Appropriation Bill 2017

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 4 July 2017.)

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (12:03): I rise to speak in support of this bill and also the relevant budget measures. The budget, at its fundamental level, is about taxation. It is about the price we pay for a civil society and, if you like, the taxation we pay reflects our values as a nation. The tax we are prepared to pay reflects the values of not only our nation but also our communities.

In an increasingly globalised economy, the ability for governments to influence economic policy is increasingly decreasing. As a result, budgets are not only economic documents—and this is something I learnt in high school economics—but they are about what we actually do as a society. Budgets are based on two components: the economy, as I mentioned just a minute ago, and it is also a political document. By 'political document', I mean that it is a judgement about how taxation revenue should be collected and expended. They are contested spaces, and that is what makes it political.

In a world where inequality is increasing at a rapid rate, the budget is also seen as an important way to maintain a civil society. For me, a civil society is one that is based on the values of fairness, justice and dignity. It is this increase in inequality in our society that makes ordinary people—and by 'ordinary people' I mean everyday people like working people, tradespeople, small business people in my community, farmers and the like—see that the benefits of globalisation are accrued by few and that the costs are borne by many. It is this increase in inequality that is destabilising many of our Western democracies.

The research is very clear. Over the past 10 to 15 years, a small number of people in our society have become increasingly wealthy and an increasing number of people have become less so. Accordingly, it beggars belief that some governments would use their budgets to increase this inequality. The recent federal Liberal budget is a case in point. Taxation for the wealthy was reduced and taxation for the middle and lower income earners was increased. At the same time, wages were cut for people on lower incomes through the attack on penalty rates. Who are the people who actually lose out?

Ms Cook: Workers.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Exactly right—young people who invariably work casual hours outside school or university, women who often work outside normal working hours because they have child care, children and family requirements and work to raise an income for their family, and migrants who work outside normal hours in work such as cleaning and the like. The federal budget is based on an ideology of increasing inequality in our society. This state budget is not based on that ideology, and that is why I support it.

It is based on the premise that those who can pay more should, to ensure that we have just economic and social outcomes. Its focus is on infrastructure expenditure to improve efficiency and also to increase jobs in our community. A good education, good health and meaningful work are keys to fulfilling and successful lives. There are many ingredients, but those three key things underwrite the other aspects of our lives. It is good that this budget focuses on those three things. This budget focuses on the three things that create fairness in our society.

For example, in health, the additional more than $50 million to improve accident and emergency care at Lyell McEwin Hospital will improve the southern parts of my electorate and also support the Gawler Health Service. It supports additional dialysis and chemotherapy services at the Gawler Health Service. It supports a new women's hospital to improve the quality of care for women in our community.

It has funding for education in my electorate. It has additional funding for STEM programs and STEM facilities, which increase the ability of children in my community to compete for those jobs in the future. It has funding for the finalisation of the redevelopment of Evanston Gardens Primary School to ensure that children in my community have a fair go at a good education. It has funding for a new B to 12 school in the Munno Para area to make sure that, again, children have access to a good education.

It has funding for work programs, in particular the job accelerator program, to ensure that young people in our community, through traineeships and apprenticeships, have an opportunity to get their first or second job, as the case may be. Through that, it also supports small business. There is funding for the Northern Economic Plan to ensure that we support our workers and small businesses in the northern area as a result of the closure of Holden, an industry that was abandoned by the federal Liberal Party.

It also has funding for disability workforce programs to ensure that the most vulnerable people in our community have opportunities to lead meaningful and fulfilling lives. It has money for infrastructure, such as the Gawler electrification project, which is subject to federal funding, which will go ahead and be great for not only additional services but also the jobs it creates. There is funding for a range of programs that support small business. There is also $200 million for the Future Jobs Fund to improve new businesses, start-ups, etc.

There is funding for Our Energy Plan. It is no accident that that new and additional investment was made by the private sector when the state government made the decision to enter into the energy market in a very direct way, through additional powers, or to be a player in the market. That is no accident. The reality is that by entering the marketplace we broke the monopoly some energy companies had on our power, our energy. It was a monopoly that was granted by the Liberal Party when they privatised ETSA some years ago. We also have money to fund My Neighbourhood projects to ensure that we respond to local communities and their priorities, rather than the priorities the government thinks are appropriate.

On the revenue side, I would like to say a few words about the big bank levy. The big bank levy is important for two reasons: it provides additional revenue that this government intends to put into programs to support small business and job seekers and it is also a very powerful statement about what is fair and reasonable in our society and what sort of society we want. The reaction to the proposed big bank levy is very instructive and says a lot about (1) the culture of some parts of corporate Australia and (2) the Liberal Party itself.

The outrage demonstrated by the big banks and the Liberal Party says a lot more about corporate culture and the Liberal Party than the proposed big bank levy itself. What is the impact of this big bank levy? According to research undertaken by The Australia Institute—and I quote from their report—it is as follows:

The South Australian bank levy is designed in the same way as the federal bank levy. Banks cannot avoid the levy by not banking or investing in South Australia. The proposed levy will therefore not disadvantage South Australia compared to any other state or territory.

The South Australian bank levy is proposed at 0.0036 per cent or 0.36 basis points. That is $3.60 in every $1,000,000 of determined liabilities. It is expected to raise about $90 million per year over the next four years. Together the five CEOs of the big banks make about half of what the levy is expected to raise each year. The amount the levy is expected to rise also represents just 0.2 per cent of the $44 billion in pre-tax profits the big five made last year…

I note that these figures are quite instructive when you talk about fairness in society. Half of what we propose to have as a levy is earned by the CEOs of the big banks. That reinforces the point I made earlier, that over the last few years a smaller number of people have increasingly become wealthy at the expense of the poor and middle classes.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Don't take my word for it; let's see what the impact of the big bank levy is according to bankers themselves. ANZ chief executive Shayne Elliott told ABC radio on Thursday regarding the big bank levy, 'This is a wealth transfer from the rest of Australia to South Australia. You are asking 95 per cent of our customers and shareholders to pay for this who do not live in South Australia.' This nonsense that this big bank levy will hurt South Australia is exactly that—just nonsense. The bank's CEO himself says that it is a transfer of wealth from the wealthier states to South Australia. We will actually benefit from this. I should not end there. Sam Jacobs of financial magazine Business Insider stated, 'The impact of the South Australian levy on the banks' bottom line will be minimal.'

So why the outrage by the big banks? The banks' opposition is not so much about the impact of the levy on their bottom line, because it would be minimal if anything, but they are opposed to the introduction of new state taxes. It is as simple as that. They wish to determine how we have taxation policy in this country.

On the one hand, we have the federal Liberal government saying that states should not rely on the federal government and federal taxes and should have their own taxes. We are doing that. It is interesting to note that the federal government big bank levy is a good tax, according to the Liberal Party in South Australia, but the state big bank levy is not a good one. It is the same type of levy and basically the same taxpayers are involved. One is good, one is bad.

The Liberal Party have announced that they will block the big bank levy in the upper house. The Premier in his appropriation speech yesterday said in response that the Liberal Party's decision is appalling and reflects the lack of integrity and character of their leader, the member for Dunstan. The photo of the Australian Bankers' Association (ABA) representative in the chamber gallery yesterday said it all. The ABA were here to ensure that the Liberal Party leader did not flip-flop once again. I say 'flip-flop' because this is a decision to block the big bank levy, not only in an attack on the budget but also on parliamentary conventions.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: That's right.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Odenwalder): Order! I assume the member for Finniss will want to be heard in silence shortly.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: What is the Liberal Party view about the convention? I will quote one of their members who wishes to be a minister should they be re-elected. In a talk on FIVEaa on 15 August 2016, the member for Unley said the following when he was talking about the levy dealing with the taxi industry. He was asked why the Liberal Party would not block it in the upper house, and this was his answer, 'The levy and the compensation were part of the budget. That is dealt with now. Budget bills go through the parliament because we simply can't have a situation where the state stops to work. That has been the convention for 170 years.'

The decision by the Liberal Party is quite instructive to oppose the big bank levy because this is an indication of what they will do should they win government. They will start breaking every convention possible. They are quite happy to do it today from opposition, so why wouldn't they do it from government? The Liberal Party are wrong to block the big bank levy. They have no mandate to do so.

Mr Pederick: Take it to an election.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I agree. That was my next point exactly. If they want to oppose it, they can make it their policy at the next election, but they have not. But it does not give you the right to block it today. In closing, I would like to go back to my earlier comments and talk about this big bank levy. It is clear that on my side of politics we are supporting the battlers, the people who go out there every day to work, ordinary people, tradespeople, the small business people, the small retailers the Liberal Party wishes to destroy through completely—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Mr Speaker, can I have some—

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Odenwalder): Order!

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: —unregulated shopping hours, the small battlers. On the other side, we have those who support the big banks. The lines are very clear: on our side, we support the battlers; on the Liberal Party side, it is the big banks. The choice is very clear at the next election.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Odenwalder): Thank you, member for Light. Member for Finniss, I think you have set the tone for your speech.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (12:20): I do not think I will even comment on that diatribe, quite frankly. Mr Acting Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to make some comments on the recent budget brought down by the Treasurer. I am not quite sure whether it is a communist budget, a socialist budget, a combination of both or whatever. However, it is doing very little for the people of South Australia, apart from considerable—

An honourable member: Pork-barrelling some seats.

Mr PENGILLY: Well, that was my word. 'Considerable pork-barrelling' I had written down here actually. It is all about pork-barrelling in the lead-up to the election next year and it is all about the failing Labor leadership of the state government and who is going to take over when the Premier gets his political head chopped off by the SDA, which I suspect might not be too far away. We have the pickpocket Treasurer on the job trying to get into everybody's pockets at the expense of everybody else. Unfortunately, we have the state of South Australia, which I am very proud of, on its knees.

I want to read out a few quotes from previous Hansard. This came from a budget reply speech on Tuesday 19 June 2007:

This is a bad budget—a bad and a sad budget. This is a budget that taxes, borrows and spends; but, as it taxes, borrows and spends, it avoids the key steps to building a better South Australia…The first thing this state needs is water…

That was during the drought, of course. The next time the same speaker made some comments was in the budget reply speech of 18 June 2008, when nothing much changes:

You cannot trust the Treasurer; you cannot trust the Premier. There is no action now for the future, just an eye on the next election date. It is all about buying your way into another term and hoping that the South Australian people will be suckered in. Let there be no doubt that come the next election there will be no desalination water available for use in Adelaide…

Yet another quote from the same speaker on 16 June 2009 in another budget reply speech was:

South Australians cannot trust this government to deliver on any of the promises in this budget. It has broken promises in the past and will break them again. This is a budget full of promises. I predict today that, if this government cons the South Australian people into a third term, those promises will not be delivered, as the razor will be out.

Guess who said that? The member for Waite, now a member of the current government. He made those three budget reply speeches in those three years and he is there now in the thick of it making decisions that are going to absolutely further bring down South Australia economically and as a society.

You only have to look at the record of this government on a number of issues: child protection, shameful; abuse of the elderly, disgraceful; water prices, appalling; power prices, a hanging offence; the ESL, greed. There are endless examples and I could go on all day; however, I do not think there is any need to do that. The leader, in his budget reply speech, touched on many, many matters, and I thought it was a very fitting reply to a very horrible budget, quite frankly.

I am not quite sure why previous members on the other side, and in particular the last speaker, got stuck into the banks. I really do not understand the psyche of the Labor Party in trying to beat up class warfare in South Australia. It is absolutely ludicrous. You need only go back to the global financial crisis. Basically, the only reason that Australia came through the global financial crisis was because of the solidity and performance of the banking system in Australia. They got us through.

The prime minister at the time, Kevin Rudd, went on a spending splurge which we are still recovering from and which is still impacting. He was followed by Julia Gillard. They took us on a borrowing-spending spree of astronomical proportions, but the completely solid business of banking in Australia was the underpinning reason that we did not go down the gurgler during the global financial crisis. They seem to forget about that.

I have no real reason to love the banks, let me tell you. I do not love them. I have been an ANZ client for longer than I care to remember. From time to time, things have been very difficult, as I am sure they have been for other members, particularly those on this side. During the credit squeeze some years ago, we paid 28 per cent on our overdraft on a farming business. We survived because my wife was out working, I was out working and we just had to get on with it, but that was the way things were.

As you would recall prime minister Keating saying, that was one of the recessions we had to have. It was an absolute nightmare. We had collapses in commodity prices but, even then, the banks got us through. Banking is an extremely important sector that underpins Australia as an economic performer—the solidity, independence and the strength of our banks—so do not give me any nonsense about class warfare, as the member for Light did. That is complete and utter tommyrot, quite frankly. He should be ashamed of himself, in my view, for producing that sort of performance this morning and hammering the banks. We all have reasons to get cranky from time to time about all sorts of things.

The Treasurer said that if anyone has bank shares they should not even be speaking in the house on banking matters or the bank tax. Let me tell you that I do not scroll through the Register of Members' Interests to see if they have bank shares, or any other shares for that matter. I do not see that being necessary, and I think the Treasurer is just continuing the good old class warfare. If people have shares, good on them; that is their business.

I would like to turn to a few matters relating to parts of my electorate. The government have absolutely failed to deliver for regional South Australia. This morning's announcement about Arrium being sold was a good announcement. The government did not bring it on, I can assure you. I am sure the Premier and his entourage are going to run around saying, 'This is what we are doing for regional South Australia.' I think this is what they are doing to try to save Eddie, quite frankly, but do not forget—

Mr Hughes interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: Hello, he is here. Welcome, Eddie. You get up and say a few words shortly. I think Eddie—

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Odenwalder): Member for Finniss, you—

Mr PENGILLY: Yes, I remember—the member, sir. I understand where you are coming from.

The Hon. P. Caica: The member for Giles.

Mr PENGILLY: The member for Giles, yes.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Odenwalder): Excellent. I accept your apology.

Mr PENGILLY: Thank you. The member for Giles must be in a fair bit of strife, I think. I noticed he was on Twitter this morning standing beside the Premier and the Treasurer—without a tie, I might add, which is an embarrassment for them. I am delighted that Arrium will be bought by another company and will continue to sustain Whyalla for decades to come. I hope it works.

Aside from that, there is not a lot in regional South Australia for us to be happy about. I guess we will get announcements of spending coming out from departments over the next few months, but there was nothing of substance in the budget. I will turn to the outer metropolitan area shortly, which sort of incorporates regional South Australia, but nothing of significance came out in the budget for regional South Australia. They are forgotten— they are absolutely forgotten—and that is not just a reflection.

We travel to the Northern Territory to see our family and grandchildren reasonably regularly and drive up once a year. I can assure you that people in those regional areas of the Northern Territory, where most places do not have mobile phones or anything else that we take for granted, are struggling as well. The reason that two of our children have left the state is that there is nothing here for them at all. They cannot progress to the extent that they want to so they have left the state.

In reference to my own electorate, pork-barrelling is alive and well down in Finniss, part of which is due to go into the electorate of Mawson in the next state election next year. I recall recently giving a speech in here and presenting a petition about the Main South Road from a group at Aldinga and having a bit of a crack at the member for Mawson and the member for Kaurna. Well, lo and behold, all of a sudden we have this pork-barrelling of Main South Road. But, hello, it is not going to start for a couple of years, so the locals down there have pooh-poohed it already.

They have said, 'It's not funded. When is it going to happen? It's not going to happen.' The member for Mawson is down there trying to spin the yarn that it is all going to happen in the immediate future and save his political scalp. Likewise, with the announcement of a super school in the Aldinga-Sellicks area. That is unplanned, uncosted, unfunded, and heavens to Betsy knows when it will arrive—sometime in the distant future I would suggest. I am not opposed to that in any way, shape or form. I think it is a good thing, the area needs it, as it is a growing area with lots of children going to school.

In the Sellicks-Aldinga area, half the school numbers at Myponga Primary School, about 70 children, go from Sellicks each day. A number also go to Aldinga and some of the senior students go to Willunga High School. They go all over the place, so long term—and it is something that the Liberal candidate, Andy Gilfillan has picked up on—there are major issues with schooling in the region. He is as pleased as I am that this announcement has been made, but whether it ever happens is something else.

On Monday night, I attended the Yankalilla Lions changeover dinner along with some 80 other people, and I sat at a table full of people from Myponga and they were highly bemused. One gentleman told me that it was quite funny that the member for Mawson appeared at the football at Myponga on Saturday. It was about minus 15° and he appeared in a T-shirt, which they found somewhat bizarre. At Myponga, you do not go anywhere in a T-shirt in the middle of winter, I can assure you, so he is overcooking his goose down there.

Mr Duluk interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: My colleague says that perhaps he had been drinking the Argentinian red; I do not know and I cannot answer that. That amount of infrastructure, particularly down south on Main South Road, is interesting.

Another thing concerning people down there is the $11 million project that went through when I was a member of Public Works Committee not so long ago to do with roundabouts and speed limits along that way. They are now asking seriously, 'Why on earth would you go and do that if you are going to upgrade the road? Why don't you put that off?' My understanding is that the work is not commencing until October this year anyway. Their preference would be for it not to happen.

They have a distinct preference for the road speeds down there to be brought back to 100 km/h. On Monday night, when I came back at about 11 o'clock on the 90 km/h stretch—it was a wet and windy night, and it was a pretty dangerous drive—I sat on 90 km/h and was passed by just about everybody on the road. People do not want to be told to slow down when there is no need to, and there are sections of that road where there is no necessity to go back to 90 km/h even currently, but we will see in due course what comes out of it.

There is some good news in my electorate from private investors. Oceanic Victor arrived in Victor Harbor yesterday. That is going to be great for the local area and will bring in more visitors, both local and international, and it will be an attraction in its own right. It will create jobs, and I am sure that it will also boost business.

There are some forgotten areas, namely, Second Valley, Rapid Bay, Cape Jervis and Delamere. All those little towns and villages would not know what the government was. A visit once every decade or so really does not give them a lot of confidence in the Labor government; in fact, it gives them a certain ironic cynicism that is well grounded and well thought about. You are not going to turn that around overnight. In my view, this was a Harvey Norman budget: it all looks wonderful, but who can afford it? It was a Harvey Norman budget.

In the short time remaining, I would like to raise some issues in relation to the Kangaroo Island part of my electorate, which once again the member for Mawson has been visiting regularly. I will not make any comment on some of the remarks that have been made by my island constituents in relation to the visits by the member for Mawson, such as taxi rides to the football, frequent overseas trips and a host of other things that I am sure will come out over a period of time.

The airport project on Kangaroo Island is continuing and the terminal is proceeding. There is a fair bit of spin to do with the announcement of the Qantas arrival. I went to a Qantas briefing last week that I thought was particularly dismal. I was disappointed and expected a lot more, actually. The Qantas representative only spoke briefly, and then the South Australian Tourism Commission covered the rest of it. They are getting it all wrong, even their announcements.

In the current issue of Australian Aviation (and I have not got to the bottom of this) is an item written by a journalist. I presume that he got his information from the Tourism Commission, but I cannot clarify that. This magazine goes all over Australia, and it refers to Kangaroo Island as the third largest island; correct. It states that it covers 4,400 hectares. Well, hello—it actually covers 4,400 square kilometres. This is in a national magazine that is trying to promote the island. Someone has got it seriously wrong. It goes on to say that 'sealed roads ring the island'. Well, hello—the north coast road is not sealed and they indeed do not ring the island. It is arrant nonsense.

We are going to have to track this down and find out where that information came from. If it came from the state government, they stand to be ashamed of themselves, quite frankly, but I am not sure that it does. This is where everything goes wrong: we have this spin campaign directed towards the island and all these wonderful things that are happening without getting things right. They simply do not have the infrastructure right.

They go on about the golf course, but the fact of the matter is that there is not the water available for the golf course. Indeed, if you investigate SA Water and talk with their people, there is no actual plan to put in the water for the golf course, and if indeed it was to happen it needs to be put in by the developer. My view is that this golf course, if it ever happens, is years and years away. Secondly, the government has not advanced the issue of power infrastructure from Parndana west. The SWER line system is 40 to 50 years old, and is deteriorating rapidly. There is simply not the power out that way. You have to upgrade the powerlines to advance the island's cause.

In relation to the road system, the Minister for Transport made an announcement on $8 million for KI roads over the next four years. That is actually just a continuation of the $2 million a year that has been spent over the last few short years. The problem is that they are B-class and C-class roads instead of A-class roads. They would be far better off building sealed roads with the $2 million a year and building them properly. The first two years of roads are packing up rapidly, which is leading to a deterioration in those roads, which are main tourist roads, like the north coast road. Bitumen roads are what is needed, and infrastructure is what is needed—not more spin. I conclude my remarks.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (12:40): It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak about this most recent state budget. It is a good budget and a good Labor budget. It delivers surpluses, it doubles down on our infrastructure spend, it funds key projects across South Australia and it delivers—as good Labor budgets do—record tax cuts for South Australia.

With the payroll tax cuts that we have delivered over successive years, with the WorkCover reforms and the reduction in WorkCover levies that we have delivered over successive years, with the cuts to stamp duty that we have delivered over successive years, with the cuts to land tax that we have delivered over successive years, South Australian businesses and households are saving more than three-quarters of a billion dollars in tax every single year thanks to Labor budgets. That is an extraordinary result.

Of course, at its heart this budget also has job creation. It is about promoting and providing for jobs at this time when the state's economy needs that additional support, not just through tax cuts, not just through infrastructure projects, but also by providing further cuts to payroll tax, particularly for small business, for the Job Accelerator Grants extended for apprentices and trainees, as well as for the existing Job Accelerator Grants for full-time and part-time employees, as well as very significant loan and grant facilities for businesses looking to grow their operations, to grow jobs and to grow their contribution towards the growing South Australian economy.

We have to raise revenue for that. One of the ways in which we can do that is by raising a levy on one part of Australian industry that can most easily afford it, and that is the major banks. To make sure that we can fund these tax cuts, these job grants, these grants and these loans for small South Australian businesses, it is not unreasonable to ask the most undertaxed sector of the Australian industry, the major banks, to make their fair share available. What we are asking for is one-third of 1 per cent of their profits, not of their turnover, not of their EBITDA, not of their earnings before interest, tax depreciation and amortisation, but of their profits, of the money that they have made after all those costs.

After announcing this measure, in response what we have seen is the most scurrilous and misleading campaign by these banks and by the Liberal opposition that I think I have ever seen in all of my time either as a member of parliament or someone working in and around parliament. I have to say, though, that it is not so much a reflection on the banks. I think Australians, unfortunately, have grown used to their anti-competitive, cartel-like, rapacious behaviour, designed to extract as much cash as possible from Australian households and Australian businesses, but it is more a reflection on the Liberals and their leader, the member for Dunstan.

They are seeking to block this budget for purely political purposes. They cannot establish a viable alternative to this government except by opposing every single thing that we do. There is no policy agenda, there is no vision for our state, no economic strategy and no social mandate that they are seeking. Instead, they hope, once again, at this coming election—like they hoped at the 2014 election and the 2010 election before that and the 2006 election before that and the 2002 election before that—to be successful merely by opposing whatever Labor says we will do for our state, just like the leader opposed those payroll tax cuts for small business, just like when the leader opposed those stamp duty cuts and just like the leader opposed those infrastructure projects put forward by the government promising to cancel upgrades of the north-south corridor.

In this campaign, this unscrupulous campaign of deception, who has the leader found a friend in? The Australian banking community. The Australian Bankers' Association immediately pricked up its ears and thought, 'Here's one of ours. Here's someone who we can bring under our wing, who we can foster and support. This is the sort of person who knows exactly what we're about and supports exactly what we would do.' The leader has found a friend in one of the most unscrupulous, unreconstructed, rent-seeking industries there is in Australia—big banking.

Big banking has greeted this campaign with a campaign of lies, of unsubstantiated claims and spin. The banks know they can absorb this levy and that it does not need to be passed on to consumers. We know this because the head of the ANZ admitted as much publicly. Whoops, what a slip-up! He gave rise to the lie that we all know, and that is that the banks can not only afford to pay this but that they should be paying this levy.

I have to say that the head of the ANZ must be pretty good. He came over to here to meet with the leader after the leader had said as soon as this budget was released that he would be likely to support the budget and the bank levy therein, because it would be unprecedented to do otherwise, and that the leader would not block the budget or the levy. In only 30 minutes of meeting with the Leader of the Opposition the head of the ANZ turned the leader around.

What was said in that meeting? What must have been so compelling that was put to the leader in that meeting? We can only speculate. Perhaps the head of the ANZ started with the outrageous, false claims that he and his banking mates have been spreading throughout the media: that this bank levy would cost jobs and investment in South Australia—claims that, despite being made after two weeks, still remain unsubstantiated. Perhaps he started by saying that this would cost jobs—another outrageous and unsubstantiated claim. It will cost jobs, will it? How many? In what areas? In what time frame?

Of course, there has been no form or substance given to these claims because they completely lack substance. They are without merit. By how many jobs would it impact the economy? By how many jobs would it impact the economy in comparison to the payroll tax cuts, the Job Accelerator Grants, the grant facilities and the loan facilities that this government is making available to the business sector to grow their businesses and to grow jobs? What are the figures? What is the justification? We have none.

Simply put, these claims by the banks are lies: lies by an industry that is increasingly becoming known as untrustworthy and unscrupulous. Perhaps in the meeting with the leader the head of the ANZ said that he and the Australian Bankers' Association would be engaging in an unprecedented campaign against this government, and that the leader should get on board or else be in the firing line as well. Perhaps he went even further and speculated about what sort of assistance this campaign by the banks and by the Australian Bankers' Association would be providing to the Liberal Party by running such a campaign in the lead-up to the next election. Perhaps there was even more direct assistance offered to the Leader of the Opposition. Who can say? None of us can say because that is a question that has never been—

Mr GARDNER: Point of order: the minister is currently contravening standing order 127, which states, 'A Member may not…impute improper motives to any other Member.'

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Odenwalder): I do not believe the minister was doing that. The member was speculating in a vacuum, I think, but I will listen with interest.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. I hope it touched a nerve, indeed, with the opposition, as well it should, as it is touching a nerve with the community of South Australia. Who knows the answers to these questions? They still refuse to be answered by the Leader of the Opposition. What we do know—

Mr GARDNER: Point of order: the minister is imputing improper motive. The word 'imputing' is very clear from what the member has suggested the Leader of the Opposition apparently needs to answer, in the minister's words.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I do not accept that.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Odenwalder): He is not imputing any improper motives: he is simply stating a fact, that we do not know the answers to the questions that the minister is posing.

Mr GARDNER: By suggesting questions, one imputes that they need to be answered.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That is tenuous at best.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Odenwalder): Yes. I do not think there is—

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Odenwalder): Order! I will listen to the minister. I do not accept that there is a point of order at the moment, but I will listen with great interest.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. What we know in the absence of these answers is that, as the Premier said yesterday in parliament, the banks have one new branch in South Australia and it is the South Australian branch of the Liberal Party. Their blind obsequiousness, their supplication to the banks, is galling. They feted the arrival of the Australian Bankers' Association and the heads of the various banks like they were Pompey Magnus returning to Rome. This shows how bereft of spine, how willing to sell out South Australians, the Liberal Party is.

In direct contrast to the growing jobs spin that we have heard from the banking sector, what we actually know is that in the last 18 months there has been an ongoing campaign by the big four banks to close down branches in South Australia. I have to say that I was unsurprised by this—after all, the banks have long been showing the way to other Australian corporates, how to offshore Australian jobs to cheaper labour countries—but I have to say that I was surprised to learn of the location of these closed branches.

What a rollcall of shame this is: Barmera, Booleroo Centre, Burra, Orroroo, Eudunda, Balaklava, Crystal Brook, Gladstone, Riverton, Streaky Bay, Cleve, Mount Compass, Mount Pleasant, Lameroo, Meningie, Penola, Robe, Tintinara, Wallaroo, Yorketown, Willunga, Freeling, Lobethal, Hahndorf, Cummins, Tumby Bay, Cowell, Moonta, Port Broughton, Ardrossan, Birdwood, Woodside, Booborowie, Kapunda, Peterborough, Laura, Bute, Snowtown, Penneshaw, Lucindale and Port MacDonnell. Nearly four dozen branches closed across regional South Australia in 18 months.

This is the audience, this is the welcome, that the South Australian Liberal Party gives this sector that shuts down branches and jobs in their own electorates. There were nine branches in the electorate of Stuart alone.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Odenwalder): Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: There were five branches in MacKillop—

Mr Pederick: How many in Frome?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —six in Flinders, five in Goyder, three in Hammond and, if you want to know how many in Frome, three as well. The difference between the member for Frome and those who sit opposite is the member for Frome's lack of obsequiousness and supplication to these vested corporate interests.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Don't they squirm when the facts of the matter are pointed out to them?

Mr Pederick: You killed this state in 1991.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Odenwalder): I know the member for Hammond thinks he is whispering, but we can all hear him.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: After these closures in the last 18 months, these Liberal MPs, these people who pretend to represent the interests of their country communities, have their party room decide the fate of this bank levy and they lock in behind the banks. This Liberal Party has decided to back the sector that strips jobs from regional communities, that makes it hard for elderly residents in these communities to transact their banking affairs in their townships, that makes it cumbersome if not impossible for new small businesses and entrepreneurs to go and speak to a bank staff member or a bank manager about financing a new business measure in these townships.

They backed the corporate vested interests that are decimating our regional towns and did over the state budget, a budget that cuts taxes, a budget that funds small business, a budget that builds infrastructure, a budget that grows jobs and grows our economy. It is a budget that provides for all of this yet only asks one sector of the Australian industry that does not pay GST, that is undertaxed, to pay its fair share towards these endeavours but, according to the opposition, this should not happen.

The leader came in here yesterday thumping his chest and boasting about how he is sticking up for banks, how he is blocking this revenue measure, how he is blocking this budget. They had the head of the Australian Bankers' Association watching by, conveniently placed both for the Liberal Party and for them. He did not sit downstairs, where he looked too close to the Liberal Party—

Mr GARDNER: Point of order: Speaker Atkinson has repeatedly ruled that it is out of order to make reference to anyone sitting in the gallery during any debate to provide ballast to any argument in this chamber.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Odenwalder): There is no-one sitting in the gallery that the minister is referencing.

Mr GARDNER: Sir, reference to people in the gallery at any stage of the debate is out of order, according to Speaker Atkinson's repeated rulings.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Odenwalder): Stop the clock. I am advised that the ruling was in relation to people who are currently present in the gallery. However, I would ask the minister to return to the substance of his debate and refrain from referring to anyone in the gallery to avoid quarrels.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: And did we not witness yesterday how proudly the Leader of the Opposition said that he would, in an unprecedented way, block this measure and block this budget? This state will rue the decimation of that convention forevermore. Is it really unexpected that we would see this from the Liberals? Of course, they are all about the Americanisation of Australian institutions. We know this. We see this time and time again with Liberal administrations. Whether it is their current shadow treasurer—the guy who privatised our hospitals, who privatised our electricity network—this is the sort of thing that we can expect from them, that every single state budget in the future that a Liberal administration brings down becomes contestable. Well, we are absolutely happy for that to occur should they ever jump over the bar they never seem to be able to and form government.

Mr Pederick: Bring it on!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: 'Bring it on.' Yes, we have heard that in 2001, in 2005, in 2009 and in 2013, and now we are hearing it again in 2017. The other thing that is so galling about those opposite is their reflection on the treatment that this state gets from Canberra, and the language they use to describe it is just unbelievable. Rather than reflect on Australian taxpayers having revenues collected by an Australian government and disbursed to the states and territories, all of them bar none say, 'Oh, Canberra gives to us. Canberra gives to South Australia'. This is the problem with those opposite: they do not understand that the role of the federal government is to collect these revenues and disburse them to the states.

These are not Canberra's revenues, these are not Malcolm Turnbull's revenues, these are not Scott Morrison's revenues. This is not asking a parent for a $20 note so that you can go to the films with your mates. This is money raised through income tax, through GST and through other revenue sources from the people of South Australia, from the people of Australia, that should be spent across the country and should be spent in South Australia.

The mindless excuse-giving by this Liberal opposition for the failures of Canberra is absolutely galling, but we see it time and time again, the refusal to stick up for car manufacturing here in South Australia when Joe Hockey chased them offshore daring them to leave, the excuses they made for cutting funding to our hospitals, the excuses they made for cutting funding to our schools and the excuses they made when the off-shoring of the submarine build looked imminent. We had the member for MacKillop and the member for Davenport saying, 'Well, Mazdas are alright. Japanese submarines can't be too bad'. They were willing to sell out thousands and thousands of South Australians jobs just to meet a political imperative of their masters in Canberra. Really, that is what it comes down to.

The reason why they do not have a vision for South Australia is that their federal mates do not have a vision for South Australia. It is a void. It is a vacuum. They have nothing to consider or contemplate for the people of South Australia. The Leader of the Opposition does not know what to suggest because Malcolm and ScoMo and Christopher have not told him what to suggest because they do not care what happens to South Australia.

It is only when we stand up for the people of South Australia, it is only when we drag them kicking and screaming to fund our submarines, to finally get in behind Arrium in Whyalla, to restore some funding to our schools, to try to restore some funding to our hospitals, to try to get in behind those pensioners who had their concessions cut in the 2014 federal budget, it is only when we wrestle them to the ground and force them to do it that they actually do something for South Australia.

My suggestion to the Liberal opposition is this: park your fawning supplication to your federal masters for one minute.

Mr GARDNER: Point of order: do we have a break at 1 o'clock, according to the standing orders?

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Odenwalder): Stop the clock. Yes, I have been advised by the Clerk that we have 40 seconds left of the minister's dulcet tones.

Mr GARDNER: It is 12.59 and 20 seconds, is it, sir? We have not moved any amendment to those orders? The clock over there says it is 1.02.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Odenwalder): I am ruling that the minister has 40 seconds to go.

Mr GARDNER: I look forward to that ruling being applied elsewhere, sir; thank you.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. In conclusion, my advice to those opposite is to stop their fawning supplication to their federal masters and think about what might be best for the communities of South Australia, what might be best for small businesses, what might be best for households, what might be best for pensioners, and what might be best for our hospitals and our schools rather than what is in their best political interests.

Sitting suspended from 13.02 to 13:58.