Bills

Supply Bill 2017

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 13 April 2017.)

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (11:04): In regard to the installation of the cameras, I wholeheartedly support that. We in this parliament should be absolutely transparent, and as soon as possible, so I welcome the fact that that will be the case on 1 July.

In regard to the Supply Bill, we are being asked to allow the government to spend $5.907 billion, and I support that principle. It is important that, between the end of the financial year and the actual authorisation of parliament, the government has its budget passed. That the government should be allowed to spend up to the estimated amount of money is a very important principle.

There is a lot of trust involved in that request, and that trust is very much about how the government goes about spending money. That trust is about not only how the government goes about spending this particular chunk of money on this particular occasion but how the government goes about spending money on behalf of taxpayers, keeping in mind the extremely important principle that the money the government spends does not belong to the government, it does not belong to parliament, nor does it belong to members of parliament, or the Premier or the Treasurer—it belongs to all South Australians.

It is provided by South Australian taxpayers on behalf of all South Australians. The government spends that money on behalf of South Australians. That is where the trust issue comes in. The way to best judge whether that trust is well placed is to look at how the money has been spent during the time of this government and to look at the results of the spending of that taxpayer money. Let me go through some accurate, current economic statistics about South Australia. South Australia's gross state product grew by 1.9 per cent in the 2015-16 year, but, unfortunately, that is compared with the national average of 2.8 per cent. It is very concerning.

Exports over 12 months up to March 2017 were $10.9 billion, but exports fell 6.2 per cent on an annualised basis, compared with the previous 12 months, down to that $10.9 billion. The government's target is $18 billion. Its own self-nominated target is $18 billion by 2017. To the year ending September 2016, net interstate migration has been negative 6,484 people. Keep in mind that these statistics are as recently available as possible from the ABS and other data. We are losing people from South Australia to other states in Australia, where presumably they believe they have more opportunities.

On the jobs front, only 16,900 jobs have been created since the Labor government promised, in February 2010, that it would create an additional 100,000 jobs by 2014. Here we are in 2017, and 17 per cent of that promise has been fulfilled three years after the date when 100 per cent of it was expected to be fulfilled. There is a 6.7 per cent trend in South Australia in the annual unemployment rate up to March 2016—the highest in the nation. Up to March 2017, the seasonally adjusted rate is 7 per cent—again, the highest in the nation.

With regard to water prices, South Australian average household water bills have grown 233 per cent from 2001-02, when Labor came into government, up to the 2016 year. With regard to electricity prices (and I will have more to say on this a bit later on), in the last 12 months to the day since the government electricity and energy policy forced the closure of the Port Augusta power station, spot prices for electricity in South Australia in the wholesale market have increased 105 per cent. So, in one year since this Labor state government's energy policy forced the closure of the Port Augusta power station a year ago to the day, wholesale spot prices have more than doubled. They have gone up by 105 per cent. Forward contract prices for the next two years have increased 46 per cent over the same 12 months.

Net imports of electricity from Victoria have grown by 48 per cent. Keeping in mind that 86 per cent of the electricity generated in Victoria was from coal, the government's self-professed environmentally based policy to get rid of coal has only resulted in the importation of more coal-fired power from Victoria. If the government honestly believed what it says about electricity, it would understand that saving the planet is not only about emissions in South Australia. A policy that increases emissions in other states is not going to do what it says it wants to do. In that time, we have had six major blackouts, including the unprecedented statewide blackout on 28 September last year.

The government is spending $512 million per year just on interest for total public sector debt through the 2016-17 year—$512 million over 365 days. Juxtapose that against the fact that SA will receive $471 million more in GST in the 2016-17 year than in the 2015-16 year. All these economic indicators are going downstream at a rate of knots when the actual income from GST, which is not the only source but is the primary source of taxation income for the state government, is actually going up very fast.

Regarding unbudgeted spending, to go off on a slight tangent, the principle of budgeting is exactly the same in a one-person household, a 10-person household, a state or a nation. You have to balance your income versus your expenditure and you have to plan exactly how you are going to manage. If you deliberately plan to have a year where you are going to spend more than you earn, that may well happen for very good reasons, but you have to have a plan to repay that deficit. You have to have a plan over coming years for how you are going to make that money back, and you have to know that that deficit is being spent for good reasons, not frivolous reasons.

I am sure all of us would agree that productive infrastructure spending may well be a good reason to have a deficit. Spending to pay public sector wages would not be a good reason to go into a deficit. I am not suggesting that those people who turn up to work every day and do their jobs properly should not have their wages paid. Of course they should have their wages paid but, in the context of the government budgeting process, it does not make sense to be going into debt.

As a former minister for forests said, it does not make sense to be spending taxpayers' money as if it were a credit card to pay for wages. That was a former Labor forestry minister—Michael O'Brien. But between the 2003-04 year and the 2015-16 year, the state government has spent $4 billion more on general government operations than it had budgeted, so it cannot manage its own expenditure. Four billion dollars is a massive amount of money. It is not just an extra half a per cent here or there. Four billion dollars of unbudgeted spending is an extraordinary situation to be in.

I come back to this issue of trust. The government asks us to support the provision of just over $5.9 billion for its spending. As I said before, I have no problem with the principle. We will support it, of course, based on the principle, but the questions of trust, about how the government spends their money and whether it is in the best interest of South Australia, are very serious issues. The snapshot I have just given are figures provided by the shadow treasurer. They are the most up-to-date figures available from reputable sources and they make it very clear that South Australians are not benefiting from state government spending the way they should.

Let me just take a more detailed step into my electorate of Stuart. As people know, the electorate of Stuart is very large. It is a country and outback area, with Port Augusta as its major regional centre and Kapunda as the next largest town, only 75 kilometres from Parliament House, all the way on up to the Northern Territory border. What is most striking to an outsider about the electorate of Stuart is the diverse range of communities of interest. It is part of the Barossa Valley, part of the Riverland, most of the Mid North, the regional centre of Port Augusta and a big chunk of the Upper Spencer Gulf coastline. It is almost all of the north-eastern pastoral area of South Australia.

It has a wide range of local communities with very different local interests, local engagement, local employment opportunities, local recreational opportunities, etc. However, I will tell you one thing they are completely united about: they are absolutely sick and tired of hearing the sorts of statistics I have just read out about our state's economy. They are completely united in being sick and tired of the way the government is spending their money but not getting the results they deserve and, in fact, not getting the results that the government tells them to expect.

I have talked about unemployment across the state. Let me provide the latest figures available on unemployment in Upper Spencer Gulf. All the Upper Spencer Gulf cities combined have a 9.8 per cent unemployment rate compared with a national average of 5.7 per cent. These are the latest figures available. The City of Port Augusta, which I represent, has a 9.9 percent unemployment rate, and in the cities of Whyalla and Port Pirie it is also significantly above the national average. There are many reasons for this, one of which is that the government is not delivering the economic outcomes that it always promises to deliver when it spends taxpayers' money.

One of the most heart-wrenching aspects of the unemployment rate is population decline. The most recent figures for regional South Australia over the last 12 months show that population growth in the Flinders Ranges has been negative 1.7 per cent, outback population growth has been negative 2.5 per cent and total outback and north-east population growth has been minus 1.1 per cent. This is compared with an Australian average of plus 1.4 per cent. The communities I represent are being incredibly hard hit because government spending is not delivering the economic outcomes that the government says it will, and that is leading directly, through a wide range of negative mechanisms, to very high unemployment—approaching 10 per cent.

If people cannot get jobs, they cannot stay. It is a dreadful situation for a household to be sitting around the kitchen table when the key breadwinner has lost their job, whether that is the man or woman, the father, the mother, whoever it is, in a wide range of different households. They sit down and say quite openly and frankly to each other, 'Look, we've done the sums and we've looked at our commitments.' It might be a house mortgage, it might be a car loan, it might be commitments to the kids.

Whatever it happens to be, they say, 'Do you know what? We can meet our commitments, including our daily, weekly and monthly consumption spending, maybe for three weeks,' maybe for three months, in a different household, maybe for six months in a another household if they are very lucky. However, the principle is the same: they sit down, they do their budget and ask, 'How long can we be without an income? What can we do to cut our spending so that perhaps we can stretch that time?'

When that household cuts their spending, it cuts the income to business and service providers in the region, and that then flows to their employment opportunities. They do everything they can to stretch their capacity to stay in the region without an income, but whether it is three weeks, three months, six months, a year, whatever it happens to be for that particular family, if they cannot get a job the time comes when they have some incredibly hard decisions to make.

The sensible, well-meaning, practical people of the electorate of Stuart do not wait until the last night and say, 'Oh, we've just run out of money. What will we do tomorrow?' They start planning much earlier than that and say, 'Do you know what? We probably have to start looking for a job and it probably needs to be somewhere else in South Australia or interstate.' You can see how the figures I read out all connect and are intimately connected to households in South Australia, in Port Augusta, in Kapunda, in Jamestown, in Burra and in Peterborough, right down to the tiniest communities such as Bower, in the electorate of Stuart.

Our primary, most important focus here should be to support people in South Australia. Whether they are in a one-person household, a 10-person household, it does not matter: supporting people in South Australia must be our most important priority. We can all argue about the different ways to do that. For example, the Liberal Party has an incredibly strong belief that one of the best ways to support people is by supporting small and medium-sized businesses because those businesses are employers, and if they are successful they can provide secure employment, and secure employment allows households to get on and live not only day in, day out, but year in year out, and live successful, thriving and positive lives.

The Labor Party can have different views about the best way to help people, but we must all be here to support people. This all comes unravelled when a political party, such as the Labor Party, which has been in government for over 15 years now, is elected, is entitled to govern and is entitled to implement its spending programs that it says will deliver particular outcomes for the people of the state. The government is entitled to do that, but the problem is when it does not deliver and it says, 'We will spend your money, South Australians, in this way, for these purposes, to get these results,' but year in, year out, they do not deliver.

That is why we have the highest electricity prices in the nation, that is why we have the highest unemployment rate in the nation and that is why, unfortunately, we have people leaving our state in droves. Let's hope that a lot of those people come back. Let's hope that after the next election we will have a change of government and things will improve enormously and that as many of those people as possible come back to South Australia; I have no doubt they will want to. The real practicality is that if a young family moves away and their children start at a new school and they develop new friendship groups, and they get established and have new employment opportunities in other places, they will not automatically be able to uproot themselves with the snap of a finger and say, 'There's job back in South Australia. I will go back now.'

They may be able to. Let's hope that as many as possible can do that, but the reality is that will not be possible for all of them. Their 10-year-old children will soon be 15-year-old children and those 15-year-old children may say, 'Yes, it was great back at home in South Australia, but the world has moved on. I am 15 now, I've got friends in school and I want to stay.' That will tug at the heartstrings of those parents and make it a very difficult decision for them to come back.

The problem is that this is not a quid pro quo. We are not getting people coming from other states into South Australia, but maybe we will lose some and maybe we will gain some and our communities, which must be at the heart of everything we do in this place, will be okay. We have negative net population growth. We are having thousands of people leave our state every year—in the last 12 months six and a half thousand people—because the government is not delivering on its spending promises, as it said it would do.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (11:24): I have been in this place nearly 16 years now and I have forgotten how many Supply Bill speeches I have actually contributed to; each and every one of them has been for the many billions of dollars that are required to run this state. As members in this house will realise, I am actually sitting in a different position in the house today. I was in government for two hours and 55 minutes in 2002 and then, when we lost a confidence motion in March 2002, we were put into opposition.

Every speech I have made on the Supply Bill has been as a member of the Liberal Party; however, recently the state electoral college met and preselected another person to represent the Liberal Party in Morphett at the 2018 state election. In what I can only describe as a completely unforeseen outcome, the college preselected another person as the party's candidate, and this was ratified by state council last Friday week. As a result of what amounted, in my view, to a no-confidence decision, I saw no point in remaining a member of the Liberal Party and have resigned from the party. It is now my intention to see out my remaining time in this place as an Independent Liberal on the crossbench, and I look forward to continuing to work for the people of Morphett.

I must acknowledge the past support that has been given to me by the Leader of the Opposition and all my parliamentary colleagues. I am yet to decide on my long-term future. I will continue to consult with my family and friends, and I will come back to this house with any announcement. I would like to thank my family and staff for their undying support; this has had a terrible impact on them. I will certainly be interested to see the reaction from all my colleagues in this place.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:26): I rise to speak on the Supply Bill 2017, introduced by the Treasurer. As members would be aware this is necessary until the budget is passed through the parliamentary stages and, ultimately, the Appropriation Bill 2017 receives assent. In the absence of those arrangements taking place, there would be no parliamentary authority for expenditure between the commencement of the new financial year and the date on which assent is given to the main Appropriation Bill.

This year, the government is asking us to approve $5.907 billion to attend to that contingency, to make provision pending the passage of the Appropriation Bill. I must say that in the time I have been here that amount, relative to the total budget, represents about five-twelfths of the budget for the forthcoming year, and it concerns me that such a large amount of money is being sought. That is five months' worth of budget that is currently completely blind to us; that is, it is not been disclosed at all and will not be until 22 July.

Certainly in the last 15 years, post elections, this government has advised the parliament that it may not issue a budget until August, so delaying it a few months post a March election. That is understandable from time to time, but it has always puzzled me why former treasurer Foley and then treasurer Snelling, and even the current Treasurer, would need to do that. They have been in office for over 15 years, and it has to raise some question about their capacity or their understanding of what is happening in their own departments if there is a need to delay it post a successful election on their part.

The most concerning thing to me in respect of this whole process is that in the time I have been here South Australia has always issued its budget at least a month and sometimes five weeks or so after the commonwealth budget. This is quite different from what occurs in the other states that are actually making a difference in respect of their growth and the prosperity of their states. I thank Chris Russell, who is adviser to the Treasurer, for following up the request regarding the position on other states. He did not actually answer my question as to whether there are other states that require an allocation of five-twelfths, but he did provide some useful information on what currently happens in the other states.

In Victoria, they do not even need a supply bill because, as members would know, they usually issue their budget in May, frequently before the federal budget. They allocated their budget about 10 days ago. They do not wait for the commonwealth. The commonwealth has a different jurisdiction. They get on with it and they do not need a supply bill. Similarly, New South Wales delivers an early budget. They have power under their Appropriation Act, in any event, to allow for the provision of some moneys to be paid after 1 July for interim payments, if they did not actually pass their Appropriation Bill. They issue their budget, deal with the debate on it and pass their appropriation legislation before the commencement of the financial year.

Those states know what they are doing, they are confident in what they are doing and, frankly, we should take a leaf out of their book. Tasmania delivers an early budget. Again, that is usually passed by the end of the financial year, but their particular legislation, the Public Account Act 1986, allows them to provide for an interim supply of up to two months of expenditure relative to the previous financial year. If there is an election in that period and they are likely to exceed the two months, then a supply bill is prepared.

So, in special circumstances, other governments around the country present a supply bill, but only in exceptional circumstances. I do not understand why South Australia drags the chain on this. It is true, and I think it should be noted, that the commonwealth does allow for up to five-twelfths of its budget to be appropriated or makes provision for payments to continue to be paid past 1 July. Their own Appropriation Act allows for that. Generally, they have delivered their budget and tabled their annual appropriation bill in May. In fact, they are to do that again today, in May 2017.

Of course, they have a senate to get through, where the states are represented. There are formulas for redistribution back to the states of our share of the money, I might point out, regarding the distribution of the GST, company tax and income tax, which the commonwealth collects. This should not in any way interfere with what we do. Our Treasury knows what they are going to get and they understand what they are entitled to. Sure, there is the capacity to make some amendment later, but we should be setting the agenda in South Australia, as do other states that are following their previous precedent.

I should also mention Western Australia, which usually passes its appropriation bill in late August. Its Financial Management Act allows for two months of automatic interim supply. Members would be aware that they recently had an election and there may well be some delay, again in exceptional circumstances. However, we have a government that has been here for 15 years and it is asking us, blind to any indication of what is going to be in this year's budget, to approve $5.907 billion to be spent without any scrutiny.

I think that is arrogant at least and demonstrates a level of incompetence and a failure to take the lead, which the government should be doing, especially when it has been in charge and has access to all the material. Historically, we have not held up a supply bill. I would be very tempted to say that you only get a couple of months' worth and we ought to be able to deal with these bills, but our party room has considered that and we will allow the bill to follow, as has been the precedent.

Frankly, a very clear message needs to go to Treasury that it needs to get its act together. They are the ones who have told me that they put the recommendation that there be sufficient time allowed for a five-month request. It is bit like saying to the Treasurer, 'Well, just ask them for five months. The parliament might agree to it. It's a bit of an ambit claim. See what you can get.' There is no justification for it. There has been no election.

To the best of my knowledge, there has been no smashing of the revenue of the state. That is certainly not what the government has disclosed to us. There has been no lack of provision under the payroll tax that they get. Obviously, our businesses are going under at a rate of knots in this state. Nevertheless, there has been no indication to us that their payroll tax income is to be smashed. There has been no indication that stamp duty and property taxes, for some reason, have evaporated. There is no reason to suggest that the gaming and gambling taxes that we generate at the state level have all suddenly evaporated.

So, it is a complete mystery why, without any explanation, it is necessary in this non-election year that a government needs to have five months of its annual budget approved under a supply bill. No explanation has been provided—none whatsoever. All I can assume is that the government is in such a frozen state of incompetence that they cannot even pull together a budget and prepare the budget bills and the appropriation bill that go with it. All that does is reinforce to me what a state of paralysis and incompetence they are in financially.

If I were to refer to any other budget this year at the state level, let me pick one that is run currently by a Labor administration in Victoria. They were able to deliver a budget a few days ago on 1 May. I think it was actually issued on 2 May but, like most things these days, they tell us all about what is going to be in the budget the day before. They were able to announce very significant capital works and a very healthy and balanced approach towards some very pressing issues.

One of the matters that the Andrews government in Victoria dealt with was police and the difficulty of managing their law and order obligations and responsibilities. They announced not only a very significant provision for extra police but also $308 million to monitor serious violent offenders. That is a matter that I would ask the government to take note of here. Also, they announced an extra $44 million to expand the Thomas Embling forensic mental health hospital. It puts us to shame here, if anyone goes out to see James Nash House. They also announced an extra $30 million to improve mental health services for people at risk of committing crimes.

An area in which the government here has dragged the chain and which, if they got on with an early budget, they could deal with, is to invest money into drug and alcohol addiction, which is a serious blight across Australia and no less so in South Australia. The government has already rejected our proposal under the Controlled Substances (Youth Treatment Orders) Amendment Bill to allow for the establishment of mandatory treatment of young people who are struggling with drug addiction through a court approval process and to enable a secure therapeutic centre for children addicted to ice and other highly destructive and illegal drugs to progress.

Not only did they reject that legislation but it seems that they have not read the National Wastewater Drug Monitoring Program, which found that Australia ranked second in the world in its use of methamphetamine. In terms of capital city populations, levels of methamphetamine use were consistently above the national average in Western Australia and South Australia.

I do not know what minister Vlahos, the Minister for Substance Abuse, has been doing. It seems that she has not been reading the Oakden report. It seems that she has not been dealing with one of the most scandalous exposés of the abuse of treatment of mental-aged, mature-aged people in our state. Quite clearly, she has not been. She did announce, with minister Malinauskas, that they were going on a task force tour to look at drug addiction in this state. They were supposed to have a report to us at the end of April. It is now 9 May.

We still have not seen that report, which I do not doubt for one moment will reinforce exactly what the national inquiries have told us, and that is that we have a serious addiction problem. The most contemporary use of a drug in that category is methamphetamine, and this use is dangerous, deadly and prolific in this state. I do not doubt that for one moment. Perhaps that is why she has the report and is not going to show it to us. Perhaps it is because she does not want to spend any money in this area. Perhaps it is because she does not appreciate the significance of the issue. Either way, she needs to disclose that report to us.

Frankly, if this government does not invest a very significant amount of money into the therapeutic treatment of those with addiction, then it is an absolute scandal that they should fail to do so. The Victorian government have embarked on an action plan, which is an $81.1 million investment in their budget into an ice action plan. The investment was to include $34.8 million for 30 new rehabilitation beds and $9.7 million to acquire land to build three new residential drug facilities in regional Victoria. I think, frankly, that is an excellent initiative. I read with interest Minister for Mental Health in Victoria Martin Foley's statement on this and his government's commitment to deal with drug rehabilitation in their state.

The depth of understanding of the government there ought to be very clearly understood by this government. It is a Labor government. They are prepared to understand that they have an issue, they are prepared to act on it and they are prepared to put their money where their mouth is in relation to the therapeutic treatment of that. They face, in their state, 257 overdose deaths per year from illicit drugs and many other prescription drugs, and found that there had been a continued and significant impact in the Gippsland communities, particularly, and other regional areas.

So, they are prepared to do something about it—not write another report, not have a task force, not go on a roadshow, not hide away in some four-wheel drive, bumbling along the road (shocking roads as they are out in rural South Australia) to consult with people about what is a known quantity. What has minister Vlahos done? Nothing. There has been no report and nothing published. Parliament has resumed today. I expect her to table it today and let us get on with seeing some commitment from this government, some ounce of decency that they give at least some scintilla of care towards the children who are dying at this stage in South Australia and who have no respite.

There is no secure rehabilitation facility for children who are addicted to ice in this state except through a private facility, and that of course is inalienable to most people. I say to the government, and in particular to minister Vlahos, have a look at what your colleague has done in Victoria, see what the Liberal government have done in New South Wales, and actually understand how pressing this issue that must be dealt with is.

What have the government done? The government have actually given Ms Vlahos another job this week. Not only has she not acted on the ice epidemic issue, not only is there a scandalous exposure of the Oakden issue, but they have now asked her to undertake a role as the acting minister for minister Martin Hamilton-Smith, who is off in China somewhere.

It never surprises me, of course. I am sure the cabinet gives him all sorts of jobs overseas just to get rid of him. The point is that here is a minister—minister Vlahos, the Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse—who has been exposed as failing to deal with the most scandalous issue of this year in respect of aged mental health patients, and who has done nothing to address the ice addiction of our children, and what does this government do? They give her an extra job.

Well, God help the trade and investment portfolios while under her watch, because clearly she should not be undertaking any role such as those when she has demonstrated incompetence in dealing with the current role. I will not be opposing this bill, but for the reasons I have said it is about time that the government understood that it has been in office for 15 years—this is its 16^th budget—and they ought to know what they are doing by now. It is just a gross act of incompetence that they should be coming back to us asking us for five-twelfths of the forecast budget, blind, for them to be able to continue their squandering waste.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (11:46): I rise to speak on the Supply Bill 2017, which proposes to give the government $5.9 billion to spend in the next financial year ahead of there being a budget prepared for the next financial year. Every year, we have a supply bill, and usually it seeks to appropriate $3 billion or thereabouts to get through the first quarter in case there is any hold-up with the full Appropriation Bill—the budget bill—that will cover the whole year.

As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition just identified, this is a very unusual process being undertaken this year—to seek five months' worth, nearly half of the year's budget, ahead of the actual budget bill. It makes one wonder what exactly the government is doing. Why this breach of protocol, convention and process? Why this incompetence? Why is the government seeking nearly $6 billion without even having to go through a budget process? It does not make for good governance and is not a practice that I endorse or hope we will see again.

That said, with the government seeking $5.9 billion, it is my happy duty, as the member for Morialta, to offer some suggestions on how they might best spend that money in the year ahead. Of course, this is the regular business of government. Paying salaries for teachers and doctors is tremendously important, and we do not want to put any impediment in front of that, which is why we will be supporting this bill.

I wish to talk about some issues that are particularly important in my electorate and also in my portfolio area and, as the shadow minister for education, multicultural affairs and the arts, I will endeavour, if there is time, to also touch on some of those issues. I will touch on some of the brief issues first.

There are some tremendously important works being done, and I commend the Adelaide Hills Council for the work they are doing in conjunction with the powerline undergrounding process and the PLEC committee, which is a collaboration between different levels of government. In particular, I note that some of these processes are in train, and some of these processes are sought but we are optimistic they will be delivered. Certainly, if a Marshall Liberal government is elected at the next election, we will ensure that they are delivered.

I applaud the work that has already been done to make sure that powerlines are able to be undergrounded in Lobethal in the 2018-19 year and in Gumeracha in the 2019-20 year. I will spend a moment on Gumeracha. In terms of Lobethal, many people go to the wonderful Christmas parade, the Lobethal lights, the Lobethal Living Nativity and all the other things that are in Lobethal. I note the incredible 175^th anniversary of Lobethal celebrations, in the presence of the Governor, just on Sunday. It was a tremendous day.

In terms of Gumeracha, the Gumeracha Main Street committee, formed by Chelsea Lewis and her team, is really focused at the moment on ensuring a body of work to make that town an attractive feature to increase tourism to the area and to ensure that the beautiful history of Gumeracha is maintained and celebrated and the current business opportunities are leveraged to do even better in the future.

Powerline undergrounding will be one of those things that will be part of a broader strategic plan that the Gumeracha Main Street committee is putting together, and I look forward to that process. I am pleased that the Adelaide Hills Council is on board and supporting that. We will need to make sure that the powerline undergrounding committee supports that work so it can be carried out before the end of this decade.

A couple of other issues in the local area have been brought to my attention as the shadow minister for education. A total of 168 petitioners have signed a petition in relation to the student crossing at Ridgehaven Primary School requesting that it be improved. As the petition that was presented to the parliament last year said:

Every week, there are near misses and it is only through good fortune that we haven't seen a tragic accident at this location.

Your petitioners therefore request that your Honourable House approve funding for improvements to the student crossing at Ridgehaven Primary School—preferably to include pedestrian-activated lights or, at least, a raised 'wombat crossing'.

I note that in the Leader Messenger in April there was a letter from Dr Richard Harvey, the Liberal candidate for Newland, which I also concur with, in which he wrote:

It is disappointing that the State Government has ignored community and police concerns about the safety of the school crossing at Ridgehaven Primary School. Not only have hundreds of parents signed a petition asking for the crossing to be upgraded, but police also want the crossing upgraded. The safety of children must come first. Jay Weatherill's response is to disregard parents and police and do more surveys. It is extraordinary that while the government is able to find millions of dollars for spin-doctors in the education department, they can't find the money to make a school crossing safe. I urge Mr Weatherill to listen to the community and police and just get on with fixing the crossing.

As I said when I spoke to this chamber on 30 November last year about this school crossing that needs some fairly inexpensive works to have it improved, this should not be a political issue. The current signage is inadequate. The current crossing is inadequate. It should be a matter of a couple of days' work during the school holidays—it could have been last summer school holidays; let's hope it is the next one—to get it fixed so that this situation can be improved for all those residents and all those families at the Ridgehaven Primary School and they can have their children walking to school more safely in the years ahead.

I am going to talk in a moment about Highbury Primary School, which is on the border of my electorate and the Newland electorate and which has some similar issues. While we are on this school crossing issue, it is important to note that we should have more children walking to school and more incentives, rather than fewer for children to walk to school, and ensure that they are safe. We live in a society where we want our young people to be more active. We want children to have less screen time and more exercise.

This is something that we should all be focused on trying to help happen more often. It is very disappointing that the government has been so slow to act on these school crossings, which are hopefully things that can be fixed relatively easily. This is, I think, the fourth time that I have brought this issue up in parliament. The Hon. Jing Lee has been asking questions of the Minister for Road Safety in the Legislative Council about this matter. Frankly, I am not satisfied that the government has been doing enough to get this fixed. I hope that it is fixed. If the government does not fix it, then a change of government after the election, I am sure, will see these matters fixed.

In February, I spoke to the house about Highbury Primary School and the petition signed by 571 local residents who live near or who are part of the Highbury Primary School community, noting that the roads there are unsafe. Improvements are needed for those students walking to school, not only across Lower North East Road between Dordoy Street and Stow Court but also across Valley Road, either at or between Honeysuckle Drive and Beckman Avenue. Constituents are calling for improved road signage, road markings and student crossings on the roads immediately surrounding the school and preschool.

This matter was clearly of concern to the local community, with 571 signatures on the petition. The Hon. Jing Lee asked a question of minister Malinauskas in February. I note the minister said that he would be:

…more than happy to facilitate higher level discussions with the department so that if there are genuine concerns to be raised and there is a genuine priority that needs to be met that it can be contemplated in the context of all other areas where the government is expending large and significant sums of money to ensure that we do have safe traffic crossings in and around our schools.

That is apparently all one sentence. What that sentence means will be up to the linguists to decipher. I hope the department will endeavour to do some work on how those crossings might be improved and how the signage around the immediate vicinity of the school might be improved.

So far, in the local Messenger press—and Ben Cameron did some excellent work for the Leader Messenger in writing about these issues—the government response suggested that the Highbury Primary School might like to reconsider an opportunity to be involved in the Way2Go school bicycle scheme. A scheme that the school did several years ago—and they got some instructors talking about cycling safety—was completely irrelevant to the issue at hand: the need for improved school crossings and signage.

In relation to the federal government's budget, which is also being held today, there has been an announcement by the federal government in relation to school funding. It will impact South Australia in some ways that are welcome. It is, of course, a lower quantum in the next two financial years—in the 2018 and 2019 years—than was suggested by Bill Shorten and Julia Gillard might come through, had their plan in 2013, which was unfortunately unfunded, come into place.

Obviously, as the state opposition we would always like more money to come into South Australian schools. The increase on the current forward estimates is welcomed, but what is particularly important here is that we are now talking about a genuinely needs-based funding model, based on the six principles outlined by David Gonski in his initial review. I welcome Mr Gonski's engagement with how this money best can be spent into the future.

The increases over the next 10 years from the federal government to South Australian schools look like a 5.6 per cent increase to government schools, a 3.7 per cent increase in funding to Catholic schools and a 4.6 per cent increase in funding to independent schools. Across Australia that compares with a 5.1 per cent increase to government schools, 3.5 per cent to Catholic schools and 4.1 per cent to independent schools.

You will note that the increases to South Australian schools are significantly higher than the increases to schools in other states, and that is because the deal that our Premier, Jay Weatherill, signed with the federal government ahead of that 2013 federal election was an inadequate deal. It was not as good a deal as other states were able to achieve. The Premier is obviously not a very good negotiator when it comes to school funding or when dealing with his federal counterparts, and unfortunately South Australian schools (and I particularly note the comments of Michael Honey from Nazareth College in the South Australian Catholic school sector) have suffered as a consequence and will benefit from the improvements that will happen over 10 years.

Of course we would like any of that federal funding that was able to come earlier to do so, and we will always stand up for South Australia's interest. There was also a state component of that Gonski funding that was to come as a result of the original agreement, and the state government put it in the budget last year. The Liberal opposition, of course, voted for the budget last year, and we have always supported that contribution coming through and we will continue to support it coming through.

We will stand by that budget commitment from the state government because the true Gonski model, with those six categories of need, whether it is a disadvantaged or regional and remote location, disability or low SES (and there are a couple of other categories, one of which is for small schools), should be the principle on which needs-based funding is allocated, and it is good that we are getting back to that straightforward principle.

It is especially important, as today our children are sitting their NAPLAN tests, and it is important for South Australia's future that we are able to deliver the best schools in the country—that should be our ambition: nothing less than the best schools in Australia. This Labor government, after 15 years, has failed to deliver that. Last year, we were last or second to last in 18 of the 20 NAPLAN categories. That is not good enough. Our children deserve better and our community deserves better. Over the years to come, a Liberal government, after the next election, will deliver the best schools in Australia and an improvement in those NAPLAN results, which is tremendously important.

I want to use the remaining time I have to talk about a particular local issue that is very important to residents of my electorate who live in Woodforde, Teringie and Rostrevor and to residents who live in Magill, in the electorate of the member for Hartley. It relates to the new development at the old Magill Training Centre site, and there is a long history and context to this.

The Deputy Premier signed the development plan for this site the day after Boxing Day, I think, in 2013, when obviously the minimum possible scrutiny could be applied by the fourth estate, the local Messenger was on a two-week hiatus and many people were on their summer holidays. That plan was to allow about 400 dwellings to be built at Woodforde, rather than the 200 to 250 that Renewal SA talked about in its initial correspondence to local residents. At any rate, it is a plan that our residents are somewhat used to and have been familiar with for over three years now.

In the week before last, the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure put out a category 3 public notice of application for consent to development for quite a substantial change to the plan. I wrote to local residents as soon as we were able to get the detail of the change to inform them that, far from the three-storey maximum for a couple of buildings identified in the original plan, this one sought that some five-storey developments take place there.

This is on the old Magill Training Centre site, which is basically Hills Face Zone, and it is an extraordinary development. Constituents of mine and anyone else who is interested have until 10 May—bearing in mind that we got this in the last week of April—to make a submission. I invited all my constituents who wished to do so to put forward their views to the DAC or, if they wished to write to me, I would present them.

This is an issue on which there has been significant state government abrogation of responsibility in relation to traffic management. This development of 400 houses (it may be more now) is, of course, going to have a massive impact on traffic in the area, so we thought that it was appropriate, as there are already traffic pressures in that area, that the state government produce a traffic management plan and some traffic management improvements. The state government has refused to do that.

However (and I have spoken to the house on this before), they did come back last year and identified that they would work with the Campbelltown and Adelaide Hills councils to get a new traffic study and, potentially, a plan. The CEO of the department, Michael Deegan, wrote to me in January stating:

I am advised that on 17 November 2016, representatives from the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, Adelaide Hills Council and Campbelltown City Council met to discuss a jointly funded Traffic Study for the Woodforde Development and its surrounds. The Traffic Study will be for the area generally bounded by Magill Road, Norton Summit Road, Glen Stuart Road, Moules Road and St Bernards Road and will review the traffic generation rates, distributions and the traffic impacts of the Woodforde Development within the study area, as well as examine any existing problem locations.

In response to concerns raised by members of the local community at forums, I understand the Councils are also considering expanding the traffic study to review traffic issues on local roads outside the Woodforde Development study area.

The outcomes of the traffic study will inform the need to undertake any further road management plans of the arterial roads in the area, as well as inform the Councils' road and traffic management programmes. It should be noted that a comprehensive road management plan has already been undertaken for Penfold Road, St Bernards Road, Newton Road and Darley Road.

It is expected that the traffic study will commence in early 2017 following agreement by Councils and the State Government on the scope.

I trust this information is of assistance.

I wrote back to Mr Deegan on 14 March stating:

Dear Mr Deegan,

Thank you for your letter dated 20 January 2017 regarding the Housing Development at Woodforde.

Now that the development is underway I would be grateful to hear what steps will be taken next by the government.

I note in your last letter you referred to the Road Management Plan for St Bernards Road/Penfold Road, which was previously undertaken. I also note that the government has spent no money delivering the road management plan's recommendations.

I look forward to your advice on this matter.

That is true: five years after that road management plan that was referred to, for St Bernards Road and Penfold Road, the government spent no money actually delivering on any achievables. I very much hope that the government will look at the traffic management plan now being undertaken, which is being partly funded by Campbelltown and the Adelaide Hills councils—in fact, majorly funded by them—and a little bit supported by this government, and deliver on the improvements that are suggested.

The point I want to make in relation to the new application to the housing development is this. How can we possibly have a relevant consideration by the DAC of this new proposal that will increase the height of the buildings in this development until we have had the road management plan, the traffic survey of the traffic there at the moment?

In the last five days, I have been absolutely inundated through Facebook, email, correspondence, visits to my office and letters to my office. Dozens of constituents have taken the trouble to write letters, make telephone calls or physically visit the office to pass on their concerns. Their concerns are widespread and need to be taken seriously. I will be putting together a comprehensive report of those concerns in a submission I will be sending to the DAC tomorrow on the due date.

I note that the Adelaide Hills Council has told me they are identifying to the DAC a particular problem when considering this issue prior to the completion of the traffic survey. How can the DAC possibly contemplate the significant impact this is going to have on our local community until we have had that traffic survey work done? That is a point I will also be making to them in supporting the submission by the Adelaide Hills Council that their consideration be deferred until that work is done.

Because I only have 30 seconds left, I will not read the specific letters of those constituents who have taken the trouble to get in touch, but I note that the flavour of their concerns include:

the irregular infrastructure for the area;

that the original development was approved for a maximum of three storeys and this far exceeds that;

that it is not located in a site suitable for high density;

that it does not meet the required policies and zone objectives;

that the buildings are too tall; and

that the streets are too narrow for the proposed number of car parks, which are clearly inadequate in this development.

I hope the DAC will take notice.

Mr WINGARD (Mitchell) (12:06): I rise today to speak on the Supply Bill. We note that the mechanism is to allow for the continued payment of public servants and the Public Service until the Appropriation Bill, or the budget bill, is passed in parliament sometime later in 2017. The appropriation for the 2017 Supply Bill is $5.9 billion—that is right, $5.9 billion. In 2016, the appropriation was $3.44 billion, while in 2015 it was $3.291 billion, which is quite phenomenal. Why the big jump? Why the big jump this year is a question that I think all South Australians will be asking and that we ask of this government.

There are people out there asking a lot of questions about this government and about what is happening with our state. We know that we live in the great state of South Australia. When I am out on the street talking to people—and I often do this when I am in my community doorknocking or at the local supermarket, at the local footy club or sporting community group catching up with people in the local area—I ask them how they think our state is going. I can tell you that, to a person, the response is, 'Poor to woeful.' Every now and then I find someone who says, 'We're going okay. As a state, we are going okay,' but that is the best I can find. The rest say, 'Poor to woeful.'

Even if you want to be the most optimistic of people and look at the 'okay' rating, I have an issue because I do not want to accept okay. The government thinks okay is acceptable. I do not. I think we are a better state than that. I think that we are better than okay and that we need to be striving for a whole lot more. Unfortunately, I think that after 15 years the government has conditioned South Australians to think that okay is good enough. Well, it is just not and we need to be doing a whole lot better.

Let's look at some of the areas where we are not doing very well and start with employment because that is a real key indicator of how our state is travelling. Again, this is a key point people talk to me about when I am discussing issues with people at supermarkets or when I am out doorknocking.

South Australia has the highest unemployment rate in the country at 7 per cent seasonally adjusted; on trend, it is 6.7 per cent. We have had the highest unemployment rate in the nation on trend for 28 months—more than two years—and that is absolutely unbelievable. We are sitting at the bottom of the pile when it comes to employment and the trend rate of 6.7 per cent. It is the bottom of the ladder and, again, that is not acceptable and that is not okay.

The government would have you believe that it is okay. It is not. In fact, at the time these latest figures came out the employment minister did not seem to be too fussed about that figure or that we again languish at the bottom of the table when it comes to employment in South Australia. Unemployment hurts South Australians and it hurts South Australian families.

Youth unemployment is also incredibly high, and this is another great concern. The youth unemployment rate is 17.3 per cent, the highest rate in Australia. The youth unemployment rate is for 15 to 24 year-olds, so that is another grave concern. We know that South Australians and young South Australians in particular are leaving the state at a great rate of knots, and it is alarming that that youth unemployment figure is so high. Again, I look to the other side of the chamber and say that that is not acceptable. The government wants you to accept it, but on this side of the chamber we do not accept being at the bottom of the pile again when it comes to youth unemployment.

There are currently 88,500 South Australians who are underemployed. There are 88,500 people aged 15 years and over who want more hours and are available for more hours to work in the community and they are not getting those hours and opportunities. That is not good enough. South Australia's underemployment ratio is 10.8 per cent, increasing from 9.5 per cent 12 months ago. The underemployment ratio is the number of underemployed workers expressed as a percentage of the labour force. These are people who cannot get jobs yet they want them.

South Australia's underutilisation rate is the highest in the country at 17.3 per cent. The national average is 14.7 per cent. Again, we are a mile away from the national average. The government would have you accept that that is okay. We do not believe that is okay. The underutilisation rate is the sum of the number of unemployed persons and the number of underemployed persons expressed as a proportion of the labour force.

All these figures and numbers show that South Australia is doing it tough after 15 years of this state Labor government. It is not good enough and people are not accepting it anymore. People have had enough and they want better for South Australia. I noted a little while back an article in The Advertiser from August 2016, entitled 'Premier in a spin on state's job rate'. This is the way the government deals with these things, and this is part of the problem with the budget and the way the budget is managed by this government, because they are prone to waste a lot of money.

One of the ways they could deal with our unemployment rate is to come up with programs that might initiate education and help people into work or come up with ways to help companies grow and employ more people—but, no, none of that. What does this government do to deal with the unemployment problem that we have in South Australia that has been going on for more than two years? Again, I refer to this article, entitled 'Premier in a spin on state's job rate'. What does the Premier do? He spends $200,000 on 'creative services' and 'developing appropriate messaging' for the problem that we have here in South Australia. This is absolutely unbelievable.

At the time, we had the highest jobless level in 15 years. Clearly this government saw this as a problem but, again, the solution they came up with was wasting money and spending money on a campaign. Their concern was that 'the brutal reality is SA has the highest unemployment rate in the nation'. That is a fact. However, the Premier looks at how we can convince people and use 'creative services' to convince people that we do not have a problem. That is what is really alarming.

I still find that hard to believe, but this went out to tender and bidders were briefed to develop a campaign in 'promoting SA as the state of employment and business' and to provide 'versatile imagery' that can be used in traditional and social media. This is what this government is about. They are about spin and not about substance, which is a problem. South Australians are waking up to what this government is doing. As we have said, after 15 years they have taken us to the bottom of the pile. We sit at the bottom of the ladder on so many measures, and there is only one person to blame—the Premier and all of his team.

When we look at CommSec's State of the States report, South Australia ranks seventh out of eight in terms of economic performance. That is not good enough. We talked about the unemployment rate and we talked about jobs because you will remember that the Labor Party did promise 100,000 jobs in February 2010. That is what they were going to create. Only 16,900 jobs have been created since that promise was made. They have promised 100,000 jobs, but and only 16,900 jobs have been created. It is phenomenal.

We also look at economic growth of 1.9 per cent in South Australia. South Australia's gross product grew 1.9 per cent in 2015-16 compared with 2.8 per cent nationally. Nationally, the country is going relatively well, but South Australia is way off the mark. The government would have you believe that that is okay. I am sorry, but we on this side do not believe that South Australia is going okay.

That leads to a lack of trust, which we see on so many other levels as well at the moment. I come back to the Oakden and child protection fiascos that this government has overseen in South Australia. They are red raw in the media at the moment with the Oakden fiasco in particular as far as aged care and mental health care for the aged are concerned. South Australians have every right to be absolutely livid.

I am going to stick with employment and small business, another portfolio area that I look after. I get out into the community and listen to people, which is obviously a key part of this job. I go to supermarkets, I knock on doors, I go to community groups and I hear what is happening. I also visit businesses to find out how they are travelling and what is going on there, because we know that if we can grow businesses we can grow jobs in South Australia. That is the actual key: grow businesses, grow jobs—that is how it works.

Government jobs are just money spinning around internally. If we want to grow the pie—and we need to grow the pie in South Australia—growing business is the way to do that. Small business is the lifeblood of South Australia. There are 140,000-odd small businesses in South Australia. The majority of these small businesses do not employ anyone; they are sole traders. About 93,000 to 94,000 small businesses are sole traders.

In BankSA's latest State Monitor survey in March 2017 is another alarming figure. They recorded the lowest level of state pride on record. South Australia has the lowest level of state pride on record with the BankSA survey. That is absolutely alarming for all small businesses. This reverberates because that is how people feel about our state. That is the point I am making to the government: they are not out there listening, they do not know what is going on and they have lost touch with the people.

That low confidence level is incredibly damaging. It means that people keep their money in their pockets and that they will not spend with our small businesses. We need to do all we can to help small businesses in South Australia. When I get out and talk with and listen to small business owners, they have a real 'get on with it' attitude. They have difficulties, but they are so busy trying to make their business work and putting effort, energy and time into their business that they have trouble dealing with government.

That is very much a sentiment that comes back to me as I speak to a lot of small businesses, whether it is a local coffee shop or a manufacturing firm. Even some businesses that are starting up and want to grow into bigger businesses say, 'When I speak to the government about help, assistance and pathways'—and this is not just financial help and assistance, this is just pathways to make the processes easier, to reduce red tape—'to allow me to get to where I want to go and take roadblocks out of the way, it is incredibly difficult to get through those pathways'. They are so busy trying to keep their head above water that they cannot access these pathways, which is incredibly disappointing.

The good thing is that South Australian people and South Australia businesses have a very proactive attitude. While they are concerned about how our state is going—and most of them feel we are going quite poorly or, at best, okay—they are on board when we talk to them about being better than okay and they believe that is where South Australia should go. We on this side, led by the leader of our party, believe that South Australia is well positioned to be doing a whole lot better than it is doing at the minute.

When I talk to these small businesses about what holds them back, I mention red tape and government regulation and the difficulty getting through those barriers. They talk about taxes and charges and fees—we know a lot about those and I am going to talk about those again in a minute—and that is what holds them back. One of the biggest factors they want to speak about is utility prices, and it is no surprise that electricity is number one on the hit list.

I am always out and about talking to businesses and listening to what they have to say, but late last year I did 50 businesses in 50 days. It was a very intense time, but it was a great time to hear from these businesses and to find out what is impacting them. As I said, utility prices and electricity prices in particular are a real key to what is going on there. We know that South Australia has a very high renewable energy target and that pushes the price of our electricity up when we compare it with other states. Other states do not have the same high renewable energy target that we have set in South Australia. That is why on this side we say we should go with the national figure so that it is a level playing field for everyone.

There is no reason for us to be higher than everyone else out there. It makes no sense. It puts an impost on the cost of electricity in South Australia, and that is a big impost on businesses as well. When businesses are weighing up whether to set up or stay in South Australia and then look at the costs interstate, these imposts and extra fees and charges that we have in South Australia make it very hard to keep us competitive. That is a key, and that is something that we are very focused on.

We know that the Finkel report comes out a little later, and that will give us a better shaping as to how we can go about implementing a policy on electricity that is going to make it reliable and affordable and keep costs down in South Australia for families and for businesses. That is what small businesses talk about when you get out there in the community. When you stack it up against how other states are travelling, and how South Australia is travelling, it really is quite phenomenal.

The government also talks about running a surplus budget. I will not go into great detail, but the Treasurer bangs on about this. We have to be very conscious of a couple of things; one is the increase in GST revenue that is coming South Australia's way year on year, and next year it is going to increase quite significantly again. The Mid-Year Budget Review also showed that the privatisation of MAC is estimated to be about $2.5 billion above the amount of $1.6 billion. That is what assisted the net operating balance of the budgets in 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. The MAC dividend in 2016-17 of $298 million compares to the estimated net operating surplus of $300 million.

The point of that is the Treasurer talks about his surplus, yet we can see it comes almost fairly and squarely from the dividend of the privatisation of MAC, and that is what the Treasurer has done. He says to South Australians that it will not impact on their CTP insurance in the long term, and we will keep an eye on that because the Treasurer has sold off that asset to make his budget bottom line look good. In the long term, based on the other key indicators from other states, that will force up the price of CTP insurance. It is another cost, another fee, another charge that is going to come to South Australians courtesy of this Weatherill Labor government.

Ultimately, again, that is where we sit. South Australians have those grave concerns, and there are a couple of areas that I deal very closely with as far as my portfolios are concerned. They are the employment space and also the small business space, and industry as well. When we get out and speak to industry, it is quite phenomenal. I mentioned before the matter of small business having trouble getting through and working and dealing with government.

I also know that from an industry perspective they had that same issue. I was out speaking to a number of people last week. A number of industries in South Australia are really working hard and fighting hard to stay in South Australia because they love this state, too, and they want to see it survive. They are just up against it when it comes to a number of these fees and charges and cost overheads that are way above the national average when you look at South Australia.

I know I bang on about electricity, but it is the big issue. We have the highest priced electricity and the least reliable electricity in the nation, and businesses do feel that, especially businesses that use a lot of electricity. When I speak to those businesses and talk about the liaison with government, they say, 'We need better liaison with government.'

We talk about the Industry Advocate, which I will talk about a little bit later in this house. The specifics are that businesses say, 'We like the Industry Advocate because it helps us liaise with government.' A few people have mentioned that to me. I said, 'Do you mean that before you weren't liaising that well with government and government wasn't helping you?' They said, 'No, the Industry Advocate really helps with that, and, yes, there was no communication with government before.' In fact, under this Labor government, it is still hard for industry to deal with government, and that is not how governments should be.

Governments should be getting out of the way and allowing business and industry to succeed. Governments need to make those pathways clearer. When you see industries blocked or, more to the point in this case, when you see industries surprised because the Industry Advocate has enabled them to speak to government, then you stand back and ask: why was it so hard in the first place? Why was it so hard for that business to speak to and deal with government? If South Australian companies have something to sell and South Australian governments need to procure, why is there not a direct relationship? Why is there not better communication, and why has it not been there for a long time?

That is something we want to get to the bottom of because we need to have better communication. The government is putting someone in place to facilitate that. We want to make sure that is going to work efficiently and effectively, but surely government and business should be working together every day. That is how we are going to take South Australia forward. Putting inhibitors and roadblocks in the way does not help anyone, and I think that is what has helped drag South Australia down to the point it is at.

I mentioned that I want to talk about Oakden and a few other things. I will do that in my grieve because my community has some very strong feelings about what is happening at Oakden and also about the child protection fiasco we have seen under this Labor government over a long period of time, and their inability to deal with those matters. As far as the budget is concerned, we will stay on the economic side of things.

It is disappointing to know where South Australia sits. That is what I hear most when I am out talking to people on the street. When they are asked how South Australia is going, their response is, 'Not good.' At best, they will say, 'Okay.' I stand here with hand on heart and say to this parliament that it is not acceptable anymore that we are just okay. We are a better state than okay, and we need to have better government.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (12:25): It is a pleasure to make another contribution to the supply debate about the $5.907 billion. When I talk to people in the electorate, and particularly if they are in my age group, I say to them that they probably lived in the best of times to some degree, because I think there are going to be more challenges as we go forward. I wish that was not the case, but when you look at the complication that exists in our lives and the complication to ensure that we have prosperous futures, even though governments of all persuasions do the best they can in making decisions to try to provide, it is very challenging.

This budget process is part of it. It is a really important part of it. That is something that I say normally to close friends and to those who are reflecting upon things they are not necessarily happy about in their lives and the good things also. We look at each other when I say that and they say, 'Yes, Steven, you are probably right.' There is an older anecdote that the fifties were great times, the sixties were great times and the seventies were great times. I experienced that, and while younger people cannot reflect upon those older years they are excited by the present. They know there are challenges in the future, but there are challenges for all of us. No matter what your age group, you want to ensure that the future is a prosperous one.

That is where the budget is a key factor. This is a process that takes a while to go through the parliament. I wish that it was the more detailed version where we speak about direct lines within budgets, what the outcomes and expectations would be and what the measurements against the previous year were, but that comes later in the process. This is when the opposition traditionally critique things they are not happy with, acknowledge some decisions that have been made, and put a lot onto the record.

I want to start with a positive. I want to say thank you for the investment that has been announced for the Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme. As I understand it, $110 million will potentially come from the state on the basis of some $46 million that has been applied for from the federal government. The Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme is in theory a great project, and in practice I believe it will provide a significant number of job opportunities and an improvement to the food production industry in the Adelaide Plains area, which will be significant.

I and some others will be provided with a briefing about it tomorrow, when we will get greater detail about what infrastructure will be undertaken, the number of connections that can be made—I believe it is 12 gigalitres of water, but I could be wrong on that—the amount of water, the growth opportunities and the potential that it creates. The Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme is a project that the Liberal Party has supported for some time. Before the 2014 election, Steven Marshall, the member for Norwood, as the Leader of the Opposition, made an announcement about a financial commitment to it in the early stages from the Liberal Party, if we had formed government.

It is significant that the Labor Party in government has chosen to continue to support this because it recognises the importance that it plays across those northern Adelaide electorates, where its own members sit, and its importance for those communities. I acknowledge the commitment by the government on this and hope that it is an example of some more announcements about job creation schemes that will come later in the budget papers.

Many members on this side who stand up and talk about our communities, metropolitan or suburban, talk about jobs and unemployment, the challenges for young people and those in middle age who, through no fault of their own, are looking for positions and the difficulty attached to that. The budget has to drive that opportunity, but this is an example where an early decision was made by the state government to invest $110 million. I recognise that and I commend them for it.

Another good point I want to make, which you can argue is not directly linked to supply legislation but is supported by the state government and very strongly supported by local communities, concerns the national heritage register listing. Only yesterday, the federal minister, Josh Frydenberg, announced that Burra and Moonta would actually be 109^th and 110^th respectively on that national heritage listing, which provides them with an opportunity to apply for and seek world heritage listing.

That is great. I must admit that I was part of a group of people who had discussions about this going back to 2009. It has taken a long time for it to be achieved, but it is a reflection on the significance of what the Moonta, Wallaroo and Burra Burra mines and the communities actually did in the mid-18^th century and a little bit later, which actually got South Australia out of significant financial trouble. It has also brought another part of the world to us, particularly in relation to where I am from, with the Cornish connection.

These are wonderful examples of where the history of those areas has been recognised. They have gone onto the national listing and that provides an opportunity for those communities to push for that higher level of listing with world heritage site listing. That is fantastic news. It has taken too long to be achieved, but it is just another step in the efforts being made to ensure that what is there is recognised, that those who built it are recognised and that we all benefit.

I know that in the Goyder community, when you drive around Kadina, Wallaroo and Moonta, the buoyancy that existed in the local communities when the mines were strong and provided job opportunities is so pronounced. Yes, there was a sadness attached to poor health conditions at that time, including the terrible influenza epidemic and the loss of lives resulting from that, but they built and constructed those communities in a way that was an exponential leap above what would have been their natural growth.

Indeed, they provided some fantastic facilities not far from us on North Terrace from the money, the revenue and the profits and their commitment to improve South Australia by contributing to the facilities on North Terrace. What they did in the state in that period in the 1900s was significant. What they did locally was of extra special significance, but there is a longer term benefit from it also. I commend all who have been associated with that. It has taken a lot of effort for it to be achieved, but it will be part of that next level of recognition.

For the Kadina, Wallaroo and Moonta communities, it builds on the Kernewek Lowender, the Cornish festival that will happen in only a few weeks' time. For those members who are listening and who are not committed between 19 and 21 May, there is a wonderful three-day event—it used to be a little bit longer than that, but the moving of public holidays has made it a bit more challenging—where the Cornish history of the community is recognised by thousands and thousands of people. I am pleased that the Premier is going to be there on Friday at Moonta to open the event. I think it was four years ago when the member for Frome and I were—

The Hon. G.G. Brock: Dancing.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes, that's right—not maypoles; I should remember this. I know that other members of parliament will be there, too, who might have a Cornish connection in their own family or have a deep interest in history in the community. I encourage all to attend. You will certainly enjoy your three days. Accommodation might be hard to find now because the festival brings a lot of people to the area. Even if you just drive up for the day, it will be time well spent. It is another recognition of our history, which is interesting because May is History Month. It is a good time of the year.

Talking about supply, I want to put on the record an issue I am a bit conflicted about. The Minister for Transport made some announcements in August or September last year, a little while after the budget was delivered, about the level of investment in road infrastructure in the electorates of Frome and Goyder. That is fantastic, I must say. There is a variety of issues, including Y-junction repairs becoming T-intersections, shoulder widening and pavement improvements. It is not all of it. We certainly need a lot more done across both electorates, there no doubt about it, but it is a significant investment, which did not receive a lot of fanfare at the time of the budget announcement, but it has come out since and it is exciting to see what it will do.

However, there is one component of it that I have had concerns with, and it is not necessarily about the intention but the scope of the work, and that is the Federation Park roundabout. Other members in this place might be aware that if you are a visitor to Yorke Peninsula, travelling there or leaving during peak holiday times, it is not just that current T-intersection; it is also the intersection with the Copper Coast Highway and Highway One just north of Port Wakefield which causes concerns.

There is about $4 million in this commitment by the Minister for Transport to construct a roundabout at Federation Park. I believe that is a significant part of the fix for it. I have no doubt about that, but it is the scope of the roundabout that concerns me. One part of the Road Rules is that we give way to those on the right. At the moment, if you are headed from the Copper Coast towards Port Wakefield and further south, Yorke Peninsula traffic attempting to get onto that main road often takes a long time to do so. For example, deliberately during a challenging time I travelled back to Adelaide, and it took me 33 minutes to do about two kilometres from the old railway line that crossed at the top of the gulf to the Federation Park T-junction and then 27 minutes to get to the Highway One intersection, so an hour to do about 10 kilometres.

The fix that the government proposes and that the minister has put in place, for which construction work is probably about to start very soon, is for the roundabout to be a single lane. A single lane does not necessarily concern me, but my wish and the wish of the alliance of councils—Barunga West council, Copper Coast council, Yorke Peninsula Council and Wakefield Regional Council—was for a slip lane to exist on the eastern side of the roundabout to allow Copper Coast traffic heading south to go around the roundabout and then have a connection on the southern side of the roundabout where the Yorke Peninsula traffic going around the roundabout will connect and head into Port Wakefield.

The minister was good enough to meet with me and the mayor and CEO of each of those councils in about the middle of October last year. I am really grateful for the opportunity. They all came down and met here in parliament. The minister and his staff put to us that the modelling undertaken for the intersection was for the maximum weight and distance (not necessarily time) to be no more than 70 metres from the roundabout when it goes through it. Remember that the roundabout creates a different situation, whereby Yorke Peninsula traffic gets on it and Copper Coast traffic has to then stop for it because of its single lane nature. The concern of the councils about the design by the minister and his staff was that the intersection would not be improved necessarily because it would transfer the challenge that, instead of Yorke Peninsula traffic having to stop, Copper Coast traffic would have to stop, and that has created some worries.

The minister met with the mayors, CEOs and me. He listened to the request for the slip lane on the eastern side of the roundabout for Copper Coast traffic heading south to be included. The minister committed to providing the modelling, but unfortunately the modelling has not been provided. There have been numerous requests for it, but it has not come through, and the minister has made the final determination that the design work shown at that meeting will continue and there will not be a slip lane but a single lane. I only hope that it works.

I am contacted regularly about this by people who feel as I do that, yes, it is fantastic that money has been invested, but the money is not going to provide the solution that it should for the long-term benefit of the Copper Coast and Yorke Peninsula communities and their visitors. I hope it works out. I have grave doubts about that. I am frustrated to some degree by the lack of feedback that has come through.

While I am very comfortable with 90 per cent of the expenditure of that $32 million that the state government has committed to the infrastructure in the areas of the members for Frome and Goyder, I am frustrated that this money might not be put to its optimum use. That is part of the challenge. There has been a lot of local media about it. The minister has been contacted by a variety of people about it. It is not just traditional sedan or car drivers, but the transport industry has also put its position about this, so I hope it works out.

I also want to put on the record some frustrations I have with hospitals, and I hope that there will be investment in hospitals in the budget when it is eventually submitted; for me, a typical example at the moment is Yorketown Hospital. The member for Frome was invited to a public meeting. He was unable to attend, but he provided me with some words that I committed to read at the meeting. Minister Snelling, the Minister for Health, was also invited, but he was unable to attend and so one of the senior regional SA Health people was there. There were 607 people who attended that meeting, which is a lot from the southern Yorke Peninsula area, and it was because they are passionate about their hospital.

In the convening of that public meeting, the key person for me in making sure I was there was Dr George Kokar. I have known George for a long time. He put my shoulder back in a couple of times when I popped it out playing sport. He was there for the birth of both my children and, even though the midwives did all the hard work, Dr George was there. He has been practising in the area for 44 years, and he is part of an age profile of GPs.

Lyn Poole from the Rural Doctors Workforce Agency advised me that previously doctors dedicated their lives to their practice, and many would be there for a long time in very small practices. There used to be single doctor practices, but these matured into two-doctor practices to at least give them some days off. It was not unusual for them to have late nights, very early mornings, seven-day schedules and very little time off.

Dr George Kokar also provides anaesthetist services for surgical procedures conducted at Yorketown. George is 70 and he has indicated that within a couple of years he will choose to do something else with his life—and he has earned that right, absolutely and completely. Because of the difficulty of getting skills into regional hospitals in particular, they are all facing the same sort of challenge.

This is a really important policy area where governments and oppositions need to work in association with universities to ensure that a solution can be found through not just regional kids who study medicine and go back to practise in regional areas but metropolitan kids who study medicine and who are prepared to practise in regional areas. Unless we get that skill transfer right and we have skilled people in regional hospitals providing important health services, we are going to lose more and more.

The surgical challenge for Yorketown Hospital was that colonoscopies would still be conducted but that three other surgical areas would be removed or transferred to Wallaroo. I believe that places significant pressure upon Wallaroo Hospital's ability to continue to provide. Wallaroo is a bigger structure organisation. It does not have any more beds than Yorketown, but it does have seven private beds associated with the public hospital. Health is trying to do the best they can within the resources provided to them, so it is a resource issue but, as I said at the public meeting, it is also a society challenge.

In the future, maybe we will not get doctors who are prepared to devote their lives to their patients, commit themselves to their patients and forgo their own family commitments, but we cannot necessarily have a situation where professionals are restrictive in their hours. It has been put to me that too many younger professionals graduating as doctors only want to work nine to five. I am surprised by that. Maybe I am old-fashioned, but I believe that, if you commit yourself to seven years of university study for a medical degree, you are going to work a lot more hours than that because that is where you believe that your life lies and that is the commitment you make to the people and to the community you serve and in which you work and become such an important part of.

There were 607 people at that meeting. Within three days we had 650 people's names on a petition calling for resources to be allocated to it. I was very pleased that the Hon. Stephen Wade from the other place as the shadow minister for health attended the public meeting and committed from the Liberal Party perspective, on the basis of being elected into government next year, the funding required for the hospital surgery upgrades. That was up to about $220,000 and Mr Wade made that commitment, which is fantastic news.

I hope that the government can recognise the important service that surgical procedures in regional hospitals provide to all areas. It is easy to say that people can go to Wallaroo instead. It is easy to say that it is an hour and a quarter drive, but it is 75 minutes if you live in Yorketown. If you are further down the southern Yorke Peninsula—say at Marion Bay—you have another 45 minutes on top of that again, so you are two hours away from the place where the procedure is to be undertaken, and if you want to deliver a baby on Yorke Peninsula Wallaroo is the only place that does obstetrics and deliveries. It is part of the challenge.

I know that many members on this side live in regional communities and we know the challenges they face; dollars are part of it, but policy is a really important part of it, too, and that is where the budget and the Supply Bill help drive that, because government departments need resources, all government departments need to be efficient in what they do. The member for Stuart talked about $4 billion in expenditure that was above budget figures, also over a few years, but it is that efficiency of service delivery that has to create the resources to provide what everybody needs.

I have long been a believer—it is part of the reason I came into this place and sought to represent others—that no matter where you live you should receive the same level of service. The more information I possess the more I understand the great challenges of that, and that is why there is a significant investment in metropolitan areas. I understand that, because that is where the concentration of people live, but those of us who choose to live in the regions and who want the regions to be vibrant and strong communities that provide a future for the next generation and the capacity for our older generation to live there, retire there and live their last days there need to ensure that state budgets actually provide for that.

That means you have to have a strong economy, and that is why others talk about jobs. I absolutely and totally agree with that because it is jobs that create opportunities for revenue and it is revenue that creates transactions, and it is transactions that put money into Treasury's hands. Treasury then dishes it out with the capacity to fund what it needs—

Ms Redmond: For services.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Absolutely, for services and infrastructure, as the member for Heysen confirms. It drives everything. I hope that, while we sit in here and talk about $5.907 billion, we get it right, because getting it right provides an opportunity for all our communities to live and prosper.