasts that are being brought down. In this current financial year that we have just started, South Australia's taxation revenue growth is predicted to grow by 6.2 per cent. I thought, 'Well, let's just do a bit of a comparison. Let's go and do a comparison with every other state.'

I was genuinely amazed to read that South Australia is predicting the fastest revenue growth of any state in Australia. We have just had two successive quarters of domestic contraction in our economy, but for some unknown reason we are going to have massive taxation growth in South Australia. That is not where it ends. The South Australian housing market will be—are you ready for this?—the strongest of all states, with stamp duty growing the fastest of all states in the country at 9.4 per cent.

What is driving this? South Australia's payroll tax revenue growth is going to be stronger than that in Queensland and Victoria. How can that possibly be? Victoria grew their employment last year by 18,000 people. Queensland grew by 60,000 people, yet their payroll tax growth is going to be lower than South Australia, which lost 19,000 jobs.

Members interjecting:

Mr MARSHALL: It is just completely and utterly, voodoo economics as the member for Unley says, and, as the member for Flinders says, it is seance economics—let's just hold hands, sing Kumbaya, and hope that somehow magically our economy here in South Australia can improve.

I thought that the words of Dr Julie Novak were particularly sage, as reported in The Australian last week on 26 June. She said that the forecasts were simply 'make-believe', completely and utterly. It must break his heart to read what the real economic commentators are saying about this budget: it is make-believe. In fact, Dr Novak went on to say:

It is just inconceivable that South Australia, which historically has a proven track record of low growth, would actually suddenly have a residential property boom and an employment boom that will yield such high growth revenues.

'It is just inconceivable'—and that is exactly and precisely what it is: it is completely and utterly inconceivable. When we look at the growth forecasts that are factored in we might as well switch the channel and watch the Disney Channel because it is a complete and utter fantasy.

This year the government is saying that we are going to grow our economy by 2.25 per cent; next year it is going to go up by 2.5 per cent. Let me tell you what other people are saying. The South Australian Centre for Economic Studies said that there is no way that we are going to have 2.5 per cent economic growth next year; it is predicting 1.75 per cent. If you go to Deloitte it is predicting less than 1 per cent—less than 1 per cent growth—that is all that this government can manage.

Let me tell you what Queensland is predicting next financial year. It is predicting a 6 per cent growth in a single year because they have a Liberal reformist government that wants to reduce taxes, reduce red tape, spend its finite capital on productive infrastructure which is going to grow the economy—not as we have here in South Australia, where we have increasing taxes, increasing fees, increasing charges, increasing red tape and no framework whatsoever to spend our capital on productive infrastructure which is sorely needed here in South Australia.

Let me talk about the jobs growth forecast figures in the budget: they are absolutely and utterly appalling. For the 2013-14 year, the year we have just started, the government said that we were going to have a 1.75 per cent increase in employment. As I have already pointed out, it does sound good but, unfortunately, it is completely inaccurate because they are now saying that we are going to have a jobs loss from last year of 0.75 per cent. So instead of creating 1.75 per cent of new jobs we went backwards here in South Australia.

The government very clearly went to the 2010 election and said, 'We will create 100,000 new jobs.' I think it is really important, because this is going to be delivered—are you ready for this?—by February 2016 which is coming around extremely quickly. We are over two-thirds into the time that the government allocated for this great new jobs focus. What we have in South Australia is a situation where, after four and a bit years of the government's six-year program, we have actually lost jobs. We have 800 fewer people employed in South Australia now than when they made the promise.

We agree with the government—the most important thing that it could be concentrating its efforts on is growing our economy, creating jobs, keeping young people here in South Australia. We agree with the objective but what is the government doing to achieve it? As I said, it is seance economics: let's hold hands, sit around the ouija board, let's make a couple of policy announcements and just hope for the best. Well, it is not good enough. The people of South Australia—and I see the Treasurer over there laughing. He is laughing at the people of South Australia who have lost their jobs. They have lost their jobs because of the ineptitude of you, sir, and your government—not you, Deputy Speaker, they would certainly not be laughing at you.

There was no plan for infrastructure whatsoever. The government went to the election saying, 'We are going to build, build, build.' Consequently, on budget day we thought, 'I wonder how much bigger this capital investment is going to be from this government.' It is an incredible situation: it is diminishing, it is coming down. They are not going to be building, building, building: they are going to be cutting their capital expenditure and certainly not prioritising around productive infrastructure.

The only thing that they seem to be building with any great consistency whatsoever is state debt. On that front, they are certainly building, building, building. No other state in Australia is as effective at building debt as the current Treasurer, the current Premier and the current tired 12-year-old dysfunctional Labor government here in South Australia.

When they came to power, we were diminishing our debt year on year. It was going down and down and down. Of course, when the Labor Party formed government, to their credit they continued to reduce the debt levels in South Australia. Of course, they were somewhat aided by this 'rivers of gold', as we refer to it, GST revenue into South Australia—which, by the way, they opposed. They opposed this money coming into South Australia, but to their credit they continued to pay down the debt. But now, year after year, we seem to be increasing our debt.

You would not mind if that debt was incurred to build the productive capacity of our state, to put that productive infrastructure in place which was going to improve the productivity of our state and help our exporters send goods and services out of this state; but it is not. As I pointed out, $4 billion—$4 billion in just the last 12 years—has been incurred in terms of debt just from unbudgeted expenditure.

Let me tell you what the former treasurer, the member for Playford, said. He said, 'To take on debt merely to pay for the running costs of government is tantamount to stealing from our children.' They are emotive words, but never a truer word has been said in this parliament; never has a truer word been said. That was said in his own budget speech in the 2011-12 year. I repeat, 'To take on debt merely to pay for the running costs of government is tantamount to stealing from our children.' But that is exactly and precisely what this government has done.

The business community is suffering. The Sensis Business Index, which was released only the week before last, paints a very gloomy picture. Everybody talks about the importance of the small business sector here in South Australia; everybody knows that it is the backbone of our economy, but nobody on that side of the house wants to do one single, solitary thing to help small businesses which are struggling—struggling with the highest business taxes in the nation, struggling with the highest electricity prices in the nation, struggling with the highest water prices of any capital city in the nation, and struggling with a WorkCover regime which is completely and utterly broken. We are paying over double the national average in terms of our WorkCover rates in South Australia, and businesses are doing it extraordinarily tough.

The Sensis Business Index, which is a longitudinal study of small business confidence, shows a further deterioration—a further deterioration, Deputy Speaker—in small business confidence here in South Australia. This index also rates individual state and territory governments and you would not believe it—in fact, you would believe it, Deputy Speaker—we are the lowest rated state in the country. Let me tell you which jurisdiction jumped in the last quarter.

An honourable member: Tasmania.

Mr MARSHALL: Tasmania. Tasmania now has the highest business confidence for the small business sector in their state in the nation—in the nation! In fact, they have not even had that metric in positive territory since 2006.

I make this point because a lot of people say, 'Well, it is doom and gloom out there.' Sure, we have the economic settings wrong here in South Australia, but if you put a Liberal reformist government in place you will increase confidence in the business sector, you will create economic growth, you will create jobs here in South Australia and you will put your state back onto an even keel. That is exactly what we need in South Australia. We need that; we need business confidence and we need a government that has the right priorities for our state.

Let me tell you that this is a government which does a lot of talking—a lot of talking, but not a lot of action. One area which is particularly important to us on this side of the house is agricultural expenditure. Despite their recent visit to the Riverland, this government have absolutely no interest in the regions in South Australia. This a problem for South Australia, because we know from those economies that are growing that a lot of that growth is coming from the regional economies. We have such an opportunity, such an incredible opportunity, in South Australia, by putting a focus on our regions, to create jobs. But what does this government do? They are actually going to take jobs from the regions. Have a look at their marine park legislation. I have never seen anything more inane in my entire life.

Nobody would have a problem whatsoever if the sanctuary zones were put in place on a threats basis. If there is a threat to the marine environment, sure, put a sanctuary zone in place. In fact, put in an aquatic reserve; you can do it under the Fisheries Act and we have been doing it for years. If you want to put in a sanctuary zone, put it in place, but our sanctuary zones here in South Australia are not based on threats like every other set-up right around the country. Ours are based on creating (are you ready for this?) a representative sample of our state waters locked up in a conservation framework. Give me a break!

When we asked the chief executive in the select committee, 'Is fishing doing any damage to these pristine marine environments?' he said, 'No.' 'Sorry, so they are pristine, fishing is not doing any damage, but we're going to put in a sanctuary zone?' 'Yes.' 'Why?' 'Because we want to have a conservation framework in the water.' We do not want a conservation framework in the water. What we want is regional jobs in South Australia. If there is any damage to the marine environment, put a sanctuary zone in place but, if not, do not take jobs away from our regions. We can ill afford it, and that is why we find ourselves in the situation that we are in at the moment.

The Premier is always talking about clean green food to be exported overseas, and we support the objective, but let's look at what he has delivered in the budget in South Australia for agriculture. The state agriculture budget now is down to $59.8 million; that is just 35 per cent. It is essentially a third of what we were spending five years ago. Every single year, we cut the elements of our budget that can create exports and can create jobs. That is what we are doing in South Australia. We have no problems with having unbudgeted expenses of $311 million in a single year, but to spend some money supporting our famers, to spend some money to support our exporters to increase exports and create jobs—no way. No, that has got to go. There is no way we are going to be doing that.

Have a look at our state mineral resources budget: that has actually fallen. The government goes on and on about this, but it has fallen from $88 million in 2012-13 to $76 million in 2014-15. There is a lot of talk, and this is a government which still supports the carbon tax and the mineral resource tax. Ask the Premier—actually, why not ask the Treasurer? I think he might have a slightly different answer to that. Certainly the chief executive of his department last year let the cat out of the bag. They do not support it whatsoever. Why? Because it drives investment out of our state, and that has been our problem. That is what stalled our investment here in South Australia in the minerals sector, that and our complete lack of productive infrastructure, because this is a government which has put favour to their pet projects in marginal seats around electoral cycles rather than putting some investment into the productive infrastructure which is going to grow exports out of our state.

But the most heinous crime of all has been the massive cut in support for our exporters out of South Australia. There are only a few ways to grow the size of our economy. There are only a few ways to create increased employment here in South Australia. We can grow our population, or we can increase investment into this state, but the most obvious opportunity and the thing that every other Liberal reformist government around Australia has focused on is growing the size of exports.

Every time you send a good or a service across your border, you are going to be bringing somebody else's money in to grow the size of your economy, and that is what we needed to have been focused on, but this is a government with no plan. They have a couple of glossy brochures, but they have no plan whatsoever to substantially grow the size of our export value out of this state. They are completely and utterly dependent on having a good rain. Let me tell you that you cannot have an export strategy which is just weather dependent, but that is exactly what we have had in South Australia under this government for an extended period of time.

Let's take a look at the 2012-13 year. There was a $750 million reduction in merchandisable exports out of this state, so not agricultural products—sure, have a bumper crop, fantastic, love it—but in terms of merchandisable exports we went backwards $750 million in a single year because the programs that the government have put in place simply do not work and, not only that, they continue to cut the budget. Yes, they have a new minister. I think this is the third or fourth minister we have seen in the last couple of years. None of them has been much good, and I do not hold much store for the current one, but let me tell you what budget he has been able to deliver into this area.

In 2011-12, the program, which was called Globally Integrating the South Australian Economy, received a budget allocation of $30 million. We need to grow the size of our exports, so we were thinking in this budget it might go from $30 million to $40 million, or, even better, if it could go from $30 million to $60 million. Well, what was the actual outcome? I will tell you what it was: it was down to $15 million. They have halved the budget to support our exporters.

Let me tell you what the New Zealand Prime Minister told me. The New Zealand Prime Minister told me that in New Zealand they have a saying that you cannot grow the prosperity of New Zealanders by simply selling to themselves. You cannot grow the prosperity of the nation by selling to itself. That could simply apply to South Australia: we are not going to grow the size of our economy by selling to ourselves. Let me tell you that every other state is coming here to try to take a piece of the action.

When it comes to the state government, even if it is just buying a simple thing like a flag, sure, Victoria—come and buy one! Take it out of our state! We do not believe in exporting our jobs. We believe in exporting goods and services and bringing in somebody else's money to grow the size of our economy, grow employment and to keep our young people here in South Australia.

The Treasurer said, when he brought down the budget, 'This is not the budget I wanted to bring down'. I can tell members that he is not the person the people of South Australia wanted to be bringing down the budget. In fact, when we look at the election result it was quite a clear result. The Liberal Party had one of its best results in the history of its party.

Members interjecting:

Mr MARSHALL: They might laugh! There is the Treasurer laughing uncontrollably, but again he is laughing at the people of South Australia and is laughing at democracy. He is laughing at democracy! There was an overwhelming mood for change. The Liberal primary vote was in excess of 25 per cent higher than Labor's vote, and the will of the people was completely and utterly ignored by the result which was delivered in March.

I foreshadow that later today I will give notice of a bill to establish a statutory inquiry into our electoral system in South Australia. This is not something I am doing because the Liberals are having a whinge about an electoral result. I am arguing on behalf of the people of South Australia, who wanted a change in government and were denied by the electoral system in place in South Australia at the moment. I am arguing on behalf of the people of South Australia, and that is exactly what needs to happen. Their voice needs to be heard. One of the great things about our society is that it is underpinned by a democracy.

Let's be very clear about this: in three of the last four elections the people of South Australia did not want Labor, but at all four they have been lumbered with Labor, and look at where we are as a state. We are absolutely going backwards: increased unemployment, young people leaving our state, population growth half the national average. Imagine where we could be if we had a Liberal reformist government in South Australia. I put to you that every single day that this tired, divided, dysfunctional, incompetent government remains in place is another day that South Australia does not get its act together, another day that we do not create jobs, do not get our economy moving in the right direction and another day that our next generation completely and utterly gives up hope.

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (12:03): I support the comments of our leader. This is a shameful budget, which has been put out by an illegitimate government, a government with a two-party preferred vote of 47 per cent. It should not have had the right to be in government in the first place. It is a terrible budget.

I will summarise the budget before I go on: six deficits in seven years—another budget expecting deficit; a debt exceeding $14 billion; interest on debt over $1 billion in 2017; total liabilities of over $25 billion; state taxes which are the highest in the nation; capital city water charges, 220 per cent of which have been increased under Labor since they came in to power; a terrible workers compensation system; a terrible workers compensation levy scheme, which is the highest in the nation at 2.75 per cent, compared with 1.76 per cent on average across Australia; $2.3 billion of government work continues to flow and go interstate each year; and a shameful credit rating which keeps deteriorating under this government.

We in the Liberal Party understand that a strong credit rating is important and that lower interest rates are the result of a better credit rating: the state can borrow at much better rates, investors are attracted to state securities if interest rates are better and the credit is much more secure, and people have more acceptance of risk and investment in the state. We understand that investors will be better attracted to the state's securities, and that is why a strong credit rating is important. We understand that it shows the public and the private sector that the government means business and that it has a fiscal discipline in its economic strategy.

I see the increase of public-private partnerships. The public are not stupid. They understand why the government has to go to equity. It has to go to equity because it cannot pay its debts on time and, as we have heard already, the government is currently borrowing even to pay wages.

Madam Deputy Speaker, happy new financial year! I trust you had a good financial new year; I certainly did. Here we are: one Australian dollar is worth US94¢. The RBA cash rate is 2.5 per cent. As our leader alluded to, across the country in Australia we have Liberal state governments which are turning around their respective states. As the leader pointed out, their economic credentials are getting much better, because the thing is that this is a terrible budget, and as Liberals we understand economics. We understand supply and demand, the two fundamental variables in economics. We understand that one cannot spend what they do not have. The government keeps spending what they do not have. They have kept doing it. Six out of seven deficits they have delivered.

When you look at the Budget Overview, it is a beautiful, lovely glossy paper. It is colourful, it has cartoon characters in it, lovely simple spelling. It reminds me of a cartoon, and I would say that the economic credentials of this government are almost Disney-like. I am reminded of a fairy tale, Aladdin, where there is a bottle and a genie, and the genie comes out of the bottle. At the moment, it looks like the government are rubbing their bottle, they have been rubbing the bottle—

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: It's a lamp.

Mr TARZIA: —hoping that after 12 years maybe this genie will pop out—

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: It's not a bottle, it's a lamp.

Mr TARZIA: —and reveal itself, this magical being and eradicate the 12 years—

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: Genies come out of lamps. Everybody knows this.

Mr TARZIA: —of waste and irresponsible spending, and I can hear the member for Newland interjecting. Thank you, member for Newland, for coming to Hartley last weekend and showing exactly where we need spending at IVF Campbelltown, but I will get to that in a second. But they think they can be like Aladdin and that a magical genie will come out of the bottle, the economy will do what they want just like the genie in Aladdin did but instead there is a bad genie that has been let out of the bottle, and it is all bad and I will explain why it is bad. The bottle that is the state economy has been rubbed up the wrong way for too long.

I would like to talk about two broad areas of the bill. One is the state budget at a glance and two is how it relates to Hartley in particular. At a glance, as we have heard, South Australians will be paying over $2.2 million in interest every day on Labor's debt which rises to $14.3 billion. The emergency services levy will cost the average household $150 per year and $8 per year for motor vehicles—a direct contradiction to what was promised the people of South Australia before the state election.

We have heard that fees, charges and fines will increase by 2.7 per cent. We have heard that council rates concessions for pensioners and concession card holders will be cut. These are some of the most vulnerable in our society and these concessions will be cut which is absolutely shameful. We know that the government has taken a knife to the health sector. It has broken a number of key election commitments, as our leader also explained. Small business continues to take a hit, which I will explain, and I will explain how that relates to the small businesses in Hartley.

Of course, we in the Liberal Party understand that small businesses are the engine room of South Australia with over 100,000 small businesses. We understand it is the engine room. We understand that it is business that will get us out of the rut in this state, but the government? What are they looking to do? No, they want to punish small business. They want to punish small business because they think that the government can keep spending money, that we can spend our way out of this trouble. I tell you what: it has not worked. You have had 12 years and it has not worked. The budget has no plan to create or grow the economy, and this government has certainly—correct me if I am wrong—promised to create 100,000 jobs by 2016. Former premier Mike Rann promised 100,000 new jobs in South Australia by 2016. It would take a significant genie to make that happen.

Under this budget, South Australia's fiscal position is in serious decline. Our credit rating has continuously deteriorated. Over the past year, the government has delivered a total of $2.9 billion of deficits. They spent when they did not expect to spend. They spent $2.9 billion and they have racked up $14 billion worth of debt, a $4 million increase in debt accumulation every day, when you break it down, Deputy Speaker, every day for the last eight years. South Australia has a ratio of net debt as a proportion of gross state product which continues to lag behind all comparable states.

The commonwealth government contributes to basically half of this state's revenue when you factor in the GST. Put simply, it is a government that is addicted to debt and it is addicted to handouts from the commonwealth and basically anyone they can get it from. I reiterate what the leader was saying, that we would not mind if this debt was being spent to facilitate growth in the constructive component of our economy. We actually would not mind it; but, no, it is not being done.

One only has to look at the recent projects the government is considering such as the O-Bahn, whereby it scrapped a much smaller proposal several years ago because it could not justify the spending. Here, we see a much larger spend in the project with no cost-benefit analysis, no net present value. It is absolutely shameful that we are wasting taxpayer resources when we cannot justify them, economically, being spent.

I spoke in my maiden speech and on the Supply Bill about the gradual decline in revenue that the state has been facing over the last 12 years and the importance of expanding our export market particularly in the resources sector to assist the replacement of this revenue shortfall. In Australia, we export, it is estimated, over $300 billion in goods and services each year, and that number is expected to grow.

Well, let me give you some interesting facts, Deputy Speaker, about how much the other states grow in exports and then let's examine how we go. Here is our comparison with Western Australia, a state population-wise which you would have considered at one point in time was a pair with South Australia. Western Australia currently exports over $130 billion—$130 billion. South Australia, $12.3 billion—12.3. It is absolutely ludicrous. When you compare the pair there really is no comparison. The other mainland states tell the same story: New South Wales exports, over $63 billion; Queensland, $55 billion; Victoria, $36 billion; yet South Australia, $12.3 billion. We actually account for just 4 .3 per cent of all exports in Australia.

Why are exports important? Because exports are usually generated by small businesses. Goods go out of Australia, money comes back into Australia. Why is that important? Because when money comes back into South Australia companies are able to create jobs. I looked at the census business index, which released its report in June 2014, and it actually highlights the proportion of small/medium enterprises exporting in the last year by state and territory.

It is fitting to note that South Australia lags behind every single state and territory in Australia except Tasmania. We lag behind every single state; we are second only to Tasmania. Business confidence, as the leader explained, has dropped significantly: 14 percentage points in South Australia alone. We have a serious crisis on our hands in this regard. We were hoping that some productive resources would be put into exports and into this part of the economy, but it just did not happen in the budget.

It is not as if we do not have the capabilities or the opportunities in South Australia. We currently sit on what is said to be the world's largest reserve of uranium; so, there is so much potential there. Just think about how our state could be transformed with some bipartisan vision, perhaps, if the Olympic Dam expansion had gone ahead and other potential energy sources are looked at. Just think of what we could achieve as a state if the people had a government that was prepared to work with companies like BHP to secure our future revenue base, not to tax them out of the market, which is what they did with taxes like the mining tax and the carbon tax.

This government stood hand in hand with the federal Labor government of the time and said, ‘Yes, we are happy with these taxes.’ It is an absolute disgrace. BHP have gone now—they have gone. They are in South America, they are in Africa, and they are in Canada. They are in all these other countries where they seem to have more success negotiating with a government, whereas this government just does not understand the concept of sovereign risk. Companies want to come here; they want a reason to come to South Australia, but how can they do business with a government which just does not understand economics, which just does not understand supply and demand and which just does not understand that no-one is going to shop with you if you have the highest prices in town? It is beyond me, and it needs to be fixed.

Well, what would you expect, Deputy Speaker? We actually have a government that the people did not want. Only 47 per cent of South Australians voted for this government—here we are. One thing I will ask this government to do, since they are in government, is to stop blaming everyone else for their problems. Stop blaming the federal government for your problems. Stop blaming the high Australian dollar for your problems.

There are states in Australia that seem to be getting on with the federal government. There are states in Australia that seem to be increasing their exports much more rapidly than South Australia, even with a higher Australian dollar. There are states in Australia that are booming at the moment, and it is an absolute disgrace to see that we are not following the lead.

I am asking the government for some leadership here, please, not just for the people of Hartley but for the people of South Australia, and in particular for the youth who are unemployed. I see young professionals, day in day out, coming to my door in my EO in Hartley who do not have jobs at the moment. It is tough out there at the moment. Have a look at the accounting graduates, the law graduates, the tradespeople, the nurses and the teachers who cannot get jobs at the moment because the economy is contracting.

There are a few projects in the budget that do concern Hartley in particular, and I wish to elaborate on them. The Paradise Interchange—I, along with the member for Morialta, I am sure, would certainly welcome an upgrade of the park-and-ride spaces at the interchange. I will just point out, that the member for Morialta and I have fought tooth and nail, lodged a petition over the years, doorknocked the entire area, and made sure that this government does take the people of Paradise seriously. I welcome the member for Morialta’s efforts on this who, along with myself, championed the issue and what they have been able to do.

I am a passionate supporter of Neighbourhood Watch, and I would like to mention that the government is looking to spend $2 million over the forward estimates to reinvigorate the Neighbourhood Watch program. There are a number of hardworking Neighbourhood Watch groups in Hartley, including Campbelltown, Magill, Auldana/Magill/Skye, Paradise, Tranmere and Kensington Gardens. They have deep roots in the community, they are an integral part of the community, and they contribute greatly to the harmony of the area. I applaud the government’s proposal to spend more money in Neighbourhood Watch—a great community organisation which goes to improving rates of crime standards in our area.

The failures of the budget are many in Hartley, but I wish to talk about a few issues in particular. Payroll tax changes that were proposed by the state Liberal Party for small businesses were welcomed by the public in Hartley on several fronts; however, they have been rejected by the government because the government does not understand that the small business sector is so fundamental to the growth of this economy.

The emergency services levy, which is effectively a new land tax, has also been flat out rejected by the people of Hartley, and I ask the government to consider scrapping that proposal. It is an absolutely shameful proposal and it needs to go. The government had a conversation about it over a year ago and it was flatly rejected at the time. Let me just say that it has been rejected on the whole down the track.

There are a number of issues that I have brought to the house’s attention that have not been addressed by the Treasurer, and I wish to elaborate on what they are. A road traffic management plan needs to be established—the new McNally development. We have asked that this be done; it still has not been done by the government. Furthermore, a road traffic management plan for Newton Road and St Bernards Road was recommended many years ago by a former member of Morialta, before the current one, but still we see no funding for the upgrade of Newton Road and St Bernards Road. I certainly implore the Treasurer to consider that.

At Lochiel Park in Campbelltown, we still have a gross pollutant trap which does not work, and I call on the government to spend some money to fix that. In regard to Felixstow, the Felixstow master plan is a fantastic project which I have spoken to in this place before. I would also ask the government to consider contributing funding to assist councils in that project. Payneham Road is a road that has been abandoned by this current government for many years now. I would also ask the government to consider a proposal, a report and an upgrade to the Payneham Road area.

In addition, the Glynde substation is a huge issue; the previous member for Hartley had words to say about it, the Treasurer has had words to say on it in the house, and I have raised this in question time. It is sad to see that there has been no allocation of funding in this budget to relocate the Glynde substation to an alternate site. It is shameful, and it shows total disregard and disrespect for the people of Glynde who want this substation moved. I will continue to fight for the local residents to ensure that we do all that we can as an opposition to hold this government to account on that particular issue.

There are a number of failures in this budget. Overall, I will be supporting the bill. In a nutshell, this budget simply does not allow for the improvement of the productive capacity of the state, and that is the biggest failure here: no vision, no plan for our future.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (12:21): I rise today to support the Appropriation Bill that is before the house. Can I say that the Thursday of the last sitting week was quite a surreal experience for me, sitting here through my first budget speech. As somebody who has been involved in politics for quite some time and seen the commotion that happens during and after budget time, to be able to sit here in the chamber was quite a different experience.

Towards the end of the speech, when I was realising more and more that there was not more and more coming, the more underwhelmed I became by the whole experience. Normally, openings of speeches talk about the future of South Australia. I want to give a brief history of some of the speeches I have been lucky enough not to hear personally but to be able to understand and appreciate as an observer from the public over the last four years.

Last year, the Premier affirmed his love of big government. He affirmed his love of paternalising the South Australian business community by suggesting that they needed direct interference to grow. He exposed himself as an old-world leftie socialist big government man who believed that business needs to do what it is told and government knows best.

In the 2012-13 speech, which I called the 'counting your chickens before they hatch speech', the member for Playford, who was then the treasurer, said, 'South Australia will be a very different place in a few years [time].' If he is listening in his office, he is suggesting that he said '10 years' time', but I have the opening words from his speech and it does very clearly say 'a very different place in a few years [time]', just to correct him on his sotto voce contribution not that long ago.

In 2011-12, again it was the member for Playford, and it is good to see that he was able to do two budgets in a row. The member for Playford talked about supporting the AAA credit rating, which I thought was fantastic. Again, that was another prediction and another priority of this government that has gone by the wayside. He talked about supporting the AAA credit rating, supporting major infrastructure and increases to disability services. On points 2 and 3, we would certainly applaud major infrastructure and we would applaud increases to disability services, but he stood here in the 2011-12 budget speech and talked about supporting the AAA credit rating and then 12 months later, on 31 May 2012, towards the end of that budget year that credit rating was lost.

In 2010-11, the member for Port Adelaide, who is no longer in this place (and I feel this place is all the worse for that), talked about dealing with the ongoing global financial crisis and our response to it in those earlier days of the GFC. What I found quite interesting about the current Treasurer's speech was that it gave no vision for South Australia. It gave no understanding of where we are going to head. Indeed, the Treasurer spent the first 10 minutes of his speech blaming someone else for his own government's mismanagement. It was an extraordinary attempt at abrogation. If they think that ordinary South Australians can be duped into thinking that this is anything other than a 12-year-old government lying in a bed of its own making, then they really need to take a good hard look at themselves.

I am still waiting for the Treasurer, the Premier and anybody opposite—the member for Newland is sitting there; he can take responsibility—to stand up and say, 'I am from the government of South Australia. I am taking responsibility for this mess, and I will do what I can to fix it,' but not once has that happened. In fact, given the amount of time that has been devoted to talking about other people's influences on this state budget, one would think that we were sitting in the federal parliament in Canberra rather than being here in the South Australian parliament talking about South Australian problems.

This budget has pain, and there was an attempt to hide some of the subsequent pain; certainly, the Treasurer was good enough to talk about some of the big whacks he gave to people in the state budget. There is the increase to the emergency services levy which, for a medium-price house, will be $150 per annum. There is the cutting of council rate concessions next year for pensioners and low-income earners by $190 per annum and for Seniors Card holders by $100 per annum.

Small businesses are set to lose payroll tax concessions next year, which will cost businesses up to $9,800 per annum and I thought it was quite a cynical way to raise money. It attacks our small business sector, our pensioners, our low-income earners and our Seniors Card holders, those who in my opinion have the least ability to deal with cost increases—those on fixed incomes and those in small business who are the ones trying to create jobs to fulfil Mike Rann's 100,000 jobs promise. These are the people the Treasurer tried to attack in this budget.

I think the people of South Australia could wear pain if there were gain. We would understand that in straitened economic times we need to cut our cloth to be able to look after and afford the services we want to provide whilst trying to create reform to create a better set of circumstances in South Australia. I think that is an argument the government could have run, but that is not the argument they are running: they are arguing that we should have pain with no gain. In fact, this is pain to keep the status quo. When we are talking about employment growth of 1 per cent—a measly 1 per cent—we cannot be talking about anything more than the status quo.

There is no reform in this budget. There is no plan in this budget, and it is interesting that, over this last four years as an interested observer, I have seen recurring themes in budgets delivered by state Labor treasurers and the blueprint is as follows: put all the public sector reform in the out years. That is job No. 1. Job No. 2 is to lock in fantastical growth projections that show a paper surplus. Those two things are important to understand why it is always years 3 and 4 of the out years that show budget surpluses whilst the current year shows ever-increasing deficits. Job No. 3 on the list is to blame someone else. We are going to blame the weather or the dollar or the federal government. We are going to blame everybody else except ourselves.

The fourth is to pretend that the current settings will lead to future prosperity. There is a saying—and it has been attributed (I think, incorrectly) to Albert Einstein—that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Can I say that this is exactly what we have here. We have a budget that looks extremely similar to a series of Labor budgets where all the reform is in the out years and all the fantastical growth projections are in the out years and there is no true plan to get us back to surplus and to deliver reform.

The people in South Australia voted for a different result. I affirm the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition earlier today that the people of South Australia did not vote for the member for West Torrens to be the Treasurer of South Australia but we have Groundhog Day and it looks like we are going to have Groundhog Day for the next four years because certainly I would have thought that the first budget after an election would be the prime time to stand up and discuss reform in South Australia—reform that is so desperately needed.

I want to take a few minutes to talk about my beautiful electorate of Schubert that the Minister for Agriculture happened to visit in the last couple of weeks. He was welcomed with open arms, and we talked about a number of projects that would be great for my area. However, what is missing from this budget—and my staff and I spent almost two weeks trying to find any mention of it—is the beautiful electorate of Schubert.

I come from an optimistic family—I have quite an optimistic outlook on life, and I am not somebody who naturally likes to carp and whinge—but unfortunately, speaking to my local media last week and the week before, there is not much good news that I can tell them. In fact, there is no good news. The few bare mentions that we could find that somehow roughly relate to my electorate is the upgrading of ferries along the river from wooden-framed hulls to steel-framed hulls.

Whilst that is something that I am very appreciative of, it is not something that delivers more for Schubert—it is something that really maintains the status quo. There is some funding that will go into the Para Wirra Recreation Park which abuts onto the southern end of my electorate, but that is not anything new. Again, that is about maintaining the status quo.

I have been encouraging local businesses, community groups, councils and the like to apply for grants under the Regional Development Fund, but that is not something that is secured in this budget. What I do think it means—and here is an admission I am willing to make to the house—is that I am going to have to work harder. As the local member for Schubert I need to work harder to make sure that I can deliver for my electorate.

As a warning to ministers (and certainly the Minister for Agriculture), I will be putting the case in the strongest terms for the people of Schubert—and annoyingly so at times. I will be here to represent their best interests, and first cab off the rank will be the Barossa hospital. Given all the rhetoric that the Barossa has been waiting 20 years for a new hospital, and the contributions I have made in my short time in this place, you could be forgiven for thinking that there was no money being spent in regional hospitals. Alas, when I look at the capital statement, there is money being spent in regional hospitals—just not in Schubert.

I am going to list a number of projects, and can I say they are extremely worthy projects—there is no doubt about that—and I applaud the money being spent. But on behalf of the people of Schubert I would ask, 'Please, can we have some?' These projects include:

the Berri Hospital redevelopment to the tune of $36 million—a project that has been ongoing and will be completed at the end of the year, and the last half a million dollars is there to be spent;

the regional dialysis service for Gawler—as someone who would like those regional dialysis services to be moved a bit further north into the Barossa, I do still applaud them for at least investing more in the northern suburbs and the northern part of our state;

the Mount Gambier health service redevelopment for $26 million;

the Murray Bridge Community Dental Clinic for $3.8 million;

the Port Lincoln health service redevelopment for $39 million;

the South Coast primary health care in Victor Harbor for $10 million; and

the Whyalla Hospital redevelopment for $68 million.

These are significant sums of money, and on behalf of the people of Schubert I would like to say that we have been waiting for 20 years to get this underway. I would say there is money being spent around the place, and the people of Schubert would say, 'Please, ignore us no longer. We are deserving, we have a strong business case and we are here ready and waiting for a little bit of focus.'

There are a number of local roads sealing projects and upgrade to freight routes that I could talk about, but the list is long and endless. Today, as an opposition member and as the member for Schubert, I would like to announce an ad hoc tax. I announce that I propose a tax on any minister who comes to the Barossa and wishes to be wined and dined. I propose a tax that is paid for by way of infrastructure projects for my local area.

The first cab off the rank could be the Barossa hospital; it could be sealing a small portion of Stelzer Road; or it could be turnout lanes for the Eden Valley to Springton Road. Whatever it is, I am going to set a price and I expect that price to be paid in exchange for the use of the beautiful Barossa—one of the most beautiful places in South Australia—as a place to come and visit.

I think I am going to start one of those funding boards. I have seen one for Carers' Link in the Barossa, which raised $600,000, of which they raised about $400,000 to $450,000 themselves, to get a new building developed to support those who care for other people in the Barossa community. We will have one of those nice boards, and every time a minister comes, I am going to add $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000; by the time the next election rolls around, you never know, we might have the $40 million to $45 million we need to get the job done.

Should the budget return to the black and, at some point, it will—hopefully, sometime before my 22-month-old daughter finishes high school—it will be on the back of the hard work and sweat of the regions, such as the Barossa and the Murraylands. But they will not be rewarded for their contribution by this Labor government, which sits comfortably here in its ivory tower. Every time the budget comes out, the belt is tightened and it is the regions that end up paying more and more. As the member for Schubert, I say that it is not good enough and it needs to stop. But it is more broadly than the electorate of Schubert that is being hit; regional South Australia and agriculture have been hit, and I direct these comments to the member for Frome.

From 2012-13 to this budget, there have been 90 job losses at the South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI); their funding has been cut by $3 million in this budget, after a cut of $1.4 million last year. Biosecurity SA has been cut by $6 million, after losing $1.9 million last financial year, with a loss of 13 full-time staff. The natural resources management fund will be reduced by $900,000 annually, while regional service delivery will be cut by $5.3 million in this budget, and at least two tree projects will be lost for a combined $2.2 million.

Regional SA has a $1½ million budget (we managed to find that tucked away there quietly), but it seems to be nothing more than lip service to the member for Frome. I implore him to say, 'We are here, we are ready to work with you so that we can turn around these cuts, that we can start to deliver local road projects for South Australia.'

The member for Light has been strangely quiet on this topic—and this is something very dear to the people of Schubert who commute to Adelaide via the Gawler train line—and that is the Gawler train line, which is constantly the punching bag of the Labor Party when it comes to deciding what to cut from its budget. On 5 June 2008, Labor announced electrification of the train line to Gawler. On 31 May 2012, coincidentally the same day that the Labor government lost the AAA credit rating, Labor scrapped electrification to Gawler.

On 6 June, Labor announced electrification to Dry Creek. For those uninitiated who do not understand what happens north of Gepps Cross, Dry Creek is a little bit further back towards Adelaide than Gawler. On 3 December, Labor scrapped electrification to Dry Creek. Then on 16 February 2014, Labor announced electrification to Salisbury, to be commenced in 2015. On 19 June 2014, Labor again delayed work on the start of the electrification of the line; it will not commence now until 2017-18.

The people of the northern suburbs—the people of Gawler, the people in Light—as well as the many hundreds of commuters in Schubert, are right to question whether or not this project will ever happen. It has been announced and scrapped and modified so many different times our heads are spinning; we do not understand what is going to happen. All we know is that we are waiting longer and longer for the vital services and infrastructure that we need.

In my last few minutes, I would like to talk about some real reform. Again, in the spirit of not wanting to stand here and whinge for the entire time, I would like to talk about some things that I discussed in my maiden speech about fixing the fundamentals, which is code for reform, code for some of the things we need to do to deliver employment growth maybe beyond the 1 per cent that the budget talks about.

First cab off the rank, as nominated by the government, is WorkCover, to help to give reform and savings to the South Australian economy. The $180 million savings figure quoted by the government is laudable, and I look forward to seeing what is put on the table, because in South Australia we have an average levy rate of 2.75 per cent compared with 1.76 per cent across the nation. Even though our scheme is the most expensive, it is still only 67 per cent funded compared with the 112 per cent national average. We take vastly more sums of money from businesses, yet we still deliver them a scheme that has an increasing unfunded liability. It is an absolute disgrace. I look forward to making a strong contribution on this topic to ensure that we do get real reform and that the system delivers better outcomes for employees and for employers.

If we expect these conditions to improve, we need real reform, and the first cab off the rank, as the Leader of the Opposition stated earlier, should be payroll tax so that we can increase incentives for businesses to give them confidence. This, I think, should be one of our first priorities. We need real reform in the public sector to reduce the cost burden on businesses, making sure they can comply in the most efficient way. We need reform that will lead to confidence, that confidence will lead to investment, and that investment will lead to jobs. For those opposite, that is the way the link works. You need to have reform first to build confidence that leads to investment that creates jobs.

This government has botched that linear progression at every turn. The Premier and Treasurer have been in the media in recent times saying, 'The state needs business to get its act together and come up with the big ideas, even though we don't necessarily want to talk about them. The state needs business to create jobs.' Can I say that it is nice to see that at some deep, dark, subconscious level there is an understanding that it is business that creates jobs rather than governments. Instead, the government is pleading with businesses to get on and do that job alone, without reform by government, without relief from government and without any help from government.

That is not a true partnership. That gives lie to many of the statements made inside and outside this place by members opposite about the fact the government is here to work with business. Can I say that, if you are genuine in that partnership—if the Labor government is genuine in that partnership—there would be a real desire for reform, a real desire for tax relief and a real desire for reduction in red and green tape. There would be a real desire to deal with WorkCover reform.

They are the issues where we can start to deliver some real benefits that will lead to better outcomes here in South Australia so that next year, or the year after, or the year after that, maybe the blueprint that Labor has put down over the past four years can be changed so that we can start to see a credible path back to surplus and credible growth projections, and a South Australia where young people are not leaving in droves to find better opportunities interstate but have confidence that there are businesses here creating jobs that can deliver for South Australia and enhance our prosperity.

Mr WINGARD (Mitchell) (12:42): I rise today to speak on the Appropriation Bill. While I support the bill to ensure our hardworking public servants in South Australia are paid for the great work they do for the state, I do have some reservations about the measures the Weatherill government has put in place in this bill. If you look around the country, and even beyond our shores across the Tasman Sea to New Zealand, you will see a number of jurisdictions led by liberal reformist governments which are growing and succeeding without burdening future generations with ever-expanding excessive debt.

The plans these states and nations are implementing, with great success, all harbour similar trademarks. They all hold dear a key focus on responsible economic management—not a sexy term, but one that has taken these jurisdictions forward. Their overarching plans all have common themes—ensuring expenses growth does not exceed long-term revenue growth, investigating cost-benefit analysis on major projects, working towards regaining a AAA credit rating to reduce the cost of borrowing, and ensuring fiscal responsibility as a part of every action that their governments take. These liberal reformist governments also talk about building for the future and building for our children's future, not building just for election promises.

With a framework for success which has been revitalising jurisdictions across the land and, as I said, across our seas, we take a look at where South Australia sits in comparison. Since coming to power 12 years ago, the state Labor government has taken South Australia's state debt from around $3 billion to fast approaching $14 billion. Whilst that figure is not comfortable, it is the rate of growth in recent years which is of most concern, and the lack of control of the budget year on year which should have alarm bells ringing for all South Australians.

In the two most recent financial years, the Weatherill Labor government has produced two of the largest deficit budgets in South Australia's history. In 2012-13, this Labor government predicted a $30 million surplus but instead produced a $950 million deficit. That is right: they missed the mark by $1.25 billion. It is hard to see fiscal responsibility there. If that was not bad enough, in the following 2013-14 year, Labor forecast a $480 million budget surplus and they returned a $1.2 billion deficit. This time, they missed the mark by $1.5 billion.

It does not take much imagination, when you look further ahead, to see anything better, because it is not there. Initial promises were for an $840 million surplus but the latest estimates are looking at a $500 million deficit—again, missing the mark by more than $1 billion. State Labor has had six deficit budgets in the past seven years after promising surplus budgets on every occasion; for seven years it promised surplus budgets and it delivered deficits on six occasions. So as other states and jurisdictions with Liberal reformist governments focus on fiscal responsibility, this Labor government in South Australia has totally lost control of that spending.

A great measure of a state government's economic management is its state's credit rating. Back in 2012 South Australia had a AAA credit rating. It was downgraded at that stage and it has continued to slide down to a AA rating since then. At that time the Premier explained this away, and was quoted on ABC radio, saying that the government had 'made those choices deliberately' to downgrade our credit rating. So the Premier deliberately made those choices to lose South Australia's AAA credit rating.

That begs the question: he is the man in charge, why? The Premier said, in the narrative that followed, that the state's credit rating was falling to create more jobs. That was his reasoning—to create more jobs. The Premier claimed that his Labor economic policies would create more jobs by dropping the credit rating, but in reality it has hurt jobs here in South Australia. State debt has increased by $6.4 billion since the 2010 state election and there were 800 fewer jobs in South Australia. So there it was: drop the credit rating, create jobs. There is the fact: there are fewer jobs.

Since losing the state's AAA credit rating the government's jobs growth forecast has declined. The jobs growth forecast has fallen from plus 1.75 per cent to minus 1.25 per cent on the back of the two record deficits that I spoke about earlier. Financial commentators have also estimated that the downgrade of South Australia's AAA credit rating to AA+ would cost the state $20 million a year in higher interest repayments. Now that it is down to AA that is just increased, all adding to the narrative of this government's lack of financial and fiscal responsibility.

When you are constantly spending more than you are earning and blowing your budget by billions of dollars, what do you do? According to this Labor government you do not take responsibility; no, you start sheeting the blame to others and you get tricky. You do not become more responsible with your economic management, you find more creative ways to take more cash from the back pockets of South Australians through taxes and charges. Tax revenue has increased by 106 per cent under this state Labor government. This means that under the Weatherill Labor government South Australia has become the highest-taxed state in the nation, a fact confirmed by two independent reports. One of these, the Commonwealth Grants Commission, states that South Australia's land tax was levied at 31 per cent, the worst of every state.

We have talked about this before in this place. We used to play against the big states; we used to play against Victoria, we used to play against New South Wales, we used to play against Queensland. Now we are in the second division, the second tier of competition, and we are struggling to play against Tasmania

Ms Redmond interjecting:

Mr WINGARD: You are right; Tasmania is starting to kick ahead, and that is a concern. The Premier has even admitted here in this chamber, in June 2012, that 'We are a high-cost jurisdiction.' They are the words of the Premier back in June 2012, that we are high-cost jurisdiction. He admits it.

I take the house back to those states and jurisdictions with Liberal reformist governments, those states that turned themselves around after being wracked with debt and deficit budgets under Labor governments. Did they make themselves high-cost jurisdictions, as the Premier said here back in June 2012? No, they did not. They did not go about increasing taxes and placing excessive burdens on families and businesses, but that is exactly what the Weatherill Labor government is doing. State taxes are up 92 per cent after 12 years of Labor, gas bills are up 136 per cent in 12 years of Labor, electricity bills are up 160 per cent in the 12 years, and water bills are up approximately 230 per cent. It is phenomenal; it adds to the cost of living and it is why we are struggling here in South Australia.

Water prices are a case in point. As I said, they are up 230 per cent when CPI increased by 40 per cent in the same duration. Adelaide has the highest capital city water charges in the country. The average household will now pay almost $600 more for water than they did when state Labor came into power; $600 more a year. That is phenomenal.

It is timely to think back to the federal Auditor-General's Report, which showed that SA Water undertook a cost-benefit analysis on a proposal to double the size of the desalination plant. Bearing in mind that 230 per cent increase in water bills, and here we have the federal Auditor-General's Report showing that there was a cost benefit analysis done, as far as the desalination plant was concerned, and that there was no cost benefit from doubling the size of this plant. Well, the government went ahead and doubled it anyway. The plant has now been mothballed but the cost still sits with us—paying back $2.2 billion—and it is hurting South Australians.

They are some of the increased taxes and charges that hit and hurt families and businesses through the essentials, but then the tricks began as we saw in the recent budget. One of the sneakiest, one that made me chuckle, was labelled the ‘fun tax’. It is not funny at all. Call it the tax on fun, the entertainment tax or the 'we want you to stay at home tax'—I am not sure which way it works and you can call it what you will.

I will let the state Labor government call it what they like, but before the election the government spruiked their free public transport to push people into the city. I am sure they spoke about it on at least three occasions or possibly at all four of the openings of the footbridge. Before the election they could not push their free public transport offer enough but after the election they came clean and admitted that it is not free at all. Not only are they looking to add charges to the users of public transport who are going to the events, but they are also going to charge the people who do not use the public transport for the services through the levy on ticket holders.

They did not take this to the election but they saved it up to spring it on families afterwards. So, there will be a levy on tickets of over 5,000 for those going to events in the city that are turning a profit for an event organiser. If you buy a ticket, you will pay the levy, and if you catch the train or the bus or public transport you get to use it. If you take your car and you park in the city, you not only get slugged for the transport levy, but you potentially get slugged for the car park tax.

The government is just trying to fix their mismanagement and take and take from families in every way possible, and it is not helping South Australia and it is not helping save South Australian families either. It is another way for the Weatherill Labor government to claw back funds. It is another new tax to pay for their financial mismanagement over the past 12 years.

Sadly, folks, it does not end there. This Weatherill Labor government is in such a mess and has made such a mess of South Australia's finances they have also hit all South Australians with a rise in the emergency services levy. On average, they will hit every household to the tune of between $150 and $190 per year. This government cannot help but put its hand in people's back pockets and take cash from hardworking South Australian citizens to pay for its ongoing mismanagement of the state's finances. Again, nothing was mentioned about this before the election but, in effect, it is a land tax hitting every South Australian through the emergency services levy rises, and it is another way for this Weatherill Labor government to take money out of the pockets of South Australians.

You will hear them blame the federal government, but do not be fooled. The state Labor government put the state in this alarming financial position well before the federal government handed down its budget. Both of the last two budgets, as I pointed out earlier, produced deficits in the vicinity of $1 billion each and the Treasurer has admitted on radio that these horror results have nothing at all to do with the federal government. It is all as a result of the current government and their financial mismanagement.

That leads me to the transport mess that this government has created. During the election they rolled out a wondrous transport plan with pretty pictures of trains and trams rolling through North Adelaide, Prospect and The Parade at Norwood. The pictures are wonderful, and the cost is estimated at about $40 billion over 40 years—an ambitious estimation I think—but there has been nothing in the budget to achieve this.

There is the O-Bahn tunnel plan, but how long will it be, how much time will it save and how much will it cost—$60 million or $160 million? Will it save four minutes? Will it save 10 minutes? Will it be 500 metres long? Will it be 700 metres long? Will the cost be the same if the distance changes? No-one really knows. So these things are put in place but no-one has done the cost-benefit analysis to give us a true indication of what it is going to cost and what it is going to save the state.

On the back of that it is hard to know how this government will operate and what they will do because over time there have been cost blowouts with so many other projects. When you look at this plan, it looks pretty on paper—$40 billion over 40 years—but can they explain where the money is going to come from? Can they say whether they will stay on budget when history says they have struggled to do so in every way shape or form?

While I am talking about public transport, I join my colleague, the member for Schubert, in talking about the Gawler rail extension. This is an absolute classic case in point and I feel for the people of the north. Initially they were promised the electrification of the Gawler rail line. Funds were pulled by this state government because they overspent in other areas—again, in other mismanaged projects. They overspent in other areas so they had to pull their funding from the Gawler rail line. It was promised, it was taken away; it was promised again at Dry Creek, and it was taken away. It was promised again at the last state election, and they are claiming that they are doing it in this next budget.

The cost is $152 million—let's be clear on this. That is the budgeted cost as we sit here today. Again, let us hope that the budget figures are right, but who knows with this government. However, let us take their word that it is $152 million. They have promised in the last year of forward estimates $60 million towards the project. I feel for the people of the north. It has been put in front of them and taken away, put in front and taken away, put in front again, and I say it has been taken away. They are promising $60 million in the last year of forward estimates—$92 million unaccounted for. They are not committing to this project. They are not getting this project done. They are just teasing the people of the north and they are treating them with disrespect, and I think they need to be called to account.

Speaking of public transport, a survey was done recently, with 50 per cent of users saying that they felt that public transport in South Australia was unreliable. If you want to get a public transport system to work, you must have reliability; it is first and foremost. There have been three million fewer public transport boardings since Jay Weatherill became Premier. That is a result of this unreliability, and the latest stats say that 20 per cent of people on trains are fare evaders as well. The system is not working. I note that there is money in this latest budget to try to prevent fare evasion but, again, this was a whole project that was being done. The electrification of the rail line should have included contingencies to cover all that. So, really, this is just another cost blowout of a few more million dollars added to this project.

However, reliability is the big issue here. If we want people to use our public transport system, we must make it more reliable and more efficient, but over time people have come to realise that it does not work. The other thing is that 50 per cent of public transport users said that it was unreliable where, in fact, so many people have left the system and have given up on public transport, and they were not even surveyed. What are they saying and why have they left? I put it down to the unreliability of the system. We need to make it better, and I do not know that this government has the fortitude to do that.

Road safety is another issue. We have talked about the sale of MAC: $500 million ripped out and another $5 million taken out to put into the general coffers so that this government can pay down the debt and deficit that I have talked about, which they have accrued over their 12 years in power, and more recently with two deficits in the vicinity of a billion dollars. Road safety figures have improved over time, and I commend the people who work in MAC for that. They do a marvellous job with their programs to try to make people more aware of road safety issues. In fact, I was delighted to read in the paper today that they have been commended for some of their advertising work and the advertising that they have done.

As I look through the budget, I see the money coming out of MAC and I see the money going. I was interested to read also last week that Roger Cook, who is a motorsport aficionado and has been involved heavily with MAC over the journey, also has concerns about where the money is going to come from to keep funding MAC. The suggestion is that, as they privatise CTP and other companies pick up the CTP insurance, there will be another levy put on motor users in registration, to tax the CTP operators so that funds will be shuffled back into MAC.

That is a suggestion of how they are going to keep funding MAC. I call on the government to explain how much money will go into road safety and into the programs that have been working so successfully to bring down the road toll number. What is the figure that is going to be taken again through motor registration, or where is it going to come from to keep funding the MAC program and to make sure that road safety is still very high on the agenda of this government?

As has been said, roads are another issue. There is a $400 million backlog in road maintenance over the journey that has been created under this government. This is another area that needs fixing and another area that has been so poorly mismanaged by this government over time. Letting the roads be neglected and letting this backlog accrue has done more damage to road safety. This is something that this government must address and must address fast. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:01.