Appropriation Bill 2014

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Ms REDMOND (Heysen) (15:56): I will see how much time I have on the clock, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think you are up to about 12 minutes.

Ms REDMOND: Twelve, was it?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think that is a bit generous, but you can go for 12.

Ms REDMOND: When I sought leave to continue my remarks, I had been explaining how it was that our water bills had gone up so extravagantly, by some 236 per cent in the time that this government has been in office. I had got as far as explaining that, instead of agreeing to a $450 million desalination plant, this government had resisted it for two years and then doubled the size of it unnecessarily, resulting in a $2.2 billion desalination plant.

In addition to that, they did a couple of other things, of course. They insisted that the power to supply this desalination plant be paid at a premium, which is costing us an extra $37 million over three years, and then, of course, this government is very much in favour of keeping the carbon tax, which will cost us another $14.6 million over three years. In addition to all of that, as if the cost of that plant alone and all those added cost burdens imposed by the plant were not enough, the government insists every year on taking not only a dividend from SA Water but a tax equivalent payment from SA Water of hundreds of thousands of dollars. So, it is for those reasons that the people of this state face these extraordinarily high bills that come in for our water charges.

Similarly, our electricity bills have gone up, and they will be going up in the average household yet again this year by another $85, and that is certainly well beyond inflation. As if all of that was not bad enough, this government has decided to withdraw the concessions. When I moved to this state many years ago, the concessions on local council rates which, of course, although they are on your local council notice are actually paid by the state government, amounted to a fair percentage of your council rates.

Over the years, they just have not been increased. This government has not increased them in my memory, so for a long time the council rate concession has stayed at $190. As if that was not bad enough, however, what the government has decided to do now is withdraw the council rate concession altogether. Indeed, I think they are also withdrawing the Seniors Card concession, which amounts to about $100.

It is pretty clear that this government, through its own mismanagement, has got into this dreadful economic situation. It has never yet met its target in terms of coming in on budget or creating a surplus—heaven forbid! In fact, I think that for six out of the last seven years they have promised a surplus and, on all but one occasion when they did manage a tiny surplus, they have actually come in with a deficit, and this year of course is no exception.

As I said at the outset, I want to concentrate my comments at this stage on the fact that this budget in particular is going to impact not just on the debt and the deficit for the state but on the ordinary consumers in this state—the mums and dads in all the suburbs who all of us in this house are charged to represent. Even when you get past all those high costs, you then face other increases.

Your licensing costs are going up. Heaven forbid you get a driving fine. I get an enormous number of complaints in my electorate office from people who have been driving for sometimes 40 or 50 years with never an infringement but, because of the regime of this government, they suddenly find that they have been driving down the street they have been driving down for 40 or 50 years and exceeded the 50 km/h speed limit that has been imposed without them being aware, and they cop an extraordinary fine, and even those fines are going up.

In addition to that, even if they wanted to do something in the community—and of course, this state famously has an enormous culture for volunteering. Indeed, I remember years ago looking at the statistics on volunteering in this state, and the amount of money contributed by volunteers in our community was the equivalent of something in the order of one-third of the amount of money that our state budget comprises; so, they were very significant volunteers.

We have a very high rate of volunteering. What does this government do? It increases the fee to get your clearance to go work as a volunteer. I must say, I find the whole idea of having to get a clearance quite offensive. I have been a volunteer all my life—I must confess, I took a back step from my Rotary Club while I was leader, and I have not actually gone back to the club as an active member, but I am still an honorary member.

I am a bit hesitant to do so, simply because I have a fundamental objection to having to pay to get a clearance in order to volunteer my services in the community, particularly when those services are not going to actually have any direct contact with children and when I do not believe that, in any event, the people that we need to protect our children from are in fact stopped from having contact with children via that clearance. Even volunteering is going to be more expensive for the community members.

This government talks about creating a vibrant city and wanting to encourage people to come into the city, and in this budget there are two extraordinary measures aimed, I think, at precisely the opposite. The first is that they are going to impose a car park tax. This is the one city where we actually do not have congestion, but between the state government and the Adelaide City Council, they are doing everything they can to make this city as congested as possible, when in fact 85 per cent of the journeys are never going to be on public transport.

But we are going to have a car park tax on every car park in the city, at $750 a year, and of course that is going to be passed on. Not only that, but I have spoken to at least one owner of a high-rise car park development who has said he will simply go out of business. He will not be able to afford to pay the amount of money required by the government in this tax and still run a profitable business because he won’t be able to simply pass all of that onto the users.

To make matters even more complicated in terms of trying to encourage people to use public transport, the government has said, ‘Yes, if you use public transport to all these events it is going to be free,’ but then they are going to turn around and impose a charge on all the people who attend. So, even if the people attend by walking, or if they attend by driving their own car and paying the excess for their car park, they are going to be confronted with yet another payment because they have attended the event, and the event itself is going to attract the tax known as the ‘cost recovery for public transport to events’.

In spite of the minister going on radio and trying to dodge the fact that it was not going to be $2 per ticket, that was clearly the amount that had been indicated by those who attended the briefing at the budget lockup. I was somewhat surprised to find that the Minister for Transport, in his radio interview on 891, did not even appear to know what a not-for-profit organisation was. It does not surprise me.

I know that on this side of the house we have many, many people who have been involved as volunteers for a long, long time, and they fully understand that a not-for-profit organisation does not mean that the organisation never makes any money and has to absolutely break even every year. What a not-for-profit organisation is about is simply that the profits do not get shared among shareholders; the profits get ploughed back into whatever good community purpose it might be.

For instance, I spent 29 years on the local hospital board in Stirling, and it made a significant profit every year, which was used to improve the facilities and all the things that were available at that hospital to improve patient care at that hospital. There was never a profit distributed among the board members, who were all volunteers for absolutely no pay, and that is the distinction. But it does not really surprise me that people on the other side do not actually understand that distinction.

Having provided that disincentive, the government has then announced this extraordinary step that they are going to close down the Motor Accident Commission, after promising no more privatisations. Of course, they will argue that they are not really privatising, but the reality is that the effect of it is that people in this state, rather than going to the Motor Accident Commission to get their third-party personal insurance, will now be faced with having to go out into the open market.

Of course, the government had already raided that. It is one of the few things that had been working well, probably because the government did not have its hands on the till and, compared to WorkCover which has made extraordinary losses and run up vast amounts of unfunded liability over successive years going to a worse position, the Motor Accident Commission actually ran quite effectively and, indeed, had money in the bank.

So what did the government do? In the last budget they came along and said, 'We'll take $100 million from there and put it into our general revenue,' and now they have decided that they are not just going to do that, they are actually going to close the thing down and leave the people who are driving vehicles at the mercy of the marketplace. If you know anything about the insurance marketplace, you will know for a start that there are only about five underwriters around the world and they are overseas and that it is very hard in some areas to get insurance at all.

For instance, in the area of housing indemnity where I had thought until recently there was housing indemnity insurance that you took out if you were going to go with a builder and build yourself a new home, take out your insurance and you are covered for the builder going belly up or for the building not being completed or for problems with warranty of the building once constructed. In fact, there are significant problems with providing that indemnity insurance in that industry.

I have no doubt that when it comes to motor vehicle industry insurance it is going to be the same thing, that people will struggle to get insurance. Of course, the government had already largely dismantled the provision of a lot of the damages for people who were injured in significant ways and they have certainly made improvements in the level of damages available for catastrophic injury but they have significantly removed the damages payable for a range of other injuries which are not classified as catastrophic.

This government seems intent upon removing all sorts of protections which have previously been in place. Indeed, Mr Acting Speaker, I refer you to the Travel Agents Fund—and you may have some familiarity with it, considering we discussed it this morning. The Travel Agents Fund up until last week, in fact up until Monday, provided protection in the Travel Compensation Fund for every person going through a travel agent in this state, but as a result of the government's move to dismantle that legislation as of today we do not have any such protection. I believe that the same thing is going to come to pass with the Motor Accident Commission.

I will not have time to go through the other things about the debt and the deficit. However, I will mention that although the jobs promise is being cited as the government promise to create 100,000 jobs by the year 2016, my recollection is that originally when then premier Mike Rann made the announcement it was going to be 100,000 jobs in the next four years coming from the 2010 election to 2014. A loss of 19,500 jobs and growing is an absolute disgrace. This government should be condemned for this budget.

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (16:08): I have listened to all the contributions of the members opposite and, if a week is a long time in politics, then the past 24 hours were a very long day for me. I believe those speeches from the other side confirm several old sayings, especially the one that describes the first casualty as always being the truth, then there is the one about how statistics can be made to tell any sort of story, and my personal favourite is the 'we were robbed' one. They have all been trotted out in one way or another in nearly every single speech.

South Australians did not vote for the overwhelming change they on the other side anticipated, and the electoral system is not rigged. Voting patterns are not and should not be easy to predict and so, no matter the results of the work of the committee set up to examine electoral reform, it will be hard to redistribute boundaries in a way satisfactory to all because of that very unpredictability.

There are a couple quotes that I hope will be inspiring for all of us here as we work to make South Australia the best place it can be. One is from John Fitzgerald Kennedy on the occasion of his inauguration in 1961 when he said, 'So ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.' Another from Noam Chomsky is, 'If you assume there's no hope, you guarantee there will be no hope. If you assume there are opportunities to change things, there is a chance you may contribute to making a better world. That's your choice.'

These are important notions and they demonstrate the level of commitment needed as this state faces up to the world in the aftermath of the GFC and the impact of the high dollar and the fall in commodity prices that led to the disappointment of the stalling of the Olympic Dam project.

No matter what anyone says, no-one expected a federal budget that would change the Australian way of life so significantly. Why would we? We were told not to expect any surprises. Talk about broken promises and the pot calling the kettle black. The result had to be a major rewrite of the South Australian budget and, as the member for Waite said in his contribution last evening, this government has had to make bold changes while still doing its best to fulfil election commitments.

We are building and reforming as well as transforming. These are the visions we took to the election and these are the qualities that see us all well placed to lead in a time of transformation in this state. This government is committed to structural change. We shed the title ‘rust-bucket state’ and we will turn around the current adverse circumstances and negative perceptions those on the other side are now peddling. If I were a Tasmanian, I would be reminding you all that not all states start from the same position and, like Tasmania, South Australia faces significantly different circumstances to the Eastern States and Western Australia.

The sudden and total abandonment of the car industry by the federal government means that the transition phase for manufacturers and workers will be so much harder. This did not have to be the case. Federal changes to health care and education will be massive, and we do not even know yet if this is the last of the changes the federal Liberal government will inflict on us. The cuts will hurt the most vulnerable, and this state government will keep concessions until at least next year when we will see what lies in store from the next Abbott budget.

This is the time, at all levels of government, when elected members must strive to win back the confidence and trust of the electorate. If we are honest with the people, the people will accept the measures being taken. There has been a lot of talk about perceptions and about there being no plan behind the measures being taken in this budget. When we talk about perceptions we cannot have it both ways. The sole act of the election of a Liberal government is thankfully not the only catalyst for positive change. In other states held up as examples for success assets have been sold, so this is not something uniquely South Australian.

In fact, I remember in my early days in this place watching the now shadow treasurer Lucas in another place hanging on every word and almost dragging the now late Hon. Trevor Crothers across the floor to enable the sale of ETSA, thus privatising electricity supply in this state. This was the change we were told we had to have. Other changes interstate have not all been positive. People have been left behind, something this government is working hard to avoid. Trickle down at breakneck speed is not the only way to return to surplus and, as we have heard, some level of debt is acceptable in any budget.

If the Liberals had won last March they would have started from the exact same place in planning this state’s future. To claim the election of a reformist government is the only catalyst for improvement is not borne out by the results in other jurisdictions. Engendering a perception of ‘all things will get better’ while making bold changes is an example of how talking things up can have a positive effect. Confidence is an important ingredient in success, and we need only look to the inspiring example of Nick Kyrgios—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Kyrgios.

Ms BEDFORD: Anyway, he looks like you from the back—at Wimbledon last night to observe the power of positive thought.

Locally, Florey residents rely on Modbury Hospital, and I have spent my entire public life working to support this great facility and the wonderful staff who make it such an integral part of our community. We now have a state-of-the-art accident and emergency department, featuring paediatrics that dovetail into the remarkable facilities at the Lyell McEwin health service for the sickest adults and children. We have a fantastic hospice service and the rehab ward is due to open soon. Sure, we have had to postpone the new build that was promised, but as each community contributes to the measures to contain health expectations it is a share we must accept as we take our share of the changes needed for the greater good.

There seem to have always been good times and bad times in this capitalist cycle. Australia has been lucky enough to emerge from downtrends to again enjoy better times as the rest of the world catches up. Closure of the hospital is not an option, and our community will not accept this. The continual rumours, fanned by party-political advantage-seeking individuals is appalling. I ask you all to refrain from scaring people and causing anxiety when it is not necessary and in some cases is very harmful.

This is another example of a case where confidence is vital. This persistent niggling away is particularly galling from the very people whose failed privatisation experiment caused such terrible calamity. I have lived that experience and will not stand by for anything similar, ever. We have local experience of the importance of investment in public transport, reliability being the key factor in deciding people to make the change. Now, with a great secure park-and-ride, commuters enjoy a seamless experience. It has quickly become a tradition for the fixtures at the wonderful Adelaide Oval and for arts events in the city.

The Heights School will become a defence school hub, readying our students for careers in defence and the defence industries. This is the school my now adult children attended and they have gone on to do degrees and secure employment in their chosen fields here in South Australia as have most of their friends. While some of our children move further afield for experience, this should be seen as a good thing, for many return and contribute again while enjoying the universally-celebrated lifestyle that is uniquely ours and to raise their own families.

We know the task ahead of us. This government took a manifesto to the election that has had to change in keeping with the harsh measures that have been enforced on us—measures that will change the very fabric of the Australian way of life. Access to good health care when you need it and good education for all are the basics of our society. Understanding a need to contain health spending is vastly different to tearing up national health agreements and imposing mammoth changes to universal health care. Tearing up national education agreements and completely rewriting education commitments (cunningly, not in the short term, but into the future) and changing the face of university education—changes that will not serve us well—are things that we are all awake to.

One thing the federal budget did do was to unite state and territory leaders in the universal condemnation of what was forced on them—all this while removing safety nets for the most vulnerable, removing the commissioner for disability and almost single-handedly killing off the euphoria of the NDIS, and not addressing child care, irrespective of a paid parental leave scheme almost as unpopular as the changes to Medicare.

All of this feeds into the main issue, and that is the creation of jobs. It may seem like a chicken and egg argument, but I have always felt everything is important, as we never want working poor in Australia. Without federal support rather than withdrawal of services, our efforts here will be hamstrung. Business has acknowledged this government's emphasis and support in the budget measures to stimulate their sector—spending will only occur in a climate of confidence.

I will continue to do everything I can to support our Public Service and public servants. They provide the advice to whoever is in government and deliver the services on which we all rely. Instead of complaining, let us all put our efforts into making things work. The areas that need change have been identified: the only difference now is the emphasis and the speed with which the change is delivered.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (16:17): Interesting—I did not realise I would be following the member for Florey, and she has encouraged me to make a couple of comments I had not intended to make.

Ms Bedford interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: No, maybe I don't; maybe the member is right, but let me say that anybody who stands up in this place and says that this government has a mandate for this program does not understand the fundamentals of democracy. Anybody who suggests that this government was returned with the confidence of the people of South Australia is kidding themselves. The reality is that 92,000 South Australians wanted a change of government—more than those who wanted to continue in the same vein. And not only did they vote for that change as recently as 15 March, indeed they voted for a similar change four years ago.

The people of South Australia are getting somewhat frustrated with an electoral system that does not allow democracy to occur in South Australia. They are getting frustrated that it takes something like, I would suggest, 54½ per cent of the two-party popular vote to create a change of government in South Australia.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: No, that's not true.

Mr WILLIAMS: Well, the minister interjects that that's not true—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: And it's not right to respond to interjections, so I will bring you back to the debate.

Mr WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The reality is that it takes about 54.6 per cent, on the current electoral boundaries, for there to be a change of government in South Australia. That is the fundamental reality. For those members who have not read it, I refer them to the 2012 Report of the Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission and, with a recast of the vote—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: A recast.

Mr WILLIAMS: This is part of the process that they go through, Tom. With a recast of the votes, cast—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is out of order to interject, it is out of order to respond to interjections, and you must refer to the member by his name.

Mr WILLIAMS: Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. If you read the 2012 report of the boundaries commission, when they reapplied the votes from the 2010 election to the new boundaries, notwithstanding that the Liberal Party received 51.6 per cent of the two-party preferred vote, their calculations showed that the Labor Party would have still won 25 seats.

On the votes cast at the 2010 election, on the boundaries that we currently have, the Labor Party would win 25 seats, notwithstanding section 83(1) of the Constitution Act that says that the boundaries commission should draw boundaries such that the group that receives 50 per cent of the vote plus one should have an even chance of forming government. I will leave it there but those who are saying otherwise are kidding themselves, just like this government is kidding itself in its blame game.

Let me turn to Budget Paper 3, page 42, Table 3.1, Revenue cuts imposed by the commonwealth government. It has a whole list of supposed revenue cuts that the state will be suffering, and down the bottom it has the total under the column 2014-15—minus $101.1 million. I did another little exercise. I picked up Budget Paper 3 from last year's budget and had a look to see how much the state expected to get from the commonwealth. In last year's budget, the budget paper showed that the state expected to get $8.235 billion for 2014-15. Lo and behold, in this year's budget it shows that the state will get $8.269 billion. It is a fair while ago since I studied arithmetic but by my calculation that is an increase of $34 million.

In Budget Paper 3, I draw members' attention to table 3.1 on page 42 and table 3.13 on page 55, and I draw their attention to the exact same tables with the same numbers (on different page numbers possibly) in last year's budget, and they can review what I am saying for themselves. Notwithstanding that the minister, the Treasurer and the Premier are claiming that all their budgetary problems are because of changes to the federal revenue stream, the reality is that that revenue stream for the state this financial year, according to the Treasurer's budget papers, will be $34 million more in the financial year that we have just entered than what we were expecting 12 months ago.

Let me say that one of the big problems in managing anything is that if you deny reality you will never ever make the correct decisions, and that is what this government has now been doing for 12 years—it has been denying reality. The reality is that this government has been fiscally inept, to put it mildly. In the early days of this government the revenue streams increased dramatically above expectations.

The Labor government in the early 2000s did not have the wit to understand that that was an aberration. They did not have the wit to understand that that was not going to go on forever and ever, so they spent and spent and spent every cent that came in. Yes, we did have the global financial crisis which changed the way the world operated in 2008. It did all of a sudden put the brakes on the revenue stream flowing into the Treasury coffers. Former treasurer Foley had some little understanding, I believe, of what he was facing.

It was Daniel Wills in The Advertiser on the Saturday following the release of the current budget, I think (or it might have even been the Saturday before), who pointed out that in 2010 treasurer Foley had budgeted to cut the public sector by 4,000 full-time equivalents. He said, 'We have to do this. We have to put some restraints on our expenditure. We have to get the budget back to a sustainable level.'

Of course, treasurer Foley has disappeared, those decisions were overturned, those cuts were never fulfilled and, indeed, in the meantime the public sector has continued to grow. In the interim, it has gone up by about another 1,400 full-time equivalents, if Daniel Wills from The Advertiser has his numbers right. There is a turnaround of 5,400 full-time equivalents between treasurer Foley's 2010 budget and where we find ourselves going into the 2014-15 financial year.

Just those two decisions—one not to go ahead with those announced cuts of former treasurer Foley and the other one to continue to grow the public sector—I argue would be having more impact on the state's budgetary position than anything the commonwealth government has done, bearing in mind, as I have just pointed out, the commonwealth government's decisions have not had any impact on the position of the state budget for 2014-15, according to the Treasurer's budget papers, and I quoted the source a moment ago.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: I quoted the source a moment ago: Budget Paper 3, table 3.13. The Treasurer might have a look at that. I want to spend the next little time talking about some of the impacts on South Australia and the way South Australians live because of the budgetary decisions this government has made over the last 12 years, the foolish way that it has spent money and its inability to have reserves to do sensible things.

For a while now, the Treasurer has been the Minister for Mineral Resources, and he is great at talking up the minerals industry. I had the shadow portfolio for a reasonable time over the last 10 years, and I think there is considerable potential for a significant resources industry in South Australia. One of the things I have argued for many years now is that we need a deep-sea port. Has this government done anything to support that? Apart from talk, it has done absolutely nothing. Proposals have sat on ministers' desks for years and not been actioned. The private sector has wanted to move, but it has been frustrated and thwarted.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Who? Name one.

Mr WILLIAMS: Flinders Ports.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just remind you both that it is—

Mr WILLIAMS: When they have come up with the proposal—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Interjections are unparliamentary, and it is not parliamentary to respond to interjections.

Mr WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. There was a proposal put to government a number of years ago, and the then minister for infrastructure told the proponents, 'We're not going to give you a concession to build a deep-sea port at Point Bonython or in that vicinity. We're not going to give you a concession to build a port there unless we go to a public tender.' So they went through a public tender process, and the proposal sat and sat and sat. I think it was well over 12 months that that process held that project up—in fact, I suspect it was a couple of years. When the original proponents got the nod and said—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Oh, they did get the nod.

Mr WILLIAMS: They did get the nod after a couple of years.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I just want to remind the house that the Speaker has taken his question time scoresheet with him, but I am sure he will be listening to me asking him to return the question time scoresheet so that we can just make sure that anything that is interjected or carried on from here can be added to the lunchtime score. Member for MacKillop.

Mr WILLIAMS: The reality is that there was a solid movement some years ago to get on with that job and nothing has happened. The result of that is that the Cairn Hill project has now closed down, with a loss of jobs. Why did it close down? Because there is a lack of facilities in South Australia to support a minerals industry and they had to cart their product in 40-foot shipping containers, individually loaded out the other side of Coober Pedy, by train to Outer Harbor, accumulate them until they had a shipload, then wait for a ship to come in, lift them up one at a time and unload them into the ship.

Third World country infrastructure, Third World country processes—that is why IMX Resources is not operating and those people are not employed today. Anybody who has an understanding of the minerals sector knows that that is just one of many projects which would be underway if we had a government that over the last 12 years had moved on getting a deep-sea port constructed here in South Australia.

The member for Heysen spoke just a little while ago and talked about the Motor Accident Commission. This is, I think, one of the most disingenuous things this government has done. They went to an election only a few months ago saying, 'There will be no significant privatisations,' or, 'No privatisations of any significant government enterprises or businesses in South Australia.' That is what they said.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: That's right.

Mr WILLIAMS: Well, the MAC is not insignificant. Only a couple of months after the election, after the government had set it up 12 months ago (I have no doubt that the government has been working on this project for well over a year and probably a couple of years), the government has come out and announced that it is going to wind up the Motor Accident Commission, put out the work to the private sector and, lo and behold, there will be about $500 million in cash that we can put into our pocket, back into the Treasury coffers, and that is going to shore up our bottom line.

I suspect that at the end of the day it will be a lot more than that: it could be close to double that, and I suspect that it will be somewhere between $800 million and a billion dollars. The people of South Australia certainly were not informed of the government's clear intent, and that is another reason I say that this government does not have a mandate for the sorts of things it is doing.

We have had this debate on the car park tax for a long time, but the Premier gets up on almost a daily basis and talks about a vibrant city and that we are encouraging people to come into the city. What does he do? He puts on a car park tax. To me, that is counterintuitive. You want to build something in the city and you want people to come into it, but then you tax them for the privilege of bringing their car into the city.

We want to encourage them to use public transport. Okay, so the people will come into the city on public transport for their entertainment. What do you do then? We tax their tickets to the entertainment venues. The poor people of South Australia will be wondering what the hell they can do to stop themselves being taxed by this Treasurer and this government. It is a nonsense for the Premier to say that he wants to see a vibrant city, yet on the other hand he will tax anybody, in any way he can, who wants to come into the city. It is an absolute nonsense.

In the few minutes I have left I want to talk about a couple of things in my electorate; one is the forestry sector. It has come to my attention recently that now whole log from forests which were previously controlled by the state are being exported from the South-East, through the port of Portland, at such a rate that the port of Portland cannot cope with them, and whole log, which used to be sawn, milled and processed in the South-East, is now being carted and shipped out of Port Adelaide because the port of Portland cannot keep up.

It cannot accommodate the quantity of whole log, unprocessed raw material, which is now being shipped off into Asia to be processed. That in itself is a crime. When I go around the southern part of my electorate and the electorate of Mount Gambier next door and see the number of jobs that have been lost in that timber industry in the last few years, it is a crime.

One other matter I wish to raise in the minute or two I have left relates to the drainage network in the South-East, because this government announced a few years ago that it wanted to impose another tax. Again, I read from the Treasurer's Budget Paper 3, page 84, under the heading 'Management of assets and liabilities':

Each agency establishes, implements and maintains its own asset management plan to ensure assets are deployed efficiently and effectively in the delivery of programs.

There is a drainage system in the South-East of the state. It was conceived well over 100 years ago, in the first instance to aid transport across a very wet area, and particularly to link in an efficient way the growing community of Mount Gambier with the community here in Adelaide. In the meantime, it has assisted in the building of transport corridors right across that region and opened up a lot of country for agricultural pursuit.

I am told that the value of that drainage system is about $250 million. A large part of the value is bridges and other structures in the system, and the government has ripped $5.4 million a year out the funding for that particular drainage network. Indeed, the government handed over the management and operation of the upper South-East scheme of which I think about $3 million a year was going into the Department of Environment when it was managing it. It has now handed the management of that over to the drainage board in the South-East with not one additional dollar, and expecting that very important system to continue to operate.

This government has once again highlighted that it has the wrong priorities, that it cannot manage the economy of South Australia, and it continues to make poor decisions. Every South Australian will be the worse off, unfortunately for another four years. I come back to where I started: hopefully, we can do something about the electoral system to allow the people of South Australia to have their way.

Time expired.

Ms WORTLEY (Torrens) (16:37): I rise to speak in support of the Appropriation Bill 2014. The state Labor government is determined to deliver on its election commitments. For anyone who says there is little difference between the Labor and Liberal parties, they need to look no further than the differences between the Abbott Liberal government's federal budget and the Weatherill Labor government's state budget. The contrast is stark.

The federal budget is based on the shredding of agreements and the ripping up of commitments in health and education and the tearing down of protection for our most vulnerable citizens. The measures in this mean-spirited budget are so divisive to our social fabric that ironically, since it was handed down, they have been uniting people from a wide range of backgrounds across Australia to protest against it.

People have been coming together around Australia to protest its cuts and their impact, and in Adelaide, at 11.30am this Sunday, concerned members of our community will meet in Victoria Square to have their voices heard. This should be of no surprise as Mr Abbott's and Mr Hockey's gifts to the nation include:

$7 extra to visit the doctor;

$5 more to buy prescriptions medicines;

many young unemployed under the age of 30 to be without income support for six months a year;

a tax on the age and disability support pensions;

university fees rising;

super increases frozen at 9.5 per cent;

work until you are 70;

billions cut from state education budgets; and

billions cut from state health budgets.

On the other hand, the South Australian state budget introduces measures to shield our pensioners and low-income earners from these cruel cuts—those in our society in our communities that are the most vulnerable. It builds on investments in health and education, infrastructure and skills.

The Weatherill government is delivering on our commitment to our schoolchildren and our families through the Gonski funding, despite Prime Minister Tony Abbott's, and the member for Sturt, Christopher Pyne's, trashing of the historic deal that they committed to honour in the lead-up to the federal election. We are increasing our investment in health care, building a new and much needed neonatal unit at the Flinders Medical Centre and continuing to construct our new state-of-the-art Royal Adelaide Hospital.

Our government is going ahead with the rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme which, just yesterday, reached an important milestone with the start of a new age group, with children six years old entering the trial. Meanwhile, the Abbott/Hockey budget slashes a whopping $898 million from health and hospitals, schools and skills, and concession funding in South Australia over the next four years. Mr Abbott and the Liberals have ripped more than $120 million over that time from concession payments to South Australians. It is of great concern that the real effect of the federal budget takes us down the path of the American pay-as-you-go health and education systems.

Funding under the national partnership on certain concessions helps pensioners and low-income earners with free public transport and water, energy and sewerage concessions. In a further act of thumbing their noses at South Australians, the Liberals have withdrawn from this partnership. They do not care. In real terms, this means that, as of yesterday, pensioners and low-income earners would have received around $200 less in concession payments per year. In my electorate of Torrens, there are many pensioners and low-income earners who would be affected by a loss or reduction in concessions. I know it is a cut they can ill afford.

Fortunately, the Weatherill Labor government will step in and guarantee this funding for the next 12 months to ensure these pensioners and low-income earners will continue to access the same level of concessions as before. Those opposite need to convince their federal colleagues that their slash and burn approach is the wrong way to go when it impacts so heavily on those in our communities who are so vulnerable.

Labor has also made an election commitment to raise the energy concession and the medical and heating cooling rebate by $50 from 1 July, and will honour that commitment. This move will increase to $215 the amount available each year for eligible recipients. We will join with advocacy groups to fight the federal Liberals' heartless cuts into the future. Labor's move to shore up concessions means that those who rely on energy use for medical purposes will be able to do so without falling into further debt.

The 2014 state budget also includes a previously agreed Gonski funding commitment of an extra $72.3 million over the forward estimates for South Australian schools. This increases to an extra $229.9 million over the full six years of the agreement. Meanwhile, in Canberra, Prime Minister Tony Abbott, with the member for Sturt Christopher Pyne's support, is ripping an estimated $335 million out of our schoolchildren's hands over the six full years of the agreement. This equates to around 3,900 student support officers or nearly 3,000 additional teachers—student support officers and teachers that we will not have. The cuts to years five and six equate to an average of $1,280 per student.

As a former teacher and as a member of this parliament, I am appalled that the federal Coalition government could toy with our children's futures in this way, reducing them to nothing more than a budget line. Those opposite should be taking their federal colleagues to task over this.

This government wants our children to have a real opportunity to succeed. Gonski reforms are about addressing the needs of every school-aged student, and that is why we want to see the federal funding cuts reversed. We will continue to campaign against the Abbott government's brutal cuts which have impacted on our state government.

The Weatherill Labor government has proved its willingness to reach across the political divide in the interest of the betterment of our state. This government has held its nerve in the face of the federal government’s 'trash and torch' mentality and will continue to invest in a brighter future for South Australia. I should acknowledge that yesterday the Leader of the Opposition did share one idea with us in this place—that we become more like Queensland. The member for Dunstan said:

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.

That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. Overdelivering? Really? Tell that to the tens of thousands of workers who have lost their jobs under the watch of the Queensland Liberal National Party. Unemployment is up since the LNP won government in Queensland. In their 2012 budget, the government sacked an estimated 20,000 workers, once cuts in government-owned businesses and job losses for non-government organisations are taken into account. This was despite their Premier telling government workers before the 2012 election that they had nothing to fear.

In the previous two budgets in Queensland, they have had cuts to health and education funding, nurses and teachers losing their jobs, cuts to front-line health services delivered by community groups, cuts to funding for 500 not-for-profit groups in the community services sector, more than 400 positions abolished in the TAFE system, cuts totalling $3 billion over four years in the health system, 4,000 jobs cut in hospitals and other parts of the health system, a tax on public housing tenants, and the scrapping of tenant advisory services. That is only a small example of what has happened in Queensland.

Household spending, business investment and private investment are all weaker in Queensland under the LNP, and the Leader of the Opposition put them up yesterday as a good example. State final demand or domestic spending in the economy is expected to contract over the coming year in Queensland, with business investment falling by 20 per cent.

Back to the South Australian budget, Business SA says there is good news for business from this state budget, including that there are no increased or new direct taxes. Chief executive officer Nigel McBride said:

The government has honoured its commitment in last year’s budget by maintaining the payroll concessions for small business, the stamp duty concessions on off-the-plan apartments and the First Home Owners Grant.

An additional concession is a housing grant for people aged over 60 years of age who want to purchase a new home to live in.

These concession should assist the housing industry in particular.

Mr McBride also said:

Other positives are the commitment to infrastructure spending on projects such as the north-south corridor.

From the South Australian Council of Social Services (SACOSS) came the following response to the South Australia government’s budget:

Given the economic challenges around the closure of Holden, and recent federal budget cuts—

I reiterate, the recent federal budget cuts—

the Weatherill government appears to have cushioned vulnerable and disadvantaged South Australians from the harshest parts of its budget.

Key initiatives that seek to protect low-income households include the retention of concessions for the emergency services levy, the maintaining of council rate concessions despite federal government cuts, and guaranteeing no water price increases as a result of the debt transfer to SA Water.

The Weatherill government has worked hard to get the balance right between investments and saving, between fostering growth and providing a shield and showing compassion for our most disadvantaged. We went to the election with a series of commitments to build a stronger South Australia, and that is what we intend to do.

Among other things, the 2014-15 state budget includes the construction of a second high school in the city, to be built on the current Royal Adelaide Hospital site, with a capacity for 1,000 students. The budget also provides for a new ambulance station in my electorate, in the Northfield area, which will service the growing surrounding suburbs, better support neighbouring crews, and improve emergency response times.

The state Labor government is investing in employment through Our Jobs Plan, an initiative which provides $60.1 million over five years for a range of measures to revitalise and rebuild the state economy following the decision by GM Holden to close its vehicle manufacturing operations in Australia by 2017. The government is investing in child development, with the expansion of services and more allied health services to address the needs of parents and their children through our children's centre network, including at the Gilles Plains Children's Centre in my own electorate.

At James Nash House at Oakden our government is honouring another election commitment with $400,000 per annum indexed for the creation of a specialist unit for patients with an intellectual disability. This will provide more appropriate treatment and care for forensic patients with an intellectual disability and a better opportunity for them to return to the community. The government will also extend the O-Bahn and electrify the train line to Salisbury as part of the revitalisation of our public transport system.

I have highlighted just some of the government's initiatives in the 2014 state budget, and there are many more positives. I commend this bill to the house.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (16:50): I take this opportunity to speak about some areas I am responsible for as shadow education, employment and skills minister. I am looking forward to seeing members opposite protesting in the streets about the extension to the efficiency dividends that were announced in the education budget by the Treasurer.

If you recall last year's budget, $223 million in efficiency savings were announced in the forward estimates, and this was well before there was even a change of government in Canberra. These cuts were spelt out in the Budget and Finance Committee by Julieann Riedstra, who is the person responsible for managing the books, if you like, in the education department. She listed a number of budget savings initiatives or targets, if you like, from 2012-13 right through until 2016-17. They totalled $223 million, which just happens to be the exact same amount over a four-year period that the government has said is their funding, their share, of the so-called Gonski or Better Schools funding model, but they are delivering that over six years.

What we learnt from the Budget and Finance Committee was that what the government takes with one hand it gives with the other, but in the meantime it is giving it over a longer period. So $223 million has been taken over four years from the education budget. This year, we learnt that efficiency dividends are being brought forward by 12 months to begin from 2015-16, next year that is $8.5 million in that year alone, so that is a total of $28.5 million over the forward estimates on top of the figures that were given to the Budget and Finance Committee on 18 November last year. Those figures were confirmed by Mr Harrison, the CEO of the Department for Education and Child Development, on commercial breakfast radio just a few weeks later when he was asked about those budget savings.

What is extraordinary about those budget savings is that on numerous occasions now I have asked the education minister if she could explain where those savings are coming from because the savings in the first year, for example, are $8.7 million and are so-called specified savings, so I think I and certainly teachers and parents are entitled to know where those specified savings are coming from, but $21.483 million are unspecified savings. Even though that financial year is now complete, we are still none the wiser as to where those unspecified savings have come from. Every year, as we move forward in the forward estimates those savings are larger.

The specified savings grow by a smaller amount but the unspecified savings grow by a much larger amount. For example, in 2014-15 we have specified savings of $10.5 million moving up to unspecified savings of $39.6 million, and that gives us a total savings target of $50.1 million. The following year, the total savings target is $65 million; $53.5 million are unspecified, so in other words we still do not know where they are coming from. It is interesting that the education minister can run around the state telling everybody what they are not going to get, but she cannot tell any of us in this chamber what these unspecified cuts to her own budget are. It is an extraordinary situation.

I think I also need to remind the house that it is not the federal government that allocates funding to individual schools. That is what the education department or the minister does and, from the reports I have been getting from principals, that job is being done and being countersigned by the Australian Education Union here in South Australia. That additional funding is coming in from Canberra, an increase of 37 per cent over the forward estimates, and where that money is going is determined by the minister and the Australian Education Union. That is what I have been advised in relation to that process.

The savings cuts that were announced at the last budget were for FTE savings of 387.7 full-time equivalents. So how is it that the government is telling us that they are spending more money on education, that they are honouring their commitment in relation to the so-called Gonski funding, but there will be 400 fewer teachers in the education system here in South Australia by 2016-17?

I can remember seeing the advertisements on television. I can remember seeing the newsreels of Correna Haythorpe saying, ‘We need those extra teachers for numeracy and literacy for our kids in schools.’ The first question that I asked myself as the shadow education minister was: what on earth are teachers teaching if they are not teaching numeracy and literacy in primary schools now? Why do we need numeracy and literacy specialists in primary schools?

As a parent. I expected my kids to learn numeracy and literacy with their primary school teacher, and they did. They did learn numeracy and literacy. They had a great education at Unley Primary School. So it is just extraordinary that we hear this excuse from the left in particular that more money will fix it. The fact is that education funding has doubled in the last 15-odd years, and here in South Australia in particular we have seen a deterioration of academic results, whether they be NAPLAN results or international PISA results.

Another point I want to make is about the smoke and mirrors around the funding for the new city high school. This is in the budget papers—$85 million has been allocated or announced, yet there is only $51 million in the budget. If you read the budget papers, you will see that of that total $85 million for the new school, $54.26 million was taken from other projects. I wonder whether the minister will run around telling those schools that they were going to get a new recreation block, that they were going to get new classrooms, that it was in the plan, but ‘for political expediency, we are going to deliver what the people of Adelaide don’t want, and that is a high school on the Royal Adelaide Hospital site'.

Remember, this was a big battle in the seat of Adelaide. I can remember the Attorney-General on election night—when they took the results of one booth thinking that they had won the seat of Adelaide—saying, ‘This election in Adelaide was all about the school. This proves that our decision to build the school on the Royal Adelaide Hospital site is what the people of Adelaide wanted. That’s what they voted for.’ But guess what? Some more booths came in and they lost.

As a matter of fact, they only managed to take 1 per cent of the massive 15 per cent swing that the member for Adelaide got in 2010 on the same issue: on a second city campus for Adelaide High School. They only managed to take1 per cent from the very hardworking member for Adelaide. It is extraordinary that they are now insisting that that is what the people of Adelaide wanted when their very own Attorney-General on election night in his commentary on what was happening in the seat of Adelaide said that it was all about the school and that is why they won.

Of course, they did not win the seat of Adelaide. So why on earth are they imposing this school on the people of Adelaide when they were voting for a second campus of Adelaide High School on West Terrace, just like they voted for a second campus of Adelaide High School when the Bowden site was available, which was our policy in 2010.

What did Labor do to counter that policy? In the last three or four days before the election in 2010, they announced an expansion of Adelaide High School by 250. They said that 250 students will attend Adelaide High School from 2013. Guess what? There is not a single extra student in that school in 2014—not a single extra student. Next year, when the expansion is going to be finished they are only taking 50 year 8 students.

The zone was supposed to be expanded into the City of Prospect. There are 150 or 180 grade 7s who leave the primary schools in the City of Prospect every year, but they are only taking 50 students. What a con job on the people of Adelaide. They were smart enough to realise back in 2010 that that was nothing more than a reactive response to a good policy for a second city campus at Adelaide High School, and they were proved right because, here they are, 18 months after this government told them that their children would be attending Adelaide High School, and there is still not an extra student in that high school and people in Prospect are still not in the zone.

That is exactly what is going to happen with the second city campus. We have already heard from the building unions who are building the new site that they believe the new site is 12 months behind schedule—and do not forget they have to move the hospital out before they can do any work on building a school, yet we have been told that this school will be open by 2019. The fact is that the only significant thing that is going to happen in 2019 is that that is the year that all 250 extra students will be at Adelaide High School—not 2013, as was promised by Labor at the last election. It will be 2019 before those extra 250 students who were promised nine years earlier that they would have access to that school will be there.

I want to touch on the area of TAFE, and I am looking forward to hearing what the member for Torrens, who was so critical of the 400 job losses in TAFE in Queensland, is going to say about the 380 job losses there have been at TAFE since the corporatisation of TAFE in 2012 and the 400 job losses earmarked for TAFE in the budget. I would love to see her set up that process; I would love to be there.

This is the hypocrisy of the Labor Party: 'You spend your money, we won't spend ours.' The Labor Party is very good at spending other people's money. It is an extraordinary situation. You promise the world to get yourself elected and then come up with all sorts of excuses. You blame a nine-month-old government in Canberra for your 12 years of fiscal mismanagement and poor management here in South Australia.

Of course, there were more criticisms of the federal government about the changes to the funding arrangements for university students. One of the things that was announced by the federal government was that HECS fees would be available to non-university students. We are opening it up to any student who is doing tertiary education. What a great idea—criticised, of course, by the left, but guess what? It is going to be taken up by TAFE.

TAFE in South Australia are already expecting less Skills for All funding, but they are not worried about it because kids will be able to take out student loans under this new expanded HECS scheme. So, there they are, banking on the fact that students will take out loans so they can go to TAFE while this government has cut $90 million in one year out of the skills training budget. I refer members opposite to the budget papers and to read that information for themselves and then I will join them when they are on the steps of Parliament House protesting about training cuts and TAFE cuts in the South Australian budget.

It is an extraordinary situation, the extraordinary hypocrisy we have from the Labor Party. They came to office in Canberra seven years ago with a $20 billion surplus and $50 billion in the bank, and they leave with $600 billion for other people to pay, yet it is all Abbott's fault. It is an extraordinary situation. All care and no responsibility—that is the Labor Party and that is the trade union movement, which is the basis, of course, of the Labor Party.

An interesting statistic for those of you who are listening is that in the days of the Whitlam government, when about 75 per cent of the workforce was unionised, 17 per cent of the Whitlam cabinet was from a union background. Now, of course, in the general workforce, 17 per cent of the workforce is unionised if you combine the private sector and the public sector; 75 per cent of the Gillard/Rudd government were from a union background. They are a really balanced group of people over there, and there is no difference here.

An honourable member: Your brother.

Mr PISONI: My brother, yes, of course, but he did not get elected. When you do pick a good one, you put him in an unwinnable seat. Extraordinary situation. So, just one senator elected and, boy, is Don Farrell pissed off about that.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me, did I hear you say something that—

Mr PISONI: 'Tissed off,' I said, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh, right. You had your back to me; that's why I didn't hear it—but, anyway.

An honourable member: That's not even a word; you will probably have to withdraw that for not being a word.

Mr PISONI: Or find something it relates to. I have a few more minutes and I think it is important that I speak about the academic results in South Australia. We used to be a leader of education here in South Australia. I visited Blackfriars Priory School a couple of years ago and they were good enough to put a morning tea on when I arrived. I was speaking to the teachers and one of them came up to me and said, 'David, I want you to know, my husband and I are both teachers. We came to South Australia 15 years ago because we wanted to be at the cutting edge of education.'

That is why they came to South Australia, and it is a long way from that now. She felt she had to tell me that, she was so disappointed in what has happened in recent years. What has happened in that period of time? With the PISA results—which is international testing predominantly in science and maths achievement and so forth—in South Australia in 2000 we were the best performing state in the country, yet last year's PISA results came in and we were the worst performing mainland state in the country.

How on earth can that happen? How can it be that in the first year of NAPLAN results in 2008 we met the national average in five out of 20 categories, and last year we met the national average in one out of 20 categories, and that is on the back of not meeting the national average in any category in the previous year, and in the year before that. So, in 2012 and in 2011 we did not meet the national average in a single category.

What did Queensland do in 2008 when they got a shock from their NAPLAN results? They completely changed the way they did business in 2008. That was a Labor government and you have to give credit where credit is due, member for Mount Gambier. They took immediate action. They were shocked that on a national comparison their students were bouncing on the bottom.

Well, guess what? Queensland is improving, Western Australia is improving, South Australia is going backwards. We are getting worse results now in the fifth year of NAPLAN testing than we got in the first year of NAPLAN testing. And what do they do? Every time there is a NAPLAN result, a new literacy program is announced, run by bureaucrats out of central office. They do not tell us how the last one went. Well, I suppose the NAPLAN tests tell us how they went. It is an extraordinary situation. They keep doing things the same and expecting a different result.

So, this is a disappointing budget for South Australians. It is a disappointing budget for education and employment in particular—20,000 jobs have left South Australia since the last budget. It is a sad day and, for someone who is the father of young adults, it is very tough getting a job out there; I can tell you that right now. It is extremely tough. The only way that we are going to improve that situation is to get confidence in the business sector, and give them the confidence to make that investment to employ somebody.

Getting the first job is the hardest. It took me 100 job applications when I was 16 to get that first job. It is a bloody hard thing to do. But, of course, once you get there, the world is your oyster, once you can say you have that experience. Unfortunately under this government our young people are not getting those opportunities, and it is a crying shame when you consider what this state has to offer, and it is simply because of the poor management we have, the people who are running this place, that we are not reaching our full potential.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (17:09): It is a pleasure to also contribute to the debate. I have not deliberately waited until the end but I do like to have the opportunity to listen to the contributions from both sides and to put some objective assessment to it and try to find some ground there. It is not always easy to do.

There are two very philosophical differences here, I think, as well. I have listened to the contribution from the member for Torrens. As a person who, when living in Adelaide, resides in the electorate of the member for Torrens, I wanted to listen to her first contribution to the budget. It is a total focus upon federal actions without me hearing an acceptance of decisions and actions of state responsibility also in past years which have created the necessity for actions to be occurring now and into the future years, too.

For example, there have been a lot of actions taken and decisions made by government ministers in recent years where I am aware of some very disappointing decisions about withdrawing dollars from NGOs for mental health providers in my own electorate. They are small in dollars but they make an enormous difference to people. That is disappointing. We all have examples where we can quote frustrations that exist.

Is government perfect? Far from it, absolutely, no matter who is elected. I do not believe any government is perfect because there will never be the level of resources required to provide what society expects now. So, with that, I recognise that the Treasurer has had some challenges as a first term, can I say, Treasurer, after somewhat of a succession of treasurers in recent years. He has been faced with some enormous challenges for the future years and across the forward estimates which have required some hard decisions.

It is fair to say, though, that I do not accept the contribution from the member for Waite last evening. He is a person I have known for some time and I listened to him intently. I declare my hand that I was not in the chamber at the time listening to him firsthand but I listened to him in my office. He seemed to me a very different man from the one I have heard speak quite often in the last eight years, and he is someone for whom I had a lot of respect.

I want to put some of his direct quotes which frustrated the life out of me. He talked about a very brave budget and about not putting the dollars on the credit card. However, with the level of debt that we have—and he spoke about debt, and there is a reasonable level of debt for all governments to assume—this is an enormous responsibility upon future generations to pay it back. It will take a concerted effort and a period of outstanding economic growth in the economy to be able to afford to pay what we owe now. It will be very difficult.

A radio commentary yesterday morning noted that yesterday marked 100 days since the new government was elected. That was the reason I asked the member for Frome the question today about the major projects fund within the regional development funding program and why there was a delay in the announcement of it. I, like the member for Frome, agree absolutely totally that there is a need for investment to occur. Government has to be a prime driver of it; the budget has to be a prime driver of investment and policy and hope for the future for the community.

Why, in such a key area, where there is $8.55 million available—and the frustration there is that we have only known the split of this $15 million fund for the last month; what the different components of it are—has it taken 100 days since presumably the agreement was reached between the member for Frome and the Premier, for the announcement to be made on where the dollars are to be spent and for the guidelines for the last two areas to be released so the money can be put out there?

That is where I think I have the frustration. That is a deliberate action. To me the level of urgency that should have been attached to this area has not been displayed—I am not quite so sure but it has to occur. We have to make sure that the money is out there; the guidelines are in place; yes, the KPIs that we measure against it are there; and that there are strong results from it. I want to know what the job outcomes from it will be, because it is people on the ground that need the dollars to be available. Industry, private enterprise and community groups need to be able to actually seek these dollars and raise their own capital to go towards it, and make sure the outcomes are positive ones.

I looked through the numbers that are contained in the budget and looked at what the cost of living pressures will be. There was a press release from the Liberal Party earlier this week that talked about a $1,100 increase per household, and there are a lot of components that make that up.

On Wednesday of last week I had a visit into the electorate office from a couple who live in Kadina. They came to see me about electricity increases. That is symptomatic of probably all members in this chamber who are contacted quite regularly about cost of living pressures. It is for the average South Australian and the average household—yes, we look at sums and we consider whether the sums are acceptable, are they too large, are they manageable or is it going to be a challenge, but it comes out of people's pockets. That is what Treasurers and ministers have to understand and accept the responsibility attached to it.

The fiscal responsibility that comes in delivering what budget papers say—the commitments that are actually in place—has to translate into the actions necessary to make those visions become a reality. It is extremely difficult out there. The member for Torrens—and rightly so—referred to her electorate, the community and the challenges that they face. I can assure the member for Torrens that that is replicated in all 47 electorates. No matter where you are, how close you may be to the CBD area, what distance is involved, what financial circumstances you are under, it changes seemingly on a month by month basis because of pressures that are created through cost of living pressures, and it is becoming exceptionally hard.

In a state that has one of the older populations in the nation, there will be increasing pressure upon us that the parliament, I hope in a bipartisan way, looks to solve, to come up with a solution and put in a place a plan where you do not have such significant increases. Off the top of my head, I think water costs in the last 12 years have gone from $280 per average home to $790—that is a threefold increase. Incomes have not risen by the same level, which creates a pressure on people, no matter what their earning opportunity is, to meet their commitments.

I think we are very lucky as a society that interest rates are relatively low. Historically, when we look at it, it is a low rate. There would be a lot more people out there under significant mortgage pressure if interest rates were to increase, and I am pleased that the Reserve Bank has kept the official cash rate at 2.5 per cent, which is relatively low. However, a lot of people will feel the pinch when, no doubt, there will be an improvement in worldwide and national economies and there will be pressure to increase it, which will create challenges for us. We have to be ready to respond to that. That is where policies have to exist within government and capacities have to exist within budgets to ensure that we can get people the support that they need.

I am an optimist by nature. I am a believer in there being a wonderful future for us. I am a believer that hard work is rewarded. I am a believer that our young people will be outstanding and will be great community leaders. If I did not believe in that, it would be rather challenging psychologically to even get up every day, and especially to come into this place. The parliament has to provide a fulcrum for it.

As much as people steer away from politics, they have to respect that politics impacts on their lives every day in some way. The parliament is a rather unique place in South Australia to actually ensure that it can be good, bad or indifferent. That is why we have to have the debates, philosophical differences sometimes and quite strong opinions that will be opposing to each other, but there is an opportunity to find middle ground that will result in outcomes for people.

When I look at the figures, they are really interesting and there are lots and lots of volumes attached to it, and I seem to remember a lot of it, but it is the impact on people that I look at the most. For example, I am pleased that, when it comes to the Patient Assistance Transport Scheme (PATS), there are additional dollars there. I commend the Minister for Health in ensuring that the dollars are there.

For those of us who live in regional areas, for a lot of our community there is some level of health problems which require visits outside of our locality. Most of that is provided in Adelaide, and I understand why, but it means transport when quite often it is not easy for them to transport themselves or, even if it is, they need some level of financial support. The PAT Scheme exists to provide good for people.

The Minister for Health has done the right thing. When he had the review, he committed to extra dollars. My recollection is that there is no limit on spend; it all depends on applications that are lodged. For the life of me, I hope the money continues to be there and that the review of the conditions and guidelines for PATS allows more people to get some level of financial support, particularly for those who might need some level of care attached to them or who might have to stay overnight. I think the compensation for overnight accommodation was very low, and I hope that has been reviewed, too, and the per kilometre return rate. That is a good thing.

The great shame and disappointment for me is the level of unemployment. The member for Frome and I share a boundary, and we have a commitment to the regional communities we serve. It must be really disappointing for the member for Frome, as it is for me, that unemployment in our part of regional South Australia is, I think, 9.4 per cent.

I would hope that those people would want to have a future and a chance. In short, they have to be provided with an opportunity for that chance to exist. That is why it has been really important to me that the member for Frome, with his agreement with the Premier, roll that money out, and I am pleased that some has come out. There is still the Job Accelerator Fund of $10 million, which is for the 2014-15 year; we are two days into it already, yet we have still not seen the criteria and the guidelines attached to it.

Similarly, when it comes to a portfolio responsibility for Regional Development Australia dollars, I am a very strong believer in the network. Indeed, I was quite pleased that the minister spoke on a motion in this chamber in the last sitting week, and I was pleased that he put his position on the record. It is absolutely key to me that it is sorted out. There are small dollar costs to the government, but it is a great opportunity for a lot more investment to occur in the region by using the skills and the knowledge those people have. They need the surety of the core funding agreement—it has to be there.

I do not want to talk about the member for Waite much more, as I referred to him and some of his commentary at the start. It is fair to say that quite often circumstances that exist around us put governments in very difficult situations, and some rather challenging priorities need to be determined.

In recent years, there have been announcements of cuts across all budgets. I know that in health it is getting towards $1 billion across the forward estimates that needs to be created. I quote the member for Torrens, being one of the more recent contributions, about the level of withdrawal of funding from the federal government. On the figures I have seen, yes, there has been a change in agreements—I absolutely understand that. The figures I have seen show an increase in the federal government contribution towards grants funding that comes into South Australia increasing (and some may choose to correct me), from a $7.8 billion figure this current year up to $9.8 billion at the end of the forward estimates.

It is a fraction over a 25 per cent increase in that four-year time frame of money that is coming in from the federal government. That reflects some changes to agreements and some slight reductions in what was previously agreed with a different federal government on financial support to come into South Australia, but it shows in pure dollar terms a 25 per cent increase in a four-year period to support the provision of services in South Australia. That is a stated fact and it has to be acknowledged.

There are a lot of different issues that are pulled out of budget papers, but I am disappointed when I look at the cost of screening for our volunteers; some may consider it to be a relatively small amount, but my understanding is that it has gone up from $37.50 to $41.25, or thereabouts. I think it is a 10 per cent increase in the cost of screening for volunteers. The minister might—

The Hon. Z.L. Bettison: It has gone up to $55.

Mr GRIFFITHS: From $50. For some, it depends if they work; for some, if they are pure volunteers; and for some, if they are associated with children. There is a different fee structure in place, but my understanding is that across the board there has been a 10 per cent increase. I know the minister in parliament just yesterday referred to the 112,000 requests for review that were lodged in the last calendar year, the 66 per cent increase and the additional resources provided to that.

One of the frustrations I have had as a representative of the people is the number of times I have had to write to the Minister for Volunteers about a community group that has approached me rather frustrated about the need for the multiples that have been required for the different services. I put on the record that I appreciated the contact made with me by the minister and the opportunity for a briefing this morning with her and her officers, and I understood the circumstances surrounding that.

I do believe that the minister is going to give it her all, and I hope, indeed, that the relationship that exists with the shadow minister will allow some benefits to flow through to all so that we can work in a bipartisan way because it is absolutely one of the more challenging issues—that the screening has to be there to ensure that services are provided by those who make sure we have a safe society. I absolutely understand that, but we have to make sure that there is a practical reality attached to all these things and that we do not make it so difficult for people to actually be involved. The difficult balance with budgets when it comes to pure dollar figures is finding that area in between.

As to the Goyder electorate, I looked expectantly at the budget in the hope there were some investments. Firstly, I looked at the area of schools; I could not find any dollar announcements for projects, but I recognise that 2½ years ago a lot of effort went into what is now a combined primary and high school at Kadina, and it is a great school. I looked for our roads being directly targeted, but I could not find that either. However, I recognise that minister Mullighan is going to be in the area towards the end of July and has agreed to spend a little bit of time with me in the car, driving around and looking at some of the roads, so that will be an interesting time.

It is hard for a member of parliament from an area that is seen as voting one way all the time, even though the numbers change every year and the community's expectations are increasing all the time, because I want to deliver, like all of you do. I want to make sure that my time in parliament, with the honour provided to me, actually translates into investment occurring in the community—we all want that.

I understand that in the broad picture there are significant budgets in so many different areas that deliver services across all 47 electorates, but we all need to ensure that the lasting legacy of our time in this place is that some real commitments have been made. Across the political divide, and within political parties, we quite often have this debate about where dollars and resources should be allocated; for me, it comes down to priority and the need of the community. Sometimes that does not stack up in the hurly-burly of the debates that occur relatively close to election time, but it has to be absolutely key.

I just want to finish off with a few comments about the numbers. The probability of an increase in the emergency services levy and the take from the community via property they own over the forward estimates of $357 million is significant. The Treasurer has talked about the fact that those additional dollars, which are not paid out via the concession or rebate to the ESL anymore, will be put into health.

We know that over $340 million worth of health investment is still up in the air. It has been previously stated that it would happen, but it is up in the air now and all linked with what the ESL increase will be, but again it is a cost upon people. That is why we have to ensure that the budget actually presents a strong priority to grow the economy. It has to be based around that, and that is where I think there is a significant difference between the Liberal and Labor parties.

We campaigned very strongly in the election only 3½ months ago on the basis of growth of the economy and return for hard work because from that come job opportunities. We have to ensure that job growth is not just the 1 per cent that the budget estimates for the next 12-month period, that it is never allowed to return to the 1.25 per cent loss it experienced over the last 12 months and that it is built upon growth upon growth because from that comes a capacity for the community to benefit. That is what we are here for—to actually ensure that the people we serve, the ones who vote for us, the ones who come and speak to us seemingly every day, and often a lot of repeat conversations occur, are delivered the services in the way in which they need them to be.

I look at the fact that the gross state product is estimated to be across the forward estimates between 2¼ per cent and 2½ per cent. I would love it to be more than that, but at the end of the day I would love it to just be that estimated figure. I know there are probably a lot of others who might make contributions related to the accuracy of estimates that are included in budget figures. There is no doubt that it must be an enormous challenge to get those estimates right, but provision of accurate information is so vital.

For anybody who has worked with numbers before, the numbers are only as good as the basis of the information that allowed you to form those numbers and the quality of the people who do that work. I do not disparage anybody who is involved in the preparation of it, but accuracy is absolutely vital because information empowers the Treasurer, it empowers individual ministers and it ensures that, when a figure is put in a budget, it is achievable and realistic.

Finally, I just want to finish off on the fact that the budget now sets a lot of priorities for individual ministers to adhere to. It will be a challenge for them; I have not seen the challenge met enough in past years. Each one of them individually needs to ensure that they meet their targets on delivery of services, on cost restraint and on revenue opportunities but, overwhelmingly, they need to ensure that the people of South Australia benefit.

Mr SPEIRS (Bright) (17:29): I feel somewhat unworthy following the member for Goyder’s contribution, in that he gives a very considered analysis of the figures, which I might not be able to do quite such a good job. But, I hope to be able to still give some of my thoughts on the Appropriation Bill which is before us tonight.

I think we are coming to the end of quite a lot of speeches on this bill, and we have heard a lot of the analysis around the specific figures over and over again. It does not make a great story to tell. I do not want to delve into them in too much detail but, by way of introduction, just a few of those figures: the skyrocketing deficit which we are facing in this state and the substantial debt that we are carrying as well; and then, of course, the forward projections—the estimates of what those figures will be into the future.

It is very hard, I suppose, for me in my first budget speech in this place to know accurately how things are going to go in the future. These are always just estimates, but if we look back on what the government’s efforts have been historically at making predictions of what is going to come in the future we cannot really rely on those figures. I believe in 2012-13 there was a forecast that we would reach a surplus of $304 million. It was something that was obviously never attained, and we have been in deficit ever since, and rising deficit.

When we look at those forward estimates and see that in just a few months we are going to be back into a half a billion dollar surplus in 2015-16, it is difficult, given past evidence—and all we have to go on is the past evidence of what this government has served up for us—to believe that we could reach that position of $512 million in surplus in 2015-16.

However, ever the optimist, we will keep talking up the sort of state that South Australia is and hope that we can get there, because while, in opposition, we do want to hold the government to account over what we see is a woeful economic record, we still do want this state to be in a good economic position in the future, because that means better lives for all of us, but, particularly, better lives for the most vulnerable in society.

That is what I believe the government is here for: to provide a safety net for the most vulnerable in society and to get out of the way of others’ daily business and let them get on with their lives. A solid economic performance enables us to provide that very thing: a solid safety net for the most vulnerable in South Australia.

I want to go through some of the things in the budget which I think particularly impact the electorate of Bright and the communities that make up that electorate down in Adelaide’s south-west coast. Firstly, I wanted to discuss another topic on which much debate and much discussion has been had during the Appropriation Bill, and that is the emergency services levy and the government’s decision to substantially increase that levy.

It has been said time and time again—and I agree with this—that this is tantamount to a land tax being placed on the principal place of residence, and it is designed wholly and solely to fill the black hole created by the state government’s historic financial ineptitude. While it is admirable to hear that the additional money gathered through the emergency services levy will be directed towards plugging the black hole in the health budget—and that is where we do want money to be spent—I believe the reason we are in this place in the first place is not because of a reduction in future increases in federal government funding but is actually because of economic mismanagement over the long term by the state Labor government.

As I said, I believe this is a land tax on every single household in South Australia; over 650,000 households will be affected. The member for Dunstan spoke this morning of the impact of this new tax on people who are asset rich but often cash poor. People in regional communities who have land holdings, small businesses that own their premises will be particularly affected, and also many people from my own electorate.

There are many people who are asset-rich in the electorate of Bright, having properties on the face of it in affluent coastal communities but many of these people have purchased houses in these communities quite some time ago and, over the last 15 years or so, have seen rapid increases in the value of those properties and have not necessarily seen that passed on in terms of their own discretionary income.

I think the emergency services levy increase will hit many people who are not rich simply because they own a house in a suburb which results in it being of relatively high value. I think of people in the suburb of North Brighton. North Brighton is a suburb with a very homogenous community because many people have bought into that community to get their children into the zone for the excellent Brighton Secondary School. Many people there have above median house price values and are really doing it tough to be able to get into that school zone, and those are the sort of people who will be particularly hit with the substantial increase in the emergency services levy.

I also want to touch briefly on the loss of concessions on council rates. The electorate of Bright is one of the most elderly in the state in terms of its demographic. Some of the suburbs in Bright have more than a third of their population who are seniors, the suburb of Hove being one of them. The suburb of Brighton has a quarter of its population as seniors, and this is a series of communities which will be very hard hit with the loss of concessions on council rates. I will speak more on council rates later. Some of my concerns come from being someone who has spent time in local government prior to being elected to this place. I may spend some time in a grieve later this evening musing on the state of local government in South Australia and some of the challenges that local government faces.

What we have seen in recent years is that councils year on year increase their council rates by an average of 5 per cent or more, and 5 per cent, 5 per cent, 5 per cent—it is well above inflation—and that is one of the reasons why I was so supportive of the Liberal Party's somewhat controversial policy leading into the state election to put a cap on council rates. I think that is a discussion we need to continue to have because I think council rates are something that really do eat into people's discretionary spending.

When you are eating into people's discretionary spending again and again, you are taking away the dollars they might have to spend on the luxuries which keep our economy going—the holidays they take, the visits they make to the local coffee shop, those extras that they buy, the things that are above the day in day out expenditure on groceries and things like that. When you eat into the discretionary spending, you discourage people from going to the movies, you discourage them from going out for dinner, you discourage them from having a weekend away in the Barossa or the Fleurieu, and those are the very industries, the hospitality and tourism industries and the small businesses, that really suffer when the discretionary dollar is eaten away by ongoing government fees, charges and taxes.

Another issue which I have spoken on in this place and I do not want to bore members with, but it does obviously amuse some people the way it occurred, was the issue of Brighton Rugby Union Football Club. I have talked about the betrayal my community feels with the government's cynical decision to withdraw $1 million funding promised for that rugby club despite former minister Fox, a minister of the crown, promising in writing—and I keep that letter in my drawer here just to remind me to be good to my local residents and to treat them with the respect that they deserve.

They were promised in writing the day before the election that they would receive funding should a Labor government be elected, and unfortunately, from my point of view, a Labor government was elected—a good thing from the point of view of the Brighton Rugby Union Football Club, or so they thought. But, no, the budget does not honour that $1 million commitment made in writing just prior to the election.

This is a prime example of why people are so sick and cynical of politics and politicians in this state: the idea that a politician or candidate will say anything to get elected and will pluck a dollar figure from thin air and create a false promise in the hope of being re-elected. I was down at the rugby club last Thursday night where they presented me with a rugby club polo shirt. I think it was the only small polo shirt they had; actually, they might have had it specially manufactured for me.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon interjecting:

Mr SPEIRS: Very friendly—and no interjections. So I was down at the rugby club enjoying my chicken schnitty and chips with the club president, Roger Lassen, and the club treasurer, Ken Daly, and I had an opportunity to speak to club members and let them know that I would continue to fight for that broken promise.

I have written to the Minister for Recreation and Sport inviting him to come down and visit the club. Perhaps they will present him with a polo shirt as well; they probably will not need to get a small one manufactured. Perhaps he can enjoy a chicken schnitty down at the Brighton rugby club as well and explain to those members why the government chose not to honour that promise and perhaps in a spirit of bipartisanship work with me during this term to try—

Mr Gardner: Share a schnitty.

Mr SPEIRS: Yes, over a schnitty. We can work towards getting that club the funding it needs. I would love the minister to accept that invitation (which I made in writing) to come down so that he can understand what the club’s priorities are.

Another issue I would like to discuss is the extent of the cuts to the environment department. This is something that I have a real personal interest in and it is one of the reasons that I stood for local government: to look at the protection of coastal environments along the Hallett Cove and Marino part of my electorate, which fell into the council area that I represented for three years. I have a long-term interest in environmental protection and have been very disconcerted with the savage cuts which are unfolding and have unfolded over several years in the environment department.

Just yesterday, listeners of 891 radio would have heard the Department of Environment chief executive, Mr Allan Holmes, musing the impending fate of his department. It was quite an unusual interview in many ways. We get these unusual interviews from time to time when a jaded chief executive is heard on radio often doing what you would expect the minister to be doing: half defending and half grieving the huge environmental department cuts that that department is facing and the fate of that department.

You almost had the idea that the chief executive of that department was just soul searching and working out what he was there for. You had almost a feeling that he was giving up the fight because the staff reductions in that agency, from 2,236 FTEs in the 2008-09 financial year to 1,709 FTEs in the current financial year, and projections to drop even further in the coming financial years, are a huge cut. We understand that there are difficulties in the budget, but particularly the loss of front-line and environmental officers, people working out in the field, is very hard to swallow in a state where we acknowledge that we have a fragile environment. We know that there are a lot of environmental challenges here and to lose so many outdoor staff from the environment department is truly a tragedy.

One figure that really puts this into perspective is the loss of rangers working in South Australia's parks. They have, I think, borne the real brunt of cuts with the number of rangers falling from 300 in 2002 to only 88 today. We do not have any fewer parks now: in fact we have more, and those 88 rangers are responsible for taking care of 29 per cent of the state's land mass. I think that is the figure. To have those levels of cuts is quite dramatic and, really, they know it; I have spoken to rangers who have admitted that they cannot do their jobs the way they should.

You have rangers who are looking after parks in Tea Tree Gully and also on the Fleurieu Peninsula and trying to form connections with the communities and the various friends groups that are supporting and looking after those parks and it really does not work when you drop from 300 to 88 over 12 years. The situation with rangers in South Australia is facing crisis point and I don't think there is any point sugar-coating that. What has happened here is a travesty. We had David Paton, a very well-regarded ecologist and administrator at Adelaide University on the radio yesterday—I think that was also on 891—lamenting this. He said:

It is quite clear governments are losing interest, both state and federal in the environment and we do have a duty of care to look after our native species—the government's…just investing in those things which they can see, both things which they believe that people actually want but ultimately we have a duty of care to pass on the environment to the next generation which is as good as it is for us, if not better.

He went on to share that you can judge that the government is losing interest simply by the reduced quantity of money for the environment department and those cuts to front-line staff as well.

Combined with the cuts to front-line staff and the environment department is the loss of support to volunteers in terms of grants to support volunteers in the environmental space. The NRM and its boards and committees have come up for a fair bit of criticism from this side of politics over the years, but there is no doubt that the NRM grant programs have been able to build capacity within some communities and inspire communities to come together and often do the work that rangers would have been doing.

The irony is that the loss of grants and seed funding for community groups to get involved in environmental action is even more of a tragedy because, if you were to keep that sort of seed funding in place—pardon the pun—you could actually perhaps justify over the longer term some of the cuts to front-line on-the-ground staff in the environment department, but with the loss of both the seed funding and support to volunteers and at the same time massive cuts to on-the-ground staff, you really do think that the environment department is losing its raison d'être and is not going to be able to fulfil its core business—if, in fact, it knows what its core business is—into the future.

In the electorate of Bright, I have two conservation parks—Hallett Cove Conservation Park and Marino Conservation Park. They are both really unique examples of coastal environments which have been protected, preserved and revitalised in recent years and in recent decades. A huge amount of effort has gone into supporting environmental groups to get off the ground and get grants and get those environments restored. I think it is a real shame that not only will they lose the opportunity for grants but they also lose the support of rangers as those services are cut back, and that is something that I might dwell on some more when I discuss other things in this house.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (17:49): It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak on another appropriation of money to the government to spend on behalf of the South Australian community. I am sure that some of the things they will spend it on will be excellent and some of the things will leave us scratching our heads a little bit.

My particular duty as the member for Morialta is to be concerned, of course, about my local patch in the area of Morialta and so—if not in my 20 minute speech perhaps in the 10 minute grieve; we will see how we go—I hope to talk a little about some of the issues that are of concern to people in Morialta. I also have the great privilege, thanks to the leader for asking me very recently as a result of the recent reshuffle, to have responsibility for the opposition for the areas of police, Correctional Services and justice.

I might start by making a few comments particularly about those areas and, in the time allowed, make some broader comments about the budget, and then some particular comments in relation to the electorate of Morialta.

In the police budget, I note that we have the estimates hearings in about two weeks' time, so perhaps I might just raise a couple of the things that no doubt I will have the opportunity to raise in estimates as well. Maybe the minister's advisers or the public servants who prepare papers for estimates can take a couple of these things on board now and it will be easy to get answers very quickly from the estimates and we will not have to take everything on notice, as sometimes occurs.

As a new shadow minister just a week old at the time when the budget was handed down, I of course approached the budget papers with eagerness and delight and anticipation of what would be found therein. There were some positive moves in the police area, but there are some things that tickled my interest.

I am really enjoying so far, three weeks into the police shadow portfolio, the opportunities that it presents. I joined the member for Little Para last week at Fort Largs and we shared in being able to see a wonderful graduation of new recruits. Some of them were very impressive and it was nice to be able to talk to some of the people there. The recruiting target that the government has set we know has been—I think 'rephased' is the politically correct term—delayed, pushed back—

Mr Odenwalder: Recalibrated.

Mr GARDNER: 'Recalibrated' is a suggestion. At any rate, it is not what it used to be and now, rather than 400 by last year, it is 300 in a couple of years' time, and we will look forward to seeing how that goes. No doubt the minister will have an opportunity to inform us how that recruitment target is going in the estimates process, and I look forward to hearing about it, but, certainly, I was impressed by the calibre of people who are putting themselves forward as police officers, and it was a pleasure to be able to share that opportunity.

Attrition rates in the police force obviously need to be met and surpassed to meet those recruitment targets because, as is natural, people—what is the verb of attrition, they 'attrite'—they retire, they resign.

Along with the minister, I was pleased on Friday night to be able to attend the annual Police Association dinner to honour retiring members. I think there were some 70 or 80 retiring members on Friday night. Those members who have had the privilege of being able to attend that Police Association dinner would understand the credit that it does the association, and the way in which they are able to honour those people who have served our community in this way.

Each of them has their career acknowledged, the service they have done, and they are presented with a plaque or a watch, as is their choice. That was a privilege and one of which I am very happy to say that if any member gets an invitation to one of those functions it is really worth going along. I felt privileged to be able to share in their honour.

I think the attrition rate last year was about 130, so they have to be replaced, and I look forward to getting the detailed numbers that we are up to for this year to come. I am particularly interested in the capital being spent in this area, and I note that for each of the five listed capital projects under Budget Paper 5 there seems to have been some rephasing, recalibration, delay.

Closed-circuit television for custody management is the first one that is listed. It is listed as being completed by the June quarter 2015 at a total cost of $8.066 million. A number of these rephasings or delays may well be because there have been improvements, or it may well be because there have been redesigns of the work that improve it to such a point that we are going to be absolutely thrilled that they have made the decision to have a later delivery of the program.

That may well be the case, and I look forward to hearing from the minister either way. However, I note that this item, or at least one named exactly the same, first appeared in the budget papers in 2008-09 with a completion date of June 2010. If this is in fact a different program that has been completed five years later, then I stand to be informed, and I look forward to that information.

The second item on the list is the domestic violence legislation system support, an information technology system to process early intervention orders. This is listed as $310,000 to be spent by this year, a $1 million project all-up to be completed by the June quarter 2015. This is a very important area. Members have heard me speak before about the importance of getting domestic violence (I think we now call it domestic and family violence) assessed and tackled in the best possible way. In fact, I commend those members opposite and members on this side who have this as a priority area because it is incredibly important.

It concerns me and I am interested in finding out why a similar budget line of exactly the same total spend (so I assume it is the same system) originally appeared in the 2010-11 budget papers, originally intended to be finished in that year for $1.003 million, finished in the June quarter 2011. We now, of course, have it finished in the June quarter 2015.

The third item on the capital list is high-tech crime-fighting equipment. Again, we originally had that appear in the 2010-11 budget as well, immediately below the domestic violence legislation system support, and initially due to be completed in the June quarter 2012 but now due to be completed in the June quarter 2015.

Finally (and those who have been in the police area for a while will be aware of this), the police records management system is listed now in two sections: stage 1 to be completed by June 2015 and stages 2 to 4 to be completed by June 2020, long after the forward estimates are complete. This originally appeared as due to be finished by the June quarter 2013 at a total cost of $9.4 million. I think stage 1 could now be described as having blown out by two years, to be finished in the June quarter 2015 at a similar cost of $9.7 million, with stage 4 now in the budget paper to be completed by June 2020 at a total cost of $29.4 million.

This is really important because the cops I know are regularly concerned about having not just to double enter or triple enter things, but some items have to be entered five times into different systems. Police records management, filing systems and IT are critically important, and it is critically important that they be improved. If that is going to cost a bit of money up-front, I am sure it will save money in the long term. However, I am not sure that the government have provided suitable money up-front, and I look forward to hearing back from them and to hearing what their commitment is.

It appears to somebody looking at the budget papers for the first time that there is a significant blowout of about seven years, from the time of the originally promised delivery to the now promised delivery. I would suggest that this government's record would not make one hold one's breath. I seek leave to resume my remarks and look forward to talking about other things after the break.

Sitting suspended from 17:59 to 19:30.

Mr GARDNER: Prior to the brief adjournment we have just enjoyed I was making some comments in relation to matters in the police budget, which I am sure we will tease out further in estimates. I am happy to inform the wonderful Hansard reporters who had a chat to me on the way up that I am happy to speak a little bit slower than I did before the adjournment.

In the corrections area, also looking at the budget papers, as I said before, as a new shadow minister for the area one looks at the budget papers to see what one finds. I am pleased that I have had the opportunity to talk to a number of stakeholders in the corrections area in the last couple of weeks, and I look forward to the opportunity to talk to a number more in the next few weeks.

In estimates in particular, I think we are going to have to get into issues in relation to the prisoner population as opposed to the infrastructure we have to house the said prisoner population in our state. Let me put this into context: the daily average prisoner population has risen from 2,177, in the 2012-13 financial year, to 2,418, in this financial year, and it is expected to rise to 2,494 by the end of the next financial year. That is a rise of more than 300 prisoners per year. This is in Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 149 for those following at home.

This is compared with an approved capacity (how much infrastructure we have to look after these prisoners), which has increased from 2,262, in the 2012-13 year, to 2,448, in the 2013-14 estimate, to a projection of 2,500 at the end of the next financial year, the one we have just entered. The gap between our prison infrastructure capacity and our average prisoner numbers has narrowed from 85 to six.

This presents significant challenges that I am not sure the government has any real answers for. There is, as I have identified, an increase in the infrastructure. There are a number of new beds being put in at Port Lincoln and at a couple of the other facilities, but they do not go anywhere near the increase that is expected in prisoners that is being allocated for and that the government is expecting, partly because of the laws they are changing.

The point I am making is that infrastructure is increasing slightly but that prison numbers are increasing significantly. What we have as of today, as of 2 July, is a brief gap between capacity and average daily numbers, but that is not every day. On a number of days, there is a surge and there is overcrowding, by the government's own numbers, and that is only going to get worse by the government's own numbers.

According to the figures presented in this budget, the gap between the average daily population and the total approved capacity is going to be six prisoners, in a prison population estimated to be 2,494 and 2,500 prison beds. The average is 2,494. There are days when it is below that and there are days when it is above that, and the beds are not there—the beds are not there and the government's plan to slightly increase the number of beds does not go anywhere near reaching the amount they need. This goes back years. Deputy Speaker, you would remember the cancelled prison program of several years ago (before I entered the house).

This is a significant challenge for the government and I look forward to hearing the minister describe what his answers are. At the very time when prisoner numbers are going up and the capacity over and above the prisoner numbers is reducing, the government is doing what? Yes, they are cutting prison staff. We understand from negotiations between the department and the Public Service Association that they are cutting prison staff by about 50. So, fewer prison officers, moving people from the kitchens altogether; I look forward to seeing exactly where these negotiations are going to end up.

I hope the minister is paying close attention and is going to actually get involved and help fix the negotiations, unless they miraculously resolve in the coming weeks. By reducing prison officer numbers and extending shift times they are not catering for the expected numbers that are going to be there. It is a significant problem. There are job cuts in the budget and that loss of 19.4 full-time equivalents, and that is just from last year until this year, it remains to be seen exactly where they are going to fall as a result of the negotiations currently underway.

There are a couple of changes to capital programs and I look forward to an explanation of these: the Mobilong Prison security upgrade. There was $9.9 million budgeted in 2013-14 but only $600,000 of that was spent, so there is now $9 million budgeted for this financial year. It was due to finish at the June quarter 2014, which finished two days ago; now it is due to finish at the June quarter of next year.

The Northfield infrastructure upgrade was a $45.8 million upgrade overall, due to be completed at June 2015. It appears that only $9.5 million was spent in the 2013-14 year of the $15.5 million that was budgeted to go in the last financial year, so it appears that $6 million worth of work has been delayed until this financial year. I look forward to the minister's confirmation of whether or not that puts the June 2015 completion date in doubt.

I am pleased to have responsibility for the more general field of justice, some matters of which I share with the shadow attorney, the deputy leader, in the Attorney-General's area and some of which is, in particular, the youth justice area for which the Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion has responsibility. I indicate that I am very pleased to be able to look after this area for the opposition again.

It is an area that I appreciated having the opportunity to do so in before when I was shadow minister for families and communities. There is some significant important work in this area. If we can turn around the life of a young person who is going off the rails and get them rehabilitated into a productive life ahead, then there is an enormous human benefit to the individual, a social benefit to our community and a financial benefit to our budget. A life saved in that manner is so important.

Our juvenile justice system is a critical moment in the lives of many of these young people. Some of them have, in fact, committed heinous crimes and their rehabilitation is a significant challenge. A number, of course, (some as young as 10) perhaps have a slightly easier road ahead, but getting this right is important. I look forward to the minister explaining the—I want to say savings but I cannot; it is a cut—youth justice down from $39.1 million to $36.6 million in the year ahead and full-time equivalent staff down by several as well.

The Jonal Drive Youth Training Centre—it is sometimes confusing between the new and old Cavan centres, so we will talk about them by the name of the road that they are on—security upgrade had $4.15 million budgeted to be spent in 2013-14 but only $37,000 of that was spent, and there has been a blowout to this year and, again, at least a one-year rephasing, restructuring, redesign, whatever the government wants to call it, of the budget, so it is now due to be completed in June 2015. I look forward to the Minister for Communities explaining exactly how that is going to work, and I am sure we will have some opportunity to go into those matters further.

I will identify some matters in relation to my local electorate when I have the opportunity to grieve at some point, but I just want to touch briefly, in these last couple of minutes I have, on the budget as a whole. Having been elected in March 2010 to the parliament, I have sometimes been disappointed and sometimes appalled at the way the government has handled the state's budget matters and economy.

In that election in 2010, there was an archetypal moment which I am sure you personally, Deputy Speaker, as a candidate and the Labor member for Florey at the time, benefited from, as a number of other members elected in 2010 on the Labor side did. Mike Rann's promise to create a 100,000 new jobs was a key moment in that campaign.

There were flyers in Morialta. I will not speak for the Deputy Speaker. You often put out your own flyers, but the flyers that went out in Morialta and in a range of Labor marginal seats were very much focused on this promise of 100,000 new jobs. Lindsay Simmons had a number of good attributes; nevertheless, these 100,000 new jobs featured very highly above whatever other attributes she had in much of her advertising material.

Let us just say that this promise that the Labor government would provide 100,000 new jobs is going badly—this promise that, by February 2016, the government would have created 100,000 new jobs. This budget provides us with the latest figures on that matter. We are two-thirds of the way through, so you would hope that they would be 60,000 jobs in; there are now fewer employed people in South Australia than there were at the time the promise was made.

So, for 100,000 new jobs, there would now need to about 101,000 new jobs in the next two years if the government is going to meet this significant election promise. They are not on track, they are not going to make it, this budget says they are going to fall tens of thousands short, and it is just another indictment on the way in which they have failed to manage our economy over the last 10 years.

Bill read a second time.

Estimates Committees

The Hon. G.G. BROCK (Frome—Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Local Government) (19:43): I move:

That this bill be referred to estimates committees.

Motion carried.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK (Frome—Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Local Government) (19:43): I move:

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

Motion carried.

Appropriation Grievances

The Hon. G.G. BROCK (Frome—Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Local Government) (19:43): I move:

That the house note grievances.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (19:43): This year's budget announcement of the government, disclosed in a document titled Capital Investment Statement—Budget Paper 5, contains an interesting array of projects to be undertaken by SA Water. We know that SA Water is the corporatised entity that is responsible for the provision of water in South Australia. They contract all water and other entities to provide some services in relation to that but, essentially, they are responsible for the provision of water—a safe, clean, reliable water supply for public consumption and for industry and others.

It was interesting to read this year that their primary projects under consideration are further upgrades of wastewater networks, including some pipeline supply upgrades. The elephant in the room for them, in the sense of a financial burden, is the continuing payment of $21,439,000 per year to provide for the retention payments for the Adelaide desal plant. Remember that, through its warranty period, and indeed probably forever, we are going to be paying for this piece of infrastructure big time.

What this tells me this year is that SA Water's priority under the direction of the government—because, of course, they are subject to ministerial direction, including making sure that they maximise profits for the government which urgently needs the money—is that they are preparing for sale a number of wastewater treatment plants. If I am wrong, I will be happy to apologise, but let's watch that space in the next couple of years and see whether we are left with any major wastewater projects in South Australia. They were getting a fair bit of attention last year and this year, and I suspect there will be the big 'For sale' signs on them before we advance into the 2015 and 2016 budget years.

What is most disappointing about this budget is that there is no provision for work specifically for the residents of Skye. There is provision for network growth to increase capacity of existing water and wastewater systems, in response to customer growth, of a proposed $11.206 million this year, for network extensions of some $30.6 million, and for pipe network renewal of $47.232 million, so there is some money there, but there is no provision for the residents of Skye.

A month ago, on 4 June I brought to the attention of the house the plight of some 120 residents of Skye who live in my electorate and within 10 kilometres of the GPO but do not have access to mains water supply or wastewater services. The short brief historical reason for this is that at the time of development approval in what is our Hills Face Zone area, people were allowed to proceed with the development of their homes on the clear understanding that they would not have then E&WS supplied water to them and that they would have their own arrangements.

What they have done is build up provision through five water supply entities for the residents, one of which has recently given notice that as of 28 August it will no longer be providing water from its bore and network system and that the residents will be on their own. This has been known to the government for months—in fact, years. When I had responsibility for this area back in 2008, it was an issue then. There was not wholesale support amongst those residents to proceed to have SA Water come in and provide the supply to this area at a cost to households.

I think I reported to parliament at that stage that SA Water estimated the cost of providing these services at around about $26,000 per household. There was not an appetite for it to progress, as each still had, perhaps somewhat inadequately in some areas, access to water supply. It was not enough to deal with major bushfire issues. It was not enough, I suggest, to ensure that they would always have a clean water supply. Certainly, they did not have a supply that provided them with potable water, but largely they relied on their own rainwater reserves.

What has happened since? What happened immediately prior to that is that on 14 May I called a public meeting. The community came together, and about 25 of them were facing having their taps turned off and we needed to deal with the issue both on an interim basis and also long term. In about mid-June, I had a meeting with SA Water because they had not turned up and the minister deigned to decide not to come to the public meeting. We had a meeting with them and they said, 'Well, look, Burnside council are going to deal with this. We have had discussions with them, and they are going to be dealing with an interim arrangement, either one of two options, to provide a pipeline from main service into the system and that will deal with the matter.'

So, I rang Burnside council, and they said, 'As we said at the public meeting, we're not in the water business, we don't want to be in the water business, we have no intention of being in the water business, and you can take it from us, as confirmed by our council and the passing of resolutions, we're not getting into the water business.' SA Water is essentially the monopoly provider of water in South Australia, and I hasten to qualify that by saying that I accept that there are third-party access rights but, for 100-odd households, I can tell you that is not going to happen. The reality is that SA Water is responsible within their charter for providing a network of service, and in the metropolitan area they are entitled to have it.

They said that the Burnside council were going to deal with it. Burnside council said, ‘It’s not on our patch. We are happy to help development applications to ensure that people can put in extra rainwater tanks in the meantime, and we're happy to try to help with council and assist SA Water in making sure they know what hazards are out there and what things have to be done to be taken into account in helping them to do the structure.’

I got them together, and this morning they came in and we had a meeting. I am pleased to report to the parliament that SA Water acknowledge that in fact Burnside council have not and are not intending to get into the water business and that they have now done some preliminary work to look at the cost of providing this to that community. They are looking for full cost recovery, and I understand that. I also know that ministers have the power to direct for works to be done, where appropriate, and that they can make provision for this in a subsidised way if they see fit. They have done it before, and I will traverse that on another occasion.

Nevertheless, it is perfectly appropriate for SA Water to say, ‘Okay, we will attend to at least look at the viability of doing this. We will try to meet with the five water companies.’ Clearly, I have already been told, as I think some of them have already been told (and it was in the local paper this week, which they have read) that the other water companies are saying, ‘We can’t take the load of the other 25 because we've got limited infrastructure and it's sometimes in a fairly poor or at least fragile state, and we cannot accommodate them.’ So, we are moving in a new direction.

Frankly, I would like the minister covering SA Water (minister Hunter) to take his head out of the sand and understand that this is an important issue. These people are taxpayers, they live in metropolitan Adelaide, and they are entitled to have access to water to ensure that they are protected in a bushfire and that they have safe, consumable water, as their current water supply is degraded and in some cases will not be available after 28 November. He does need to understand that he does have responsibility to deal with this.

I am pleased that the representatives came this morning; four of them came from SA Water— I felt very privileged—another three came from Burnside council and a couple from the minister’s office. I had so many people turn up to deal with my 25 people who are facing this precarious situation in Burnside that I started to wonder what was happening with the running of the state, but I am pleased to have had the meeting. Let’s hope that we can advance some resolution for these people.

I also want SA Water to be absolutely clear when making statements to the media that they do not cause alarm in the community. Statements that were reported in the local Eastern Courier this week suggest that SA Water are not interested in dealing with anything relating to the provision of services of the residents to the main system. That is inconsistent with what I heard today, and I think it is incumbent on them to make sure that they communicate with those electors promptly, give them that reassurance, and provide them with the service that we are asking for.

Time expired.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (19:53): Deputy Speaker, can I note first of all that I will adhere very strictly to your ruling about being referred to in the neutral term of Deputy Speaker and acquiesce to your request on that. Tonight, I certainly do wish to grieve about this budget, and I would like to take a bit of time to reflect on some of the contributions from members opposite, those of you who got up to talk about the budget, because the members opposite have tried very hard to deflect on that score.

Those who have indeed talked about the budget that is actually at hand include the members for Port Adelaide and Waite, and I would like to congratulate them on at least talking about this budget in their budget reply speeches and attempting to justify it. I would like to think that was due to my contribution yesterday calling on somebody to actually stand up and take responsibility for selling the budget of this government; indeed, I did call upon the member for Newland yesterday but, alas, he missed his opportunity. Deputy Speaker, you as the member for Florey discussed the election result and electoral reform, and the member for Torrens did speak about every other government’s budget and every other government’s performance except for her own.

What I would like to do in my 10 minutes tonight is debunk some of the messages that members opposite have put up in relation to their budget reply speeches and out in the public space. The first message that I would like to debunk is the fact that the federal government is cutting money in absolute terms to the state government. I will acknowledge that, budget to budget, there are cuts, and there are cuts where we do not agree with the federal government, especially when it comes to supplementary roads funding (the $18 million there) and we do not agree with the GP co-payment.

I have heard from the member for Playford, though, in response to a question, a sotto voce contribution that he gave when we were discussing it. Well, if you are talking about the federal budget to budget cuts to the state government, what about the state government's own cuts? He did say that there would be a $500 million real increase in health spending over the forward estimates. Do not quote me on that, except to say that that is the contribution he gave across the chamber during the hurly-burly of question time.

I would like to say that you cannot have it both ways. You cannot talk about budget to budget cuts when it comes from the federal government and then talk about real net increases when you are talking about the state budget's contribution. You have to look at these things on equal terms, and I find it very disingenuous by members opposite to suggest that things are anything other than that.

Indeed, there is an honest voice within the government and it is a gentleman by the name of Brett Rowse. When speaking to the Budget and Finance Committee, he was forced to admit that the federal government was increasing funding. I will quote from something that the Hon. Rob Lucas said:

So that over the forward estimates there's an increase of $2.02 billion coming into South Australia from commonwealth grants, whether it be current grant revenue or capital grant revenue?

Brett Rowse in response said, 'Yes, that's correct.' So finally we have on the record the fact that somebody has been able to stand up and say that the federal government is indeed increasing funding to the state government, because you would be forgiven for thinking that it is anything other than that.

The second thing in debunking this myth is by having a very general and cursory look at some of the early budget papers. It is page 55 of Chapter 3—Revenue in the budget statement. I implore members opposite to have a quick look at this because, when comparing the 2014-15 budget to the 2013-14 estimates, it does show a 6.2 per cent increase in commonwealth grants to the state government. The next year, the 2015-16 year, it grows again by 6.2 per cent. The year after that, 2016-17, it grows by 8.1 per cent and in 2017-18 it grows by a measly 3 per cent. All of these figures seem well above inflation, they seem well above population growth, and they seem well above any objective measure that this is a solid increase from the federal government to the state government, but all of the rhetoric that we have heard over recent days and weeks has been very much the opposite.

The second thing I would like to debunk is the fact that South Australia is a competitive place to do business. We heard in question time today that the Liberal Party misleads and misrepresents using its own figures, but again, page 54 of Chapter 3—Revenue in the state budget talks about tax effort ratios by jurisdiction. This is a measure that the Commonwealth Grants Commission puts out every year in relation to relative tax efforts for states and territories. On this measure, which is an objective, long-term measure, South Australia is the highest ranked state when it comes to tax effort ratios. In fact, our total tax effort has increased from 9.1 per cent above average to 9.7 per cent above average.

That is not us saying it; that is the Commonwealth Grants Commission saying it, and that is an objective measure showing that South Australia's tax regime is too high. It is the highest of the states and indeed South Australia is not, as members opposite talk about, a great place to do business. I would also say that I think a lot of the results when it comes to business confidence and employment growth do indeed bear out the fact that South Australia is not a great place to do business. We do have the highest WorkCover rates in the country, some of the highest electricity prices in the country, and we certainly, according to the Commonwealth Grants Commission, are the highest taxing state in the country.

The third point I would like to debunk tonight is that this budget is all about federal budget cuts and that federal cuts are the main driver behind the numbers in this state budget. That is absolutely not the case. We have heard members opposite talking about health cuts and we have heard them talking about education cuts, but the truth is that the state government's cuts are far more serious than any federal government contribution to this state budget.

In the 2013-14 year, the state health cuts were $116 million compared to the federal health cuts of zero. In 2014-15, it is $217 million versus $69 million. In 2015-16 it is $322 million versus $125 million and in 2016-17 it is $379 million versus $186 million. In total, the state health budget is being cut three times more by state cuts than it is by federal cuts, and I think that is something that needs to be said here and needs to be borne out because the rhetoric from members opposite has been anything other than that.

On the education front in this 2013-14 year there were $30 million worth of state education cuts versus federal cuts of nothing; in 2014-15, $50 million versus $2 million; in 2015-16, $65 million versus $2 million; and in 2016-17, $78 million versus $2 million. On those figures again it bears out very clearly that it is the state government's responsibility, it is the state government sitting in a mess of its own making and it has less to do with the federal budget and their cuts than it does with 12 years of inept management by the Labor government.

If we are to be consistent, then I expect to see the government not only talking budget to budget or talking absolute relative increase when it comes to comparing figures of federal versus state, but I also expect to see the frenzy being whipped up in the same way over federal budget cuts as state budget cuts. This morning we heard about the federal budget response task force, and I genuinely believe that members opposite do not want to sell this budget.

They do not want to justify it to the people of South Australia; they want to abrogate and they want to deflect, and what they genuinely need is for the South Australian public to keep believing that it is the federal government's fault that the state government cannot run its finances. In the next chapter of that we are seeing that in the clearest form and they need to maintain that deflection lest some of the blame gets pointed at themselves, lest the state government of South Australia takes responsibility for the state budget of South Australia.

Lastly, there has been a discussion about the fact that we on this side of the house have not been constructive and we have no ideas. Well, as a candidate in the 2014 state election, I fought very hard for a set of policies that are very dear to me, policies that exist across a wide range of areas. If members opposite are looking for some ideas, maybe some hope of reform for the future of South Australia, they need only look at the raft of policy ideas that the Liberal Party took to the last election. The prime job of opposition is to hold government to account, and that at the moment is what we are doing.

This is what we are doing and at least we are willing to debate the issue at hand, we are willing to debate the state budget as opposed to deflecting the blame to the federal government or talking about the Queensland budget or anything else that members opposite want to talk about. We are here in a David and Goliath battle between the collective resources of government and the miserly resources of the opposition. We can only do our own job. We do not have the resources to do yours as well.

In light of that, I would like to discuss for the last few seconds the ability of ministers to control their own budgets. The figures that I am going to talk about are not of our concoction, they are the Labor government's own figures. The fact is that over the past year they have had a $311 million budget overspend. Very quickly, I would like to highlight a couple of ministers who have high percentage overspends. Interestingly, minister Koutsantonis (member for West Torrens) in the Treasury and Finance portfolio is 14 per cent over budget versus last year. The Hon. Gail Gago in the other place is 10 per cent over budget on the further education portfolio. Minister Hunter in the other place in the environment, water and natural resources portfolios is 14 per cent over budget.

Time expired.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton) (20:03): I want to talk briefly about circumstances that prevailed today during question time that I thought were a little bit less than useful, and it has nothing to do with Vickie's contribution regarding her son's letter which was an outstanding contribution to the house, and Alex is a very—

An honourable member interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: He meant the member for Bragg.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Was somebody about to take a point of order, were they? He is an outstanding boy. Look, what happened today in question time was that some questions were directed, I think, at a variety of ministers across the front bench in relation to Clovelly Park. I think what occurred today, through what I think was a very unprincipled action by the opposition, has heightened the level of awareness—fear, more importantly than awareness—of the people who live in that particular area.

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I worried that you had moved to your position to say something. Yes?

Ms CHAPMAN: Well, I am sure you will be welcoming it, Deputy Speaker. My point of order is that the member is making a reflection on the management of the house by the Speaker during question time. Questions were asked by the opposition, in fact by a number of members of the house. The Speaker determines the management of that, whether the questions are in order or not, and of course challenges can be made to those during the course of that by other members of the house.

The management of the house is now being reflected upon by the member in those questions being asked. He may have an issue and he may wish to reflect to the house about his view on a certain matter, which he is entitled to put, but to present this as being out of order in some way, that it is unacceptable in the issue being dealt with during question time, is a reflection—and a very poor reflection—on the management of the house by the Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the member is going to get to the point of what he is trying to say.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I will try my hardest, Deputy Speaker. It was in no way a reflection on the Speaker with respect to the way he managed the question time this afternoon; it is more a reflection on the opposition who posed the questions. That is my point.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: I am allowed to have a view as to whether things are—and I am not suggesting in any way that what was asked today was out of order, but there's a difference between something being out of order and being, in my view, inappropriate. That is what I was getting to.

I very much respect the member for Bragg—Bragg for the defence or Bragg for the prosecution, whatever you like to say about her legal expertise—but there is a difference between being out of order and being inappropriate. The reason I say the questions today were inappropriate is because we have protocols in place.

This matter about Clovelly Park and that area particularly goes back a very long way. In fact, truth be known, I think there was a member for Elder, a long time ago, called Mr Wade, I think it was. Mr Wade, if I remember, had some grave concerns about the way in which the Liberal government of the day was managing the communication process in relation to legacy issues as they relate to groundwater contamination in that particular area. I am sure the member for Bragg is aware of those particular matters at that time.

Mr Whetstone: It was six weeks.

The Hon. P. CAICA: We're talking 17 years ago.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As you know, interjections are out of order and it is out of order to respond to interjections. The member is entitled to be heard in silence.

The Hon. P. CAICA: If I recall both the media reporting of the day and the other issues associated with it, all these 17 or 18 years ago, from Mr Wade and the then minister for the environment—somebody might help me here—it was an issue between the minister for the environment, cabinet and the member for Wade.

Ms Chapman: I remember when you were the minister for the environment.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I distinctly remember it too. It is not that long ago.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! What is in the water in this chamber tonight that everyone is so chirpy?

Mr Pisoni: I hope it's not contaminated!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll have the water vetted, please, chamber attendants. Water down the water.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I don't mind inane interjections. They can keep doing them for as long as they want. The point that I am making is that we have legacy issues that relate to the way that custom and practice years ago have resulted in contamination in groundwater, in the soils, in a whole variety of areas—customs and practices that were accepted all those years ago. They have a legacy effect here and now. In fact, they did when Mr Wade was the member for Elder.

The point I am making is that Mr Wade's concerns back in those days were the lack of communication and the lack of information that was provided to him as a local member, and it is well documented that in turn it was a lack of information that was being transmitted to and communicated with the local community.

As the member for Bragg said, 'When you were the minister,' and when I was the minister for the environment, protocols were put in place. Protocols were put in place that the first people who should be aware of a situation like this are those people who are the local residents. Otherwise, the inappropriate, but not disorderly, contribution of the opposition today, has heightened the fears of those people living in that area before there was the ability to communicate to those people. Let me also say this: the matter of Clovelly Park—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I must advise members that I am reaching for the Speaker's score sheet from question time and remind the deputy leader she's on her first warning, and it's the lips moving thing again shortly. Members on the other side, if you want me to go through the score sheet, I will. The member is entitled to be heard in silence.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Without reflecting on the chair, of course—

Ms Chapman: Point of order, Madam Chair—

The Hon. P. CAICA: You're on two warnings, that's right.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Point of order, and I hope it will be a reasonable point of order.

Ms CHAPMAN: I want to make a confession: I am actually on a second warning.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am prepared to overlook that if you just—

Ms CHAPMAN: Excellent, a remission.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next time your lips move it will be a second warning.

The Hon. P. CAICA: This is an effort by the opposition to gag me, to not allow me to talk.

Mr Whetstone: Are you going to send this out to the people of Elder?

The Hon. P. CAICA: Not at all.

Mr Whetstone: Rubbish.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Chaffey is actually on his second warning.

The Hon. P. CAICA: The member for Chaffey lacks a little bit up top, so I will just ignore what—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: Okay, well, he should not interject, Madam Deputy Speaker. Anyway, getting back to the point that I am trying to make, without the interruptions, and that would be good—far be it from me to be a dibber dobber Cindy but the member for Morialta was interjecting out of his chair. However, I am sure you picked up on that, Deputy Speaker.

Mr Gardner: Sorry, I was trying to give the Deputy Speaker some information.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I am sure it will be excellent information. The simple fact is that what occurred today is something that now needs some remedial action, remedial action on the basis that the best plans are in place to make sure that information, when it does get to residents, is information that is accurate and not communicated in scientific gobbledygook but something they will understand that either reassures them that things are alright or makes it clear that there is certain action that needs to be taken.

What has occurred today through the opposition’s inappropriate but not disorderly behaviour will actually create a greater scare within that area. I have not seen the media tonight because I do not watch the television, but I am pretty sure it would have made the news—and I am sure that the member for Bragg would have looked at it because I am sure she watches TV and hopes to see herself on it from time to time. I am pretty sure of that, but who knows. However, I think today’s behaviour was, as I said, inappropriate.

These are the circumstances. A protocol was put in place when I was the minister. That protocol was that information would be gathered, unlike what occurred when Mr Wade was the member for Elder, unlike what even occurred under certain circumstances when Mr Conlon was the member for Elder. What we have today is a situation where the EPA will continuously monitor those areas where legacy issues exist as a result of custom and practice in the past. That information will be collated and communicated in the most timely fashion when that information is accurate.

Today, from my point of view, was nothing more than a bit of a political exercise to try to gain some points at the expense of the poor people living within that area. It occurs not only in Clovelly, there are situations on Lefevre Peninsula, in Port Pirie, in Kilburn, and elsewhere. It is a legacy issue in the industrialised world. What we need to do is make sure that we are actually able to communicate information in an accurate and timely way, not heighten fears, not undertake a scare campaign, not try to score political points through what was an inappropriate approach to the questions that were asked and directed at ministers today.

I thought those questions were answered in a quite orderly manner by the ministers in an appropriate way, but what it has done is circumvent what has been a process that has proven to be effective in the past and, to that extent, whilst not disorderly, the opposition should hang their heads in shame for their actions here today.

I have two minutes left and I might just use those two minutes. Why not? Another issue I want to speak about relates to marine parks. I remember the Nuremberg rally that the member for Bragg attended with the then leader of the opposition where, depending on—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: Well, today it was reported that we are over 2,000, but who knows? However, I note that over a period of time when the member for Bragg tried to organise recreational fishers before, she had like 25 down at West Beach—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Bragg is reminded—

The Hon. P. CAICA: —and that might be an exaggeration.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will have to write it down. My hands are tied.

The Hon. P. CAICA: What we have seen is a rear-guard action from the opposition to try to undo the good work that has been done with respect to marine parks here in South Australia. I do not believe their view will eventually prevail. What we have done is the right thing. Indeed, there is little difference between what is now going to be put in place by the government and what was being proposed by the member for Davenport when he was—

Ms Chapman: Don’t mislead the house.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I'm not—the member for Davenport—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Bragg is warned for the second time.

The Hon. P. CAICA: It really should be the third time, Deputy Speaker, but I accept your comments earlier. The member for Davenport and the then premier put forward to the people of South Australia about the marine parks that they were going to put in place, and the member for Bragg knows that. There is no misleading in what I am saying. There is nothing we have done today that is different from what they were proposing back in 2001. Check the records and go back and have a look. The only difference today is that the position of the opposition has changed significantly from what it was at that time. For that, they should also hang their heads in shame. I have very much appreciated being able to make a contribution in this grievance debate.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (20:15): I do not think a lot of that diatribe can go unanswered, quite frankly. The member for Colton is quite right: what has taken place at Clovelly Park is a legacy of the past; none of us is responsible for what happened industrially or whatever 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago. I and probably others in this place can tell you that when I first started work I used to get covered in DDT. I was covered in Lindane; I was covered in Luci-Jet, literally covered in it. I also handled tonnes and tonnes of asbestos sheeting, but that is the way it was.

The issue the member for Colton has picked up on here is not about what is in the water or whatever, it is the fact that this government tried to hide it.

The Hon. P. Caica: Rubbish!

Mr PENGILLY: For six or seven weeks—

The Hon. P. Caica interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: I seek the protection of the Chair from this vicious attack. The fact is that this government has hidden it, and it is only because it was leaked from within government circles to the opposition that it was raised today. If they had got off their collective backsides and come out and addressed the issue properly in the public arena, it would have made a big difference. It is fine for the member for Colton to talk about the opposition doing it in an improper way, but I happen to remember, member for Colton, what your mob did to Carolyn Habib in the seat of Elder in the election, when they launched a vicious racial attack on her—and you know it. So do not come in here being high and mighty and self-righteous.

The Hon. P. Caica interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: Don't come in here giving us––

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet: that means everyone sits down. I am prepared to put up with a little bit of extra frivolity in the evening session, but it is a waste of the house's time. I call all members to order and ask for their goodwill in progressing the debate this evening. I will return to the member for Finniss and ask for him to be heard in silence.

Mr PENGILLY: Thank you, ma'am. So, it is a bit rich to come in here and preach to us, after what they did to Carolyn Habib—the shoppies union, the Malinauskases, the Koutsantonises. That is what they did to Carolyn Habib—that is what they did. That is what I am told; that is what I am informed from people on that side, so do not come here preaching to us about that sort of thing. I thought what happened to Carolyn Habib was an absolute disgrace and a sad moment in the history of South Australian politics.

Let's get to the marine parks issue. I sat in the other place this afternoon and listened to quite a bit of the debate, and I have never heard such orchestrated nonsense, a litany of absolute mistruths and everything else that came out of the mouth of Mr Maher there—written, printed and authorised, I suggest, by Allan Holmes and Chris Thomas. It was an absolute disgrace and it was just categorical nonsense. I happened to be sitting next to a fisherman from Port Wakefield, Mr Bart Butson, and he could not believe the nonsense that was coming out of Mr Maher's mouth. It was absolutely ridiculous; it was so far away from the truth that it was not funny.

Talking about consultation, that bill went through the upper house, and it will come down here. The challenge is for the member for Frome and member for Waite to stand on their collective credibility and support this bill when it comes to the lower house. I can tell you that it will do irreparable harm to the fishing industry in my electorate and in the electorates of the members of Flinders and Goyder. It was nonsense. It was absolute claptrap they were talking up there. I am glad it got through and I commend that it got through.

Decent, honest fishing people, both recreational and professional, were here in the Balcony Room a couple of weeks ago talking about the impact on their lives. It is simply inappropriate for the government to be putting out this spin line which is a nonsense. I sat in meetings around the place when Chris Thomas who ran the program was there, and he sat there sniggering and sneering.

The Hon. P. Caica: Rubbish.

Mr PENGILLY: He did! Don't you give that to me, member for Colton.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PENGILLY: I sat there and I'll bring you hundreds of people if you like.

The Hon. P. Caica interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Colton is called to order.

Mr PENGILLY: Thank you. When this bill gets down here, it is going to be a fairly interesting debate. We have plenty of evidence. Why would you go to the fishing industry and say, 'Where do you fish?' and then say, 'That's what we want to know,' and then block those up in sanctuary zones? It is just ludicrous, and there will be a fair bit more said about that in this place.

Three in every 10 South Australians live in a regional community, and they are sick of being screwed over by 12 years of Labor government. They are sick of it, absolutely fed up to the back teeth with it, I can tell you. No wonder they voted for a change of government in the bush. They voted for one in the city as well. Regional South Australia—

The Hon. P. Caica: They never voted any differently.

Mr PENGILLY: You've had your go, mate.

The Hon. P. Caica: They never voted any differently. What are you talking about? More whingeing about the election. Get over it. You lost.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It is unparliamentary to interject. It is out of order to respond to interjections. The member is entitled to be heard in silence.

The Hon. P. Caica: And so was I.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Colton.

Mr PENGILLY: Regional South Australia contributes more than $20 million to the South Australian economy and produces over 50 per cent of South Australia's exports. They do not want much in the way of assistance. They just want to get on with their business and what they do properly, whether that be farming, vineyards, honey, fishing, it does not matter. They just want to get on and do what they have always done and what in many cases they have done for generations and generations.

Instead, what has happened now is that this government has brought in another land tax scenario on the family farm, on the family home, across South Australia, so it is impinging once again and putting financial strain on families right across this state. I think it is despicable and cowardly and should be condemned for what it is. I can tell you that this side of the house will take it up to the government every day up until the next election. Every day, they will be reminded, and the member for Waite and the member for Frome want to think about that because it ain't going to go away.

The Liberal Party had a stand at Mitcham Shopping Centre last Saturday. Every minute, someone from that electorate was coming up and signing a petition calling for a by-election in Waite. They have had an absolute gutful of the member for Waite and what he did to them, screwing them over. He has to live with his conscience; I do not have to. I have a clear conscience on this. I thought it was disgraceful, but it is interesting, and it will go on and on as well every Saturday now until the next election. We will see what comes out of that.

In my electorate, we make a major contribution to the state's economy through primary industry, agriculture, fishing, dairying, and also tourism. I have huge numbers of visitors—two million visitors a year go down to the South Coast and the Fleurieu Peninsula. Many of those are repeat visitors from the metropolitan area who come down there for weekends, extended holidays or over the summer period. Some 190,000 go over to Kangaroo Island, and a high proportion of those are internationals. We make a major contribution to the state, and we have had a gutful. We have had an absolute gutful, I can tell you.

There were 1,400 jobs lost and 4,000 more unemployed and an increased unemployment rate from 6 to 8 per cent in regional South Australia in May this year alone. Where is that going to end? The challenge for the Minister for Regional Development is to try to do something about that. I will help him to try to do something about it, but every time the poor beggar gets up to open his mouth or answer a question he is done over by someone else. He is not allowed to answer the questions. It is ridiculous. He is going to have a go.

I do not think they have the confidence in him to answer the questions, and it is obvious to blind Freddy what is going on. We can sit here and watch it. When the minister for regional affairs is given a question, he gets tugged by someone alongside him and told to sit down and then someone else will shoot up like a jack-in-the-box. It is crazy stuff. If he wants to come and work with me, I will work with him as closely as possible to achieve good things for my electorate and the rest of regional South Australia. I wish him luck with this appalling mob that is in government at the moment, I can tell you.

I am seriously concerned about where this state is going. The state government's budget of a couple of weeks ago has done nothing for this state, except build on debt enormously and slug the poor old South Australian taxpayer over and over again. Day after day, we hear the acolytes on the other side talk about the federal government and the impact of their budget. Well, get over it, guys, you are in government here.

The Hon. P. Caica: Get over the election, mate.

Mr PENGILLY: Here it goes again, the singing rooster. The fact of the matter is that—

The Hon. P. Caica: Get over it, get over it.

Mr PENGILLY: I was over it a long time ago. The fact is that this state government has responded to its own ineptitude, its own debt and its own budget disaster.

Time expired.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have a speaking list, and the member for Wright is next on my list.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE (Wright—Minister for Education and Child Development) (20:25): Thank you, Deputy Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Appropriation Bill. I will very quickly outline some of the highlights in this current budget for education. The budget will overall deliver $3.27 billion in 2014 for the Department for Education and Child Development, and there is $96.7 million in capital works in the budget. I point out that the per student funding now is double that of the 2002 levels. We are investing in a new secondary school in the city, and we are delivering on our commitment to Gonski funding ($72.3 million of additional funding over four years), and we are honouring the full six years of that agreement.

Also, there are 20 new outdoor learning areas, with $6 million going into that and, importantly, $14.2 million to ensure that every government school student has access to a school counsellor. There is another $13.7 million for a children's centre here in South Australia and, importantly, $3.2 million to establish a Strong Start program in Adelaide's southern suburbs which supports parents and infant children. To ensure that we have better communication with parents, a $1.8 million parent portal will be established.

There are many other initiatives which I could talk about, but there are some issues which I think I do need to address also; they are claims that have been made in this house by the members for Stuart, Chaffey and Unley in relation to education. The member for Stuart prides himself on his economic credential and knowing his way around budget papers. Sadly, our public schools are actually getting $100 million less in 2017-18 than the member for Stuart claimed in this place.

I would refer the member for Stuart to the federal Budget Overview, page 7, on health and education funding, where it states that 'measures will achieve cumulative savings of over $80 billion by 2024-25'. That is $80 billion not going into health and education. You can call them savings or you can call them cuts; it is funding which was promised which will not be provided.

Every other Liberal government gets it. Mike Baird gets it, Denis Napthine gets it, even Campbell Newman gets it, and they are all standing up to the Abbott government to campaign against these brutal cuts to our hospitals and to our schools. Sadly for South Australia, it seems that the South Australian Liberals are the only ones doggedly going into bat for Mr Abbott's budget: they keep denying that they are cuts. Reneging on promised funding increases is cutting funding.

In South Australia, this will hit our students, our teachers, our nurses, our doctors, the sick and the poor to the tune of $5.5 billion over the decade. In the last two years of the signed Gonski agreement, $335 million of agreed funding will not be made available for our three education systems. This equates to $1,280 per student over 2018-19. In 2018, students in year 8 will be the first to feel the reduction in this funding. Mr Abbott's cuts will hurt, and they will hurt regional communities hard.

On a per capita basis the electorate of Stuart stands to lose $5.5 million in funding resources and support in two years; the electorate of Chaffey, $6.97 million; and the electorate of Unley, $4.2 million. The members for Unley and Stuart claim that the federal government plays no role in allocating funding to local schools. It is all up to us how we spend our money. But, make no mistake, it is this federal Liberal government that is determining that funding will not be made available—$335 million less to share.

As the member said last week, I was in the electorate of Stuart, as well as a number of other regional electorates, but what the member failed to mention was why I was there. I was there to open a wonderful new purpose-built Jamestown Community Children's Centre that represents a $2.4 million investment in the member's electorate, and I can tell the house that the local community is very pleased to have this wonderful new facility.

It is one of 41 children's centres across the state that have been developed by this government and represents a small portion of the massive infrastructure program this government has underway. Because this government believes in education. That is why, unlike the federal Coalition government, we are fulfilling our promise to South Australian children and their families by committing to the full six years of the Gonski agreement, that will see an additional $229.9 million over the life of the agreement.

I will turn my attention to some of the amazingly outrageous claims made by the member for Unley. Quite frankly, he has been farcical in his claims, but we know the member for Unley has been prone. He describes them as tongue-in-cheek comments. They are hardly tongue-in-cheek when you write them in a press release but I would prefer to describe them as foot-in-mouth. Indeed, someone said to me he needs to go to the dentist when he wants his toenails trimmed.

He does not let credibility get in the way of a press release. In only the last couple of weeks alone, he has variously claimed that the education department is recruiting for the SDA, and he rehashed an Adelaide High School media release and thought the media would not join the dots, and claimed increased school fees are funding Gonski.

Mr Pisoni: What press release is that, Jennifer?

The SPEAKER: In interjections, the member for Unley will refer to the minister as the Minister for Education or the member for Wright. Some of these metaphors are a bit stale.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: He claimed increased school fees are funding Gonski. Regarding the removal of the emergency services levy remission, he obviously completely slept through that meeting or he supports the removal of that remission, but I bet he did not tell his leader about that. Credibility counts. It is a really important issue.

When it comes to savings there is a clear difference between members on this side and those opposite. We will not be cutting 25,000 public servants, 888 out of education. The member for Unley let that cat out of the bag. No wonder the opposition tried the small-target strategy. One would have thought they would have learnt, but it did lead to their downfall. Pleasingly, my grandchildren do not have to wait until they are old to see their grandmother in government.

We are investing more than $1 billion extra in education and child development over the next four years. The member for Unley spoke about the big battle for the electorate of Adelaide. I think he is trying to wipe the memory of the battle for Ashford from his memory. He directed and ran that campaign and failed. The member for Ashford picked up 1.3 per cent of the vote to win her seat, despite a redistribution reducing her margin to 0.6 of a per cent. The seat was practically wrapped in a bow and delivered with a singing telegram, but thanks to the inspired leadership of the member for Unley they could not figure out how to open that box.

The member for Unley had the monumental achievement of a swing against him of 2.2 per cent, an amazing achievement when you are an opposition running against a government seeking a fourth term. The member for Unley also suggested that Prospect had somehow been let down. This is somewhat rich coming from the party whose second campus for Adelaide High School document proposed the creation of a mega-edu-sausage factory that left out Thorngate, Collinswood, Medindie, Medindie Gardens and Nailsworth, whereas our new CBD school will allow the secondary school zones in Adelaide's inner suburbs to be redrawn.

As well as allowing students from the suburbs of Ovingham, Prospect, Fitzroy and Thorngate to enrol in year 8 in 2015 at Adelaide High School, we will be honouring our policy to include Bowden, Brompton, Hindmarsh, Hilton, Kurralta Park, Glandore, Black Forest, Nailsworth, Medindie Gardens, Medindie, Gilberton, Walkerville and Collinswood into an expanded city zone in 2019.

As stated in our policy, the eastern parts of Torrensville, Mile End, Richmond and Marleston will also be included and, as a result of the advocacy of the member for Ashford, sections of Clarence Park zoned to Black Forest Primary School will also be rezoned.

Government schools in the member for Unley's electorate are set to lose a total of $4.2 million, as follows:

Glen Osmond Primary School—$456,000

Glenunga International High School—$1.95 million

Highgate School—$769,000

Parkside Primary School—$429,000

What we want to see is Liberal members opposite standing up and supporting their schools in their electorates.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (20:36): I rise to give a grieve to the Appropriation Bill. That was a very interesting speech we have just heard. Members on this side do stand up for their electorates, and the minister would be well aware in communication we have had over several months now—since November last year—of the school where I spent most of my education, Coomandook Area School. It is no accident that, out of an enrolment of about 160, 12 left after last year because of the debacle of funding in bush education. It is just an absolute debacle.

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: You had your go and I kept quiet. It is an absolute disgrace when a local area school—

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

The SPEAKER: I call the Minister for Education to order.

Mr PEDERICK: It is an absolute disgrace when a country area school cannot even hold their in-house sports carnival on their own oval and they have to travel 50 kilometres to Meningie to do it because there is not the money in the budget to water that oval. They have a swimming pool that has been out of action for 12 months, yet the education department hired the failed contractor that did the job last time.

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: They hired a failed—

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: You had your go. Mr Speaker, I seek your protection.

The SPEAKER: I did not have a go, actually.

Mr PEDERICK: I was speaking to the member for Wright, Mr Speaker.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Point of order, sir: he is standing there shouting at me and pointing his finger at me, and he has the gall to ask for your protection.

The SPEAKER: That is an entirely bogus point of order, and I—

Members interjecting:

Mr Pisoni: She's a bogus minister.

The SPEAKER: The member for Unley has been called to order and is on two warnings. The Minister for Education is warned for taking a bogus point of order. Member for Hammond.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your protection. I am a quiet, unassuming member. Mr Speaker, for the Minister for Education to make the comments that she did in this house tonight, when I see the school that I love, the school I went to, being torn down through lack of funding and lack of appropriate maintenance, is an absolute disgrace. For the minister to come into this place and make out they are doing such a good job for education when 12 of those children have left that education facility to go elsewhere, is an absolute disgrace and really hits at the heart of regional communities.

What I would also like to refer to is the funding cuts to agriculture spending in this budget. We have a government trying to ride on the back of agriculture in this state because the Olympic Dam expansion has not happened, sadly. Suddenly, we see the Premier decide that agriculture is going to be the saviour. As I mentioned in my earlier speech in regard to the Appropriation Bill, we are down to the lowest budget spend in agriculture for over a decade at $59.8 million. It is an absolute disgrace.

I refer now to the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics. It is having a severe cutback and the Chief Executive Officer Michael Gilbert outlined these cuts. In 2013, the South Australian government advised that it was reducing its annual investment to $260,000, down from $1.8 million. The GRDC has now advised that due to this drop in equity funding it will from 2015 withdraw core equity investment and only fund the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics on a project basis. This means that the ACPFG will lose the financial base to protect and generate value from the intellectual property it has developed over the past 11 years. We are also in danger of losing key scientific staff and the essence which has made ACPFG unusually successful.

Without this funding it will lose the protection of its IP, lose the capacity to grow the international research contracts, lose the capacity for further business development from its IP and lose world-class capacity to grow the future local grains industry. These budget cuts will result in significant research capacity being lost from an industry that will be central to South Australia's economic future.

Agriculture is a vital component of our state's economy. There needs to be more support for our farmers and regional towns. Our farmers are one of the biggest earners in the state and need to be supported to assist growth. There needs to be more significant investment in growing our exports as this industry has the ability to significantly grow our state's economy.

I will now state a few facts around what has been happening: food exports from South Australia have only grown by an average of 1 per cent annually in the past decade—what an abysmal performance that reflects the lack of state government assistance; livestock exports have decreased by 10 per cent; dairy exports have decreased by 10 per cent; and seafood exports have decreased by 5 per cent. Even with all these cuts, the food industry is still the main driver of the state's economy and employs nearly 20 per cent of the workforce.

There is a lack of any strategic long-term plan for agriculture in this state. Agriculture has been asking for a long-term plan for years but the Labor Party continues to ignore them. The Liberals promised a plan at the last state election which was well received by industry. Regional South Australia, I believe, will be the future gateway for the state's prosperity and growth but the Labor Party continues to abuse it.

River Murray funding has been cut once again. The government will spend $4.3 million less on the River Murray, the Lower Lakes and the Coorong environmental programs. A lot of these programs involved community engagement with community volunteers doing their bit to shore up acidic shorelines and doing what they could to make sure that there was some environmental health in the lower reaches of the Murray.

Natural resources management has been stripped right across the board of $1 million in annual funding across the state. What we will see is that these NRM cuts will most likely be transferred to farmers who will be hit with more levies and more costs. With regard to the regions, we need the Minister for Regional Development to stand up for our farmers in the regions.

I will just make a point about job losses in this state. In May 2014 there were 2,500 South Australian jobs lost in Adelaide but 1,400 jobs were lost in regional South Australia and there were 4,000 more unemployed in regional South Australia in May 2014. The regional unemployment rate increased from 6.1 per cent to 8 per cent in May 2014. It is the worst jobless rate of all the regions in the nation. It is an absolute shame. The unemployment rate for the Mid North of South Australia, where the Minister for Regional Development resides, is now at 9.3 per cent. That is in Geoff Brock's own electorate.

I want to close my remarks by talking about marine parks. What a flawed policy; what a disgraceful policy coming into play on 1 October this year. We will see a massive impact not just on fishermen but on whole communities, especially seaside communities. It is a whole service community to fishermen: people who service boats, holidaymakers, caravan parks—there is a whole range of impacts that will be felt right downstream from where the fish are caught offshore. Sadly, what we see is an environment department with some misguided view of the world; they want to take over the fishing industry from the primary industries department. We have the Fisheries Management Act, which is world recognised as being some of the best—if not the best—legislative framework to manage our fisheries, yet, no, the green zealots in the Labor Party think there is a better way.

Because there is about only one person on that side now who has ever run any sort of business, they have no idea what impact this is having. I know that the Ferguson family on Kangaroo Island is already shifting out one-third of their boats; they are gone. They have made that decision, those boats are going. All that regional input is lost to this state because of this flawed policy. It is going to hurt communities all the way from the Far West Coast right down to the South-East of this state, the impacts of these no take zones. They have not been planned at all; they have just been put in by zealots where they think it is a good spot to have no-take zone, when it has been perfectly well managed under the Fisheries Management Act.

I note that in the last couple of days the head of the environment department, Allan Holmes, when asked on radio about how this will be policed—because the environment budget has been cut by millions—said 'Oh, it will be self-policed.' Well, good luck with that. It is a very sad budget, and it is a very sad budget with regard to agriculture and regional South Australia. Let us hope this government is not here for too much longer.

Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (20:47): It is my pleasure to rise to make a further contribution to the budget bill currently before the house, and it is a great privilege to follow the member for Hammond, who has been such a passionate advocate for all things regional for such an extended period of time. He, like everyone in the Liberal Party, recognises that the regions have such a great opportunity to turn our economy here in South Australia around. The regions provide enormous opportunity; they have been neglected for an extended period of time but we, on this side of the house at least, know their potential. That is why we took a very large offering to the people of South Australia to this election. Unfortunately we did not form government.

I must say that in the days after the election we were somewhat heartened by the fact that the word 'regional' passed the lips of the Premier. He started talking about the regions—in fact, the government even recently made a visit to a region—so we were excited by the prospect of a budget that would have some focus on creating jobs in regional South Australia and enable the regions to participate in the economic resurgence of South Australia. Of course, we were very, very dismayed when finally the budget was handed down and a golden opportunity to provide the regions with an opportunity to help our economic recovery in South Australia was completely and utterly lost.

This is a grave problem for South Australia. When we look at the employment statistics for this state, they are abysmal. We know that this government has presided over an economy in which we have lost 19,600 jobs in this state between the last two budgets. We look around the rest of the country and we see economies that are growing. We see Victoria, which has created 18,000 jobs; we take a look at the Queensland economy, and they have created 60,000 jobs; Tasmania has been creating jobs. What have we been doing here in South Australia? I will tell you what we have been doing: we have been sitting on our hands. We have had the wrong economic settings in place; a high-tax, high-regulation government putting further burden on the productive component of our economy, unlike the other Liberal reformist governments which sit in every other state of Australia.

They are implementing a reformist agenda to take the burden off the productive component of the economy and, guess what, they are creating jobs. This is not rocket science: you take the burden away from the productive component of the economy and that component of the economy wants to create jobs and increase investment. We are in exactly the opposite situation here in South Australia.

Let me tell you that the situation for regional South Australia under this government is going from bad to worse. I would like to share with the house this evening some of those statistics which were alluded to by the member for Hammond in his earlier excellent contribution to this debate. On 19 June this year, the Australian Bureau of Statistics released their regional labour market brief, and what a sorry tale it is for South Australia. Not only at the macro level have we lost 19,600 jobs in this state over the last 12 months but, when we take a look at regional South Australia, it is a very perilous situation.

I would like to refer specifically to the statistics for the area in which the Minister for Regional Development actually lives and represents, and that is the regions of the Barossa, Yorke and Mid North. Let's take a look at what these statistics show us. They show us that the unemployment rate in this area a year ago was 5.8 per cent, so let's take a look at what it says now, a year later, a year after these miserable settings that this government has had in place. What have they delivered for the people in that region? A massive unemployment rate there now skyrocketing to a dangerous 9.3 per cent. You have to go back a long time in South Australia's history to see unemployment rates with a '9' before them. They are heading in the wrong direction—9.3 per cent.

There is a youth unemployment rate in that district of 16.9 per cent, and it gets even worse if you go to outback South Australia, and I know many people in this place are very concerned about employment opportunities in outback South Australia. Let me tell you that 5.8 per cent a year ago and 10.1 per cent in May this year are the statistics that have just been published in the SA regional labour market brief, published on 19 June by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and there is a staggering 18.4 per cent youth unemployment rate in outback South Australia.

That is exactly and precisely why we need to be very careful as a parliament when we consider the Marine Parks (Sanctuary Zones) Amendment Bill, which was passed in the other place today. This is an extremely important bill because it will enable a continuation of the very important commercial fishing sector here in South Australia. I am a great advocate for our marine parks in South Australia. Make no mistake about this: I am a great advocate for our marine parks in South Australia, and I wholeheartedly support the establishment of these marine parks and for South Australia to fulfil its obligations under the various UN protocols that relate to marine biodiversity and also the protection of our marine environment.

However, I do not support the current sanctuary zones that have been suggested by this government to be put into place on 1 October this year. I will tell you why I do not support these particular sanctuary zones, or what the industry calls 'no-take zones': because they are not in any way based on a threats-based determination, and this is the problem. What we have from this government is a representative sample of our marine waters in South Australia locked up in a conservation framework.

When we asked the question of this government, 'What is the point of excluding fishing? What damage is the fishing sector doing in these areas?' the answer came back, 'Well, fishing is not doing any damage.' So, we legitimately say, 'If fishing is not doing any damage, then why are we excluding it?' 'Well, we want to have a conservation framework. We want to lock up these waters in a conservation framework and we want to preclude commercial fishing from taking place in this environment.'

Quite frankly, that is just not good enough. This government needs to take a look at the regional labour market brief which has been provided to the house; it needs to understand that we want growing regions in South Australia. We do not want to be diminishing jobs in this important sector.

The commercial fishing sector in South Australia directly employs over 6,000 people and most of those jobs are in regional South Australia. Hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars of exports come from the commercial fishing sector. This is a very important sector to our economy, but it is also a very responsible sector. It is an extraordinarily responsible sector. Nobody in the commercial fishing sector would like to see any harm come to the commercial fishing waters in South Australia; they want to protect them. They want to protect these waters. They are not going to let any harm come to these waters whatsoever.

What we need to do is have a system in place where any protections are based upon threats to the marine environment. We already have the Fisheries Management Act 2007. The Fisheries Management Act provides for aquatic reserves to be proclaimed to exclude fishing. If there is any danger to the marine environment the people within PIRSA (the fisheries department) can proclaim these aquatic reserves and make sure that no harm can come to these waters or the marine environment, but this government has chosen to ignore a threats-based determination for exclusion and base it upon this conservation framework. Sir, I put it to you that this is completely and utterly unacceptable.

South Australia's employment situation is worsening—19,600 jobs lost in this state in the last 12 months. The last thing we can afford at the moment is further job losses, particularly in regional South Australia. The Premier said after the election that he was going to pay greater regard to the regions of South Australia and the small business sector in South Australia. Well, here is the first test. We would like to see those members opposite pass the Marine Parks (Sanctuary Zones) Amendment Bill when it is introduced into this house. This will be a great test for the government to see whether it is actually fair dinkum about creating, preserving and growing regional jobs in South Australia. How much does it specifically and genuinely care about the regions in South Australia?

We will be watching the member for Frome. We will be watching the member for Waite. We will be watching every single member opposite and we will see how they vote on that bill when it comes before the house. I know that many opposite will enjoy that debate. Some of them already look excited about the prospect of us—

The Hon. S.W. Key: I'm excited.

Mr MARSHALL: The member for Ashford says she really cannot wait; she is looking forward to it. I will certainly be looking forward to her contribution. We have very little time because these new sanctuary zones will be proclaimed on 1 October. Mark my words: if these go ahead we will see further job losses in regional South Australia, we will see a decrease in exports out of South Australia and we will see this state get further and further behind the Liberal reformist governments which exist in every other state in Australia.

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (20:58): I rise tonight to beseech the government and call on its support for funding for a significant project in the seat of Hartley, namely, the Felixstow Reserve master plan. Anyone who knows the area and knows the Felixstow master plan would know that for many years, unfortunately, this part of the world, this patch of grass, has been significantly under-utilised by the community. It is through the great efforts of the Eastern Region Alliance—an alliance of seven councils in metropolitan Adelaide, including: the City of Burnside, the City of Norwood, Payneham and St Peters, the Corporation of the Town of Walkerville, the Campbelltown City Council and the City of Tea Tree Gully—and a significant project called Waterproofing Eastern Adelaide whereby an opportunity has arisen for these councils to work together to better utilise the scarce resources we have, and the most scarce resource is water.

What I would like to do is explain a little bit about what the project entails, some of the features and benefits of it, talk a little bit about the consultation and then, finally, call on the government to support the project, to put its hand in its pockets and to support funding for this great project. Felixstow Reserve has been underutilised for many years now. In fact, as a young man, I used to actually use Felixstow Reserve on Saturday mornings to play Auskick but, for many years now, it has been significantly underused. If this project does go ahead, it will certainly lead to much greater use.

There are many social issues involved and improvements in social use should this go ahead, as well as cultural issues and the obvious environmental issues. I would like to talk a little bit about the sorts of benefits that can be expected if the Felixstow Reserve master plan does go ahead. Obviously, open space is extremely important; however, once this site is developed, you will see certain amenities improved, and I will explain what they are.

Firstly, you will see a U-shaped wetland located along the River Torrens Linear Park and at the reserve, which will be several hectares in size. There will still be a large open-space area for passive recreational use, and this is obviously very important because we want to make sure that families in the area still have ample opportunity to walk their dogs on weekends and play with their children. Large open space is extremely important and will still exist under this proposal.

There will also be a network of pathways and walkways. As you know, sir, being a keen cyclist, there are a number of cyclists who use the Linear Park and surrounding area, so it will be extremely important that these sorts of pathways and walkways are installed here to enhance the various features of the reserve and the surrounding amenity.

I am pleased to say that, under the proposal, there will also be natural play equipment in the lower reserve located in Linear Park. That is obviously important because we want to put out to the community that exercising is important. We want to emphasise the need for safer, stronger and healthier communities as well. There will also be fitness equipment located strategically throughout the reserve and viewing platforms for the wetland. It is hoped that significant flora and fauna would also be in the area and on the site.

As you can see, there are a number of positive features and a number of positive benefits involved with this project. The total ERE project is estimated to be about $28 million worth, $9.5 million of which was actually funded by federal government funding, while $2 million has been provided by the Adelaide & Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board. The remaining money will mostly be funded through the proposed regional subsidiary, with the councils acting as guarantors. I would also ask the state government to put its hand in its pockets and support this project.

Apart from mentioning the features and benefits, I note that this plan has actually gone to consultation. To the local council's credit—the Payneham, Norwood and St Peters council—several days of consultation have been held. I know of two recent days of consultation, both of which I attended. I applaud the council and the local volunteers who assisted in holding these consultation days.

I note that, on one consultation day, 92 written submissions had been received, whereby 94 per cent of respondents were supportive of a wetland being developed at Felixstow Reserve, so there is a clear positive majority here. The local community understands that this is an underutilised resource. They understand that the sky is the limit for this resource. If you can improve the amenity of a public resource, why not? At the same time, there are obvious advantages in doing so—advantages for the social implications of the area, the cultural implications of the area and, most importantly, the environmental implications. If a local council area is able to better capture the stormwater that it is able to, why not?

I would ask the state government in its future budgets to consider supporting the Felixstow master plan concept. It has been released for public consultation, as I mentioned. It has enormous positive impacts on the community and I would certainly be disappointed if I saw in the next budget that the state government was not supporting this project.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (21:05): I want to continue my comments from where I left off yesterday afternoon in my speech on the Appropriation Bill. I was illustrating the fact that the Treasurer has his projections completely wrong in relation to the forecast surplus that he is making in two years' time of over $400 million. There was comparison made with seance yesterday in the house.

The Hon. S.W. Key: Are you into the black arts?

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I am definitely not and I do not know much about it, as I said yesterday, but I understand there is a glass and a board or something. The Treasurer has his hand on the glass pushing it as hard as he can towards the surplus side of things, but really the forces of reality are pushing it even harder to the deficit side of things. We know that the forces of reality are correct and why do we say that? Because, as I pointed out yesterday, none of the government's budget forecasts has ever been realised.

Through the whole 12 years of them being in government none of the budgets has ever been realised. They have never met their budget figures and I gave as illustration some examples of how they have exceeded their expenditure, massively blown out their expenditure, year on year. Also they massively underestimated those rivers of gold flowing in from the GST in the early years of their government.

Why are we saying that? Because it is the track record of this government that they can never get it right in relation to their budget predictions, and for the Treasurer to forecast it was going to be a surplus of $400 million plus in a couple of years is all wrong. Another reason is that a highly respected academic, Professor Dick Blandy, has publicly raised some significant doubts and given some reasons as to why he does not believe that that surplus figure will result.

Another reason is the estimated growth figures that the government is projecting; they are way outside the realms of reality. For a long time the state has not achieved those growth figures and the government is projecting way above what has been achieved previously to achieve this budget surplus. It is seance economics, it is voodoo economics, as was described yesterday in the house, but really strongly supported by the government's past record and some quite serious sensible analysis from a highly respected academic.

I want to turn my comments to some local issues, particularly in relation to infrastructure in my electorate. For a long time—for about the past 10 or so years—I have stood up in this place and lobbied strongly for a second freeway interchange to be built at Mount Barker.

To the credit of the local federal member (Hon. Jamie Briggs), at the time of the 2010 federal election he had an amount of money committed from the federal government—I think, from memory, it was $20 million then—and he was able to maintain that commitment. At last year’s federal election, it was reduced to $16 million. They are in seriously tough economic times with the state of things in Canberra, so it is understandable that the commitment from the feds was reduced in a minor manner.

We were able to drag the government, kicking and screaming, at the very last minute to commit to that project in the election campaign. It was part of our policy platform, and I was very pleased that my party committed $8 million and made that commitment to see that project realised. The District Council of Mount Barker is contributing $3 million, so it is a $27 million project, and it is a necessary piece of infrastructure.

I am not going to say that I am pleased that the government has made that commitment, because the community is satisfied that the government has committed those funds, but it is necessary infrastructure. The focus was sharpened on the requirement for that specific piece of infrastructure when the government unilaterally made the decision back in December 2010 to rezone all that land (1,310 hectares) in and around Mount Barker, against all the advice.

The council did not want it, the community did not want it, and we on this side of the house certainly did not want it. We opposed that policy, but the then minister for planning and urban development (Hon. Paul Holloway) made a unilateral decision and rubberstamped it. Basically, he rubberstamped the development plan amendment to rezone that land without any consideration of the concerns of the community, the council or this side of the parliament.

We have seen a big mess left as a consequence of that decision, and the District Council of Mount Barker was left with a huge task, without any assistance from the government, in preparing what we call a structure plan; that is, all the requirements of where the local roads and associated infrastructure have to go, as well as the schools and the parks—you name it. The council had to pick up all the tatty loose ends that the government left as a consequence of that very poor decision. We on this side of the house, working through the Legislative Council, were able to have the matter referred to the Ombudsman, and the Ombudsman brought down a report that was less than complimentary and less than satisfactory in relation to how the government dealt with that.

It left an enormous level of uncertainty at the local level. Back then, SA Water could not make a decision on how they were going to deal with all the wastewater generated from the proposed development. They were thinking about a combined plant out at Monarto to deal with the expansion going on at Murray Bridge and Mount Barker. They prevaricated over that and were wringing their hands, so eventually that was off the drawing board.

We then had a private company proposing to build a stand-alone wastewater treatment plant at Callington, and that was extremely problematic. I really think it was a bad idea to pump greywater and blackwater from Mount Barker out to the back of the Hills and onto the Murray Plains in the Bremer Valley to treat wastewater, blackwater and greywater from the township of Mount Barker.

To its absolute credit, the Mount Barker council have come up with their own plan and they are building their own wastewater treatment plant. For the latest information, I hear they are still considering the tenders from their call for that part of the process. So, really, the government made that unilateral decision and then they handballed the rest of the responsibility back to the council and the community.

It was interesting during the course of the election campaign that the then transport minister tried to muddy the waters in relation to the funding that was available for freeway work at Mount Barker. The member for Mayo, the federal Minister for Infrastructure, categorically said there was only $16 million from federal government going towards that project, and we have seen that is the amount of money, with $8 million from the government and $3 million from the council. The project, I understand, is going ahead in the latter part of this year.

Time expired.

Mr WINGARD (Mitchell) (21:16): It is with great pleasure that I rise tonight to give my grievance speech in response to the budget. We have heard many a story here tonight about the mismanaged budgets over time by this government and how this is hurting this state. The deficits backed up after deficits: six of the last seven budgets all promised to be in surplus and returned in deficit. The last two, of course, were record numbers of deficit with almost $1 billion in both years. In fact, the most recent year was $1.2 billion in deficit. That sort of budget is really damaging South Australia, damaging business confidence in South Australia and creating an uncertain future for so many here in this state, and more particularly for our young people.

I would like to draw a few transport issues to the attention of the house, if I may. I know a lot was talked about in the lead-up to the budget—a lot of promises about the Gawler electrification, and this one still has me shaking my head: $152 million is the figure at the moment that is allocated to complete that project. It has been on again, off again, on again, off again, and they are claiming it is on again. I notice in the forward estimates that in the last year there is $60 million set aside. They hope that it is there in that budget, and they are still $92 million short of getting the project done.

I do not know how the people in the north feel about that, but to me they have been shunted around, pushed around and shoved around. Will this project get done or not under this government? It is quite amazing, because they promise it and put it on the table, take it off the table, put it on the table and take it off the table. It is just quite astounding. I say that with reference, too, to my own electorate of Mitchell where a similar thing has happened over the journey.

It was back in 2008 that I think $6.8 million was spent on upgrading the Oaklands train station there, a piece of infrastructure that has been long overdue to have a look at getting a project fix. This government, as I said, spent that $6.8 million on overhauling the train station and then a little bit later they promised $12.6 million to upgrade the congestion that is that intersection of Diagonal Road, Prunus Street and Morphett Road, but in the 2011 budget, again, it was off the table. It was scrapped and the $12.6 million was taken off the table, and instead they went with a $2 million study, which I thought was quite fascinating and quite an expensive study.

From that, we got some more pretty pictures and they are quite commonplace. We got some wonderful, pretty pictures of an overpass, and I quote from the transport minister of the time (in fact, I think it was from one of his staff members) who said that 'the costing of this'—this is after a $2 million study—'is somewhere beyond $100 million'. So, you spend $2 million on a study and the figure that comes back is somewhere beyond $100 million—where beyond $100 million we are not really sure. But that is all we saw from that $2 million study. The people of the electorate were shown those pretty pictures over a very long period of time and they talked about this wonderful study and this wonderful overpass and in fact that has not happened.

Most notably, too, with that and the recent electrification of the Seaford line and the concrete sleepers going down, I heard with interest the Premier saying yesterday that the whole Seaford line has had the concrete sleepers put down, and he referred to the old wooden sleepers as being toothpicks or matchsticks or twigs, or something like that.

Members interjecting:

Mr WINGARD: Splinters, thank you very much. I was at the intersection the other day and they have left some splinters behind, so with the whole project they are doing, the money they have spent, there are still splinters, as he described them, on the bend of the Oaklands crossing. Whether that plan is to tease people and have them think that the overpass is coming, I really do not know. I talk about the people of Gawler with their electrification, teased by this government and not delivered in the budget. It has happened in the electorate of Mitchell as well. Maybe they know that there just is not money in the budget to be doing these projects.

With that, I look at the O-Bahn extension and the people of Mitchell have come to me in the last couple of weeks and they have spoken to me about what is proposed: is it $60 million, $160 million, 500 metres, 700 metres, will it save 10 minutes in travel time, will it save four minutes in travel time? These are rubbery figures we are hearing and seeing again. The people of Mitchell have come to me again saying, 'Our project was on the table, off the table, this project is on the table. What is going on? Why are these people getting preferential treatment?' I can tell you that the state is confused. They should not be because if you look back over the finances of this state for a long time you can see this government has lost control of where the finances are going, how they are being spent.

I note with interest the pretty pictures I speak of, the integrated transport plan that came out before the last election, $30 million over 30 years. It was a wonderful glossy document, great pictures again. The pictures were outstanding, but where is the funding for all this going forward? That is what does not seem to come when these plans are put in place. They go in place, they are promised, funding does not come and then they are just shelved. The Gawler train line again—I am staggered at that, and how the people of Gawler and all along the route are not up in arms about it is beyond me.

I said the people of Oaklands Park are in a similar boat and they really cannot understand how and/or why their project has been on the table, off the table, and on the table again. It is quite fascinating. In the time I have spent at the Oaklands train station and spoken to the commuters and when I catch the train myself, I talk to people. There was a recent survey that talked about 50 per cent of people on the train being dissatisfied with the reliability of this service and that, to me, is another great concern.

When you are spending money on a service like this, and quite a considerable amount of money was spent on the electrification of the Seaford line, commuters then come away after that massive investment and say, 'We are not happy.' In fact, there are three million fewer boardings on public transport since the Premier came into office and that just says to me that people have no confidence in the system, and that is what I hear on the ground when I travel on public transport, when I talk to people at the train stations and the bus stations around the city. That is the gist of what I am getting and it is not good enough. We are spending that amount of money and we are spending millions of dollars on the transport system and people just cannot rely on it. It is very disturbing.

The catch here is the number of people who are using public transport. They have got off public transport—and I hear it time and again—because it is not reliable, and then we hear lines and buses are being shut down because they are not being used. People have got off these services because they are not being used. That is something I think is a great concern. The system is not supporting itself, it is not helping itself, it is not bringing in more customers, and I think that is something that really must be addressed and I am not convinced it was addressed in this budget.

One of the most amazing things that I have picked up on again in speaking to people in the electorate and around Adelaide is about bus and train interchanges. This is one that really had me quite fascinated. I spoke to a constituent who said, 'I used to catch the train and I used to catch the bus to the train and vice-versa.' He said, 'Every time the bus pulled up at the train, the train would be pulling out of the station and, every time the train would pull up, the bus would be leaving the station.' So he said, 'Never could they get these two things in cahoots. It would cost an extra 20 minutes each way on his travel every day.' You would think that if you could line them up and get them working efficiently you would have a much better system and people would want to use that system. He gave up, hopped back in his car and he said it is just working so much better and it is saving him time. That is not what we want out of our public transport system. Again, I stress there is no confidence in this system.

The other issue that truly amazed me when I was speaking to people again was the local high school. Its catchment area is determined by the education department. I was speaking to this high school and they said, 'We can't get our kids on buses that come to our school. The bus does not come anywhere near our school.' In fact, it goes quite a distance away, and it makes it harder for these students to get to school. It adds substantial travel time.

In fact, there are schools that are a similar distance away and they can get buses to those schools, but the school they are zoned to does not have a bus that comes to that school. It just does not make sense again. It is a system that is not working and not as efficient as it should be, and that is what is causing problems. You can spend millions and millions of dollars, but if you cannot get the system to actually work it is incredibly frustrating.

The other thing I have some reservations about as I look at the budget is the Motor Accident Commission. We know that $100 million was taken out last year and $500 million this year, and we think the government might looking for another $500 million to keep propping up the poor budgets they have been producing and to cover some of the overspend and the uncontrollable mismanaged spending over the past seven to 10 years.

I am worried that taking the money out of the Motor Accident Commission is going to impact on road safety and road safety campaigns because the Motor Accident Commission has funded those road safety campaigns for a long time. I am worried about where the money is going to come from in the future. I am sure this government will find another tax, another way to bring in money from people's pockets so they can fund the Motor Accident Commission. I look forward to hearing how that is going to happen in the future so that we keep our roads safe.