Appropriation Bill 2015

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 18 June 2016.)

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (11:03): This is my 14^th budget in this place, and each year I am intrigued by the way the budget papers are presented. The permutations and combinations of presentations just seem to have no end. While I have seen four treasurers (treasurer Foley, the Premier, the Minister for Health and the current Treasurer in this place), I have also seen the state of the state continue to deteriorate.

Can I just remind people what treasurer Foley said back in his first budget in 2002. Remember, we had just been through an amazing piece of work by the Liberal government trying to restore the damage that was done prior to the State Bank debacle, and, thanks to the hard work of that Liberal government under premiers Brown and Olsen, the state was actually starting to track in a very positive way. The GST was increasing dramatically, things were looking good, we had some significant mining prospects on the go at that stage, but sadly as we have seen, those mining prospects have not borne the fruit we all had hoped back then.

Let us just remind ourselves of what 'Budget Paper 1: Budget at a Glance 2002-03' said on page 4, and it is talking about the inherited financial position of South Australia. It has got a graph—and this is more like a comic book; there are lots of pictures and lots of little snippets which should be in balloons, I think. Page 4 says, 'This graph illustrates the unsustainable financial position (black column) that South Australia was faced with before the Government introduced the disciplined fiscal measures contained in the 2002-03 Budget.'

Mr Bell: Is it a comedy?

Dr McFETRIDGE: This is a comedy. This is just a comedy of errors, unfortunately, what we have seen since 2002-03. For people to believe that sort of rhetoric and spin is just a tragedy for South Australia. On page 6 of that same budget document, 'Budget Paper 1: Budget at a Glance 2002-03', it says, and this is treasurer Foley speaking on behalf of the government here in this particular budget paper:

As part of implementing its policy of 'Honesty and Accountability in Government', the Government has set about establishing a new Fiscal Responsibility Framework to ensure that this and future governments manage South Australia's finances with transparency and accountability.

The new Fiscal Responsibility Framework requires existing legislation to be amended. State governments will then be required to prepare and table a Charter of Budget Honesty.

I just wish that budgets were an open, honest and transparent document as we were promised back in 2002-03, because every budget document that I have seen has been more convoluted, more complicated, has different volumes altered—this year we do not have a capital investment statement—and we have a number of presentations that just require more and more investigation trying to delve in and find out who is responsible for what, who is spending what and where the money is going.

Let us not forget that we did have the rivers of gold. There were millions and millions, if not billions, of dollars in extra funding being put into South Australia from the federal government. As well as that, the economy then was on the real up, and so state revenue and particularly some of the state taxes (land tax, stamp duties, those sorts of things) were on the way up as well. There was a lot of money. We had high hope that South Australia could become a state where everybody was bouncing from prospect to prospect, from opportunity to opportunity, but what we have seen is the rivers of gold have dried up to a large extent, and I will talk about that a little more in a moment.

The 100,000 jobs we were promised—where have they gone? The promises of new and better lives really have disappeared and, as I said, the El Dorado of the mining boom has, if not died, certainly subsided in a dramatic way. Remember, we are dealing with our constituents' lives: their families and their everyday lives when they get up in the morning and are having to face paying the mortgage, buying petrol for the car and all those daily routines—the price of food, power and water.

I do not think that even the most diehard Labor supporter would think that the way this state is going is something we can be proud of. Certainly the prospects that were held up by the Labor government in its early days have disappeared. They are not even a mirage in the desert anymore. What we have is a state where debt and deficit have just gone out of control and the government is in a state of denial: we do really have a budget crisis.

Greg Combet, who was brought into this place to try to help the automotive industry, is talking about thousands more job losses and we already have the highest unemployment rate in the nation, including Tasmania. We used to say 'the mainland' but now, including Tasmania, we are the worst of the lot. It is a dire state. I plead with this government to face reality, have some ministerial accountability, take the responsibility that is required and lead this state in the direction that we all deserve and all want for our constituents.

To remind the house, and for those who may be reading these speeches, the economic growth in South Australia is 1.3 per cent which, when compared with the national average of 2.5 per cent, is just over half. We have seen ministers in this place blame it on SARS, bird flu and everything else—they always try to blame the global financial crisis—but, when you compare South Australia with other states, the other states seem to be going ahead but South Australia is, unfortunately, not achieving what we think it should.

We get told off in this place by members of the government for talking down the state. It is not about talking down the state: it is a matter of exposing the realities. If you do not face the realities of the situation before you, you are not going to address it. First, define the problem. With any issue, first define the problem and then work out how you are going to challenge it, but this government does not seem to want to look at the problems. Their crisis management 101 is deny, deny, deny and deflect, deflect, deflect, whether it is bikies, time zones or the uranium industry. They will do anything they can to try to distract, deflect and deny the reality we are facing.

Inflation in South Australia is 1.1 per cent. That has gone down significantly, but that is a national trend and we are lucky that South Australia is not having to face such high inflation rates as we are seeing in other countries overseas. Labor promised 100,000 extra jobs in February 2010 but what have we got since Labor came to power? There have been 6,651 jobs created since 2010.

In relation to unemployment in South Australia, as I have said, the trend is 7.2 per cent and, seasonally adjusted, it is 7.6 per cent. You can play with statistics but, no matter what, this is a terrible position to be in. If you are one of the many thousands who are unemployed and looking for a job, and have been for a long time, your prospects, unfortunately, are not really good. I just hope this government is able to work towards finding more opportunities for us in South Australia.

The other sad fact is that our power and water charges have gone up significantly. The government here talks about the privatisation of ETSA all those years ago. Let us not forget it was the Keating federal Labor government that brought in the national electricity marketing scheme. It was the networking around Australia and the open competition that decided power prices, with some regulation. The competition decided what happened with power prices and, if we had not leased ETSA, the Auditor-General said we would have been in an absolutely dire state. While not being complimentary, he remarked on the fact that the Liberal government's leasing out of ETSA certainly saved South Australia from an even worse financial position than what Labor left it in in 1993.

South Australians have been promised a lot by this government but, unfortunately, what we have seen in the budget is no jobs plan, more debt and increased charges. We are paying much more, and the ESL is a classic example of that, but we are getting less. People are getting less. Financial mismanagement is being exhibited by this government. I am not an economist but I have run a business and made money out of that business and I have done particularly well, I must say, without boasting, and I am very comfortable.

Having said that, my family and I lived in a tin shed for quite a while. I drove a third-hand Morris Mini for quite a while. I have done it tough. I have been looking for 20¢ down the back of the seat so I could go and buy some lunch when I was at uni. I do not ever forget that and I do not want anybody in this place to forget that. I lived at 85 Hogarth Road, Elizabeth South in a Housing Trust house with my parents. I saw how hard they worked. South Australians will deliver and will try hard if they are given the opportunity. I never forget that and I hope nobody in this place ever forgets where they have come from, because there are people out there doing it tough, as we speak, right now.

The failure by this government to deliver what they promised in 2002-03 hangs heavily around their head. After 14 years in this place, I am just amazed at the lack of ministerial accountability. There are ministers who seem to be oblivious to the fact that the buck stops with them. I always remember John Hill, the former minister for health, saying in this place that people expect a decent public health service to be delivered by the Labor government or any government and he said that the buck stopped with him. Every minister in this place should remember that—that the buck stops with them and that they are responsible for the outcomes, not their CEOs, their staffers, their minders or their spin doctors. These people are the ones who were elected.

The need to make sure that we deliver has never been more crucial. But what have we seen? We have seen a failure to deliver on jobs, a failure to deliver real taxation reductions, a failure to reduce the cost of living in South Australia and a failure to plan for any downturns in the state's economy. We have seen failure after failure, and I cannot stand in this place and watch this without speaking very strongly about the opportunities lost and the ministerial accountability we are not seeing.

The bottom line is that in South Australia we have the highest deficit we have ever seen, and I do not see any way in the short term or even in the long term, unfortunately for my children and my grandchildren, that this is going to be managed in a much better and much more responsible way as we were promised in 2002-03. The increased taxation that has been levied on our constituents is becoming more and more of a burden.

If people here think that it is because of the federal government, then I challenge the Premier and the Treasurer to go and ask Bill Shorten—if through some miracle he is elected into federal parliament and becomes Prime Minister—whether he will replace that funny money, the budget allocations that were never really there but this government claims were there for health and education in those out years? Will he do that? No, he will not do that.

He knows the money was never there. This government knows the money was never there. It was Monopoly money. It was fantasy land, and anyone who believes that money was there, and there have been budget cuts, is dreaming. Go and ask Bill Shorten if he will put back that money if he becomes Prime Minister. He will not. I guarantee he will not because he knows that it was completely unsustainable and is completely unsustainable.

That said, though, look at the revenue this government is getting from the federal government: it has never been higher. We are getting hundreds of millions of dollars more than we ever expected and was ever budgeted for, and thank goodness for that because, if it were not for that, South Australia would be in a far more parlous state than it is now.

I am honoured to be not only the member for Morphett but also on the front bench of the Liberal Party in this state and to have the portfolio of emergency services. I look at the budget allocations for those emergency services and my heart goes out to these people, particularly the volunteers, who are doing more and more with less and less. I have said before that every man and woman in our emergency services, whether they are paid or volunteers, are the ones going in to do the job during an emergency as people are running away. They are saving lives, saving properties and saving this state hundreds of millions of dollars. What is their reward? They get a very minor increase in some areas of spending, but the reality is they are being asked to do more and more with less and less.

We see almost token gestures being made by this government about strategic reserves and extra protective equipment for volunteers, but I will have a lot more to say about that in estimates. I have never looked forward to estimates as much as I do this year. I am really looking forward to finding out from the minister, when they have all of their minders there and cannot escape the scrutiny, how this can happen. There will be some ministerial accountability and it will be a torrid time in this place. I just hope that the ministers are ready for it because they cannot escape that accountability.

I want to just talk about the estimates committees in the little bit of time that I have left but, first, I will go back to some of my other portfolios and very quickly mention disabilities. I have tried to work in a bipartisan way there. Of course, the NDIS is coming in. We have a lot of issues with the numbers. The estimated number of participants has been underestimated by this government, so some argy-bargy is going on with the feds. I think that this government needs to take a hard look at what it has been trying to do in terms of a cross shift to the feds. There are massive issues with the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion, not only with the cost of screening but also with the amount of money that is going out now in the Community Benefit fund.

With respect to Aboriginal affairs, again I have tried to work in a very bipartisan way. Aboriginal Affairs has been downgraded in my time in this place, from a ministry to a department, and now it is not even a department: it is just a division under the Department of State Development. We have a lot more to see and do with Aboriginal affairs in South Australia, and I am happy to work with the government on that.

As to veterans' affairs, I am more than happy to work with the minister, and I am very pleased to see that the federal government was also happy to work with us in South Australia on the memorial pathway that is being constructed next to the War Memorial. Also, I was very delighted to have received a letter from Senator the Hon. Michael Ronaldson, in which he states that the federal government has decided not to go ahead with the changes to pension indexation for veterans and that pensions will continue to be indexed with a reference to CPI and the Pensioner and Beneficiary Living Cost Index, which is a good thing to happen.

I will just quickly go back to the estimates committees because this year estimates is even more and more compressed and squeezed. It has been wrung out and spat out by this government to the point where, with respect to the Health estimates on Friday 24 July, we have four hours and 45 minutes for a total expenditure of $5.256 billion, which works out to about $18 million a minute.

What happened to the days when we sat here till 10 o'clock at night, hour after hour going through these budgets and the ministers being quite happy to answer question after question? What we see now are long opening statements and Dorothy Dixers—any devious device that they can think of to try to limit the amount of scrutiny they are being put through in estimates committees.

Well, the time may have been reduced but, ministers, the time is up. You have to answer, and I challenge this government not to have Dorothy Dixers but to give us the full time we need to ask these questions about it. As I said, $18 million a minute for Health and $37,000 a minute for Veterans' Affairs. Veterans' Affairs is a very important portfolio, but I would guarantee that the veterans out the front of this place protesting about the Repat would rather have their time handed back to Health so that we can talk about the real issues in this Transforming Health.

The Department for Communities and Social Inclusion is working out at millions of dollars a minute, and so is emergency services—$3.9 million a minute in emergency services. That is the time we are seeing this government trying to say that it is being honest and accountable, as in 2003. Where is the budget honesty? We are not seeing it. We are seeing a government hiding and compressing the estimates down. We are seeing the budget hiding behind convolutions, permutations and combinations of presentations in the budget papers. We are seeing a state that is not even a shadow of what was promised in 2002-03.

I just hope that this government does accept the fact that there is a budget emergency, and I hope that we see some ministerial accountability on that side and see some real answers in the estimates process and some real prospects for an upward trend to our economy in South Australia.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (11:23): Can I say that it is a pleasure to be back in the chamber to have an opportunity to speak about the budget. As a person who has made many decisions in his life based around numbers, I actually appreciate the fact that there is a significant amount of numbers there that collectively bring forward a picture of how it is envisaged that things will operate in the next 12 months and what the scope is for the future of our state. It is therefore important that we do talk about it and give a lengthy expression of opinion on it.

I do get excited and frustrated by it, though, it is fair to say. There are good stories in it, there are frustrating examples in it, and there are, I think, rather challenging decisions in it, but collectively it comes into a melting pot, and the Minister for Health (having previously been the treasurer) would be one of the unique people who would have sat down and examined all the budget bids, tried to determine priorities, listened to the advocacy put by ministers and staff on the importance of what they propose, did the best to determine priorities, looked at what the needs of the state are and looked at what political realities exist to then come up with a form of words and numbers that actually equate to what the vision will be for the next 12 months.

I put on the record, and I will be positive in the first sense on this, my appreciation of the fact that there are two projects within the Goyder electorate that are mentioned in the Treasurer's speech; that is, roads infrastructure. One is the Copper Coast Highway and an area, as I understand it, of 17 kilometres between Kadina and Paskeville which has been the subject of many representations made to me in the nine years that I have been in this place. So, I am extremely pleased with that and I thank the Minister for Transport (after the budget speech was presented) for that investment.

I also note that the next line (I think it is) refers to a future project on the Yorke Highway, without detailing what is proposed for that, but it does mention that is occurring (presumably) over the next four years in the forward estimates. I have written to the Minister for Transport on both of those projects asking him for information, so that I can make the community at large aware of what is proposed to occur there. So, they are welcomed, as indeed many other projects will be welcomed across the state.

I have also written to the Minister for Water, the Hon. Ian Hunter, about a reflection in the budget papers of $8.5 million occurring on the Port Wakefield to Pine Point water pipeline, just to find out if that is associated with the Rex Minerals mine proposal near Pine Point and close to the Ardrossan area, which as I understand it is $25.5 million that I thought the company was paying for. I am intrigued to see whether that is a government contribution or an SA Water contribution based on future consumable water and the revenue that comes from that or, indeed, if it is being paid for by the company as part of their proposal. So, that will be an interesting one to clarify, too.

It is obvious to me that budgets are about lots of things, but they are about actions and visions. What can we do to improve things? What is the future for us? Where can we spend the money? What results can we get? What priorities exist? How do we meet those and the community's expectations? Any person who aspires to become a member of parliament, in talking to people understands very quickly that their position is quite strong on what they expect. Most people are rather polite, there is no doubt about that, but they have high expectations when it comes to consideration of whom they vote for and they want to see outcomes.

The political process provides that opportunity to one side, as it currently exists. I think opportunities for change will occur in the future (I hope it is in 2018), but the challenge is there for all politicians to ensure that they get outcomes from it. I have had some small exposure for a nine-month period, as the shadow treasurer before the 2010 election, to look at the numbers in detail (extreme detail) and to try to take a collective picture of it. It is a very pressurised time, I have no doubt about that, and the Treasurer, in determining what to do as part of his future vision for South Australia and that of the government, will face a lot of very challenging questions as to what the answer on that should be.

The base premise (for me) comes down to what the economic future will be because via that comes the ability to provide the community with services and infrastructure, but also, what the future will be for job outcomes. I am extremely saddened when I see a budget paper that proposes an employment growth rate of only 1 per cent. For those of us who have seen the fact that in the month of May alone, as I understand it, over 8,000 people lost their job, to see a 1 per cent growth rate, which equates to about 8,400 people, so to see a 12-month period planned for a job increase equal to what the job loss was for one month of a full 12-month period is, I think, a very sad situation.

It reflects the fact that we have a statewide unemployment situation of 7.6 per cent, but you have to look more than beyond the numbers because each number, in this case, actually relates to a person, as part of a family or as an individual, who has obligations and wants to have a more prosperous future (I have no doubt about that) and that is where the total focus has to come to, or the benefits from this that will go into creating job opportunities.

In the Goyder electorate alone, across the wider region, it is about 7.6 per cent (so the state average). In the neighbouring electorate of Frome, for example, the unemployment rate for the Port Pirie township is above 13 per cent. I am sure the member for Frome is saddened by that. I know he is a person who wants to get outcomes for the community, but he must be saddened by that. I intend to put on the record some unemployment rates as they exist—based on some federal figures that are provided on a quarterly basis—across regional South Australia.

The community impact of this is that it makes it very hard. We have unemployment in high rates in pockets in metropolitan and suburban Adelaide, no doubt about that. A high focus is placed on the challenges to the manufacturing industry and the need to transition to the next opportunity that exists in South Australia, and to ensure that every opportunity is taken up and becomes an outcome and a reality, but regional South Australia suffers from it also.

Alinta, in its decision probably only about four weeks ago, is an example of that. That company has made a decision, based on the fact that they have lost about $100 million over the last few years on electricity production, to stop that production. That is a devastating impact on Port Augusta, and absolute devastation upon Leigh Creek. I am so pleased when I hear Mr Sam Johnson, the Mayor of Port Augusta, talk about the fact that Port Augusta has faced challenges in the past. Anybody who has read and reviewed part of what they have dealt with as the rail industry understands the challenges they have suffered in the past, but they will overcome it, and that is the strong message he delivered.

He also said to me, which I find interesting, that the economic modelling they have had done highlights I believe in the range of $137 million per year being based around the production of electricity within that township. So the loss of that revenue, and the number of times it circulates and the value-adding that occurs across all business areas and the community at large, will be significant, but the community will rally and do their absolute best.

There are some figures I want to put on the record that relate to unemployment across parts of regional South Australia. This is based on March 2015 figures, which I think are important, because they deliver some challenging messages: in the APY lands 25.5 per cent, in the Barmera community 7.6 per cent, the Barossa/Angaston area 3.9 per cent, Berri 12.7 per cent, Ceduna 7.1 per cent, Clare 4 per cent, Cooper Pedy 10.9 per cent, the Eyre Peninsula region 3 per cent, the Flinders Ranges 4.8 per cent, the Gilbert Valley area 4.2 per cent, Goolwa and the Port Elliot communities 8.1 per cent, the Goyder council area 7.3 per cent, the Grant council area 4 per cent, the Jamestown community 4.6 per cent, the Kadina community (part of the Goyder electorate) 8.7 per cent, Kangaroo Island 5.3 per cent, the Karoonda/Lameroo area 4.9 per cent, Kimba, Cleve and Franklin Harbour 2.2 per cent, the Kingston/Robe area 3.8 per cent, the LeHunte/Elliston area 2.1 per cent, the Light area 4.5 per cent, the Loxton area 6.1 per cent, the Loxton region 5.1 per cent, and Lyndoch 3.2 per cent

Mallala has 5.6 per cent, Mannum 7.7 per cent, Millicent 8.1 per cent, Moonta 9.2 per cent, Mount Gambier 7.4 per cent, Murray Bridge 10.8 per cent, Murray Bridge region 7.1 per cent, Naracoorte 4.7 per cent, Naracoorte region 1.5 per cent, the Nuriootpa area 4.2 per cent, the Outback 3.3 per cent, Penola 4.7 per cent, Peterborough/Mount Remarkable 7.6 per cent, Port Augusta 8.5 per cent (down from 10.5 per cent previously), Port Lincoln 6.4 per cent, Port Pirie 14.4 per cent (greatly concerning to the minister), Port Pirie region 7.3 per cent, Renmark 12.2 per cent, Renmark region 5.1 per cent, Roxby Downs 0.8 per cent (they have some challenges too), Strathalbyn 5.4 per cent, Strathalbyn region, 4.5 per cent, Tanunda 2.5 per cent, Tatiara 2.4 per cent, the Coorong 6.9 per cent, Victor Harbor 9 per cent, Waikerie 6.4 per cent, Wakefield/Barunga West 6.4 per cent, Wallaroo 13.3 per cent, Wattle Range 4.6 per cent, the West Coast 5.6 per cent, Whyalla 8.3 per cent (the member for Giles, I am sure, is interested in that), Yankalilla 7.2 per cent, the Yorke Peninsula North area 7.3 per cent, and, the Yorke Peninsula South area 7.3 per cent.

I put those figures on the record not to criticise the community, not to have a go at them, but to make public the challenges they face, and by association make public the challenges governments face, current and future of all persuasions, to ensure that the budget they present, the vision they hold, ensures that job outcomes come from it, because it has to be.

A modern society demands basic things such as housing, education, police, health treatments, water, electricity, infrastructure and services—and that is from all governments. In the last 25 years, the perception of people has changed: where they once understood what different government levels did in the past, now they just want governments (no matter what level they are) to provide; they do not necessarily completely appreciate the differences between the three levels. The most basic thing is the employment rate, and that is why I want to put that on the record because without that you cannot get opportunities for growth.

There are challenges when it comes to the level of stability in employment rate that occurs, but working gives people a belief in their ability to be able to provide; it gives them the belief, indeed, that they will have a future; it gives them the opportunity to plan for that future and to expend money. There is no doubt that Treasury, which brings in the revenue and provides it via decisions made by the Treasurer and others to government departments to expend approximately $16 billion, relies upon transactions to occur. Without the transactions you do not get the revenue, without the revenue you cannot provide the services, and if you continue to borrow for it, then it faces challenges in the future when it comes to repayments and what future generations are left with. It is important that we create a climate at the moment that ensures that transactions will be vibrant, undertaken with some confidence, and are not continuously based upon financial liabilities that result in increased debt, but ensure we get the revenue we need.

South Australia's 7.6 per cent unemployment rate—the highest in the nation—is the reason, with great sadness, that we on this side continue to talk about it. We do not want to continually highlight the challenges we face, but it is the big one; it has to be the driver for the decisions that are made. I know that, when the Leader of the Opposition speaks, he will highlight this and what he feels are the outcomes that need to occur very soon to ensure we get through those challenges so that we create a vibrant future.

I was pleased with one figure in the budget which I had not noticed in the past, and that was the reflection of the number of full-time equivalent public servants who work and live in regional communities—that figure is 21 per cent, or 17,720 people. I thought that was a good number, so I was pleased to see that being reflected. It is part of the change that continually occurs in budget papers to make it a bit more challenging to read and digest everything, but that is something that is good. I am a believer in the fact that the concentration of Public Service numbers should not be within the CBD and metropolitan and suburban areas. I reflect the fact that most of those people live in those areas, but regional communities—by virtue of their distance, their concentrations and what they bring to the state—deserve to be respected and supported. I found that 21 per cent figure to be a good one. I would like to see it improve a little bit more, but it was far better than what my perception had been in the past.

I want to point out a couple of things in the remaining minutes I have. The Treasurer's speech highlighted expenditure in the range of $1.3 billion in capital works for the 2015-16 year. In reviewing the expenditure over the last relatively short period of five years, as I understand it, that equates to an average expenditure of $1.95 billion. So, we are down by a third. The Treasurer is trumpeting the $1.3 billion—significant dollars, no doubt—but it is a reduction on what the expenditure has been in the past. The message that goes out sometimes becomes confused by the reality of the facts behind it.

I am frustrated from a regional point of view that from a cursory glance of the budget papers—and I will talk about this when it comes to estimates later on, and also with the member for Frome—there are unexpended funds from the dollars provided to the Minister for Regional Development in the 2014-15 financial year. I hoped that the member for Frome, in becoming minister, would have been absolutely focused on ensuring that the expenditure actually occurred, that the project guidelines were published very early, that the applications were requested from groups in regard to how funds could be used and what growth could occur as a result, and that the outcome by now would have been job growth.

In reading some of those unemployment figures for regional communities, it is obvious that has not occurred. It is even more obvious to me that it has not occurred when you look at what the budget figures highlight as unexpended funds and the fact that forever they are lost as an expenditure opportunity in the 2014-15 year. They are carried forward and, one would hope, unless the same delays continue to occur in 2015-16, they will be available to expend in the next financial year, but why for goodness sake was it not done in the 2014-15 year? It is desperately needed now. It is needed in the future—yes—but it has already been required, so it should have been an absolute priority for it to occur.

One example of that is a commitment given for a regional port. Planning was meant to have occurred on it in the 2014-15 financial year, and has not occurred yet. I was part of a presentation today by Mr Mark Rodda about Free Eyre and the proposal that they have for a PIF fund to be established for investment by farmers on the Eyre Peninsula into a fund to help create infrastructure development, to drive down the handling costs for their wheat, barley and grains.

These port projects, which primarily they talk about, was an obvious policy from the government last financial year that has not been delivered upon. That is the great frustration I have. Within my portfolios I have local government, regional development and planning. One thing that hit me from the budget papers is the $1 million of revenue intended to come in in 2015-16 from a royalty on rubble raised by local government. This has not previously been in place, but it will come into effect from 2015-16 after councils have already set their budgets.

In talking to an association that deals in this area, they tell me that there are some varying estimates on the amount in tonnes of the rubble that is raised each year—between one million and nine million tonnes. Now if you extrapolate it out at 55ȼ per tonne (as I understand the royalty is intended to be) potentially it could be $4½ million. That is a cost that local government has had no warning of. It is a cost that local government—68 councils but predominantly it is going to impact the 49 or so that exist in regional communities—will suddenly have to bear.

There are some varying estimates out there already. The mayor of the Yorke Peninsula council last week told me that the estimate provided to him from staff within that council is $150,000; and Ceduna is $38,000. There are a variety of figures out there, completely unfunded, that will impact upon the ability of local government—much smaller budgets, much smaller level of operations—to actually continue to provide their services. So will that equate to a lesser output when it comes to road services? I hope not, but it is an example where I think there is a lack of respect from the second level of government (state government) to the third level of government (local government) in relaying actions and future costs, and therefore making people pay for them, and I think that is a great frustration.

The budget papers highlight amongst many things, in looking at collective incomes, that taxation revenue in the 2015-16 financial year is going to go up. South Australians, as I understand it, are going to be paying about another $143 million out of their pockets in the coming financial year to support government infrastructure and services. The challenges of cost-of-living pressures are ones that are with all of us. We all get people who talk to us about the challenges they have when it comes to paying the bills. They worry about the budgeting restrictions that they have to put in place. Their quality of life is reducing as result of it. There are pressures, no matter what you do, where you live and what level of debt you have, to keep paying the bills.

South Australians are good people. They want to be accountable for their costs. They want to contribute to our society but they are frustrated, upset, angry and anxious about it, and they want governments to do something about it. So it is important that governments and oppositions project to the people that they are not here for themselves, they are not here to just talk about it, but they are here to get outcomes from it that make for a better quality of life for people.

That is why I sought to be elected to parliament; I know it is why my colleagues sought to be elected to parliament; and I am sure it is why the government sought to be elected to parliament. We cannot afford to fail the people of South Australia. Budgets are the message on how it is delivered. Budgets have to be right and budgets have to benefit the people.

Mr BELL (Mount Gambier) (11:43): I support the words from the member for Goyder. In particular, I would like to start with what I was expecting to see out of the state budget. I thought there would be some correlation between the Governor Hieu Van Le's speech and the vision that was put forward—some money set aside for driverless cars or education reforms, some bold vision for South Australia that would get people excited, and that that would mirror back to the opening of parliament, where we were not that long ago. Unfortunately, I did not see that in this year's budget. Somebody once told me, 'When you're in a hole, the first thing you need to do is stop digging,' and that is the advice I would like to give to the government. We are in a bit of a hole. We have mounting debt and deficits.

For those who want to have a look into the future, you need only look at the South Australian regional labour force data to work out what is going to happen to the city of Adelaide, because it is already happening in regional areas across South Australia. In fact, I think there is a time lag between what has been occurring in regional South Australia and what will inevitably occur in the city of Adelaide. You will see kids leave home and leave the state because there are no jobs, which is exactly what we are seeing in regional areas at the moment. You will see house prices fail to keep up with the national average, and that is what we are seeing in regional South Australia at the moment.

You will see confidence decline. Businesses will stop opening or the rate of openings will decline, and that is exactly what is happening in regional South Australia at the moment. Of course, once that decline starts it becomes increasingly hard to reverse it. That is where you need bold visions and where you need to take a bit of a risk. In actual fact, you need to stop doing what you have been doing, because the last 13 years have not provided such great uplift in the South Australian economy.

I will go through a few statistics. I thought I would grab the regional labour force data and compare it over the last 12 months, just to see how my region, the South-East of South Australia, has been faring. In May 2014, the unemployment rate was about 5.4 per cent. So this time last year the unemployment rate in the South-East of South Australia was about 5.4 per cent. If you fast forward 12 months, it is now 8.1 per cent. The last budget certainly did not do much for the South-East of South Australia in terms of the unemployment rate.

What is quite scary is the youth unemployment rate, which is ages 15 to 24. If you want to be technical about it, it really should be ages 17 to 24, because it is mandated under law that you are meant to be in school up until that age. There are not too many 15 or 16 year olds who are technically unemployed, because they are engaged in education. Twelve months ago, the youth unemployment rate in the South-East of South Australia was 9.3 per cent. On anybody's measure, that is quite unacceptable but, again, fast forward 12 months and it has doubled to 18.8 per cent.

I started out by asking, 'What is going to occur in the city of Adelaide?' There will be an increase in youth unemployment, an increase in overall unemployment, and you will see people starting to leave this state in search of a brighter future. Of course, in terms of the property market, house prices will stagnate, investors will stop investing, builders will start going broke—and I think we are starting to see early signs of that. Builders will start looking at other states where they can deploy their services.

I was in the Sunshine Coast about four weeks ago and the amount of infrastructure build going on in the area of the Sunshine Coast in Queensland is quite staggering. There is a hospital that rivals the new Royal Adelaide Hospital, major roadworks, major sewerage infrastructure and, of course, the subdivision of many acres of land. That is an area of Australia that is growing at quite a rapid rate and they are putting the infrastructure in to catch up with that. If you compare that with what is going on in South Australia—and I will get on to infrastructure spend in a minute—you will see that we have an opposing point of view.

This budget was meant to be a jobs budget; it was meant to be about growing jobs. This government and the Premier in particular is very good at using words and not backing them up with any action. This year's jobs budget is all about jobs, so what lofty projections have we had put in front of us for this year, what are we aiming to achieve? Is it a 2 per cent growth in jobs? No; we're going to aim for 1 per cent. Keep in mind that last year the budget predicted a jobs growth of 1.25 per cent but, in fact, delivered only 0.5 of 1 cent. So it is quite scary, if you think about it, that we are now predicting a lower jobs target; if we achieve only 0.4 or 0.3 of a 1 per cent growth, we are going to see the unemployment rate rise from 7.6 per cent to a much higher number. Again, that is frightening. If you have kids or if you are unemployed, South Australia is the worst performing state and you are less likely to be employed in this state. Therefore, what do you do? You look to move to provide other opportunities for yourself.

Labor claims that jobs will be created because they have budgeted to spend between $1.3 billion and $1.45 billion per year over the forward estimates on capital works—exactly what I was talking about in Queensland and, in particular, the Sunshine Coast. The reality is that budget documents for the last five years show that they have actually budgeted average capital works spending of $1.9 billion for the general government sector. So here we go: this is a jobs budget, but we are actually going to predict lower target rates for the number of jobs and we are going to spend less on infrastructure. It is a quite staggering realisation.

For the 2015-16 year, the government is estimating a $43 million surplus, with surpluses in the forward estimate years forecast to increase to $961 million by 2018-19. You will have to excuse me, Deputy Speaker, but I will believe that when I see it. The reason I say that is because the deficit for the financial year 2014-15 is $279 million, which is actually an increased deficit of about $100 million on the December 2014 Mid-Year Budget Review. Six months, and it is $100 million out of whack already on what was predicted. They make these numbers up; they are the ones who make the prediction, yet they cannot even get the made-up numbers right. A hundred million dollars is not chickenfeed, it is serious money; they cannot get the estimates right. We should not forget that this $279 million deficit is on the back of getting a $459 million injection from the Motor Accident Commission, yet they still cannot balance the budget.

This comes at a time when there is more money flowing into this state from GST revenue than we have ever seen before. In fact, the government's GST revenue over the forward estimates is $892 million more than last year's budget estimates. This $892 million was unbudgeted and was, therefore, a bonus, and that GST revenue will blow out to $1.66 billion more in GST revenue in 2018-19. So the money is coming in. They have set their benchmarks very low; let us hope they can achieve them, because even if they do achieve them it will not drive our economy to the place it needs to go.

In terms of stamp duty, there is a little bit of relief in there and I do need to give some credit for that. One of the bonuses for an industry in my area is stamp duty transfers on fishing licences, which go from one generation to another. That has been an impediment down in my region.

Of course, there is no real relief for households in this budget. Again, a beautiful sleight of hand will save you $40 on the River Murray levy because the government will abolish that, but it will charge you $205 for the ESL increases. So, the government will praise up getting rid of the River Murray levy but, of course, it will whack you across the back of the head with the ESL. As people are now starting to realise—they are coming into my office—the levy also applies to motor vehicle registrations. They are going to go up by about $7 as well.

In 2014-16, the government has overspent its budget by $201 million and the total of unbudgeted spending since it was elected is now $4.1 billion, and think about the things the government has flogged off that were actually generating money for this state. I cannot stand up here and not talk about the forests down in my region. Forests were bringing in a net profit of $40 million a year and employing hundreds of people, but of course that was not good enough—'We'll flog it off, give it to the cheapest price,' and we have lost that income. The government has flogged off the TAB, it is flogging off the MAC and, don't forget, it has shifted a hell of a lot of debt onto SA Water so that it makes the bottom line look a bit better.

There is no doubt that the economy in South Australia has flatlined and we are paying more, yet getting less. The one group that can turn this around is small business, yet there are very few incentives to encourage businesses to employ more people and invest in South Australia. In The Advertiser today Nigel McBride said:

Jobs growth will increasingly come from small entrepreneurial businesses, not just large corporations.

And you sit back and ask: what is the government doing to support small businesses? Of course, there is not a lot. Nigel McBride talks about introducing entrepreneurship into the school curriculum, which I totally agree with. However, if you read further, it talks about schools being the places that are most likely to deter terrorists in the future. If you go into a school, which I often do, and spend time talking to the principal and to the teachers, entrepreneurship is the last thing they are talking about. Why? Schools are so risk averse now; they are so scared of the CEO, a minister, or somebody coming down and hauling them to court because something has happened in their site.

If you want a culture where you overload principals with paperwork, bureaucratic processes and everything else you can think of, instead of actually teaching and guiding the education of students, you could just take the South Australian education system right now and you would have exactly that scenario. In fact, if schools are so important and vital to our entrepreneurial future, why does the state budget show that there are going to be 308 job losses in the education department—308 job losses in terms of full-time equivalents in one of our key areas?

Unfortunately, South Australia is going backwards in the NAPLAN. I think we went backwards in nine out of the 12 categories, which is absolutely appalling. These job cuts come after a national survey showed that not one single South Australian government primary school had been ranked in the top 100 schools in the nation based on NAPLAN results. That is an absolute shame. Indeed, only one South Australian government school made the top 100 secondary schools. So, none of the primary schools and only one secondary school, and that was Glenunga International High School.

This government needs to look at that and ask, 'What are we doing about it?' The first thing you need to do about it is let principals govern their schools. We are talking about school autonomy. Let teachers teach instead of filling out paperwork. Equally, we need to have a serious conversation, I would love to have a bipartisan conversation, about getting year 7s into secondary school or into high schools.

We have Nigel McBride and many others saying that small business is the way we are going to turn this state around, so I went and did a bit of research on how many small business start-ups we have had in South Australia in the preceding 2013-14 year because that is all I could get. Believe it or not, we did not have any. In fact, overall—

Mr Whetstone: Not one?

Mr BELL: Not one. It gets worse than that. We actually lost 14 businesses in terms of an overall statistic. So, some start up and some go broke or close down but, overall, we lost 14 businesses. How does that compare with some other states around Australia? Surely we cannot be the worst in every statistic on any database. We looked at New South Wales. New South Wales gained 8,522 new business start-ups.

Mr Whetstone: Say that again?

Mr BELL: There were 8,522. So, we lost 14, and they are getting over 8,500. Victoria, which is very close to my seat and which is where more and more residents of Mount Gambier are starting to do business, had 7,160 business start-ups.

Mr Pengilly: How many?

Mr BELL: There were 7,160. If businesses and small businesses are the road to recovery in South Australia, we have a long way to go. In fact, some would say the road is closed because somebody is filling out a bit of paperwork to see if you can actually drive on the road. Of course, the other way the government wants to get this state going is with its new investment attraction strategy. It is going to give Martin Hamilton-Smith $15 million to do a fighting fund to—

Ms Redmond: Member for Waite.

Mr BELL: —yes, member for Waite, thank you—to scour the globe for partnership opportunities.

Ms Redmond: Or 'the quisling'.

Mr BELL: Okay. It is quite interesting to look at OZ Minerals. That is a $10 million deal to get them in, so one company took out two-thirds of the entire fund. It is going to be interesting to see how many other small businesses or businesses in general are destined for that type of fund. With that, I was going to talk a little bit about electoral reform and the fact that this government does not have a mandate to deliver this budget, but I will leave that for another time.