Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Budget 2015) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 18 June 2015.)

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Hartley.

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (11:17): Thank you, Deputy Speaker.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Hartley has the call, and anything else is superfluous to necessity.

Mr TARZIA: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I rise today to speak to the Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Budget 2015) Bill and indicate I will not be the lead speaker. The bill contains many measures that form part of the government's budget initiatives for 2015-16 and certainly implements some of the outcomes that the state tax review looked into. I note there are a number of key features of this bill, and I would like to point out some of these to the house if I may.

Firstly, I note that stamp duty has been abolished under the proposal in relation to non-real property transfers, as well as non-quoted marketable securities. I also note, in addition, that by 1 July 2018 it is said that stamp duty will be abolished on non-residential real property transfers—for example, things like fishing licences, taxi licences and gaming machine licences, which are also covered under the bill. It is also said that there will be somewhat of a phased abolition of conveyance duty on non-residential real property transfers between 1 July 2016 and 1 July 2018. I understand that duty rates will also be reduced by a third from 1 July 2016, a further third from 1 July 2017, before that duty is abolished from 1 July 2018. The government estimates that more than 5,500 transfers each year will benefit from the abolition of this duty.

There is also the effective abolishment of stamp duty on genuine corporate restructures, and this is obviously a good thing. In the past, people have told me that they are more than happy to set up in a different jurisdiction. Because of the stamp duty on some of their corporate restructures at the moment, we know that South Australia has to do better in this area, and I welcome that effective abolishment.

I note that from 1 July 2018 stamp duty on the issue, the redemption and the transfer of units in unit trusts under section 71 of the Stamp Duties Act will be abolished. Furthermore, from 18 June 2015, transfers of retention tenements will receive the same concessional stamp duty arrangements that apply to transfers of exploration tenements. But wait, there is more: the Taxation Administration Act 1996 will be amended so it will only require, as I understand, 50 per cent of the tax in dispute to be paid before an appeal can be lodged with the Supreme Court, and at the moment I believe it is 100 per cent. There is also the abolition of the Save the River Murray levy and the Hindmarsh Island Bridge levy.

I will support the bill, but in speaking to the bill I want to point out a couple of things: firstly, where we are at as a state. We are in an environment in South Australia where we are the highest taxed state and we have the highest unemployment rate in all of the land—we have even gone past Tasmania. With the utmost respect to the government, what was called for at the last budget was some leadership and a budget that actually delivered some confidence in the market—the housing market, the business market—and that confidence has not come.

Whilst there are some measures—and I welcome some of these measures—I feel like we have not gone far enough. For example, with the abolition of stamp duty by 1 July 2018 on non-residential real property transfers, why would we not bring that forward to now, because what the market needs and what the people of South Australia need is activity. We all know that when you have activity—when there is buying, when there is selling, when there is trading happening—that leads on to other parts of the economy. For me, it's a no-brainer. It is a no-brainer that these stamp duty measures should be brought forward right now. If you are serious about them, let's bring them on right now, because we are in a dark place economically; let's be under no illusions here.

As well as a phased abolition of conveyance duty on non-residential real property transfers, again, why would we not bring that forward? We need to bring that forward. We then talk about the effective abolition of stamp duty on the issue, redemption and transfer of units. Again, we should be bringing that forward. We should be bringing all of that forward.

I was at a meeting last night with several people in the property sector in my electorate of Hartley, and let me say that a lot of people have looked at this budget—a lot of smart, savvy, commercial operators have looked at this budget and they have said to me, 'Vincent, why would I want to transfer or why would I want to trade when a lot of these measures don't come in for some years?' They have a commercial gain or a commercial benefit, and these are the sorts of people who think on the margins. They think about opportunity costs and things like that. Why would they not wait when the government has actually given them an incentive to hang on a bit longer, to not trade, to not reinvest for a while and to not grow for a while? If we are serious about stimulating the market—and we need to stimulate the market because we do have an economic crisis and a jobs crisis in South Australia—it is incumbent on the government of the day to bring these measures forward.

The state Liberals have reiterated calls on many occasions for the state Labor government to commit to reducing payroll tax and to slash emergency services levy bills by reversing the $90 million ESL hike announcement which came in the 2014 state budget. We have called to bring forward the planned stamp duty relief to take effect this year—not down the track but this year—and also to commence building on a number of projects, for example, the northern connector route, finalising an investigation regarding the Strzelecki track upgrade and creating a state-based productivity commission.

South Australia has got the highest unemployment in the nation, and this is before the job cuts that are coming from the mining sector. We have heard in recent times about BHP Billiton, the Port Augusta power stations, the Leigh Creek coal mine and Holden. To create jobs in our state we need a low-tax environment—an environment where red tape is reduced, where businesses have the confidence to invest and have the confidence to move forward and to provide for that economic growth.

Not only that but we need to reduce taxes to leave more money in the pockets of South Australians so that they can go out and they can spend more money—they can go and spend more money on goods and services and spend more money direct to South Australian businesses. We need to improve business conditions, we need to improve business confidence. You cannot tax your way to prosperity. It has to be a small business-led recovery, and we owe it on behalf of the more than 100,000 businesses of South Australia to give them a bit of a kick, to give them a bit of a head start. You do not do that by providing more tax. You do not do that by taking money away from good, hard-working South Australians: you do that by enabling South Australians and enabling South Australian businesses, like those I spoke to in my electorate last night.

These business people are looking at hanging on to assets at the moment, not trading them, not value-adding them at the moment, because what this government of the day has done is actually stifling activity, and it should be ashamed for doing that. I know that South Australia has got the lowest employment growth forecast in Australia over the next five years; and in August the federal Department of Employment actually released its five-year employment forecast and it revealed some damning figures which said that South Australia had the lowest employment growth forecast in Australia. That report actually predicted that South Australia will add only 53,800 jobs between November 2014 and November 2019, and this obviously compares to interstate.

Have a look at New South Wales (a good Liberal government over there), which will create, it said, 358,000 jobs; Victoria, 308,700 jobs; and Queensland, which will create 243,600 jobs during the same period. So it is quite clear that we are lagging behind. In percentage terms, South Australia's estimated jobs growth of 6.7 per cent over five years is clearly the lowest of all the states and territories, and these figures are certainly of massive concern to people looking ahead, people looking ahead and investing in South Australia and people looking ahead and working in South Australia—good, smart, young people graduating and weighing up their options, 'Do we stay in South Australia? Do we move interstate?'

It is quite clear that there is great difficulty here in these sorts of conditions in obtaining a job now let alone in the future. So what we need are more job creation policies now. We need them now. We need activity now. We do not need them in the future. We need them now.

Obviously, I am an advocate for the mining industry. I want to see the mining industry do well. Our state has one of the largest deposits of minerals in the world and we should be doing more but, unfortunately, we do need to diversify. It is only when the tide goes out that you know who is swimming naked—that is a Warren Buffett quote.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don't they move with the sea water, though?

Members interjecting:

Mr TARZIA: I won't respond to interjections.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! As Speaker, I do not believe I can be interjecting; I am giving a ruling on whether the people are actually exposed.

Mr TARZIA: It would be defying your order, Deputy Speaker. You have reminded me many times to not—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: At least I am listening to you.

Mr TARZIA: That is right, and I listen to you too, Deputy Speaker, all the time. I note that 5,300 mining jobs have been lost since November last year and that there are a number of challenges in this sector. I feel for parts of the state like Port Augusta, where these cuts are hitting fast and hard. It highlights that, whilst we do have a fantastic agricultural base and a mining base that has enabled us to have so much prosperity in the past, we need to diversify and we need to transform. We need policies and confidence and courage from this government to make sure that we provide for growth and activity, because at the moment that is not happening. Whatever has been done for the past 13 years, economic conditions are deteriorating and we need to move fast. We need aggressive actions and aggressive measures. Whatever the government's jobs plan is at the moment, it is not working and it is time for a completely new economic policy to fix this problem.

With that commentary, I hope that I have pointed out some of the issues we are facing here in South Australia at the moment, and, as per convention, I will support the Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Budget 2015) Bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Schubert.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (11:31): Thank you, Deputy Speaker, and welcome back. Welcome back to everybody. I too rise to support in name only and with my vote the budget measures bill and continue on—seemingly like a broken record from members on the side of the house—about what is wrong with this budget and this bill, especially in the context of a crumbling South Australian economy.

Whilst members opposite may find it difficult to sit there and listen, listen they must until the lessons of what we are trying to tell them seep in. After 13 years, unfortunately we have not had much success, but on this side of the house we remain glass-half-full kind of people and, as such, we will continue on our path to economic enlightenment and hope that members opposite heed those calls, because I can guarantee that the only way that we are going to fix this economy is with a small government, a reformist Liberal government reform plan. It is the only way that we are going to help fix South Australia.

What we see in this bill and in this budget is a continuation of the failed Labor experiment, a continuation of Labor's failed policy program for South Australia. Indeed, everything that the Labor government has done has been to try to increase its own importance at the expense of the community, to increase its revenue at the expense of South Australian taxpayers. What it has done is frittered that money away and, as a result, we do not have a productive economy to show for it.

The government has form on this issue over many, many years. Over the last couple of years, we have seen the government increase the emergency services levy twice: once when they got rid of the remissions and second when they put together an overall increase in this year's budget. Twice they have put their failed policy program into the budget by way of an ESL increase because they did not want to prosecute putting a land tax on the family home. However, they found a backdoor land tax on the family home and figured they would just go that way.

In the past they have removed payroll tax concessions for apprentices. They have increased motor vehicle charges. They have found so many different ways to transfer costs to local government. A recent example is natural resources management boards having to deal with an increased cost shifting burden towards them, and ultimately to those who pay levy rates to the NRM, because the government is not able to manage its own budget. There are so many examples and many more in this bill that I will come to, but essentially we could view the government as a big vacuum cleaner, a big vacuum cleaner like the industrial ones you get at the service station, the big thick ones that soak up everything—

Ms Digance: Is it a Dyson?

Mr KNOLL: Well, Dyson is not a South Australian company, so we can't talk about them.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr KNOLL: It is a big vacuum hose that soaks up every cent and goes into every crevice in every household trying to find every last cent so they can scoop all that money up to pay for the fact that it cannot manage its own budget. What have we seen once again from this last year's budget that has led us to this path? A continuation of budget blowouts. This year it was $201 million on the back of $335-odd million, or $331-odd million, last year. The truth is that the South Australian taxpayer continues to have to pay for the fact that this government would much prefer to reach into the hands and pockets of taxpayers as opposed to looking at their own side of the aisle and dealing with the fact that there is a $17 billion budget and that there are probably some savings that can be made there to spend that money more efficiently so that South Australians can be better off.

In this bill we have an increase in probate fees. I think Mark Parnell and the Greens will certainly be very happy about the backdoor death duty, which is exactly what this increase in probate fees is. Probate fees charged upon application for a will of a deceased person will massively increase for estates over $200,000 to less than $500,000. If I can make some comparisons across the country: in South Australia for estates between $200,000 and $500,000 we are seeing $1,500 charged as a probate fee, or an increase of 38 per cent. In New South Wales for $250,000 to $500,000, the fee is only $949. In Victoria, on any estate over $1,000 it is only $297. In Tasmania, for estates over $250,000 or more, it is only $750. In the ACT, between $250,000 and $500,000 it is $994. Other jurisdictions just charge a flat fee: in Queensland of $615, WA of $271, and Northern Territory of $1,210.

What I think has happened is that the government has run out of its own measures to try to find ways to rip its hands into South Australian taxpayers; so it has taken a leaf out of the Greens' policy prescription and created death duties by another name. This is at a time when the median house price in South Australia is $381,000—Adelaide is over $400,000—so, most estates could face this fee, and these fees also apply to Public Trustee clients.

Someone who has lived through this government's regime of tax throughout their life and accumulated assets to enjoy themselves will not be able to escape this government's love of taxes even through death, with the cold revenue-rubbing hands of this government reaching well deep into their pockets. Benjamin Franklin famously said that there is nothing in this world that is certain except death and taxes, and with this government we get a two-for-one deal; we get it at the same time. This is not to mention the fact that once again we have the highest in the nation when it comes to probate fees.

The government has even found a way through stray dogs to increase revenue, with the consideration of an increase from $80 to $315 as the fee for dogs found wandering around. We on this side take exception to this drastically increased fine when the corresponding threat from what they are seeking to fine does not relate. When a gate is left unlocked innocently and a dog wanders onto the street, this attracts a fine almost akin to driving 20 kilometres over the speed limit.

I have seen the speed kills ads and we in this house know that speed kills—indeed, it is one of the things that we talk about quite often—but I do not think a puppy wandering around the playground is in the same sphere, yet this government obviously does. I think the comparison serves only to remind everybody that this government will look at any different way that they can to increase fees and charges to prop up what is otherwise a failing budget.

Speeding fines have been increased. It is amazing that the government thinks that we can have a recovery of the South Australian economy on the back of increased speeding fines. Once again, these fees have increased over inflation and, unfortunately—well, fortunately probably for our sake but not for the government's sake—we probably do not have enough recalcitrant drivers to help pay for the recovery that is needed in South Australia.

There is a definite need for us to turn this state around. There is a definite need for us to go down a different path in a different direction. We have tried the high taxing, high spending method of government. We have seen a continual increase in the size of the Public Service. At the same time, we have seen private sector job losses to the order of 8,700 in the month of May alone. We on this side of the house implore the Labor government to wake up and realise that this failed Labor experiment is over. The results are in, the results are forecast to continue to come in between here and the next election, that will be proof positive that this government does not have the policy prescription and what it takes to help turn our economy around.

This bill deals with increased taxes and charges, but these things do not stop here. If we look at property rates and charges, they have increased by 17.3 per cent for the year ending June 2015. We have seen, over the life of this government, an increase in water prices of 241 per cent between 2002-03 and 2015-16; this on top of the fact that we have the highest electricity prices in the nation. It is very clear that this government has a high taxing, high spending methodology, and it is phrased, from the Premier down, as 'protecting jobs'. It is shown to have failed and, unfortunately, it is shown that it cannot protect enough jobs, that these jobs are being lost. Indeed, that paradox, that oxymoron between wanting to protect jobs whilst at the same time losing jobs puts paid to and shows the fallacy of the argument this government has been running for 13 years.

With those words, I would like to commend the bill to the house. I would like to suggest that members opposite heed the warning calls that we on this side of the house have been putting to the house over an extended period of time and realise that at some point we all have to wake up, smell the coffee and realise that we are heading 180 degrees in the wrong direction. We need a change in South Australia.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (11:42): I am pleased to rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Budget 2015) Bill, which of course puts into legislation some of the measures that were identified in the state budget. As other members of the opposition have done, I will be supporting the bill. It is our habit to do so, on both sides of the parliament, in relation to budget bills. That does not mean that it would not be appropriate to pass comment on some of the measures and some of the ways it could be improved, particularly considering the issues that confront South Australia.

I think all members of parliament in South Australia at the moment would be reticent in their duties if they had not identified unemployment as the most significant and pressing danger for our communities. The very impact of somebody having or not having a job has an extraordinary consequential impact on their family, their confidence, mental health and wellbeing and that of their family. I often think that, as my father used to say to me when I was growing up, and he spent his entire life either working for the country in the Navy or working in business and for his last 40 years employing other people, the best thing you can do for somebody is give them a job. Everything that flows from that is so important for what they can do, their self-worth and their ability to contribute to the community.

When we have the highest unemployment rate in the country, when we see ourselves as the state that is going backwards while the rest of the country, by and large, is going forward, despite the pressures obviously created by the constriction in the mining industry in Australia, it behoves us all to have unemployment at the front of our minds and to be thinking about ways that we as a parliament can tackle unemployment is critical. There are some measures identified in this bill that will go some way towards addressing it, but nowhere near enough, not the sort of measures that are going to inspire confidence in the business community such that every small business in South Australia might consider employing somebody for one day a week. Even if only that was done that would go a long way towards addressing the crisis we are currently facing.

This budget bill, while reducing some taxes over the period of the forward estimates, goes nowhere near dealing with the pressures of the cost of doing business in South Australia right now. It is all very well for the government to aspire to becoming in the middle of the pack as far as Australia's taxation impact on businesses goes, rather than at the bottom of the pack where we have spent so many years. It is all very well to have that as an aspiration, but what we need to do, given that we are in a jobs crisis in South Australia, is give businesses the opportunity to employ people now.

During the election campaign one of the things that frustrated me no end was the concept put forward by the Premier on a regular basis that—and I will paraphrase what he said because I do not have the quote in front of me, but if anyone feels aggrieved by my misrepresenting him they can identify the exact words he used and explain how they are not the way I explain them—effectively, in the opposition's calls for the handbrakes to be taken off the economy, for taxes to be lowered upon business, that would somehow line the pockets of businesses which he characterised as not being interested in employing people.

I want to relate my experience of how a family business deals with the tax pressures put on them, and that is indeed in my own family business that I grew up in, ensconced in, and it was the most important part of all our lives. It occupied most waking moments of my father's day and, when I was not at school, my mother's day as well. We spent an awful lot of time there helping out when we could. It was the topic of discussion at the dinner table, it was all our lives.

The political awakening for me (and I outlined it in my maiden speech, but it is very relevant to this bill) was when I was about 13 years old, in the early 1990s, and we were in the middle of the recession we had to have, according to Paul Keating. The business was starting to recover from some really tough times. The business was called Ultraviolet Technology of Australasia, manufacturing water treatment equipment in Adelaide's eastern suburbs in our factory at Glynde and supplying industrial chemicals to businesses that used such.

We had at the time I think about 12 or 13 staff. The staff at the business fluctuated. In the leanest times we went down to about nine or 10, and in the most prosperous times for the business it would have been approaching 20, but it was always in that area. The payroll of our business was always in the vicinity of the payroll tax threshold, whereby businesses start to pay payroll tax once they go over. In the early 1990s we had unemployment rates in the 11 or 12 per cent range. We took it very seriously that we never wanted to fire staff if the business could sustain them, because it was very hard for people to get jobs.

I remember in particular one family dinner back in 1992 or 1993 and our accountant, who of course was a family friend (as so many family businesses take the opportunity to use professional services where they can get them), was around for dinner, as he was every couple of months, and we were discussing what to do in the coming months in relation to the business. There were opportunities for two contracts in particular to supply wastewater treatment facilities to two very significant orders, but doing so would require taking on three extra staff to fulfil the contract by the time it was necessary. The accountant was making the point that it would push us over the payroll tax threshold.

Consequently, it was deemed that it was in the best interests of the business at that time to actually refuse one of those orders so that we would not be pushed over the payroll tax threshold, which would have a detrimental impact on the business and which at these times, as were all businesses, was on a very fine line. We could not afford the risk of being caught up in that payroll tax system.

So when the government gives payroll tax relief to businesses, but then takes it away again—it announces payroll tax relief for a little bit of time during the election campaign but it will end on 30 June next year—that has a massive impact on jobs, because those businesses that are contemplating taking on extra staff will always take into account the tax environment they are in. Meanwhile, their competitors interstate, who are contemplating extra staff and dealing with areas where there is more confidence and a more favourable tax system, are also going to be in a better position to potentially take on work that we would be hopefully be having here in South Australia.

When the Premier during the election campaign underplayed the role that tax has on employment rates, I think he made a terrible mistake. It was clear from the first year of the Labor government that their economic plan was anything but a plan. So, I am pleased in this year's budget that there is some direction taken towards tax relief because it is critically important that we have more effort put towards keeping our young people here in South Australia, giving them jobs, providing an environment where business will be confident to give them jobs.

When I was in my early 20s, I had a group of friends that I was at university with, I had groups of friends that I was at school with, and they are mostly identifiable now by virtue of the fact that the only time they seem to spend in Adelaide is between Christmas and New Year. If you walk down Rundle Street in that week between Christmas and New Year, I do not think you will ever find it so busy because of the ex-pat South Australian generation X and Y people coming back to visit their family and friends in that week because they are pursuing career opportunities interstate and overseas.

South Australia punches really well above its weight on the national market because there are so many South Australian ex-pats in high-level jobs in Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne, the Gold Coast and Perth. What I would like to see is more of those jobs in South Australia. Given that we have a jobs crisis—our unemployment has hit 8.2 per cent recently and Tasmania is moving well ahead of us in this area—it is critical that some of those stamp duty relief measures be brought forward.

Payroll tax relief needs to be extended and I think that in the months ahead, as the government frames its Mid-Year Budget Review, there is an opportunity for this government to take on board some of the missed opportunities from the budget just past and the bill that we are going to pass probably later today through the house. I hope they do that; it is critically important that they do. Our business community needs it, but even more importantly than that the young people in South Australia who are finishing their studies at the moment and contemplating where they are going to get a job find it critically important.

Many members of parliament at the moment would be looking at employing trainees. I have never seen such a crop of well-credentialled, well-educated trainees put themselves forward for a position, as evidenced by the CVs that I have just read—degrees from every direction. Young people are applying for certificate III government and business traineeships, through the opportunity that we have in our offices. One imagines a few years ago they would have been expecting that their professional qualifications might have landed them a good job in the law or accountancy, but they are now looking for a new direction because those jobs are not available if they wish to stay in South Australia in the numbers to go anywhere near meeting the demand from our young people. So, that is why it is critically important.

It is critically important for our families and our communities. It is about getting the balance right, ensuring that business is actually an important partner with government, but in a way that government creates the environment so that business can then do the heavy lifting. They will do so if they have the environment, if they have the confidence that frankly can only be inspired by a much better tax reform package than they have offered in this budget. We will support the bill but we need more and better next time.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (11:53): I too rise to make some comments on the bill and I want to focus predominantly on the unfortunate situation that South Australia has found itself in after nearly 14 years of Labor government—the highest unemployment in the country, and not just for a single month but month after month. It used to be that South Australia had the highest unemployment in the mainland. It is now official that South Australia has, and for some time now has had, the highest unemployment in the country.

Of course, we know that the ABS figures based on the seasonally adjusted figures do move around month by month, but one thing that gives a strong indication of where the future lies and what the government's record on job creation has been is the trend figures; unfortunately, in South Australia the trend figures have been rising every month for the last 12 months. There has not been any relief from that trajectory that the Weatherill government has taken us on—that is, more unemployment for South Australians and fewer opportunities.

To make things even worse, we have a situation where back in 2010 the then premier promised that the government would create 100,000 new jobs in South Australia within six years. That six-year period expires in February next year, and unfortunately we have seen the situation in South Australia deteriorate when it comes to job opportunities. We have seen unemployment increase and we have only seen a small growth of about 4,000 part-time jobs.

An important factor in the launch of that election policy of 100,000 new jobs was the training program that was being designed to assist the government to deliver those 100,000 new jobs. It was the Skills for All training program. I will read the forward from the then minister of employment, training and further education (the member for Playford), who went on to say:

The Vocation Education and Training (VET) system has a key role to play in maximising our social and economic opportunities.

Carrying out Skills for All will enable diversification in the VET system to support the varied and changing requirements of students and employers. It will also allow more flexibility for South Australians to choose the training and the provider that best suits them.

Less than three years after the launch of Skills for All in July 2012, employers, training providers and trainees were given about one week's notice that they were no longer welcome in a supported training sector in South Australia and that from 1 July all new supported training would predominantly go to the government's own business, TAFE SA, in the interests of helping TAFE to become competitive. Yet, just three years earlier, we were told by the then minister that the Skills for All program was all about choice and competitiveness and improving outcomes.

The disappointing thing about the government's decision, of course, is that we now hear from the Premier and the Minister for Employment that it was never, ever a permanent program, and yet neither one of them has been able to provide any document or any evidence that the private sector was only able to participate in supported training in South Australia for a three-year period. Certainly, nobody I spoke to in the non-government training sector was aware that the rug would be pulled within three years of the opening of the marketplace, in the words of the member for Playford, 'to allow more flexibility for South Australians to choose the training and the provider that best suits them'.

Less than three years later, the government has said that the only training provider that suits employers and employees is TAFE SA—just three years later. There is no explanation, other than the fact that we see millions of dollars wiped from the training budget by this government over two successive budgets. The facts are that training was a major plank in creating 100,000 extra jobs in South Australia, and the government failed to do that. It failed to use the new flexible training model that it introduced in 2012 to have training targeted towards job outcomes.

The industry told the various ministers—and I think we have had five ministers in the training portfolio in the last five years—that it must be managed in such a way that the training leads to job outcomes. That is not the advice that was taken by the government. Instead, we saw a free-for-all. We saw the training funding poorly managed and we saw a lot of wasted resources in training that did not lead to job outcomes.

When the NCVER figures came out last Friday, it was very disappointing to see South Australia's performance against the rest of the nation over the last five years when it comes to training. Some interesting facts came out of that report, and I seek leave to insert these statistical tables into Hansard.

Leave granted.

Table 1

In-training by state/territory and selected training characteristics, as at 31 March 2015 ('000)

For notes on figures and tables, see the explanatory notes on page 22.

Table 2

In-training by state/territory as at the end of each quarter, 2010–15 ('000)

For notes on figures and tables, see the explanatory notes on page 22.

Table 3

Commencements by state/territory and selected training characteristics, March quarter 2015 ('000)

For notes on figures and tables, see the explanatory notes on page 22.

Table 4

Commencements in each quarter by state/territory, 2010–15 ('000)

For notes on figures and tables, see the explanatory notes on page 22.

Mr PISONI: In summarising those tables, we can see that there are 13,000 fewer South Australians in training than when the member for Cheltenham became Premier—a 37 per cent fall in the number in training.

The tables also tell us that there are 7,600 fewer South Australians in training than there were at the election. If you recall, from the Labor government's point of view, the election campaign was all about the transitioning economy and how Labor had the answers for jobs and the future for South Australia. Yet, there are 7,600 fewer South Australians training for that future in South Australia than there were at the time of the election. There are half the number of South Australians commencing training now than when Labor actually made the promise to create 100,000 jobs.

That is important because we were told by both the Premier and the minister at the time that training was key to the government achieving those 100,000 new jobs in South Australia. We know that the outcome of that government's promise was fewer job opportunities here in South Australia. South Australia has also experienced the biggest drop in newspaper job advertisements of all the states consistently, month by month, year by year, over the last several years.

If you lose your job or if you are entering the workforce, there are actually fewer opportunities for you to participate in a job market because there are fewer employers who are actually out there advertising for staff. Of course, that makes it very difficult for school leavers. It makes it difficult for those who want to enter the workforce after perhaps being the primary carer at home and it makes it very difficult, of course, for those who are being transitioned out of the economy, those who are losing their jobs because the economy is changing here in South Australia.

I feel that I should remind the house that, in relation to the way the Premier talks about transitioning the economy, anyone would think it is a new thing that this government has decided to do, but you will find references to this Labor government transitioning the economy 10 years ago. Ten years ago, they knew that the economy was in transition, but the job figures you see today are confirmation that they have done absolutely nothing about it.

They have been watching it. We do not know whether they have been monitoring it, but they have certainly been ignoring it because, over the last five years in particular, we have seen the jobs market in South Australia completely dry up for new players and those who want to change jobs. It is particularly difficult for those who are entering the workforce for the first time because we know that when it is a tight, competitive place to be in the workforce, when there are many more applicants than there are jobs, experience is what employers look for.

Mr Griffiths: You applied for 100 jobs.

Mr PISONI: The member for Goyder reminds me that it took me about 100 job applications before I got my initial apprenticeship, but getting that first job is such an important thing for South Australians to get started. I think there is no doubt that there is a much stronger entrepreneurial flair amongst our younger people than when I was at that age. I am very pleased to see that because we know that, in order for a state like South Australia to grow, we need to harness the uniqueness that these young entrepreneurs can bring to the South Australian economy.

We are not going to compete with the big economies, the big manufacturing economies such as China and even the United States, because we do not have the volume. We have a dollar that fluctuates very regularly. Although I think today it is sitting just below 70¢, which makes Australian products much more attractive, we do not know where that will be in 12 months' time or two years' time. Eighteen months ago, it was buying a full US dollar, so we can see there are some huge challenges there and, in order for us to compete in the world, we need to be able to offer here in South Australia those niche products that we do well, and we do niche products extremely well.

But whenever we hear an announcement by this government, it is always about trying to entice another branch office here to South Australia rather than doing the work with those young entrepreneurs and encouraging them to start their own businesses. There is an advantage to a business starting here in South Australia. It is their home, so consequently they are much more generous with the community in which they live and work.

A branch office will do what it has to do in order to be a corporate citizen, but businesses that start in South Australia are not just corporate citizens of South Australia, they are actually very strong members of the community and very strong participants in the community, so consequently their entire investment—their monetary investment, their physical investment and their social investment—is here in South Australia. We get enormous value, enormous innovation and enormous outcomes from those 146,000-odd small businesses that we have here in South Australia.

We need to ensure that we can attempt to tackle the lack of business confidence that there is here in South Australia under this government, the lack of consumer confidence and the very poor retail sales. If you look at the retail sales in South Australia compared to those in the rest of the country over the last five years, the retail sales growth has been minute compared to other states.

It is not just a small difference: it is a significant difference in the growth in retail sales which, again, tells us that people are not comfortable spending their discretionary money. A lot of people do not have the discretionary money they may have had two or three years ago because they are working fewer hours because the job opportunities are not there, and they prefer to stay in a job they have rather than risk moving to a job and not knowing the long-term security of that job even though it may temporarily offer more hours than what they are getting at the moment.

Of course, many employers are doing everything they can to keep their skilled staff on because they know how important it is to look after your staff and to ensure you have got the skills there when business does pick up. They know that their staff are their greatest assets, their customers know that, and they know the product. They know the product, they know the business, and they are advocates for the business.

I know when I had my business it was always very difficult when we had downturns in the economy. With 17 per cent house mortgage rates, not a lot of people were buying furniture at that time, I can tell you. People were struggling to pay their mortgages and that makes it very difficult as an employer. The last thing you want to do is shed staff but, unfortunately, we have seen many employers shedding staff over the last couple of years in particular and those jobs have not been replaced.

Consequently, we have seen the unemployment rate increase here in South Australia to the highest level in the country. We are not just talking about a point or two, we are talking about two full percentage points, 20 points higher than the national unemployment rate. The unemployment level now in South Australia is such that we have not had that number of unemployed people, around 70,000, in South Australia for nearly 20 years, so that gives you some idea of the crisis we have.

We would like to see the government bring forward those stamp duty relief plans that it is dripping out over the next few years. Earlier the member for Hartley made the point that people will delay their decisions until they know that they are going to get the tax relief. The government needs to bring those forward. If the Treasurer is right in his claim that these tax measures will create jobs, then why is he delaying them? Why is he telling South Australians that they are not worthy of the jobs that he believes these tax measures will deliver? Why do they have to wait three years before those tax measures will be delivered?

Of course, the government is using a sleight of hand when it says that it has reduced payroll tax. I will tell you now that announcing a rebate on payroll tax on a rolling one-year announcement does nothing for business planning and it does nothing for business confidence. If people want their businesses to grow they want a permanent reduction in payroll tax or they want a permanent increase in the tax-free threshold so that they can plan not just for tomorrow or next month or next year but for the next two or three or five years. That is how business operates. People are investing their own money, serious money, in their businesses and they deserve to know what the government's intention is when it comes to payroll tax relief. We are saying that the government should lift the threshold and give small businesses payroll tax relief.

The government is sucking money out of the economy with its increases in the emergency services levy, pulling $90 million out of the economy that could be spent on businesses that employ South Australians. This government seems to think that it can tax its way to prosperity. We saw on the front page of the paper today that a new tax is proposed for new homes in South Australia, as if that is going to help the economy—by introducing a new tax. It seems that this government is fixed on raising taxes. It goes to an election on an anti-GST campaign and immediately after the election it talks about wanting to raise the GST.

I have heard some commentators say that that is a bold move, talking about raising the GST. I will tell you now that it is bold when you talk about it before the election but it is cowardly when you talk about it after the election. There is a big difference between talking about raising taxes before an election and after an election. However, we know the way this Premier operates and, unfortunately, it is costing jobs in South Australia and it is costing opportunity in South Australia, and it is costing the future of our children here in South Australia.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (12:12): Before I commence my remarks I might, on one of my very rare occasions, note something about the member for Unley, and congratulate him on losing 15 kilograms in weight, I think, over the last few months. He cuts a very dapper figure.

The Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Budget 2015) Bill is interesting in that when the Treasurer comes into the chamber on budget day there is the theatre attached to it all. There are the lock-ups that are held in the morning with the opportunity for media people to be briefed by the Treasurer on what the vision of the Premier, Treasurer and government is over the following year and across the forward estimates. Then the Treasurer comes in and prepares himself and we spend 30 minutes sitting here in silence listening to what that vision is in words.

It is not until we actually get this bill, which is introduced on the same day, that we learn about how it is done. There is the theatre attached to it and then there is the legislation which we are debating today about how to achieve it. There are a couple of things from a portfolio perspective that I want to talk about as shadow minister and there are some things across the community that I want to talk about as it impacts on those who I have the great honour to represent—and it is about the wider picture, too.

When you present a $16 billion budget it has to be one that provides an opportunity for people to succeed. I come from a very simple principle in life, that a job is the key to everything. It creates the ethos of actually being at work. It creates the spirit behind the need to get up in the morning or whatever time your working shift might commence. It creates the spirit to be able to provide for those you care for. It creates the spirit for the economy to be strong to support the infrastructure and services needs. It creates the spirit for the economy to have the capacity to provide for those in our community who face challenges and need support from any level of government, but particularly from where the state has responsibility to ensure that it can do that.

In my review of the budget papers over the last nine years, since I have had the opportunity to be in this place, sometimes I nod my head in agreement, sometimes I shake it meaning not quite sure or a no, and sometimes I just throw my hands up in wonderment and think, 'How the hell is that going to work?'

I have looked through this bill. There are certainly issues from a time position. Other members of the opposition have put forward that they should be implemented far sooner than anticipated. I support those comments entirely because it is absolutely key now in the challenges that our economy faces. Even though we are only a small part of the world (1.6 million people out of an approximate worldwide population of eight billion or so), it is the need for our state to be forward thinking, the need for our state to ensure that it does its absolute best that it can for all sections of the community, and the need for our state to support business growth because from that, I believe, comes opportunity, success and capacity to do what we need to do.

It all stems back to job opportunities and that is why, in its most simplistic of terms, I get extremely upset, frustrated, disappointed and worried about the impact on those affected when you hear and see the physical demonstration of those who are unemployed. As a regional member of parliament, representing a community which across the data collection area is about 8.5 per cent unemployment, that saddens me because it means in round figures that one in every 12 people I see does not have a job and that is where a level of support is required to ensure that we give people that opportunity. Some choose not to take opportunities when they are there, but most others—and it is absolutely most others—are desperate for it and will do whatever they can to create that chance for themselves.

The budget is about visions for what the future is going to be, it is about determining priorities, it is about considering what the many and varied needs are of a community, it is about commitments that you are going to make not just for a one or two-year cycle but into the future, it is strongly about economic policy and about what is actually going to support business growth and support the growth in the community in a spiritual, physical and financial sense, but it also supports some level of population growth, and we have been low on that for a long time. I think from memory it is about the 0.9 of a per cent figure across our state. I am a very envious person when it comes to growth figures in other parts of Australia where they are experiencing far more people either moving there or being born there and all contributing to the wealth and fabric of the society in the future.

But from the population comes a simple thing called transactions. That is where somebody decides to buy something or decides on a good or a service that they need. They pay an account for it and that money in turn revolves through a community which results in transactions that go eventually to become a revenue stream for Treasury which, based on a lot of discussion, dishes it out as they determine the priorities and the needs to be and then the community benefits at large.

That is where this piece of legislation is actually very important because it sets the parameters for where the changes are to occur to implement in a physical way the actions expressed in words by the Treasurer when the budget is presented. It creates the capacity for departmental officers to know what they have to do, for taxation changes to be implemented, and for words to be given to people that give them confidence that if they do a certain thing there will hopefully be a reduction in costs. That is where there are some examples of it.

I just want to talk about a couple of things. I am rather interested in how the government intends to deal with pensioner concessions from a local government and property ownership perspective because, in the budget presented by the Treasurer in June 2014, there was information flagged that the concession would only be in place for another 12 months. There was a lot of conjecture in the months following that period about what the impact was going to be on property owners, what level of bill shock was going to exist when the council sent their first bill out post 1 July 2015, and the capacity for $190 (as the concession was then) to be taken away from those who received the full amount.

I expressly contacted the older residents in our communities—as did other members—informing them of what the proposed changes were, and asking them to express themselves in petition form. From memory, I think it was a bit over 13,000 signatures that were presented in a petition about that, and I am pleased that from that—and from the efforts of a lot of people in a lot of different ways—there has been change. However, there is a bit of devil in the detail about how the changes will be implemented.

Indeed, only last week there was some publicity about the fact that there are some time delays on the replacement for the pension concession on council rates, now called the Cost of Living Concession. I am rather intrigued that for over 30 years there had been a system in place where the concessional council rates had been applied through a credit that appeared on the council rates notice—therefore there was no publicity attached to the fact that in the last year, as it was, the government put $37 million into it—but the change that has been brought about, announced by the Treasurer and the Premier, is via a cheque to be drawn. One could argue—I think with a lot of validity attached to it—that that is just a promotional opportunity.

People will get the benefit, and I do respect that it has been increased from $190 to $200, probably about six weeks after they get their council rates. So there has been that change, how the council rate bill comes out and what the bottom-line figure on that will be. They will eventually get their cheque, signed by the Premier, and no doubt with a nice little covering letter that talks about what they have done for the community. We have since heard though—

Mr Pederick interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes. We have now heard, though, that thousands and thousands of letters have gone out to people—who had once been told that they did not need to reapply for it, that they did not need to fill in any paperwork, that it was an automatic transfer from the concession previously given to this new system—asking them to sign in three places for some things, that they have to put all this evidence before it, they have to seemingly justify it. It is all about checking that is going on that is being handled by a different department.

Apparently there was a system established a few years ago—it cost $7 million—that has now been disregarded, and they are doing it a different way. There is no transfer of what was previously in place and automatic ability to impact upon a computer program for it. It is just frustration for people. I am flabbergasted by this. It demonstrates to me that the thought bubble exists on how to do it, the thought bubble exists on how to best promote the government and its expenditure, but the thought bubble does not exist, in a practical way, about how to actually make it happen. That is disappointing. I am pleased that people are getting their payment: I am frustrated that it is six weeks after they may otherwise have got it.

I recognise that the allocation of funds extends to those people who are renters who have not previously received any concession; in this case I think a little bit over approximately 40,000 properties will receive $100 per year. There is a quantum of dollars available to support people, as there should be, because the cost of living pressures are driven by the cost of these instrumentalities and the services that are provided—which, in many cases, are actually controlled by government. So government is actually assisting people by giving a concession on a cost impost that it controls.

It has been interesting one. Those people who are renters who get their $100, for them it will not be until early next year. That takes something to work out, and I can understand that; it is necessary for them to apply because there is not necessarily an easy transfer opportunity for that. However it just shows, 'Please don't just think of the idea, but consider the implications of how it is implemented as well', because that needs to occur.

I also want to talk about the extractive minerals royalty from local government. I believe it is one that impacts completely upon regional LGAs—and of the 68 councils, 19 are in the metropolitan area, so it is 49 councils across regional South Australia that are particularly potentially impacted by this. The Local Government Association has undertaken some consultation with its member councils and has looked at the cost implications of this. In the collective sense we know that the budget papers talk about a $1 million impost. I am frustrated by that.

Indeed, I would hold a position that, where these extractive minerals are used, they are used for road-making construction purposes, they are undertaken in areas where quarries, on a commercial basis, do not exist, and they are undertaken in such a way where there is negotiation with the landholders who have those sites or indeed the council-controlled reserves from which they are extracted. They are all done on improving infrastructure and they are done on the basis of a reasonable cost, and that cost being kept as low as possible. But now we find that, by the implementation of this piece of legislation and this budget paper, there is an additional $1 million cost.

The fact that there was no consultation with local government beforehand is, apparently, excused by the government's saying that it is part of a budget decision, you cannot talk to people about everything and you have to keep some things to actually occur on the day and this is one of those. I know that the Local Government Association has met with the Treasurer about this and the Treasurer listened to the argument put and the issues raised. I am not aware of any form of resolution in the opposite to what has occurred so it appears as though the budget papers will reflect the change; and the Treasurer has not introduced any amendments to it so it will continue. It is a $1 million cost upon regional South Australia and any cost upon the regions disappoints and frustrates me immensely.

I do support amendments about taxation and how that is treated, because it has to be based around supporting investment opportunities, business growth and job outcomes that will come from it. It is an important one. There are a couple of issues that I want to raise which, again, frustrate me. Other members have talked about the emergency services levy and the changes via the removal of the remission. This was first done last financial year. The impact of that was an immediate additional cost of some $90 million to property owners. I come from a regional community where some people who, by virtue of owning farming operations, are involved in a significant amount of land, in many cases with a reasonably high value attached to it. I have seen this on a firsthand basis. One of my constituents showed me their emergency services levy bill where there had been an 1,173 per cent increase.

The farmers I spoke to, many of those being excellent people, have their own farm units and contribute to the safety of the community by responding to a fire incident when it is on a broadacre situation. They are damn fine people who do excellent work. They could accept a change but the percentage increases are horrendous. The dollar impact is not quite that amount because it starts at a lower base than what a home might be in some cases, but they said to me, 'Steven, we can support up to a 100 per cent increase. We can live with that. We understand the need to contribute to the services that are provided in our region. We support the CFS and we want them to have the resources that they need,' and they know the state is in financially challenging times.

Suddenly, when they get these bills for 11 times that, on some occasions, they start to think about what they really want to do and they express themselves. I have very vivid memories of about 45 farmers in my electorate in a meeting that was covered by one of the television news stations and they just said they are not going to help anymore. That worries the life out of me because the strength of a regional community is based on the willingness of people to come together when times need it and to work for the common good. I heard that, and I hear from other volunteer members on Eyre Peninsula who have decided to not support firefighting efforts on government-controlled land, and it shows the separation of the community, which worries the life out of me because, unless you have that strength, you also have the risk of failure and tragedy occurring. That disappoints me immensely.

It was not just last year when there was a $90 million impost. I believe the figure is a 9 per cent increase in the emergency services levy cost to property owners this year, from the 2015-16 year. That creates a level of tension and it is an undertone that is there all the time. It makes people think about what they really want to do, it takes away their willingness to instantly respond to things, and it creates a level of uncertainty. It worries the life out of me.

In the last few minutes I want to talk about a couple of things that have impacted on the Goyder electorate. One is the drugs epidemic, and there are members in this place who have been involved in community forums. There are what I classify as general drugs and alcohol that are talked about but, indeed, it is the ice epidemic that will ruin society. I attended a meeting of about 300 people in Maitland. It was an education forum convened by three people who work in the hospital at Maitland and it was done completely voluntarily. It was not part of their work to do it. It was just because they wanted information to be available for the community.

A very broad cross-section of people—not just in age but in locality—were there that evening and we heard a variety of speakers. It scared the life out of me when a person from Drug and Alcohol Services SA said that in Australia in the next 12 months 2 per cent of the population will try ice and that in South Australia 2.2 per cent of the population will try ice.

Being a bit of a numbers-based person, because the 300 people who were there represented two different council areas with a total population of 25,000 people, that means 550 people who live in two of the five council areas I represent will try ice this year. I had to ask, 'Is that true? Is it in that number?' because when people hear that it is 2 per cent they think, 'Oh, 2 per cent isn't much,' and do not worry about it but, when you consider that in a physical sense it is potentially 550 people, it does worry you.

That is the scourge of our society and no matter what we do we have to try to make predominantly our young people reflect upon the fact that, potentially, what they are about to put in their body is going to change them forever—physically psychologically, emotionally and in every relationship they have ever had—and that it is going to kill them or ruin them or something in between.

At that public meeting, a man I knew stood up and reflected upon the fact that he has a family member who has dealt with the scourge of drug addiction and ice. He quoted to us the challenges when it comes to facilities being available to assist in rehabilitation to help them get through the dilemma and the torment of what they are doing. He talked about not just the distances involved but also the challenges and the time frame in getting to them—in some cases, it is three months—and the associated cost.

He asked me if I had an answer, but I did not. Do I know all the information? No, I do not. I have written to the Minister for Health asking for a briefing about what is available in the electorate to assist people in that way, because I need to upskill myself. I need to be like the 300 people who attended the public meeting with me—to actually find out what they have to look for, find out where the services exist, find out where the gaps in those services are and identify where we can help people get a future.

It is not something that we want to talk about; it is something that we believe will happen to others—and by 'others' I mean others who are not associated with our families or our friendship group—but the odds are that it will. If it is going to be 2.2 per cent of people who will try the absolute madness of getting into this stuff and doing crazy things with their bodies, we all around this building and everywhere have a responsibility to become involved, to educate ourselves, to know what we are looking for and to stand up and help out.

The parliament has many reasons for being here. Legislation is its absolute focus and budget and provision of services and infrastructure are the key, but actually ensuring that our state has a future is what we are all here for. This bill and this legislation are a bit attached to that, and I hope that the future that we are all going to be a part of, as long as God gives us an opportunity to take a breath, is a good one for our state.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:33): I hope my throat can get through a speech on the Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Budget 2015) Bill, as I have been getting a bit too excited at the football. In regard to this bill, the government has put in place some so-called stamp duty relief for South Australians, but what we see is some coming in immediately, but then some that will not have the full impact for another three years.

I certainly note that when the bill was introduced the stamp duty would be abolished in relation to non-real property transfers and non-quoted marketable securities. As I indicated, by 1 July 2018 stamp duty will be abolished on non-residential real property transfers, and so transfers of statutory leases and licences, such as fishing licences, taxi licences, gaming machine licences and entitlements, together with most forms of business assets, including goodwill, trading stock (obviously other than land) and intellectual property will obtain the benefit from the abolition of stamp duty on non-real property transfers. I note that from 18 June this year only property transfers involving land will remain liable for conveyance duty.

What we need is the abolition of this stamp duty fast-tracked so that people can take full advantage. We have a state, as has been described by previous speakers in regard to this bill, that is in dire trouble—dire trouble after almost 14 years of this Rann/Weatherill Labor government. Thousands of people are leaving this state and thousands are losing their jobs.

If we look at the dire state of our mining industry, during the so-called winter break I had the good fortune to visit Moomba and Leigh Creek in the Cooper Basin and Port Augusta, which are all connected to the mining of coal or oil and gas extraction. It was just after we were there that there was an announcement from Santos that some of their jobs had gone: David Knox had left and some jobs were moving in the company. This was apart from hundreds of jobs that have gone—in fact, it may have even just touched on thousands—from Santos in recent times.

A friend of mine was working as part of the program in Roma, Queensland, and dealt with the issues between farmers and the company. Knowing Andrew, he would have done a magnificent job. Obviously, as some of that work wound down, as production goes into place instead of exploration and drilling, things change. What is hurting us is the price of our raw materials, but we also have a good statutory base; we also need to have a good government in place to make sure we do the best with what we have.

We have seen the gas price collapse and that is cutting investment into the oil field but, in regard to what is happening at Leigh Creek and, as a direct relation to that, Port Augusta and the power station, I note my father-in-law worked for many years at Port Augusta as an employee of ETSA and did a great job in helping to deliver power to this state. We had a full briefing as we toured around Leigh Creek with the member for Stuart, and I acknowledge the people at Alinta who not only discussed things with us about the mine in the town but then out at the mine site gave us a very thorough look at the operations.

It is interesting to note that as part of those operations a new 700-tonne excavator had just turned up and was being put together with the final touches being put to it as we were there. It was a PC7000 Komatsu and, from what I understand, the first one of its type delivered anywhere in the world. I understand the 8000 model is being delivered elsewhere and used, but we were a bit bemused because this machine was being delivered, and I think it is worth at least $14 million. Five German engineers were helping put it together, yet the coalmine at Leigh Creek may close by the end of the year.

This will have disastrous consequences for Leigh Creek and surrounding communities. We met with people from the mine, and some in the town, but also with surrounding station owners who have appreciated the many years of extra services they have received just through the mining industry operating in their area—the hospital is one instance and having a doctor there on duty. This will have a direct impact on hundreds of jobs at Leigh Creek and, I understand, 150 jobs at Port Augusta.

The debate gets back to renewables versus coal. I note that renewables are not yet core energy, they are not our base load. It is a good idea, but we have to look at what the policy mix is doing in relation to coal in this country, especially when you look at the east coast of Australia. There could be anything from 150 to 200 ships offshore, at Newcastle and other ports, not even booked in for a load of coal but hoping to get a load, just like a truck might on land, so that they can take it to countries that are using it for base-load power.

I suppose the point I am trying to make is the simple fact that we are essentially killing a coal mine 15 years ahead of its reserve, as the people at Alinta have informed me. In return, we will be getting our base load from Loy Yang in Victoria, from another coal mine. I think we find ourselves in a strange situation. As I said, I think renewables are a great thing—I have solar panels on my farmhouse at home—but it can have this obvious negative impact on power sources and other things that have been operating previously. It is going to be a big changeover and a big renewal for those areas that are affected.

Getting back to stamp duty, I mentioned there would be a removal of stamp duty on the transfers of gaming machine entitlements, and that the stamp duty surcharge on the transfer of a gaming machine business will also be abolished. I note that there will be a phased abolition on conveyance duty on non-residential real property transfers between 1 July 2016 and 1 July 2018. Just as I indicated earlier, I think this could be fast-tracked and introduced immediately to help give this state a kickstart.

In the commentary in relation to this bill, it is estimated there will be up to 6,000 non-residential real property transfers that will benefit from the abolition of stamp duty. I wonder how many more would benefit if this was fast-tracked. It is certainly noted that stamp duty will continue to apply to non-exempt transfers of primary production land. In relation to primary production land, the Stamp Duties Act is being amended in this bill to confirm Revenue SA's longstanding assessing practice in relation to stamp duty exemption for interfamilial farm transfers—in particular, in relation to transfers to and from certain types of trusts.

I think that is certainly a great thing as part of this bill. I certainly believe that for too long the Labor government has not recognised the power of agriculture and what it does for this state. It added up to $17 billion of finished food value to the South Australian economy in this financial year. It is only when we see what happens when everything slows down around the state, including Santos and Arrium—Leigh Creek is being shut down; Olympic Dam are not having a major expansion, but they are looking at their leaching technology to get that uranium out—that Premier Jay Wetherill suddenly realises what I believe: that the core backbone of this state's economy, as it has been since 1836, is agriculture.

For so long, it does not get its place in the sun when it should. The problem we have these days is that you get kids going to school who do not have a parent, grandparent, uncle or auntie who work on the land. So, you get children in schools who think eggs come in cartons and milk comes in bottles, and things like that. Sure, it does, but where does it come from before it gets to the supermarket? That is the thing.

That is why it is so great to have something like the Royal Adelaide Show on at the moment, which will probably get at least half a million visitors. People can have a good look at a whole range of displays there. They have petting areas for children, and a whole range of animals, and it is a good education. We need to make sure that people throughout our community fully understand how vital agriculture is for this state. It is always there in the background, and I think it has been taken for granted for too long.

In relation to the stamp duty amendments with interfamilial transfer of farming property, it actually extends the scheme established in the Stamp Duties Act to certain trusts, including discretionary trusts, unit trust schemes and self-managed superannuation funds. I welcome that piece of the legislation and what it will do for transfers, because for various reasons families could have a self-managed superannuation fund or be involved in a trust, as I am, in relation to primary production land. I think the extension of that stamp duty exemption will be well received but, as I said, we need to make sure that we recognise agriculture for what it does for this state and this nation.

As part of this bill we see that the Save the River Murray levy has been abolished from 1 July 2015. Yes, it will save households on average $40 a year and most businesses over $182 a year. This money amounted to around $25 million per annum, but we note that the measures funded by the Save the River Murray levy will continue to be delivered, which means it has to come out of general revenue without the former tax base to support it. That is something that the government needs to take careful account of, especially with the chest thumping in regard to what the government is saying should be their contribution as a state to the management of the Murray-Darling Basin.

The government has a crack at what New South Wales are or are not doing in relation to their commitments, but I remind the government that they need to keep up all their commitments in regard to the River Murray, especially when I am the member at the end of the river. I am very passionate about what goes on in regard to the River Murray because, as we all know, a change in Queensland can change everything down to the bottom end of the river. I note, when the River Murray did recover in 2010, that it was Darling River water that came down first, because the river was so muddy. Generally, we recognise that the Darling side of the basin (the northern basin) is not generally the one where the water comes from but, the way the drought turned up, that was the one that saved us earlier, before the rainfall came on the other side.

The Save the River Murray Fund will be wound up from 1 July 2016 and the moneys in the fund supposedly will be fully spent, but we will have to make sure that all our salt diversification schemes and other environmental works are kept up to make sure that we do get the outcomes on the bottom end of the river which are so vital, and not just for the environment. I recognise that the fund does assist in the management of our water supply not only for Adelaide but also for people who are on just-in-time pipelines like myself with the Tailem Bend to Keith pipeline at my place at Coomandook, and other pipelines that branch as far as Ceduna now and probably supply about 20 per cent of the water to the Far West Coast of this state. You have to think about that: that is many hundreds of kilometres that we are pumping that water.

The member for Goyder talked about the royalty payable on the minerals recovered by councils in regard to their borrow pits, which has been put in at 55¢ per tonne from 1 July 2015. This is certainly causing some angst, as the member for Goyder indicated, through local governments. It is another cost which will go straight back to ratepayers. The issue we have here is that it is almost a cost shifting exercise where the government decides, 'We want to make more out of the extractive minerals.' I acknowledge that the government represents the Crown and that the Crown owns the minerals, but it is having an effect and the local government sector (as it should) is making quite a noise about this royalty and the impact on councils.

Councils do a great job, and I think that in the future—and I throw this one out there—there may be some discussions, especially in some regional areas, about further amalgamations. That is only my personal opinion. I am not saying it should happen but I am saying that, perhaps, we should have the discussion because I believe there are certainly many areas of common interest, and I will be interested in any letters and emails I receive after making those comments. Anyway, be that as it may, I think that there is potentially some movement there.

One thing I want to talk about in the closing few minutes I have available is the repeal of the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act 1999. Certainly we would all remember the controversy about the Hindmarsh Island Bridge being proposed and then built. I do not want to go into the full history of that, but I think that, from memory, it was built for only about $3.2 million, and it is a fair bridge, a fair construction. When you can compare that with the footbridge over the Adelaide Oval at $40 million it confirms my suspicion that I should probably get into the bridge-building game in the future.

Dr McFetridge: Footbridges.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, footbridges; the footbridge-building game. So what happened in relation to when the bridge was built and then the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act was brought in is that it was a tripartite deed between Binalong at the marina, the council and the state government. It related to the fact that whenever people made a subdivision on a property payments had to be made to that tripartite fund.

Certainly the repeal of that will allow for more development applications, and certainly Hindmarsh Island is one place in my electorate, apart from others, where people are putting their hand up and saying, 'I want to be developed now,' and so it will stop being a disincentive for people wishing to develop and they will be able to put their hands up and say, 'Let's go.'

I believe this is a move into the future. It will assist there and, hopefully, we can see some positive outcomes. As I said, one of the main things I am interested in in this state is that we give agriculture the time, the effort and the money that it deserves.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (12:53): This Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Budget 2015) Bill is the second part of the two-part process we go through every year after the budget bill and then the estimates committees. This is where the devil is in the detail of how the budget savings and expenditure are going to be implemented. It says on the front page:

An Act to amend various Acts, and to repeal the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act 1999, for the purposes of the 2015 State Budget.

I will just remind the house and those who may read this that some of the bills that are being amended are the Gaming Machines Act 1992, the Land Tax Act 1936, the Local Government Act 1999, the Motor Vehicles Act 1959, the Rates and Land Tax Remission Act 1986, the Stamp Duties Act 1923, the Stamp Duties Act 1923 (Corporate reconstructions), the Stamp Duties Act 1923 (General tax reforms) and the Stamp Duties Act 1923 which varies a number of transfers of properties and other personal property to be amended there. The Supreme Court Act and also the Tax Administration Act, as well as the Water Industry Act, are being amended; and, as we have just heard from the member for Hammond, the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act is being repealed.

As they say, the devil is in the detail. A classic example of where the devil can be in the detail with this legislation is the 2010 legislation on the national regulation of health practitioners, where we were being asked to mirror legislation in this place to harmonise legislation, to introduce the national regulation of health practitioners. In the bill that was put before the house, there were three lines that referred to mirroring legislation that had been introduced in Queensland. The thing is that there were 300 pages of legislation introduced in Queensland, so we do need to know what the detail is.

It was at the insistence of the opposition that those 300 pages were included in a schedule to that bill and there for everybody to read. It was not hidden in legislation so that you had to go to the library or investigate through the Hansard what we were actually talking about. The need to amend these various acts is imperative. We want to have savings brought on as quickly as possible. I encourage the government to do that.

I will quickly highlight two areas that are of particular interest to me. One is the disability portfolio for which I have the shadow ministry. The Land Tax Act and the Motor Vehicles Act are both being varied to bring in remissions, reductions in taxation and registration fees for people with disabilities, and I think that is a very good thing. The big concern for me, though, is in another area, in my communities and social inclusion portfolio, where the Rates and Land Tax Remission Act is being varied.

I will just remind the house of the debacle we had with CASIS. CASIS started in 2003, I think it was. The bill was going to be $600,000 to introduce this Concessions and Seniors Information System, which was going to regulate and organise remissions for pensioners and others who were claiming on power and public transport, even funerals, I understand. It was an absolute cock-up and it was pulled. It started under the Premier and went through various ministers and, under minister Bettison, it has now been pulled. I think the final cost is over $7 million—$7 million just gone down the tube. That is a disgrace.

I have no faith in the systems that are being touted at the moment. We just need to look at EPAS and Oracle and the ICT systems that are being put in place by this government. I remember TRUMPS, the traffic user management program. Like CASIS, it was mentioned by the Auditor-General three or four times. Concerns were raised. The Auditor was pushing very hard to make sure that this government implemented these programs as efficiently as possible and at minimal cost to taxpayers, but, more importantly, so that they actually worked. I have no faith in this government implementing ICT programs that actually work without spending millions and millions. I think we are up to $430 million on EPAS at the moment, which makes the $7 million for CASIS look small, but $7 million is a lot of money.

I look forward to the budget bill being passed by this place and the various amendments being brought in, but I also look forward to the taxpayers of South Australia being given a fair go by this government, because that is all they want. They just want a fair go. They are willing to pay their taxes. They are willing to pay their levies, but they want to see some benefit, not just for themselves but for the whole of the state. It is very important that we examine the budget and then pass it through the second stage, repealing one act in this case and amending others, so that the government can get on with doing what it needs to be doing, and that is giving South Australians a fair go.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.R. Kenyon.

Sitting suspended from 12:58 to 14:00.