Appropriation Bill 2015

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 30 June 2015.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:15): I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill 2015. We have this opportunity subsequent to the government presenting its budget for the forthcoming three financial years, but in particular the forthcoming financial year. I think we are now day one into it. One matter which must be identified first up is that South Australia's economy is in difficulty and probably it will get worse. Our economic indicators are desperate, in particular in respect of youth unemployment.

What is concerning to me is that at a time when the government needs to act responsibly, to be careful about how it spends other people's money, taxpayers' money, and to ensure that it is applied for the best benefit of South Australia, it utterly fails in the jobs area. Many other speakers have spoken about the jobs that we have lost, the jobs that we will lose, many thousands of them over the next few years, and the financial predicament that that will place so many South Australian families in, particularly for those who stay and do not escape by migrating to another area.

The government had that opportunity and they have missed it. They claim in this budget that they will plan for and predict an economic growth of 1 per cent in this forthcoming year. That is even less than they proposed last year which is concerning in itself. The position is that we are at a 7.6 per cent unemployment rate as at May this year which is the highest in the nation. Our unemployment of young people is scandalous.

My view is that the government has given up. In fact, in 2003 when former premier Rann announced that he would have a strategic plan in South Australia, he had a number of population targets to deal with the future prosperity of South Australia. The first was that we would have a population target to increase South Australia's population to 2 million by 2050 with an interim target of 1.6 million by 2014. We have kept the former, that is still continuing. We are a long way off, and I think that it is going to be impossible to achieve but nevertheless that is still there.

We had other targets in respect of overseas migration and the population fertility rate. I would have to say the former is keeping us going and the latter is alarmingly low still. It is still less than two children per couple in South Australia, which means that in South Australia we would have to expect that for most young women they are still likely to have more husbands than children in their lifetime. Furthermore, the target that we had for interstate migration—that is when the net amount coming to our state is less than the amount going—had a target at reducing annual net interstate migration loss to zero by 2010 with a net inflow thereafter to be sustained through to 2014. Guess what? We are in 2015, we still have not reached that target and, in fact, on the material published by the government last year as at March 2014, the net loss from the state was still at 3,384 people. That is how serious that situation is.

As for the regional population target, that was also aspirational, I would have to say—that is, that there would be a maintenance of the regional population of the state's share of population at 18 per cent. That was abandoned in 2011, although it had no hope of reaching that. It was then converted to increasing regional population outside of greater Adelaide by 20,000 to 320,000 or more by 2020. That target under the review last year remains. Let me tell you: if you look at the graph, it is off the graph as to where we would ever possibly achieve that for South Australia's regional population. The Pedericks would have to have at least 15 more children and that is a worry in itself. I have to tell you that it is a serious situation, yet the government—

Mr Pederick interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: That is alarming in itself, as I said. However, that is an aspirational target which even the government cannot possibly expect to achieve. So what do they do about it? What is their proposal this year? The government's proposal this year, to help population in South Australia, is to have a new WorkReady program. If this is one of the iconic pieces of policy and budgeting proposals of this government it tells you how hopelessly irresponsible they are and how out of touch they are. To introduce a policy that says 90 per cent of the placements have to go through the public education sector, and that we will rip those out of the independent RTOs and leave those families facing bankruptcy and organisations facing liquidation, is so stupid.

It is without foresight, and it is so destructive in terms not only of being able to keep those businesses going but also of the necessity to actually keep our performing young people, our educated young people, in South Australia to develop expertise and opportunity in this state rather than moving interstate. This government introduces a policy that slams those small businesses, adds to the jobs unemployment in the state, and puts industries out in the regional parts of South Australia—which are keeping this economy going—in a difficult position because they do not have the workforce to go with it.

Just this week the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies published a very interesting report in respect of the structural changes in South Australia in respect of its economic history. It makes the point of the necessity of having highly educated young people in our employment areas, particularly in agriculture, mining and manufacturing, because it is this high level of experience and specialist knowledge and skills that is required for us to get out of this mess. They also report (and it is interesting) on interstate migration. They say this:

Of those who were resident in South Australia in 2006, 12 per cent of those who have a post graduate degree were resident in a different state/territory in 2011, as were 8 per cent of those who have a bachelor's degree. This is a significantly greater rate of interstate migration than in Victoria, where the equivalent figures were 6 per cent and 4.5 per cent respectively. If South Australia had had the same rate of outward skilled migration as Victoria, in 2011 it would have had 1,800 more residents with a postgraduate degree, and 4,700 more residents with a bachelor's degree.

That is an alarming statistic, and the government needs to wake up and realise what is happening here. This is not just the bleeding of our best and brightest, these are the people we are going to need to actually kickstart the economy, whether it is in manufacturing or in the advancement of our already important agricultural and manufacturing industries, as well, of course, as in the area of mining. Whilst that might come and go it is still a very, very important part of the opportunities for South Australia.

I do not know whether the government has given up completely or whether they are still flying in the dark, in some sort of Peter Pan and Wendy story where they are hoping Tinkerbell is just going to turn dust into millions of dollars and drop it onto them to keep them going. I do not know what sort of fantasyland they are living in, but we are in a difficult position and it is going to get worse in the immediate future. Our best and brightest have abandoned us; they are still going over the border. Clearly we are not about to enter into a breeding program, and this state is going to get worse before it gets better. So wake up, minister Koutsantonis, and get out of your Peter Pan headspace.

In relation to the WorkReady program, I would only ask the government to stop peddling this drivel about having consulted the industry and having an understanding about what is happening. I read the transcript of the Hon. Gail Gago and her answers to questions on this yesterday, and it made me sick. This government is so out of touch. It is important that she understands—because she is answering the questions up there and peddling this drivel—and that her government understands that this is a very damaging policy, and that if they continue in this vein there will be no good, smart, young people left in this state. We will be like Greece. We will be looking to have bank accounts in other countries to survive. That is how sick the situation is.

When I look at this year's budget, instead of just the usual rip-off that we have, they have a new steal, slash and sell policy. I have said in this parliament year after year that the government is just selling off assets blindly. Well, they are still going ahead in this year's budget. But let's start their new policy. Their new policy is to steal from each other.

Firstly, I pick up the Attorney-General's budget this year, which is minuscule—0.02 per cent of the state budget. It is tiny, in respect of what we spend on our courts and on the Attorney-General's portfolios. What do I find? I find in there that the $6 million cost for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission is being booked up in the Attorney-General's Department. Unless we are going to have nuclear powered courts in South Australia, it is completely unacceptable that that money, which is needed for courts, which would have kept open the courts out at—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Holden Hill—

Ms CHAPMAN: At Holden Hill, indeed—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: —and Mount Barker; I'm helping you.

Ms CHAPMAN: —the Deputy Speaker would be very familiar with the Holden Hill court. It would have kept judges in the Youth Court and stopped the slashing of expenditure in very important areas for the administration of justice. It would have meant that we could have had the Victims of Crime funding much earlier. These are all things that have been just slashed across as a result of government budget pressures, and yet that area, that small part of the budget, is having to pick up the $6 million bill for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission. That is outrageous! Where was the Deputy Premier; where was the Attorney-General? Was he asleep during the budget acceptance, during the cabinet meetings? This is a disgrace.

What is more, the Treasurer publishes in his budget that he is going to be asking the federal government to share the cost of this. It is already happening! The terms of reference have been written; Mr Scarce has already been appointed; it is underway. That is like Kevin Foley going to Mr Demetriou five years ago and saying, 'How about kicking into the Adelaide Oval, after I have already announced I am paying for the lot?', and he says, 'Nick off.' I mean, hello, good luck, that the Treasurer is going to get $3 million or $4 million out of the federal government to contribute to this when it is already underway. That's a joke!

Start understanding, Deputy Premier, that with the small budget we have for justice, reform, courts, the administration of protection of people in this state, you have to stay awake in those cabinet meetings and not let $6 million just slip off your budget and accept that, when it is so necessary in other areas. Deputy Speaker, your local electors are going to miss out. They are not going to have a court to go to. The $2 million or $3 million that it cost to run that court—axed! It is not acceptable, and the Attorney-General needs to be condemned for that.

I turn to NRM boards. As I mentioned earlier in this parliament today, they have been stripped of millions of dollars in this year's budget and over the next forward estimates, to prop up the budget of the Department of Environment. They have to pay for the cost of the management fees of the government out of their water planning and management fees and the NRM land levies; millions of dollars a year out of water planning alone. It gets up to $6 million after four years, starting at $2.5 million this year. Then, what is more, they have been sent across to pay for the cost of operating and maintaining the Patawalonga lake system and Glenelg gates. The Department of Environment has run out of money, so what do they do? They just steal it out of the NRM boards.

We had this morning the ridiculous situation where we were being asked to approve levy increases on the recommendation of the committee responsible for that for boards, in a circumstance where they are simply not responsible to undertake that capital work, but the government is expecting them, by ministerial direction. Mr Hunter comes in and says, 'I'm taking out these millions of dollars.' That is just disgraceful.

Another example, of course, which is a bit of a precedent now, is raiding the MAC money. Raid the Motor Accident Commission. When you run out of money, just take their money. Now they are going to take the rest of it and they are going to flog off the right to be able to actually access and provide insurance in this space, as a means, they say, to make provision for a king hit to the budget. They have done it before. They are getting a practice run on it now. Apart from that, of course, they have dumped debt and asset provision through SA Water. So, they just raid the instrumentalities. They just steal it from somewhere else.

Then we come to the slashing of infrastructure. This is the announced claim of the government that they are going to create jobs by spending $1.3 billion and $1.45 billion per year over the forward estimate on capital works in the general government sector—hello! I do not know where the Treasurer has been, but we have been spending $1.9 billion per year in average capital works over the last five years. It is not acceptable for the government to come in and say, 'We are going to slash that expenditure'—most of which is left in the budget is from the commonwealth—'and we are going to use that as our means of stimulating the economy.' He needs to again add up where that is occurring.

Secondly, when they had an opportunity to build a courts precinct, while they are busily paying for a nuclear fuel cycle royal commission they have suddenly got no money to do the 'not value for money' courts precinct which the government has been working on for years, and it has allocated hundreds of thousands of dollars, probably millions, in the total cost of preparing for the courts precinct project to date (we have not got the direct figure on that yet). But what happens? They just cancel that. It is 'not value for money' anymore. That is their answer to dealing with the predicament that we are in.

Finally, there is the stupidity of continuing to perpetuate the idea of selling off assets without even proper process. Gillman is a classic example. Do not put it out to public tender. We will sell it to one group. We will lock up $122 million, but we get it over the next 12 years. Who knows where that is going to go. I expect the first tranche when they finally settle on that, which goes into Renewal SA, will be used to prop up their budget because there is another underperforming constantly in deficit entity which is still not making any money. This was going to be the great panacea of opportunity of money making for the government. It has been given a new job to flog off a whole lot of Housing Trust houses which were transferred earlier this year, but it is still in an economic mess and the money that is coming in from Gillman that they are selling off will be sucked into that black hole.

They are selling off all of the rest of the significant buildings. They have flogged off just about everything else. The State Administration Centre, which includes the home of government, is going to be sold. Now it is to include the Torrens Building, which they promised was not to be included initially. Who knows whether in fact we are about to even lose other historic assets of the state. We know that a 70-year lease has been sold off at the back of this Parliament House in the plaza. We know that the MAC insurance money is to come in. They have Glenside Hospital up for sale and Fort Largs. I am told that Edmund Wright House is ready to go on the market. But who knows? Is whatever they have left going on the market?

The tragedy here is that the government does not seem to wake up with the experience they had with the lotteries and the forests in that they are selling off these assets under pressure—and we can say, 'Well, it's your own silly fault for being in that position'—and what happens? We are selling off public assets for far less than what they are worth, and how many times do we have to hear that?

When the forest rotations were sold we had eminent people come out and say, 'They sold it off for $500 million. It was worth $1 billion.' This is the sort of situation we find ourselves in. What the Leader of the Opposition has said is that, if you are going to do some stimulating investment into the state by stamp duty relief or other things, do not do it in three years' time, do it now. If you are going to sell assets, even if they are under par, do not spend it on recurrent expenditure. Put it into the Asset Recycling Fund, which is on the table by Deputy Prime Minister Truss, which can be used to leverage out more capital funds for South Australia.

That is the smart thing to do, not sell under pressure. But, if you have already signed the contract and the money is coming in, do not throw it up against the wall. Do not use it to prop up an irresponsible budget. Put it in a fund which will give a chance for South Australians to have a job in infrastructure redevelopment. That is the smart thing to do. I am very disappointed in hearing contributions from the government to date and would only hope that they listen more carefully.

Time expired.

Ms COOK (Fisher) (12:35): I rise to speak in support of the Appropriation Bill 2015. My community, the beautiful seat of Fisher, is residential in the main. Some of the most important things to the people of my community are jobs, access to those jobs, and access to health care and equity in education. They want honesty, choice and quality of life. This is an honest budget that ensures my community has choice and quality in all of their priority needs.

This budget is about jobs. It is about investing in our community. This budget is about looking after our community and, in particular, it is about protecting the vulnerable. The innovation and transformation of the tax structure directly targets business and is incredibly positive. The reduction and removal of these burdensome taxes serves to encourage investment in new and ongoing business concerns. It will reduce the burden that transferring ownership of plant and property can generate, which in fact can deter investment in business.

By encouraging the investment in business and continuance of our local concerns, we generate a sense of positivity in our community. We encourage investment and we create jobs. These are jobs for our children, our grandchildren, our family members, our neighbours, and importantly this attracts people to our state. This budget is about nurturing and supporting an economy that sits within a very fragile global economy. This fragile economy could so easily make us as a government afraid to invest and afraid to spend. We could have stopped moving forward many years ago, but no: the built environment is so vital to investment and reputation. This is vital in order to keep job losses to a minimum within this fragile global economy.

This government went to the state election of March last year with a promise to keep building. I have heard over and over again the negativity from those opposite. This government has delivered. As I walk out of football games or I take time to walk along the beautiful river precinct with my family, I take in the sights of some of the many wonderful pieces of infrastructure promised by this government alone and delivered by this government alone. SAHMRI, the new RAH, the Convention Centre, Adelaide Oval, the footbridge and tram extension are all wonderful and to be celebrated both day and night. We have undone the enormous errors of judgment owned by the previous Liberal state government and provided access to the now dual Southern Expressway, the gateway to our fabulous Fleurieu.

I have toured also the fully operational and world-class desalination plant. No, Deputy Speaker, this incredible piece of infrastructure is not in mothballs; it is operational. People forget very quickly what drought is, but they will be quickly reminded, I am sure, if and when we do experience this environmental act of cruelty, and I am positive that we will experience it again, unfortunately. This amazing facility can actually produce half of Adelaide's water supply with approximately 30 people working on site. It is quite incredible.

In the past month, I have also had the great pleasure of being shown around the new Royal Adelaide Hospital. As a clinician, I am so excited about the prospects of health care in this great state and so excited about the prospect of this facility creating benchmarks for health delivery and health outcomes. I understand a positive culture and the positive culture that working in a facility like that will foster. I have worked alongside these incredible people who have been involved in the planning and delivery of not just this amazing project but also Transforming Health, and I trust them. I trust them to deliver and plan health care into the future in our great state.

We must move forward with our health system into this century and build facilities that allow for the delivery of modalities of care which have not even been thought of yet. We need to streamline our services now and use the knowledge that we have to reduce our length of stay in a way that is safe and using best practice. The less time spent in hospital the less risk for falls, infections and other complications. This is why we must manage patients using this economy of scale.

We must do specialised procedures in fewer locations. We must hone our skills and refine our practice. We must move our patients into earlier rehabilitation beds to prevent these complications and then transition them to home in a safe and timely fashion using allied health, medical and nursing staff in a cooperative and multidisciplinary manner. We must do all this while fighting the cruellest of cuts to our health system from a federal government that simply does not care and will not deliver. This state government is investing in all our local health networks and it will not let South Australians down. We do care.

Our children deserve to be invested in. The families of the south of Adelaide are so happy to see that tens of millions of dollars are being invested in schools that provide specialist services by way of their dedicated disability units. In fact, the biggest investment also to the five schools across South Australia that we are supporting the work in are the schools of the very lowest category that serve our most vulnerable children and young people. Again, this investment in infrastructure is part of caring for our community and providing services in a fragile global economy when the Abbott federal government has simply abandoned us.

I am a very proud foster parent. My son's journey has been an incredible challenge. He lived in more than 20 residences over a period of four years. Coming to live in our home at the age of 11, he was at a point in his care where he was facing a lifetime of recidivism or worse, with numeracy and literacy that would place his likelihood of gaining employment at virtually zero. He was frail, both physically and emotionally, and had very limited capacity to moderate his behaviour. This is not his fault and this is not the fault of the government.

We advocated for him with the support of the team of Families SA. We have in place a tailored life plan that ensures that he has every chance of success in life. Foster carers like us—thousands of them across South Australia—take on this very important role in the lives of the most vulnerable, the most damaged and the highest risk children in this state. We provide stability, love and respect. We become a constant in the lives of children where they have never seen this before. We provide an adult to trust. These children have been treated so badly by adults before in their lives that they have no reason to trust. Developing a relationship where the child in your care does not push you away is an art, a skill and a lifetime commitment. This government has made a clear commitment in this budget to recognise and improve this essential loving and nurturing system of foster care.

More than $50 million over the next four years is being invested. We will see more wonderful foster carers recruited, educated and supported. We will see an increase in the great team of Families SA and Other Person Guardianship orders. Foster carers parent these vulnerable children—not the government, not the minister but foster parents. The work and dedication not just by the parent but by the child in these relationships must be recognised and rewarded. This government is committed to ensuring that guardianship can be transferred to carers or family members if this is an appropriate situation in order to assist the development of a secure attachment and trust in a stable and loving home.

Another key initiative—an investment within this particular area of the budget—is the plan to assist adolescents residing in residential care who may wish to transition from this out-of-home residential care back to living with birth families at this later point in their life. These families would be able to provide appropriate care due to additional support offered by this program (the teenagers, I promise members, are already very resilient), and they will get additional supports that will ensure that they have a capacity to make safe choices and use their protective behaviours once they return to their parent or their parents. Having met and worked with and loved many young people like this in care, I know that this is a very important and much-needed initiative. Unlike the federal Abbott government, we are not stripping billions of dollars from our community services. We are investing in our community, and I look forward to seeing the benefits of this positive vision for many years to come.

This Labor government is positive and it is visionary. In a fragile global economy, we have a Premier and a Treasurer who have laid out a budget to nurture, protect and build our community. On a national stage, where we are unable to get the support of the federal Abbott government in respect of our motor industry transformation and the building of our ships or our submarines, this government is going to stay positive and do everything it can to attract investment and build an economy conducive to the creation of jobs. We have not forgotten our pensioners, our vulnerable or our at-risk citizens. We care, and it is my absolute pleasure to say that I commend this bill to the house.

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (12:45): I rise to give my contribution in reply to the state budget brought down on 18 June. I would like to start with what is happening in my portfolio areas, beginning with social housing. Firstly, the headline figure of $36.6 million to continue services provided under the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness (NPAH) is a fifty-fifty split with the federal government. It actually reflects a cost to the South Australian budget of $8.87 million in the 2015-16 year and $8.87 million in the 2016-17 year, totalling $17.7 million, so you could say it is a bit of an overegging of the announcement.

However, I would like to thank all the NGOs and service providers in the sector who, when I first became the shadow minister, made me very aware of how important the NPAH funding was to South Australia. Many went to great lengths to detail what the money was used for, how important it was that it continue and the amazing results that have been achieved not only for the people they helped but in terms of how the sector had really started working together and had made significant efficiency improvements through collaboration. This was music to my ears. Armed with this information, which was backed up with statistical data from the office of the Minster for Social Housing, for which I thank her very much, I was able to present a strong case to the federal minister, Scott Morrison, which I am certain helped secure the further two years of funding from the federal government.

There is also another headline figure in the budget of $65 million for public housing. Grant funding of $65 million will be provided to the South Australian Housing Trust in the 2014-15 year for refurbishment and construction of public housing stock. Given that the 2014-15 year finished yesterday, I hope perhaps some money went in but will still be available over time. This investment includes $20 million of additional funds as well as bringing forward funding totalling $45 million from the next two years.

Noting that this is highlighted under 'Building key infrastructure' and 'Creating jobs through refurbishment and construction of public housing stock', this is possible. However, if you bring forward investment from the future two years, resulting in three times the amount of work in one year with no future commitment, you basically create your own valley of death situation. This sets up a boom and bust scenario with no job security for the workers, who are most likely to be contractors or casuals, as it is only short term. Many will probably come from interstate to fill the short-term demand.

What should happen is a long-term measured approach that builds confidence in the sector and builds jobs—a four or five-year investment would mean apprentices could be taken on and extra staff given permanent jobs that are from South Australia. We already have the highest unemployment rate in the nation. When will the government learn how to actually create jobs and not just spend money?

This budget shows as a highlight the transfer of functions to Renewal SA for community housing. However, in Budget and Finance Committee questioning, it was revealed that the transfer results in losses every year, with the highest being a loss of $1.69 million in the 2018-19 year. Who negotiates a deal to transfer stock and loses $1.69 million? No wonder we continue to be in deficit. Comparing the 2014-15 year targets for social housing with the 2015-16 highlights, of the nine targets, six have not been completed. Three projects are partially completed and three are not even mentioned at all, which is quite worrying.

Regarding the care and protection budget, none of the six targets listed for the 2014-15 year has been achieved. All of these have been relisted as targets in the 2015-16 year, and many have changed or diminished in scope. The big announcement of the $9.4 million for a royal commission into the state's child protection system includes $3.365 million for the 2014-15 year (i.e. it has already been spent), with $5.64 million in the 2015-16 year and $3.57 million in the 2016-17 year. Given the government is waiting on this royal commission to report to make decisions and recommendations regarding things such as a children's commissioner, it is worrying that the budget extends out to 2016-17.

This is also the 10^th inquiry or select committee since Labor came to power, yet the system is in total disarray and we still do not have a long-awaited children's commissioner. The government still plans to employ an extra 360 residential care workers, despite the Guardian for Children and Young People calling on a reduction of children living in residential care. Recent research conducted by the University of Adelaide found 'that being placed in residential state care as opposed to foster care was associated with almost 12 times greater likelihood of offending'.

The number of children in non-home based residential care in South Australia is 12.7 per cent. This is 131 per cent higher than the national average, yet the government is locking in residential care staff in permanent positions, whilst also funding an extra 100 foster carers (which I welcome). Thus, this leaves no flexibility to reduce numbers when more children move into foster care, which is definitely the preferred option. I guess they will later pay huge separation payments, as this government's history would suggest: it is only taxpayers' money, what does it matter?

There has been a huge increase of 22.6 per cent of investigations and an increase in substantiations of 23.2 per cent, which I welcome. Given the Productivity Commission's RoGS show that in the 2012-13 year 19.9 per cent of substantiations were made within 12 months of a decision not to substantiate, this is a very poor result and demonstrates that children are being left in potentially dangerous situations with all the impacts of cumulative harm. This is 25 per cent above the national rate and potentially shows a lack of or ineffective investigations.

Regarding international and higher education budget figures, international education is South Australia's number one service export and was worth $972 million in the 2013-14 year and provided around 8,000 jobs. The Weatherill government reduced funding to this important industry, despite it already falling behind in its targets and despite how important it is to our economy. The government has now increased funding by $5.662 million over the next four years. This is still below the Liberal promise at the 2014 election of $2.2 million per annum, which equates to $8.8 million over the same time period or $3.138 million more than the Labor policy.

The Liberal policy recognises both the importance of the industry and the fact that we continue to fall behind other states in our percentage share of the market and fail to meet our targets. The percentage of South Australia's share of the overseas student market dropped from (in 2011-12) 5.5 per cent and we now have a target of only 5.3 per cent in 2015-16, which is far from the Labor promise of achieving a 9 per cent share by 2013.

Whilst enrolments and commencements continue to rise slightly, we continue to lose our share compared to increases around Australia. Our percentage share cannot be blamed on the Australian dollar, the global financial crisis or the federal government, as all states in Australia have had the same conditions. This shows a lack of commitment by this Labor government to fund this sector properly.

The volunteers budget shows that screening costs have again risen this year, making it a 35 per cent increase over the last 13 months. Nine hundred thousand individuals volunteer each year in South Australia, which is valued at $5 billion per year in the 2013-14 annual report. These are not the people the government should be hitting up for money. This government needs to improve the efficiency of its own screening processes and pass on the savings to consumers, not charge them for its own incompetencies.

Regarding local issues, the Adelaide Festival Centre shows a budget of $197 million in the forward estimates. Whilst I welcome the upgrade of the Festival Centre, I do not agree with public money being used to help fund the development of a highly profitable car park with a private owner, nor do I support the high-rise development on Hyatt Plaza which is part of the Parklands.

I also note that $215.6 million will be spent over the forward estimates on education projects, including a new city high school which is listed as $85 million; however, we already know that this has blown out by $30 million for the purchase of a second-hand building. This all started as Adelaide High School was oversubscribed with a huge waiting list and calls every day by parents wanting to enrol their children. My belief is that people were wanting Adelaide High School not just a high school and this was not only due to the city being easily accessible by public transport but Adelaide High School's great academic excellence, its range of subjects, its languages as well as its rowing and cricket programs. Adelaide High School has a great reputation and history that cannot just be replicated in a new school.

All prior lobbying by schools and calls from the community was about gaining entry to Adelaide High School not just any city high school. A second campus of Adelaide High School is preferred with a campus in close proximity on West Terrace. Why build a health-science specialty school in the East End when the universities are moving health sciences to the west to be near the NRAH and the SAHMRI buildings?

Another concern is the government's announcement that both year 8 and year 9 will start in 2019, thus nearby schools and in particular the current Adelaide High School will lose students after one year meaning scheduling, teacher numbers, timetabling and budgeting will be affected and very difficult to manage for that year. Why not take the opportunity to have year 7 in high school as they do in every other state?

That leads me to the O-Bahn. There is $160 million budgeted for the O-Bahn. Instead of delivering the desperately needed park-and-ride stations along the O-Bahn, Labor has revealed version 4 of the O-Bahn. I acknowledge the changes to reinstate parking and the slight improvement of the impact on Rymill Park; however, it does not go far enough and I question whether it should go ahead at all. Budgeting $160 million to save 2½ minutes in the morning is outrageous. Passenger surveys show that most people would prefer more parking or an extension of the service rather than saving 2½ minutes.

If more people catch the bus, the 2½ minutes saved will most likely be taken up by walking further from their car park in order to gain access to the O-Bahn. What is the cost-benefit analysis? Is this really the most beneficial public transport project in the state, or is this as it appears: just about pork-barrelling marginal seats in the north-east using public money for political gain? What about fulfilling the twice broken promise of electrifying the Gawler line? Given this is version 4, does the government even have a statewide or citywide plan? Do they even really know what they are doing or will they continue street by street to ruin traffic flows through the city?

Let me start with the tram, a great Labor idea. Everyone loves the tram because it is free and we like trams. However, bear in mind this replaced the 99B that ran every five minutes in two directions and went further, had minimal cost and did not require any extra infrastructure. Being a business owner on North Terrace at the time, I can tell you that the loss of amenity to my business and the serious impacts on my business was one of the contributing factors that led me to run for parliament, so you can thank the tram, in part, for me being here today.

Unlike a tram in Melbourne where you can actually drive on the lanes, we lost two lanes along King William Street, we lost two lanes along North Terrace, we lost all right-hand turns north of Victoria Square and we made access very difficult to get across. My business on North Terrace was basically inaccessible from nearly every direction. We lost all of our loading zones and car parking in front of the building because of extra lights that had to go in and the amenity was severely reduced. Adelaide High School students also lost the 99B stop that would have dropped them right near their school. I think there were a lot of losses even though everyone loves new facilities and new trams. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00.