Appropriation Bill 2016

Estimates Committees

Adjourned debate on motion:

That the proposed expenditures referred to Estimates Committees A and B be agreed to.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (15:59): I actually enjoy estimates. I have been doing it now for a long time, as have many other people in this chamber. I find it enlightening from the viewpoint that the process allows any member to obtain information about how this state is managed. It is not just the financial implications of the policies, but what the detail of the policy is, so it is a lot of work. I completely understand that. I am a person who actually appreciates information, as are many other members.

While they are long hours, and it is a lot of review to get to a position to question a minister in detail about portfolio issues, and you have to know your own portfolio to be able to do that, it demonstrates the one time when collectively the most information exists among staff, ministers, opposition and, by association, the community at large, in the information gained about how the state is to be run over the next 12 months. It is an important exercise, and I am pleased that it takes place. It could be improved, no doubt about that. I like it when I see ministers who stand up and are confident in giving responses and who do not necessarily refer to long briefing papers because I think that is a mark of those who actually understand their brief.

In the two days that I sat in on estimate sessions, I had the opportunity to be with the Attorney-General and Minister for Planning. The deputy leader was questioning the Attorney quite strongly for a long time on a variety of areas. I am not sure whether the deputy leader is going to like this, but I sent a text to my wife saying that they were getting along swimmingly. It shows that when there is an attitude of respect and both possess the high level of understanding that they need to get information out, and each has an incisive mind that knows when to ask follow-up questions, information flows from members and ministers who actually have some knowledge on the area. It worked quite well.

It was interesting later that same afternoon when I came into this chamber and took part in the member for Stuart's questioning of the Minister for State Development. I am advised that there was a bit of tension in the room earlier that day and it flowed through to some degree in the conversation in there, not to the same level though. It just shows a bit of spirit. It reincarnated the position held by members who are no longer in this chamber when they came in and the level of arrogance they had when it came to answering questions.

I want to pay some respect to you, Deputy Speaker, in chairing the committee, and the member for Little Para in chairing committee B. It is a long time, I can appreciate, and it takes a high level of concentration. The member for Little Para is the person I sat with for a longer period, and I was grateful for the fact that when I asked questions on the local government area the member for Little Para gave me some leeway.

There has to be a connection back to the budget papers, and I said quite strongly at the very start that, because local government only had a page and a quarter in the budget papers in total, much of my questioning was going to be related to the lines at the very top which said that the Office of Local Government provides advice to the minister. I presumed that was on everything, so I thought there was a connection and it was allowed, so I am grateful for that.

I commend the shadows for the way they have asked the questions. It demonstrates that they want knowledge and because, by association, it will ensure that they are better placed in the short term to take over a ministerial role and know how their department operates and to be in a position to make recommendations on where improvements can be made, it is a worthwhile exercise.

To focus on the portfolio areas, the first one is planning. I questioned the areas initially focused on the planning legislation which has only just gone through, not only in this chamber in late November but also through the Legislative Council in March. It is an immense piece of legislation, with over 400 amendments; 208 of those were accepted; and it involved an enormous amount of negotiation.

While royal assent has been given to it, it has not yet come into force. I believe it was in May when assent was provided for it. My first question to the minister was: when does it actually come into play? He said to me that it depends, because more subsequent legislation has to come through there will be a timing for when that commences, and a timing when portions of the old Development Act of 1993 are removed. So, it becomes a situation where we have potentially two bits of legislation, one is an improvement on the other, but when does the second one come into force? The timing, implementation and how it is implemented are key.

The minister and I completely agree on the fact that the appointment of a commissioner is the vital part. The planning commission will undertake a significant role when it comes to the development of charters for community involvement, the design codes and every sort of rule on how things are to operate, and that is the key appointment to make. I must say that I was very disappointed to be advised by the minister in a question that he has not put a time frame in place for the appointment of a planning commissioner until March 2017.

Given that the legislation went through in March 2016, you have to question why it takes so long. Why is it taking so long? Indeed, they have not even advertise for the position. I have asked the minister if it is a matter of headhunting, a matter of identifying those who would have the skill set and experience to be able to do it, a matter of advertising or a matter of volunteers coming forward who might be considered, but still we have to wait for now some seven months before the end time frame is put on when an appointment is to be made.

Without that commissioner being in place, nothing else flows yet. The commissioner will be involved in the determination of who will be on the planning commission. The commissioner and the commission will be involved in the development of the charter, the design codes and the 43 different areas of regulations that will be developed under that piece of legislation, so why is that key appointment taking so long? That is where things have to occur.

The flow-on from that question was that the department controlled by the minister, on the basis of a significant additional workload being required to not just deal with planning matters as they have currently been arising under the 1993 act and development plan reviews that communities and councils from across all of South Australia are desperate for in many cases but to design this new system and to put in place the collective knowledge of how it is going to operate, should involve more staff. I respect the fact there are going to be costs associated with this, and it is nearly $25 million over the four-year period of the forward estimates.

We then look at the fact that—I do not know if it is an efficiency dividend or what it is—the number of full-time equivalent staff within the department has gone down 134.7 to 130.9. I am not sure how hard the minister is going to crack the whip on things and how he is going to flog people to actually get the work output there, but I would have thought that more staff were required, particularly in these first two years or so, to get the information and positions in place for everything to work from there, but that is not the case.

The estimates session also made me very aware that, while I knew there was, as part of the budget papers, an intention for a levy to be charged to councils to assist in the recovery of the costs of the e-portal, which will be the electronic version of planning and how it will be dealt with, the minister for the first time has announced that it is going to be $4,000 per council, which is interesting, given that the value and the number of applications that each council deals with on a yearly basis is very different. The minister has seemingly determined to charge a flat fee.

The next question therefore became: how long is it intended that this fee be in place for? It is 13 years. The councils are going to be paying for this for 13 years, and that is on the basis of a cost recovery. I asked the minister if that included the cost of recovering the interest lost, of the payment up-front and the time to recover that, and the minister was not quite so sure on that question. So, that is going to be another cost upon local government imposed by a minister of the Crown that the local government, through either its association or individual councils, has not been involved in. The Minister for Local Government was seemingly not aware of it either, because I asked him a question yesterday in the estimates sessions with him.

Development fees are also going to be increased to assist in the recovery of the cost for the e-portal. I know the minister has a high-level group set up to deal with the implementation of this and that it does involve those from the development industry. Importantly, I put to him that it needs to involve not just those from local government but also those from community groups who provided feedback to all of us when it came to the debate on the legislation, but that will be an additional impost.

No detail could be provided on whether it is a percentage, a dollar figure or an additional transaction cost associated with each development application that might be received, but it will be interesting to see what that is because I think that is an example of something the minister and the government do not know yet. They have put in place a principle for what has to be collected, but do not know yet how to do it. I do not know if that is going to be part of the work that the commission and the commissioner does, or if that is going to be a decree made by government after they have seemingly had the time to consider what it needs to be.

I also spoke to the minister about the environmental and food protection areas. There is a significant difference of position between the Liberal Party and the government on that. We, the Liberal Party, do not support that. The government proposed it very strongly and managed to convince one member in the upper house to change their position from the first vote of being against to subsequently voting in support of it and getting it through by one.

Flowing on from that is the great challenge in getting land use conflicts that exist in agricultural areas sorted out. I asked questions about the negotiation that is occurring between PIRSA for Primary Industries and the Department of Planning: who takes the lead role? The minister tells me that, and I understand this completely, his staff are not experts in the agricultural pursuit—I completely understand that.

PIRSA, though, is supposed to be that group. PIRSA is also the group that should come up with what needs to be the policy to ensure that issues can be dealt with from a planning viewpoint so that you do not have a situation whereby a use occurs on an adjoining parcel of land from a broadacre area of land, but the practices that occur on that alternative use make it impossible for the management principles on the broadacre use to be undertaken.

It impacts on revenue, it impacts on equity, it impacts on viability, and it impacts on the long-term transfer to subsequent family members. The minister and I are both very aware of people who are impacted by this already. While retrospectivity is a challenging thing, politically, to deal with, there needs to be a set of rules in place so that it gives those who determine uses of land the knowledge on how they should be treating this and what issues they have to consider.

We also spoke about land supply and the 30-year plan. At last year's estimates the Minister for Planning talked about the 30-year plan starting 'soon', I think was the term used. Twelve months later it has not started. There were similar questions about it and the reply to me was 'within weeks'. I have asked for a briefing on that, hopefully in the week starting in the middle of August. The minister's staff nodded their heads to me, and I took that as a formal yes. It is an important issue and I know there are many people across our community and industry development groups who want to be involved in the negotiations and discussions about the 30-year plan and the review, given that the current one is five and a bit years old now, because it is an important area to get right.

It talks about population growth; it talks about housing starts. I was disappointed when the minister talked about the fact that the previous 30-year plan had a target of 8,500 new starts per year, when I have a very clear recollection of being told by the development industry that in past years they have desired it to be around about 10,000 new dwellings to be constructed per year. Even more so, I was frustrated by the fact that the minister referred to that, in the five years since the 30-year plan was implemented, they have done some reviews and the five-year average is as low as 7,420. I think that is symptomatic of the challenges that are faced in our construction industry when it is a significant number below what the real need is, from an industry perspective, for viability and profitability. It shows that there is a lack of demand. That is part of the economy. From the Liberal Party's perspective that is what we stand up and talk a lot about, is to make the economy work because that drives opportunities in all of these areas.

The next area in which I questioned a minister was the member for Frome, the Minister for Local Government. Even though I was asked by other committee members not to talk about rate capping, I did, because I think it is a key thing. In linking it back to the budget papers and the reference that the Office of Local Government provide to the minister, I asked: has the minister been advised on that? He said, yes, he had. I would love to see initiatives that the Office of Local Government and the minister have put forward in a legislative sense or a regulation sense or a policy viewpoint sense that helps ensure that cost-of-living issues are being dealt with, but it is not.

While I am critiqued by many on the basis of rate capping as something that local government does not like, I look at the fact that it is $1 billion in revenue per year and I need to ensure, and I believe the Liberal Party is strongly supportive of this, from a cost-of-living pressure that all families are dealing with, that all individuals are dealing with, that we do all we can to keep that cost-of-living pressure down. I think rate capping is a strong area of that, so it is something that will remain.

I asked the Minister for Local Government questions about his level of advocacy on behalf of councils and, by association therefore, communities when it came to things like increases in the natural resources management levy and the solid waste levy, and I did not refer to this but the emergency services levy from two years ago, and last year, also. That is, the example of the natural resources management levy and the solid waste levy, and particularly the solid waste levy where the decision was announced by the government before the state budget was released. I think the Treasurer and minister announced it on 29 or 30 June.

It impacted upon councils in particular because it is an additional cost that they have to pay when, in some cases, councils had already determined their budgets. Therefore, they are being charged for something else without being aware of it as part of their own budget deliberations. While I want councils to be efficient, I want information flow to occur with councils too. It disgusted and disappointed me in so many different ways. There was no level of contact about it and suddenly there was an implication of $64 million over the forward estimates, and councils were told, 'This is what you are paying.'

Local government has come out and said, quite rightly, that no review has been undertaken. There has been no consideration of how the solid waste levy works, or what level should be provided for grants, initiatives and programs to actually reduce waste going into the waste stream. We just have additional costs, a significant amount of which goes to Treasury and disappears into the pit of funds to be used in a variety of areas.

I also asked the minister questions about local government boundary changes because he had flagged some time ago the intention to put in legislation on how to deal with that. The minister alluded to the fact that it was about to occur, and I appreciate that immediately after question time today the minister came to me and said it would be released today. There is an eight-week consultation period, then legislation will be tabled into the parliament probably around October, and then there will be subsequent debate on that.

I also asked questions of the minister about the community wastewater management schemes (CWMS) which are particularly important in outer suburban and regional areas. This is because there has been $4 million in funding available per year, but that funding, which I think is a nine-year agreement, expires 30 June next year. The minister had appointed a review group and he had signed a document with the president of the Local Government Association about that being undertaken.

I have not seen the report from the review group, which was meant to be completed by the end of July. The minister confirmed with me that he has that, and I hope the outcome actually gives councils the ability to ensure those funds continue. They do not pay for everything, but they certainly help in the investigative work that is undertaken for wastewater management schemes. They are important in many areas, and particularly in coastal areas, where the effluent discharge to the marine environment can potentially be quite harmful. I also asked the minister a question about the Street Renewal Program, but the minister did not know what I was talking about.

The Hon. L.A. Vlahos: That is a good one.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Other members are indicating that it is a good one, but it is $1.5 million to one council only, as I understand it. I have put in an FOI request on this, and I know one particular council which has received a benefit from it (the City of Tea Tree Gully), but I do not—

The Hon. L.A. Vlahos interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Well, it might be a slightly different program, but the one I am talking about is targeted to one area only, and that upsets me. The minister did not know about that one; no doubt he has a briefing now. I suppose it comes down to the level of frustration I felt about it, and it was symptomatic of the discussions about the solid waste levy and NRM levy, given the level of information the minister has—the briefings he is provided by his staff and the briefings he initiates to ensure that he is informed.

I will give you another example. There was some media scrutiny in InDaily in recent months about public street lighting. There were concerns about the Eastern Region Alliance and the collection of local governments that were intending to put out a contract. They had questions raised about that. The councils have gone through a prudential review twice and have decided to withdraw for the time being. I met with the acting CEO and chair of the Eastern Region Alliance and I really appreciate the information they provided. The minister had not been involved in a discussion with them, and I think that is an example of where councils are joining together on projects which will have a significant benefit, on the basis that it will one day come into fruition, but the minister needs to understand it too.

It shows, from my perspective, that portfolio responsibility does not just extend to the easy conversations. Portfolio responsibility has to extend to the difficult conversations where, in many cases, you are providing the community, service groups, organisations the department works with or departmental staff the real challenges of saying no, or 'That's not good enough; you have to improve,' or, 'Yes, that is fantastic.' It is a mixed bag and it cannot just be totally focused on the positive words that come from the minister.

My final message on this is to ensure that, from a local government perspective, the minister is involved in a fulsome way about the challenging subjects and not just the easy ones, and that the benefit as a whole is much better than it has been for the last two years.

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (16:19): I rise today to respond to the estimates committee reports. This was my third estimates and certainly it was not as good as last year, I must say. I had child protection first, and that actually ran quite smoothly; however, we did find out some very distressing news in relation to all the figures. I certainly welcomed the government's transparency in releasing the figures now in a more timely manner. The figures that were generally reported in the Department for Education and Child Development annual report, which only came out about a month ago and had the figures for the previous year which is obviously seven months after they have happened, are now going to be available more readily, so I certainly welcome that initiative.

In relation to child protection, we found that there were 57,034 calls to the Child Abuse Report Line. That was up from 40,074 the previous year, or a 42 per cent increase in the number of calls. Unfortunately, of those calls, 26,733 remained unanswered, so only 30,301 calls were answered, which is only just over half and very similar to last year's figure of answered calls, despite the fact that 10 extra staff had been employed and the government has had a year to change their methods or policies in order to be more efficient with answering the calls.

We know that the waiting times almost doubled, from 20 minutes last year to 39 minutes this year, leaving many people on the line for hours and hours, who have rung my office, which is unacceptable. People from the community who are trying to do the right thing and report children they believe to be in danger are not getting through and they are waiting incredibly long periods of time. We know that eCARL, the electronic version of CARL, was up this year to 28,016 applications made, up from 18,613 the year before, which is a 50 per cent increase.

There is a backlog of 1,500 entries into eCARL. We know that eCARL reports are made only by mandatory reporters, and mandatory reporters know not to report minor incidents, such as a child without a sunhat or without their lunch, so these are serious concerns made by mandatory reporters, and there was a backlog going into the school holidays of 1,500. That is potentially 1,500 children who are right now living in danger because this government cannot get on top of its workload and staff its department properly.

We know that the number in state care is at an all-time record high of 3,234 children and young people, up from 2,838 the previous year, which is a 14 per cent increase. We know that residential care is up now to 289, up from 266, which we know pretty well must be at capacity because emergency accommodation is now averaging 190 children, which is just incredible, and they have an average stay—that is an average, not a maximum—of 157 days, with 156 of the children staying for more than 30 days.

Emergency accommodation is meant to be for an emergency and only for several days or maybe a week. We know that the average stay for children is over 157 days, that is, over five months, which is completely unacceptable. These are eight-hour shifts with different people working day and night in motel-type accommodation. We know that it is very distressing. It is not a suitable way to care for a child, and it is a sad indictment on this government to let it get to that rate. It is a huge increase from when they came into government 14 years ago.

We know that 45 parents now have been placed on income management since the Chloe Valentine inquest—that was a recommendation, so that is good to see the government using the legislation that is available to them—and that 912 parents were drug tested. However, whilst I welcome the fact that the government is finally using section 20(2) of the Children's Protection Act, there are no results. The government is not able to report on how many were positive, how many children were removed, how many went into drug and alcohol rehabilitation or what happens with these people. Testing is one thing, but testing and not actually doing anything is pretty well pointless if you are leaving the children still in their care.

We know that it was a very disappointing estimates for child protection, with really no good news. There were two lots of spending in child protection announced in the budget; one was $1 million to employ six staff to implement the findings of the royal commission, which clearly will not be enough. There needs to be millions of dollars, I would expect, in order to implement what will be, I believe, quite a lengthy and extensive list of recommendations from Commissioner Nyland.

We know also that, despite staff being overwhelmed and overworked—and there are endless reports to many of our electorate offices of staff who are not coping with too big a workload—instead of putting the money into the staff and staffing levels, the government could find $15 million to merge three offices (Elizabeth, Salisbury and Gawler) into a mega office, spending $15 million to build that. We also know that the government's own backbencher already has spoken out against that idea, along with this being questioned by every non-government organisation involved in child protection I have spoken to.

I do not know where the government comes up with their ideas; they just make an announcement. Perhaps they needed to show that they were doing something as a bit of a distraction, 'Let's announce $15 million so that people will focus on that, as if we are doing something for child protection.' Yet now, in estimates, the minister has already stated that they are relooking at that policy—it is two weeks old now, so it is definitely time to relook at it—and that they will wait to see what the royal commissioner has to say.

I question why they did not wait for the royal commissioner to have her say before announcing a $15 million capital work. It just seems crazy because the government has been unable to announce anything else, including a children's commissioner, for the last two years on the basis that they are waiting for the royal commissioner's findings, yet they can somehow announce $15 million. That takes me to minister Bettison. While not the area of questioning I was working on, certainly a highlight I read in Hansard was the replacement of the CARTS information program, which was to be CASIS, which I think everyone in this house knows a lot about.

CASIS was originally budgeted at $600,000 but has ended up costing over $7 million to then be dropped, so it is not even going to be used after $7 million has been spent. The new program is now called COLIN, which was budgeted at $2.2 million, and we find now in the budget an extra $1.4 million has been added, plus $800,000 for ongoing support costs. So far, $11.4 million has been spent for the program that will enable the cost-of-living concession to go out.

We know that, even after that $11.4 million, the files are being reviewed manually because something like 4,000 people who are dead received the cost-of-living concession, which is just crazy. After all that money, the government is actually having to check their own work manually after spending endless millions of dollars of taxpayers' money. We know, from Housing SA estimates, that debt has blown out to an all-time high of $28.532 million, so that is $3 million up from last year, which is incredible and really shocking.

Last year, that debt level also rose by $3 million, but in previous years it was usually increasing by around $1 million. The fact that it is increasing at all is terrible because they should be recovering money from past debts that should be equalising out any new debts. Even worse, the minister spent about five or 10 minutes explaining all the debt reduction programs they have put in place and the fact that they even have a team and they are doing all of these things, but clearly they are not working.

I think this government has run out of ideas and does not really know how to manage anything. Perhaps somebody with some business background might know that every dollar counts. If it was your own money, you would certainly not let your debt levels get to $28.53 million or you would definitely be out of business. If you were the CEO who oversaw the last year and you put extra money into all these teams on debt reduction, yet your debt blew out by a further $3 million, I do not think you would have a job.

In that debt, 8,201 people who are non-tenants still owe money and 8,686 are still current tenants. We know that the debt payment amount has risen from $10 to a maximum of $15. Thirty-one per cent of people owe over $1,000 and I assume those amounts under $1,000 are probably significant amounts. To pay off $1,000 at $10 a week would take 100 weeks, which is almost two years. At this rate, the interest on the debt is probably higher than the amount of debt being recovered.

We found out in estimates that 23 per cent of Housing SA tenants owe debts to Housing SA. We also know that the government continues to be very tricky with its wording and makes sure that it changes names of departments and how it records things. For a person like me who loves tables and spreadsheets, when the government changes the name of everything every year and uses unusual terms, it is very difficult to keep track of the money. However, we did find out that what used to be called debt that has been waived—which was $5.346 million last year and is $5 million again this year—is not called waived. They are calling it 'written off, yet reinstatable debt'.

Then, we have 'written-off debt that is not reinstatable', which just used to be called written-off debt, which is the accounting term. Last year, that was $1.2 million. That has almost doubled to $2 million—debt that is written off that we will never get back. We also have the term 'reinstated debt'. All of the colleagues I used to work with in the accounting world have never heard of such a concept as reinstating your debt. However, this government has reinstated $5.35 million in outstanding debt which, hopefully, we can recover. It would be terrific if that was at all possible.

We also found out in estimates that the number of people on the Housing SA waiting list is up to 20,974, with category 1 at an all-time high of 3,534. That is up from 3,368 this time last year. That is a big jump and they are our most needy. People in category 1 are our most vulnerable people. People with mental health issues, people fleeing domestic violence, people with disabilities, and the aged or frail would be in category 1, so they are in desperate need of urgent housing.

In total, the Housing SA waiting list went down by 216, which is certainly in the right direction and I welcome that. However, at that rate, it would take 100 years to clear the waiting list, so it is certainly not good enough. It would take 17 years at that rate just to clear the emergency category 1 people, which is not good enough. Stocks of Housing SA were going down by about 2,000 every year and that is not including the stock that is being transferred, so that must, I assume, relate to stock that has actually been sold. The number of houses is diminishing.

Another disappointing factor that has been revealed recently is that the $588 million that was announced for capital works in housing will equate to zero extra houses available for people on the Housing SA waiting list. The 1,000 Homes in 1,000 Days program, particularly, sounded like 1,000 extra people might get houses. They do not. The money is actually being used from the Housing Trust's liquid accounts—their backup account. One thousand people who are already housed by Housing SA will be moved into the new houses, and their houses will then be sold in order to get that buffer back up in the Housing Trust's account.

Unfortunately, not a single extra person from the 20,000-plus people on the waiting list will be housed as a result of the capital works and the 1,000 homes in 1,000 days. I welcome the fact that those 1,000 homes will be suitable for people with disabilities and that they will be more suited to the demographic of the people living there. However, I do need to point out that we do have a huge waiting list of people on the Housing Trust waiting list, particularly those who are most vulnerable on category 1. They need to be housed and they cannot wait years and years and years in order for that to happen.

We also found that the government applied to SACAT for 213 evictions and only 48 per cent of those were upheld, which equates to 103 people being evicted. The government has a three strikes policy and a one strike policy, which we can see is quite ineffective, in that only 48 per cent of those evictions were actually upheld.

That brings me to volunteering and youth, which come under the same area. What has happened this year is that multicultural, youth and volunteers have been combined, so the FTEs from those three portfolios were removed and combined into another area, and the income was then missing from volunteers. It was impossible to compare what had happened to the FTEs, what had happened to the income and what had happened to the expenses, because some of the expenses were the staffing costs that went across, yet in some instances, even though the staff had gone across, the expenses had gone up. The minister was unable to explain what had happened.

When it comes to multicultural, youth and volunteers, certainly the stakeholders in those areas are questioning why they have been put together and whether that will mean there is a lack of focus on their very important areas because they are combined. There was a 55.1 per cent increase of FTEs for those three being combined and the minister said, 'That's because there is another area that has been combined in that, which is the policy and community.' I looked that up and from the previous year all the numbers have changed.

Last year, there was an office for the northern suburbs, an office for the southern suburbs and an affordable living program included in that. This year, the status of women has been included, and policy and community development. So it is completely impossible to compare the FTEs and work out how many work in what area, which is what the stakeholders were wanting me to establish: how many people are really working on youth policy? How many people are really working on volunteering and what are they doing? The way this has all been merged, it is impossible to work out what exactly is happening and how those communities are being supported.

In volunteering, YACSA said from their surveying of youth that the number one most important thing they are concerned about is unemployment. With all of the programs that the government is running, in my opinion the most important program for youth was the Successful Transitions program. That is the program that is about mentoring. We found out in estimates that 177 young people participated. There were 255 referred to the program—I am not sure how the referrals are done—but only 177 of those actually participated.

Unfortunately, the minister could not tell me how many of those 177 gained employment and what type of employment because we know that we have an underemployment issue as well in our state. I did ask for a breakdown of the full time, part time and casual people who were employed as a result of that program. I could pretty well read my quotes from last year:

This government remains incompetent at running a state, devoid of ideas to improve the state and hopelessly lurching from disaster to ill-conceived kneejerk reactions to save face, cover up or distract, such as…

Last year it was the time zone and this year it has been the driverless cars.

It continues to blame the federal government for everything, despite being in government for 13 years, over which time it has brought this state to its knees.

We know that we have the highest power prices, the highest unemployment crisis, the highest office vacancy rate in Adelaide since 1999, the highest Housing SA debt levels, the highest number of children in out-of-home care, below the national average results in 19 out of 20 test categories, emergency accommodation stays of greater than five months and the worst hospital emergency waiting times in Australia. The government is also looking at selling the land services division, which is also opposed by its own backbench.

Time expired.

Mr DULUK (Davenport) (16:40: 4): I rise today to also speak on the Appropriation Bill reports to estimates committees. Last week, I read an article following the first day of estimates proceedings. It is fair to say that the author was not too impressed with the process, questioning the rationale for estimates, stating:

The Groundhog day familiarity of the Estimates treadmill…leads inevitably to the annual observations that the system needs an overhaul.

No-one likes estimates—not the ministers, not the advisers, not the media and not even the opposition. I beg to differ because I love estimates, and I, as the—

The Hon. L.A. Vlahos interjecting:

Mr DULUK: I loved being able to—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ambulance, ambulance!

Mr DULUK: I love estimates—it is the inner accountant in me. As the member for Schubert referred to in his contribution, I think between us we sat on 44 estimates committees. It is actually a very interesting process, and it is actually a very important process. It is an important process that is critical to our parliamentary proceedings. It is an important process, and whether or not it is entertaining to the media or whether it is too burdensome for ministers and their staff is not really the responsibility or the concern of the parliament.

As, Deputy Speaker, you and I were just having a conversation offline, parliament is sovereign, and our responsibility as a parliament is to the people of South Australia. As parliamentarians, especially here in the lower house where government is formed, our responsibility as members of parliament is to keep the government honest. Budget estimates is an opportunity for the parliament to scrutinise ministers and their agencies about the decisions they have made on behalf of the people of South Australia.

To question ministers on the way they have chosen to spend taxpayer funds and the way they have chosen to raise those funds in the first instance is an opportunity to scrutinise the government's expenditure and performance as well as the effectiveness of ministers and their agencies. To me, it is an integral part of accountability and transparency of the wheels of government in South Australia. Perhaps sometimes parliament does not use estimates to its full opportunity. Opposition members certainly ask the government the tough questions.

Perhaps, though, to make parliament a more efficient and a more effective tool of scrutiny, government backbenchers could also scrutinise government ministers and really be representatives of the parliament and of their electorates, instead of providing Dorothy Dixers to some ministers to protect them from the questioning of the opposition. Beginning last Thursday at 9am on day one with the Attorney-General and concluding last night at 5.30pm with the Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, I certainly did enjoy my estimates process.

In between last Thursday and yesterday afternoon, there have been many hours spent exploring much of the content of the budget papers but also much of what was not in the budget papers. I would like to take this opportunity this afternoon to thank the ministers for their contributions. I would especially like to thank the many departmental and agency staff for their time and candour as well. You certainly get to know the feeling of which ministers are controlled by the department and which ministers control their department.

I would also like to take this opportunity to outline what we learned or, perhaps more meaningfully, what we did not learn from the estimates proceedings. The budget papers told us that this government will introduce a $50 million South Australian Venture Capital Fund to partner with private sector financiers to support innovation and help build high-growth companies in South Australia—a very noble policy position—with $750,000 allocated to the 2016-17 budget and through the forward estimates for administration costs of this Venture Capital Fund.

Naturally, being such a big ticket item and a key plank of the Treasurer's initiatives to support innovation and develop future industries, the opposition was keen and eager to know more about the Venture Capital Fund. In fact, I flagged last week in my budget reply speech that I would be seeking details around the fund, the source of the funds, its governance, management and the investment process.

One week on, and having gone through estimates, what do I know now? I know that the funds manager is yet to be determined. I know that the types of projects that will qualify for funding are yet to be determined. I know that the governance structure is yet to be determined. I know that FTEs are yet to be determined. I also know that the forecast of high-growth companies is yet to be determined. What can be determined, though, is that the Treasurer does not know how the $750,000 appropriation for the administration cost was determined. He and his advisers will do 'the very best to estimate what we think it will cost'.

One thing is for sure, and the one thing that the Treasurer was certain of, is that the taxpayer exposure under this $50 million fund will be a lot and the taxpayers will be exposed to the investments of the government. So, yes, we could indeed lose the lot was an answer that the Treasurer provided in his estimates. That was on Monday. This is only my second estimates and I know there are many more people who have gone through a lot more process than I have, but I find it very interesting.

I think the leader was on a roll against the Treasurer last week. The Treasurer knew so much on so many topics and then suddenly had to take advice on so many other matters, even though they were closely related. The decision that the executive, or the ministers, choose to provide information to the parliament and ultimately to the people on the decisions they make is probably one part of estimates which is lacking.

I was very pleased to see that as part of the STEM funding announcement by the government that there would be a $2.5 million funding injection for STEM to Blackwood High School, which is in my electorate of Devonport. I was eager, as I am sure the staff and students of Blackwood High School are, to know more about the allocation of this funding and the time line of when any capital works would be completed. I would like to thank the minister for answering my questions and enlightening me.

I know that, wait for it, it is yet to be determined in terms of how that $2.5 million will be spent. The government has made an announcement, allocated funding but is unable to provide any detail on which schools will be in the first tranche of funding or how the funds will be spent. In response to my question, the minister stated:

Part of the process that we are working through at the moment is which schools are in the first tranche and, of course, also working with them about how they best spend that money.

I need to highlight that last part about how the school best spend that money. That sum of $2.5 million is a lot of taxpayer money to be allocated to one school, and I know the school community in Blackwood is very grateful and the funding is extremely welcome. However, surely it makes good economic sense to base that amount of funding around some type of plan, some type of data modelling, some type of needs allocation.

The $250 million STEM funding is aimed at increasing the number of students in both primary and secondary schools who choose STEM subjects—a very noble goal. So, I asked: what is the government's target in how many additional students the government is hoping will choose STEM subjects because of the investment? Essentially, we want to know what the return to this state on the $250 million investment we are expecting. The answer: 'we have not articulated that target yet.' Certainly it is a policy that we support on this side of the house, and I note the shadow minister for education is in the chamber this afternoon. It is a good policy, but let's have some targets around it.

Let's see what it is trying to achieve. Let's see how we can benchmark it, and let's also see, once the policy is implemented, once $250 million of taxpayer money is spent, how we come back in several years time and evaluate if that was a good use of taxpayer money. This type of analysis should be provided through the estimates committee so that, as a parliament and as a people, we can judge if the government is acting in the best interests of the people and is accountable for its decisions, so ultimately the people then can pass verdict on the government. As we know, it is very important for the people of South Australia, Australia and all across the world to have a belief that the institutions that serve them serve them well and serve their best interests. So, I found that quite interesting.

As I said, and I will not take up the house's time for too long, I sat through quite a few estimates hearings, and you certainly know which ministers are the performing ministers in the government and which ministers choose longwinded opening statements. I have to acknowledge the Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, who did not make an opening statement or take any government questions. She sat in the committee, she fronted the music and she performed to the best of her abilities in that regard, but that cannot be said of all ministers.

I do not want to steal the thunder of the member for Schubert, but I think we both had the same experience when we were in the committee with the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation. I have never heard a more longwinded opening statement from a minister in the five days of estimates. Minister Hunter, in his committee, also probably took the most amount of Dorothy Dixers as well. What was quite enlightening though was that the Dorothy Dixers that he took when I was in committee were from the former environment minister, the member for Colton. I think, within the Dorothy Dixer, the member for Colton knew more about the answer than the minister did at the time.

One thing that struck me in that committee as well, and given that I think that portfolio of sustainability, environment and conservation is meant to be setting the environmental agenda for the state and looking forward to how the city of Adelaide and South Australia can be a carbon-neutral city, was how much paper the advisers in that department and the minister had. They were very well organised and, I assume, very well-briefed.

It occurred to me that I was sitting there in the 21^st century. There is no reason why all of that paperwork cannot be uploaded onto an iPad with an index to all of the perceived answers that will be provided, not that any answers were actually provided in that committee. There is no reason why the minister and his advisers and team could not have all of the data easily accessible on an iPad with an index that can be easily returned to.

The technology is there so, for next year, I would probably like to see us, starting in that department anyway, moving to a paperless estimates, which would be very novel. Even with the way we sign in an out of estimates, we could trial a paperless estimates where we just type our name into an iPad and use an electronic signature, Deputy Speaker—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Microchip your wrist.

Mr DULUK: —to sign in and out as well. It would save the whips countless hours of signing pre-estimates to get along. Another one of the estimates which I unfortunately could not sit in on was the transport and infrastructure estimates committee. I looked at the transport and infrastructure budget very closely because it is a very exciting budget, and I think transport and infrastructure is a key budget for economic growth in this state.

One thing that struck me that was not in the budget was any funding from the state Labor government for the upgrade of the Oaklands crossing. We had the Premier in the chamber today in question time talking about how the state government is getting right behind Oaklands crossing, which is a most noble project indeed and one that will benefit many commuters. It will benefit commuters in the seats of the member for Elder, the member for Bright, the member for Mitchell and those in the inner south.

There was not a single dollar in this year's state budget for the Oaklands crossing. The member for Elder and the Premier were out at the crossing, I think on Monday of last week, and then the Premier again today, in his contribution to the house, was right behind this project, yet there was not a single dollar in the budget, not a scoping study nor any plan on how the state Labor government will be investing in the Oaklands crossing. The federal government has $40 million on the table, thanks to the new member for Boothby and her work during the federal election, but there is not a single dollar yet from the state Labor government.

So, I look forward to, in next year's state budget, seeing the line item for the Oaklands crossing from the state Labor government if they are serious about that funding project. Some of the other departments were telling as well, in terms of the attention that they have within government and their effectiveness as well. I would like to talk a little bit about a portfolio issue that is close to my heart and that I have a strong interest in, and that is around mental health and substance abuse, which of course was in the budget estimates yesterday.

One thing we did learn from this year's budget is about activity indicators. We have seen almost a 30 per cent increase in the number of drug diversions recorded, as well as a significant increase in drug driver detections. It was very disappointing to have the police commissioner confirm, in his contribution to estimates on Monday, that 'there is an increased incidence of the presence of illicit substances within the community'. This is particularly disappointing given that we are in the final year of the government's five-year Alcohol and Other Drug Strategy.

It is even more alarming that the Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse believes the strategy has been largely successful, despite the police commissioner's comments. As we saw in the budget, drug driver detections are up and drug diversions are up. The National Ice Taskforce report found that South Australia has the second highest rate of ice usage in the country and that usage in this state is above that average.

In today's paper there was another report on drug use in South Australia. The 2013 National Drug Strategy Household Survey detailed report notes that illicit use of any drug by people aged 14 years and older has increased steadily since 2007, yet the minister considers the five-year strategy to have been successful.

The Hon. L.A. Vlahos: Stats, damn stats!

Mr DULUK: Yes, indeed. I may share some of her enthusiasm in terms of selected KPIs being met, if only I was able to read the 2015 annual progress report that the minister says she is sitting on, but eight months into the year it has not been made publicly available. But, minister, once you have moved it onto your desk, I look forward to reading it in this house.

The minister was also able to confirm—and this is, I suppose, a process of estimates that I do like, or the irony in it—that South Australia received $20.104 million in commonwealth government payments in 2015-16 under the National Partnership Agreement relating to mental health. Indeed, the minister had this figure on the tip of her tongue, but just as you would expect, given that she has been passing the buck on all mental health funding responsibilities for months now, in the media, in the house, and at question time, every failing in the mental health sphere has been, according to the minister, the fault of the commonwealth government.

This is despite the fact that the National Partnership Agreement was always due to expire and despite the fact that the commonwealth government has committed to a reorganisation of health funding under the new Primary Health Networks model, a model supported by the National Mental Health Commission. What really surprised me was not how quickly the minister spat out the amount of commonwealth funding South Australia was to receive under the agreement, it was that she could not answer the following question:

How much did the state co-contribute to mental health services under the National Partnership Agreement [in 2015-16]?

There was no answer on the amount the state contributed under the agreement. The minister did not know how much the state government was making under the National Partnership Agreement, her own portfolio, her own position, but she certainly knew what the commonwealth government was providing.

That is the estimates process that always highlights to me how ministers are so knowledgeable in some areas of the department but in other areas they are not. That question was taken on notice and I look forward to receiving that response from the minister. I just hope I do not have to wait until July 2017, as was the case with the planning minister, who took about eight months to reply to questions that I raised in last year's budget estimates. I do not have much time left—around two minutes—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Less than that, really; it is nearly 5 o'clock.

Mr DULUK: Going through the estimates process, one thing that came to me was around the portfolios within DSD around small business and job creation. The Treasurer is responsible, the Minister for Small Business is responsible, the Minister for Science and Information Technology is responsible, the Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation is responsible, and the Minister for Employment is also responsible for this portfolio. They are all different ministers, and in each estimates committee they all said, 'That part of small business employment is not my portfolio area, that belongs to another minister. Ask that in estimates.'

When it comes to small business, job creation and unemployment in this state, not a single minister in a single department wants to take any responsibility for any budget item with regard to helping small business and dealing with unemployment in South Australia.

Sitting extended beyond 17:00 on motion of Hon. L.A. Vlahos.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON (Newland) (17:01): I shall not be long but I would like to very briefly make a few comments on the bill before us. A number of members opposite have made comments about the extraordinarily large number of government questions that were asked during the course of the estimates proceedings. This prompted some of us to look back over time and see how that might compare with the last year of the Liberal government or even with last year (2015) with our government and how we might have performed.

I have a few statistics for the interest of the house. If we look at the last estimates of the former Liberal government in 2001, we know of the 15 Liberal ministers who appeared before those estimates there are only two former Liberal ministers currently in the parliament: the Hon. Rob Lucas in another place and the Hon. Robert Brokenshire in another place, who is now a member of Family First. If we look at the Hansard from the 2001 estimates, we can see that there are a far greater number of government questions taking up estimates and reducing the number of questions that could be asked by opposition members.

In recent years, we have seen a reduction in the number of government questions, and we have also seen far more time and far more questions from the opposition. If we look at the estimates of the Hon. Rob Lucas when he was Treasurer in 2001, he received some might guess maybe 10 government questions and supplementary questions. No. Was it 20? No, it was not 20. Was it 30? Yes, it was in fact 30 government questions in his last estimates in 2001. That is just the Hon. Rob Lucas—

Mr Gardner interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: That is 30 just for the Hon. Rob Lucas in 2001. Former premier John Olsen received 21 government questions and supplementary questions in estimates in 2001. Diana Laidlaw, the former minister for transport, well known for her hard work on the one-way Southern Expressway, was asked 34 government questions. We should have a little bit of balance and give credit to a number of former Liberal ministers who received very few: Robert Lawson, none; Rob Kerin, three; Mark Brindal, five. It was not all bad back then. Again, we can see the variability via minister.

In 2001, the Liberal government received about 210 government questions during the period of estimates—210. If we look at last year's estimates (2015), the current government received 80 government questions. In other words, the number of government questions received in 2001 was almost three times as many as in 2015. How did we go this year? The number of government questions received this year in estimates, according to Hansard, was about 35—35 government questions in total—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: It is my advice that the government received 35 government questions in total, which is less than half the number of last year's estimates. In other words, the former Liberal government in 2001, in estimates, received six times as many government questions as the current government this year. As I said to you, I think if there had been fewer government questions over time we would see the opposition had had the opportunity to ask more questions of a particular minister.

I will have a quick look at 2001 again, with the Hon. Rob Lucas, former treasurer, the opposition had the opportunity to ask about 70 questions. So, in 2001—

Mr Gardner interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: —the opposition was able to ask 70 questions of the Hon. Rob Lucas in six hours of examinations. You might think that is a fair number and you would be right. During this year's estimates, the current Treasurer was asked more than 120 questions in just two hours. In the first two hours of his estimates questions, he was asked more than 120 questions, compared to 70 over six hours with the Hon. Rob Lucas in his last time in estimates. The opposition, the Leader of the Opposition and the members opposite may not have liked some of the answers that they received, but they certainly got a lot more opportunity—

Mr Gardner: They weren't answers.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sit down, member for Newland. The member for Morialta is already on his second warning. I do not really mind if you do not want to stay for the rest of the day, but it would be unfortunate for you to miss all that the member for Newland wants to share with us.

Mr Gardner: But the member for Newland is enjoying it.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don't do it.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: I just think—

Mr Duluk: It's not about the government, it's about parliament, member.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Davenport can have his first warning.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: The member for Davenport was not anywhere near here when these questions were being asked.

The Hon. P. Caica interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: And you can have yours too.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: He was lucky to be at primary school, I suspect, in 2001. While I very much value the opinion of the member for Davenport on many things, I do not on this particular one because the stats show very clearly that the opposition is over-egging its complaints in this case.

Motion carried.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON (Ramsay—Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion, Minister for Social Housing, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Youth, Minister for Volunteers) (17:07): I move:

That the remainder of the bill be agreed to.

Motion carried.

Third Reading

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON (Ramsay—Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion, Minister for Social Housing, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Youth, Minister for Volunteers) (17:07): I move:

This this bill be now read a third time.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (17:07): Can I speak to this?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is that necessary?

Mr GARDNER: I think it is because there are matters that have been raised in the second readings and the estimates responses that deserve response.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Off you go. If this is frivolous—

Mr GARDNER: I think the casual reader of Hansard deserves to have a full understanding of the facts as they are presented and, as the member for Newland sought to have the last word in the estimates response, this is the opportunity to respond thus.

The opposition is pleased that the Appropriation Bill will be passing and it is very important, of course, that our public servants have the opportunity to be paid over the coming months and up until the end of the financial year for the work that they do. That said, in reflecting on the manner of the debate, the member for Newland has raised many issues and the casual reader of Hansard should understand a certain number of context matters.

The first is that complaints made by many members of the opposition about the time allocated for questions this year being reduced in certain areas and being reduced in many ways was met by a barrage of claims on Twitter by the ALP that somehow they had given up government questions this year and that was why it was okay that questions had been reduced. Thirty-five questions—it is all about context, member for Newland.

When the Treasurer answers, as you said, 100-odd questions, allegedly, I urge the reader of Hansard to go and have a look at that debate and have a look at the way in which those answers were disrespectful to the parliament and disrespectful to other members and could barely be constructed as English language sentences with full grammar and everything else, let alone actual answers to the questions that were being put.

The member for Newland creates a straw man when he says this because, of course, there is the fact that they said they were not going to answer any government questions, but could they constrain themselves? No, because, of course, they had these important areas, particularly the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for the Environment who had to fill up vast majorities of their time by answering government Dixers or lengthy introductory statements.

The context in which he asks, 'How many questions were answered by government ministers in the last year of the Liberal government?' is of course entirely out of context when far, far longer was given to estimates. We were just comparing the amount of time given to estimates this year with last year. I note, for example, that in the education space I had to give up a certain amount of time. It was a deal that was offered. It was fairly accepted, and it was accepted in good faith, that I would give up a certain amount of time for there to be no government questions.

Ministers are perfectly able and within their rights to respond to ALP members' issues by correspondence, but the fact is that in 2001 there was so much more time allocated to estimates that the opportunity for government questions was more than mitigated by the fact that there was an much lengthier time allocated for opposition questions. The opposition favours public scrutiny. The opposition favours improved public scrutiny, and in the years ahead I hope that is what we will see. Thank you all for your contributions to the debate.

Bill read a third time and passed.