Adjournment Debate

Estimates Committees

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (17:25): I would like to continue my contribution with regard to the estimates process. I will not go into the ways that we can perhaps improve the process because I think I have touched on that, particularly with some advice to the member for Wright. I know that we had quite a robust discussion about her criticism of certain members on this side.

What I did want to touch on was a couple of the questions I have asked of the government over the last two days around the national ALP conference and the concerns that the South Australian Liberal opposition have with the opposing of the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement.

I think we all understand that Bill Shorten's resistance to accepting it was a bit of a deal to try and calm down the CFMEU and the concerns that they had with regard to the labour component with the trade-off in that agreement. The message it is really sending to the wider public, and all they are hearing, is that we have a government that is aligned with the federal opposition in opposing the free trade agreement between China and Australia.

I do not know whether we ever heard any agreement with opposing any of the free trade agreements with Japan, whether we heard any criticism of the India agreement or whether we heard about the South Korea agreement.

One thing that concerns me is that it does send a message far and wide that this state government have hooked their wagon onto the federal opposition in opposing the free trade agreement, and I think that is very dangerous. While we have the Premier giving us all the nice glossy words and the spin regarding their mission to China and the return mission here to Australia, I think that we need to be very careful.

I put the question to the Premier that he needs to come out and state very clearly: does he support the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement? I think we need to put that to bed so we can get on with our relations without having the Premier's spin—I think it would be safe to say—that there is nothing wrong, no criticism, and that yes, they do want the free trade agreement to go ahead. I think we all do, but we do not need the interference that came out of the national conference opposing that agreement.

I want to touch on a few issues that I did not mention in my contribution, and that concerns the investment attraction fund in South Australia, and it has been talked about quite a bit of late, which is the $15 million allocated over two years to attract industry to South Australia. It goes without saying that we need to attract business to South Australia. We need to attract businesses that are not currently operating here in South Australia, although the minister did admit there was an opportunity that current businesses might be incentivised to invest further here and that money could be used to entice those people to invest further.

What the minister did admit is that InvestSA will be disbanded and some staff may take part in that new attraction agency, although he said he would probably be looking for more qualified people, so it really does make me concerned about what InvestSA have been doing and I question the credibility of that organisation. He also said that he had to lobby cabinet to gain further funding beyond the two years, so it really does question exactly why Treasury, the Treasurer and the Premier are questioning probably the biggest ticket in South Australia, and that is the trade economy that is underpinning our financial dismay at the moment.

I ask the minister: is he not capable of putting a plan forward to the Treasurer or the Premier so that we can get priority money to incentivise business to promote trade and our economy? Let's face it, we see that we have invested money into resources companies to come here to South Australia and now we have suddenly seen a decline in commodity prices. It has almost got the commodity sector nervous at investing money anywhere within their jurisdictions.

I think it gives us a very clear picture that agriculture, once again, after 120 years of underpinning the stable of our economy, is being relied on. While we see the government's priorities over the last 13 years have not been to assist the regions of South Australia in any great way, shape or form, the R&D budgets have been cut to the bone. Our representative government bodies—PIRSA, SARDI, Rural Solutions—have all been cut to within an inch of their life. We are now relying on those institutions to prop up our economy. Once again, we are looking for R&D to give us that advantage on a world scale, yet we have this government that has continually been looking a gift horse in the mouth for over 13 years.

As to international education, the government fell short on its strategic target. Its target was 45,000 international students, and we all know that international students here in South Australia are a great economic driver. Those numbers of international students fell short by about 15,000, so obviously there is some more work to be done on that. The number of international commencements was about 14,300 in 2013-14. A target of 17,500 by 2014-15 was not achieved and not even close, with about 16,500. The government is aiming for South Australia's total share of overseas students to reduce from 5.4 per cent in 2013-14 to about 5.2 per cent in the 2014-15 year despite a target of 5.7 per cent. Again, the government has a lot of work to do.

I want to touch on some local issues quickly before there is another contribution in this adjournment debate, and that is the benefits of the budget in Chaffey. There was funding put into the budget for extra ferries. We are still yet to find out where they will be located. I am having good discussions with the Minister for Transport, trying to give a good audit of just exactly what those new steel-hulled ferries mean to the electorate of Chaffey and just exactly how they will help our economy and, in the long term, how they will help the South Australian economy. While we are talking about their being moved between the locations, I think the justification with the meetings, the audit that I have presented to the government, will put the Lyrup ferry in good stead to be one of the leading contenders with that new ferry that will be rolled out later in the year.

Funding for the Loxton Research Centre remained in the budget which is great to see and, again, I talk about the R&D that South Australia so vitally needs. It is about having a resource hub, an R&D hub, all in one location for our horticulture and agriculture businesses and commodities. It is a very small investment, albeit that it was a federal government investment administered by the state, but again the minister has seen wise to support it and I think that is a great move.

There was no major road funding, particularly for the Mallee, with the two train lines having ceased operation, so I invite the minister and his department heads to come up and drive on the highways. I want them to experience just how bad some of those roads are and the cost to our efficiencies and competitive gain that we need and the safety aspect which is a real concern.

Destination Riverland can apply for $20,000 tourism funding, which is a great initiative. Tourism is definitely on the rise. Destination Riverland—and I commend that organisation for doing a great job—is headed up by a very good manager in Tony Sharley who is a very passionate Riverlander with a very good understanding of the tourism industry. They continue to grow and continue to underpin our economy.

The Save the River Murray levy was scrapped and, as I said to the Treasurer, it was just a cost-shifting exercise because it has been identified that NRM levies will probably increase. We will see NRM programs diminish, and I think it is a very sad day when the minister is offsetting costs from across the state now on to mostly water users, and they will be the hardest impacted.

Overall the budget was quite lacklustre, but when you introduce a lacklustre budget it lessens the target for criticism. South Australia's unemployment rate should be the number one priority. Job creation should be the next priority on the government's agenda, and I am hoping we will see some good initiatives come out, because as it stands they are not showing initiative.

Time expired.