Appropriation Bill 2017

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (15:47): I am pleased to make a contribution this afternoon to the Appropriation Bill. What we see with this budget is Groundhog Day, because this budget is pretty much like every budget that we have seen this government bring down over the last 16 budgets. It is a high-taxing, high-spending budget. As the leader pointed out in his contributions to the house yesterday and today, there is a staggering $400 million increase in taxes being raised by this government.

The Premier and the Treasurer and all the speakers on that side of the house are talking this budget up as a jobs budget. They are saying that this year's budget is a jobs budget. What did they say last year when they brought the budget down? I happen to have the 2016-17 budget papers in my office and I went back and had a look at the budget speech delivered by the Treasurer, the member for West Torrens. I would like to quote the last page, page 7:

We have a state budget that is in the black and is building new productive infrastructure across our state. And we are training the next generation of South Australian high-tech workers by starting them on a path of science and technology at schools today.

At its heart—this is a budget about jobs. We are pulling every lever available to government to create new jobs.

Because every extra job that’s created in South Australia is another family that is better off, another family that can afford to provide more for their children and build a more prosperous state.

Those were the Treasurer's exact words last year: 'this is a budget about jobs.' If it is a budget about jobs, why does the state have the highest unemployment figures in the nation, at 7.1 per cent? How can you trust this government when they said that last year's budget was about jobs and that this year the budget is about jobs? The Premier, the Treasurer and every other speaker on the other side of the house is saying that this year's budget is about jobs. How can that be factual when the state has the highest unemployment figures in the nation, at 7.1 per cent?

Have a look at the other states: Western Australia, 5.8 per cent; the Northern Territory, 3.2 per cent; Queensland, 6.3 per cent; New South Wales, 4.8 per cent; Victoria, 6.1 per cent; and Tasmania, 5.9 per cent. South Australia is well and truly the leader of the pack when it comes to unemployment figures. That is the unemployment rate trend, to be accurate in quoting those figures, so there is no misunderstanding. So how can we trust this government when they said last year that their budget was about jobs and this year they are saying it is about jobs? You cannot trust them because the facts and the figures do not stack up.

As I said earlier, this is a high-taxing, high-spending government. I have said this before in the parliament because it is the truth: it is a hallmark of all Labor governments around every state and federally since the 1970s, the Whitlam years, that Labor governments are high taxing and high spending. In his budget reply speech yesterday and in his contribution today, in debating the motion that was put before the house, the leader certainly laid that out for all South Australians so that they have a clear understanding of why that is the case: $400 million of new taxes in this budget.

Another interesting observation that was raised again today is that when the Premier came to office, when he took over the job of Premier, he came along with rhetoric, 'We're sick of the old way that we were doing things. It's not the way to be able to communicate with the South Australian community—this announce and defend. We don't like that. That's a thing of the past. That was the previous premier, the previous deputy premier, the previous treasurer—that's what they did, and it was no good. I am coming into the office of Premier with a new approach, with an approach of consult and decide.' That was what the Premier said at the time he took over the job a number of years ago.

I will not go into any of the machinations that took place leading to the member for Cheltenham taking over the number one political job in the state because that has been traversed previously, but that was what he said, that there will not be any more 'announce and defend'. Well, what have we seen with the state bank tax? It has been sprung on us and sprung on the South Australian community with no consultation.

Yesterday in question time, the Treasurer was asked, 'Who did you go and talk to? Who did you consult?' He said no-one. They did not talk to anybody in the South Australian community about this new state bank tax. So how can that be 'consult and decide'? How can that approach that the Premier adopted when he first took over this role be the approach under which he would operate? It is not. That is how the previous regime worked. That is how the previous premier, the previous treasurer and the previous deputy premier operated—announce and defend. We know that the South Australian community, the people of South Australia, have rejected that outright. They do not want the state bank tax.

As outlined in the house over the last two days, we know the disastrous record that Labor governments have when they deal with banks. We saw what happened in the late 1980s and early 1990s in relation to the State Bank debacle. It brought this state's economy to its knees and it was only the courage of a newly elected reformist Liberal government that got the state back on track.

Government members talk about privatisation: there is going to be no more privatisation; on that pledge card you saw back in 2002, no more privatisation. Those on the other side of the chamber are the kings of privatisation. What have we seen them privatise? They have flogged off the forests to pay for the Adelaide Oval, they have sold part of the Motor Accident Commission and they are talking about getting rid of the LTO. They are the kings of privatisation. The government cannot come in here and preach to us that we negotiated a long-term lease of our energy utilities, because the members on the other side of the chamber are the kings of privatisation.

It is clearly evident that after 16 years of a Labor government in South Australia the economy is not where it should be. The government's policy settings have been wrong. Continuing to implement a policy of high taxation and high spending is clearly the wrong way to go. I think I understand, philosophically, where Labor Party members are, but there has to be some realisation that government is not the answer to these problems. The government has tried high taxing and high spending for 16 years, year in, year out, and it is not working.

We have the highest unemployment figures in the nation. We have the highest electricity and energy costs in the world. It is good to be number one in something, but it is not good to be number one in having the highest electricity prices in the world. They say that privatisation was part of the cause. That is absolute nonsense because Victoria privatised its electricity assets and its electricity prices are a lot lower than South Australia's. We have high water prices and we have high taxes, so there has to be some realisation that the policy settings, the economic levers that are being pulled and manipulated, just do not work.

The Treasurer, the Premier and others have said that this is a jobs budget, but they have said that previously. They have to realise that you cannot tax your way to prosperity. It does not work that way. Taxing the community—whether it be corporations, small businesses, families, mums and dads, children's bank accounts—does not work. You cannot tax your way to prosperity.

Government members complain that they do not get enough money from Canberra. We hear them whingeing, whining and carping that the federal government does not give them enough money to do what they need to do. During the next year, the government will get more than $10.5 billion in federal funds. That is close to $700 million more than this year.

I think we have a budget totalling about $19 billion and that the state budget is bumping up to the high 18s or $19 billion. If Canberra is providing $10.5 billion in federal funds, that is more than half the state budget, and they are getting close to $700 million more this year, so I do not think that they have any grounds to whinge and whine and carp about a lack of funding from the federal government. But it is typical Labor, and this point has been made today. It is typical Labor—they blame everybody but themselves.

Listening to the debate, listening to the Premier yesterday and listening to him today and listening to other members of the government benches, they know deep down that things are not working for them and that their policy settings are not working. What they do is typical, and I have seen it in the 15¾ years that have been here and before that as an observer of politics; that is, when they are in trouble they do not debate the merits of the issue, and they do not debate the merits or whatever of the policy; they go for the man. They get into the area of character assassination. They do not debate the merits of the policy or the merits of the issue; they attack the person.

We saw it today and yesterday, with personal attacks on the leader. I think that is an indication that they realise that they are in strife and that they have backed themselves into a corner. They have painted themselves into a corner, and they know that the high taxing, high spending policy does not work, but they have nowhere else to go. They have been fishing around trying to find new avenues of taxation and they have hit on what they think might have been a goldmine, that is, to bring in a state bank tax. Well, it is no goldmine because we are going to block it.

I worked for a bank for 22 years before I entered this place, so I have an understanding about how corporate life operates. If any impost is put on a corporation, it is usually passed on. That will be passed on maybe not in tweaking interest rates, but it may well be passed on in fees and charges, in impacts on shareholder dividends and in impacts on superannuation returns. Do not be fooled, and do not think that they are taxing big wealthy bankers who are going to absorb it, because it will be passed on to every person within the South Australian community.

The vast majority of people have a home loan and have borrowed money. The vast majority of people have home loans, mortgages they refer to. In the banking game, we did not call them mortgages; we called them home loans because that was what they were. If they are not a borrower, they are an investor. If you are not borrowing money, you may well be investing money, either side of the ledger. The borrowers and the investors will be hit by this state bank tax, so do not be under any misapprehension about that. That is why we are blocking it—because it is a tax on families in South Australia, it is a tax on businesses in South Australia and it is a tax on the economy pushing ahead in South Australia.

I now want to talk about a couple of issues in relation to the budget to do with my electorate of Kavel. There was a funding commitment of $2.5 million for the regional sports hub at Mount Barker, and that will go towards the $3.75 million that was previously committed before the federal election last year. The federal Turnbull government reaffirmed that commitment upon being re-elected. Those moneys will go to constructing some change rooms and two soccer pitches.

That is a good thing and we welcome it; however, it falls significantly short of what we requested and what the community requested. We sought that the state government at least match the $3.75 million funded by the feds. With a contribution from the council—and they are working on that and a few weeks ago formally passed a resolution at a council meeting—that would have allowed stage 1 to progress. Stage 1 is the construction of some clubrooms, an AFL-grade oval for football and cricket, tennis courts, netball courts and the two soccer pitches.

That is what we would have had if the government had been prepared to stack up another $1.25 million, but they have not. So, while I am pleased that there has been $2.5 million, it is disappointing for those other sporting clubs and codes that an AFL football and cricket oval, some clubrooms, tennis courts and netball courts will not be able to be constructed as part of stage 1. The construction cost is $11.8 million and, because it is short by $1.25 million, it will not be able to proceed at this point.

The other initiative that we called on the government to look to fund a solution to was the Nairne intersection, the T-junction at Old Princes Highway and Woodside Road in Nairne. I have spoken about that at length over the years and more recently in parliament. I have written to the minister. The candidate for Kavel, Dan Cregan, has run a strong local campaign calling on the government to find a solution for the Nairne intersection but, unfortunately, to date that has fallen on deaf ears.

There has been no commitment in the budget for that, and that is disappointing. It has become a significant intersection not only in the Nairne township but in the Hills district because traffic flows through that intersection down onto the newly constructed Bald Hills Road freeway interchange, a magnificent infrastructure project delivered by the previous member for Mayo. I strongly lobbied for that project.

Time expired.

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (16:07): I rise to support the Appropriation Bill, and I do so on a day that will go on to have a degree of historic significance, given that we have witnessed the signing of a binding agreement to sell the Arrium operation in South Australia. Obviously, it is a day that the Whyalla community was desperately hanging out to see come to pass. The signing of that agreement will give the community some comfort, some cautious optimism, about what the future will hold.

The alliance, Liberty House, that has become the successful purchaser came as a little bit of a surprise. These negotiations have been extensive, protracted and complex, with a number of twists and turns. Certainly, it was a twist and a turn at a late stage when the Korean consortia did not eventually sign off, running out of time in relation to the exclusivity arrangement. So we are going to have Liberty House. Hopefully, Liberty House will replicate some of the practices they put into place in the UK.

The feedback we have had from the UK about Liberty House has been positive, especially in relation to the workforce and the way that it is willing to deal constructively with the union movement. Of course, in Whyalla, over many years we have had a very constructive union movement, a union movement that has been through some serious challenges over the decades with the steel industry. We still have a steel industry, so that is partly a testament to how willing the union movement has been to engage constructively.

Our state does face major challenges. The Premier earlier today gave a bit of a potted history of the Playford years and the growth of manufacturing behind tariff walls. That happened in many parts of the western world in the postwar years—into the fifties, the sixties and the seventies—when things started to change and then to fundamentally change. That has exposed South Australia to some particular challenges in comparison with most other states, possibly with the exception of Victoria, and given our exposure to manufacturing. The opening up of the world, the global economy, has had an impact.

It is interesting to listen to members opposite. You would think that for the last 16 years of the Labor government in this state it has been all doom and gloom. There have been periods when employment has been very good. There have been periods in the community that I come from, in Whyalla, when things were incredibly positive for a period, and it was not all that long ago. For a period, we went under the national unemployment average, so we had an unemployment rate with a four in front of it. We were booming, and a number of decisions were made then. I think you always have to be careful about judging decisions in hindsight.

A private sector board in Sydney made some decisions that came back to haunt the structural steel industry in Australia, and they came back to especially haunt the community of Whyalla. I have said in this house before that in the lead-up to administration the community of Whyalla lost 1,000 direct jobs, or thereabouts, and that happened over a 2½-year period, so it did not get the sort of headlines that the closure of the power station in Port Augusta did, which involved far fewer jobs. You can imagine 1,000 direct jobs—and we are not talking about the indirect jobs in a community like Whyalla lost out of the steelworks and lost out of the mining sector. That was one in 10 jobs in the labour market in Whyalla.

I often find the argument that governments should just get out of the way and let the market operate very interesting. If, in the case of Whyalla, the government had just got out the way and let the market operate, we would not have a steel industry; we would have social devastation. There is a clear need for government to intervene in a number of ways in Whyalla to keep the show on the road, and that process has not come to a conclusion.

With Liberty House, there will be ongoing negotiation in relation to the final assistance package from the state government and from the federal government. I am not one of those people who has drunk from the fundamentalist free-market Kool-Aid. I believe that there is a strong role for government when it comes to ensuring that we have a well performing economy. I do not subscribe to the ideology that suggests low taxation and small government is the best way forward.

I will point out, though, that in terms of this budget, with the latest tax changes, I notice those opposite talk about the increase. They are talking in the main about the bank levy. When you look at the overall tax take on a per capita basis, the only state that has a better outcome in terms of per capita taxation is Tasmania. The Northern Territory is better as well, but we all know that the Northern Territory is a beneficiary of a massive input from the federal government and probably will be for many years to come. When it comes to the steel industry and securing the future of the steel industry, the relationship that has developed between the federal government and the state government on this particular industrial sector has been a positive one.

Fortunately, in Australian politics there is a streak of pragmatism that runs through both of the major parties, and that streak of pragmatism dilutes some of the people who are more committed to a deep ideological position. I am talking mainly about the fundamentalist free-market approach, which just does not work. There is not much evidence of it working anywhere in the world, and I think it is in these last few decades of neoliberalism that we have had this backlash happening globally because of the impact on communities and the impact on working families. So, there is a backlash and, unfortunately, that backlash sometimes takes quite a negative approach, as we can see in the United States with the election of Donald Trump.

I am pleased to see that the federal government and the state government are working together when it comes to the steel industry. The importance of the state budget is that it has been framed in a way that gives us the capacity to call upon the funding that might well be necessary as part of that assistance package to ensure that we have an ongoing structural steel industry in this country.

As I said, the feedback that I have been getting about the federal minister's approach and the Prime Minister's approach has all been positive, so we have all played nicely and we have not played politics over the future of my community, which I think is something very welcome. But it just goes to show that if government got out of the way, we would not have had a steel industry. We would have been left with social devastation.

When it came to the consequences of those 1,000 job losses in Whyalla, the state government have been left to pick up those pieces on our own. We were able in quick order to pull together $10 million to assist the contractor base in Whyalla when they were facing the risk of going under because of the cash flow issues that were generated by going into administration. That money actually saved a number of companies that had developed over many years, in some cases family companies that employed local people. I always find it a bit rich when those opposite say we are somehow anti-jobs. When the going got tough, we were there. The Premier and the Treasurer were up there and we had provisions in our budget, the capacity within our budget, at the time to ensure that we could help out at an incredibly important time.

In this budget, once again, we have the $50 million that we announced locked in for the steel industry; that might well end up being significantly more than that. We will see through the negotiations that go on with Liberty House. In addition to that, we put an additional $1.6 million towards the South Australian Steel Task Force. We set up that taskforce many months before the company went into administration in an attempt to discuss and negotiate with the previous board about the future of the company and what we could do to help.

Another initiative in the budget is the $200 million Future Jobs Fund. I warmly welcome that. I believe a lot of companies in regional communities will be in a position to put in bids for some support, with $120 million in grants and loans and $60 million for industry attraction. Diversifying our economic base is incredibly important. I am pleased to see that there are some companies looking to set up in our region that might be able to be assisted by this money.

The PACE program is another fantastic Labor initiative that has stood the test of time, and the return on the investment has been huge, and there is $5 million in this budget for the PACE program. I have seen firsthand just what an important element of funding that is. When we start talking about jobs and jobs in regional South Australia, we can look at Carrapateena, which in its initial exploration phase was assisted by funding from PACE.

Rudy Gomez is a small explorer and he hit the jackpot with the assistance of the state government. As a result of that, we are going to see many tangible jobs. There will be 400 jobs for the development of the mine site and 400 ongoing jobs. There is then the potential for a copper concentrate plant, which will generate 100 jobs in construction and 100 jobs once construction has finished.

Of course, when it comes to copper and what will be a world-leading copper concentrate plant with some of the purest, if not the purest, copper concentrate in the nation, the state government has allocated $20 million to the state's Copper Strategy to carry out a very sophisticated exploration program, in addition to a number of other activities. We do believe that there are additional copper resources in South Australia and that could set us up very nicely for the future. A lot of the benefits from those particular developments occur out in the regions.

It is good to see that Roxby Downs' Olympic Dam is on the move again and increasing its workforce, which is very promising. One of the good things about this budget is the up to $15,000 that is available for employers to take on apprentices and trainees. I think that is a very positive initiative within the budget. The money that has gone in on the education side of things to the STEM projects is also incredibly positive. In itself, it generates some construction jobs. I know that the four STEM projects in the community of Whyalla have injected $4 million into the community. Two local contractors won the work, so it has been a very positive initiative.

A lot has been said about the bank levy, which will raise $370 million over the next four years. The reason the banks are really hot under the collar about this is that they see this as a very useful levy, potentially, for state governments. This is a levy that does not do the sort of damage that those opposite are claiming. These levies are common overseas and there were absolutely no complaints out of those opposite when the federal government at a national level introduced the same type of levy. We are talking about $3.60 in every $1 million worth of bank liabilities, so we are not talking about a huge levy.

When the levy was announced, it was interesting that BankSA came out and said, 'As a result of this levy, we are going to put on hold 150 new jobs,' which I do not think any of us over here knew anything about and I do not think anyone opposite knew anything about. But apparently there were going to be 150 jobs. It turns out that those 150 new jobs, to my shock, horror and surprise, were going to be part of a business process automation team. BankSA employs 3,800 people in South Australia, so they were going to get a dedicated team together to see how many of those 3,800 people could be got rid of. Some of those jobs might have been outsourced to overseas and some of those jobs would have just disappeared into the ether.

I make no apology for being an incredibly strong supporter at a federal level of holding a royal commission into the banks, given some of the unconscionable activities that the banks have engaged in over the last decade or so. It has been an absolute disgrace. The damage that they have done to individuals, to families and to small and medium-sized businesses is absolutely disgraceful, and it does warrant a royal commission.

People have talked about the salaries of employees at the upper levels of the banks. They are busily getting rid of as many employees as they can and shutting down the branches. It has been said that the five CEOs receive a total of over $45 million. I was interested to hear that, if you just go a layer or two down from the CEOs, we are talking about an enormous amount of money.

I come from a community where people do not see that sort of money. Nobody earns that sort of money. This is not jealousy, this is not class war; this is just calling out something for what it is, which is an absolute disgrace. It is this sort of thing that is having an incredibly damaging effect on democracies that attempt to promote, through redistribution, relatively egalitarian societies, because relatively egalitarian, affluent societies usually generate some of the best results.

For those opposite who say, 'No, we should reduce taxes and reduce government,' just look around the world. The best performing governments in terms of a whole range of measures actually have a very reasonable tax take and they also have government sectors that are far bigger than what we find here in Australia both at a national level and at a state level.

Mr WINGARD (Mitchell) (16:27): There has been a lot of debate around this most recent state budget, potentially more than ever before. The government's failed Transforming Health program has come under scrutiny. The constant ramping of ambulances at the Flinders Medical Centre is a hot topic. The issues of emergency departments closing across the city, the downgrading of services at Noarlunga Hospital and the shameful government decision to close down the Repat hospital have South Australians up in arms.

Child protection and this government's inability to care for our most vulnerable children have also had South Australians fuming. We all know the story of Chloe Valentine and her suffering. We were also left shocked when the Shannon McCoole case was uncovered and equally stunned at how he could have infiltrated the system of Families SA.

More recently, there has been the ill-treatment of some of our state's senior citizens at the Oakden mental health facility. The handling of the situation by the government has been widely reported in the media, with the dismissive manner around the lack of care being the most shocking. Who could forget the culmination of the ill-treatment turning into a passing conversation by the minister at Bunnings? It was a sad outcome for families who have already been through a lot.

South Australia's horrendous unemployment rate has also been a key talking point. We have had the worst unemployment rate in the nation for the past 30 months straight. Unemployment, underemployment and youth unemployment in South Australia are worse than in every other state, including Tasmania, and there is more to come when Holden closes later this year.

They are just a few of the state government's major failings. They are failings that have left our state low on confidence; failings that have driven businesses out of town, taking valuable jobs away; and failings that have created an environment where everyone in South Australia is feeling strangled by the Premier and the Treasurer and all those on the other side of the chamber. They are failings that have seen our brightest young people pack up and leave our state.

It is this feeling that has people stopping me at the supermarket, at local sporting events, at the local school and at the pub. They are screaming, 'Enough!' They have had enough of feeling the restriction and suffocation that has been inflicted by the Premier and the Treasurer and the entire South Australian Labor team.

All this leads us to the Premier's and the Treasurer's proposed state bank tax, another tax to go with the state Labor government's ESL rises, to go with our state's high-priced and unreliable electricity, our sky-high water prices and other state fees and charges, such as land tax and stamp duty. They are all hitting South Australians any way they turn, so on this side of the house the Marshall Liberal team says that enough is enough. The state Labor government cannot tax its way to prosperity. For the good of this generation and the next, we have made a stand for all South Australians.

We have to be the party for all South Australians. We have to block this tax to remove the suffocating measures on people wanting to have a go, wanting to take a risk and wanting to grow a business and generate jobs in our state. South Australian families with a mortgage and bank accounts are being attacked by the South Australian Labor government. That is what the Marshall Liberal team will do, and it starts now by making a stand. We are clearly stating on behalf of our community that enough is enough. We must remove SA Labor's toxic state bank tax from the budget.

The Marshall Liberal team wants our state and, more importantly, our people to thrive into the future. In this debate, the SA Labor government will throw around the usual spin. They have already spent and will continue to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on political advertisements in the paper, on radio, TV and social media to propagate an imaginary fight. What I am asking people to do is this. Every time you see this state government propaganda, every time you see the Premier or the Treasurer in the media, ask yourself this question: how is South Australia going as a state? Be honest, and if you are honest the answer is that we are not going good, and that has been the answer for too long.

Well, the Marshall Liberal team does not accept that anymore. We know that we have a great state with great people, and that is why we say that enough is enough and that the Weatherill Labor government has to go. When you see the Premier and the Treasurer walking along awkwardly holding their latest high-priced taxpayer-funded flyer, ask yourself: can you really believe anything they say? For the last three budgets, the Treasurer has promised jobs budgets, and in that time we have had the worst unemployment rate in the nation, worse than any other state, worse than Tasmania. The state Labor government have trumpeted jobs program after jobs program, but they have no measurable outcomes. They produce no jobs.

Manufacturing Works, Our Jobs Plan, the Northern Economic Plan, these are the proposals they put forward that cost millions and millions of dollars to South Australian taxpayers, but there are no outcomes. Now they have the Future Jobs Fund, which is more spin and, like the other programs, no outcomes. The Manufacturing Works program was a 10-year program, and just a few years ago the government did a review into its own program. The Frost and Sullivan report was commissioned and the findings showed that the Manufacturing Works program lacked outcomes. Millions and millions of dollars have been spent but, as far as generating jobs are concerned, the Manufacturing Works program lacked outcomes.

What have they done? They have ordered another review in to Manufacturing Works. Two years after the last one, spend some more money, do another review, and again that review will be released after the budget so that any measures could not even be put in place prior to this budget. This government has been here too long, they are tired and they are not getting outcomes for South Australia. As we look at this budget, the third in the series of his jobs budgets for Treasurer Koutsantonis, what does it say? It says 1 per cent jobs growth for South Australia, less than half of what Victoria has forecast and below Tasmania again. In fact, you guessed it: we have the worst outlook in the nation. I say again: enough is enough. You cannot believe the Treasurer's spin.

Even the Treasurer cannot spin the fact that the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies, an independent body, has done a review on the Treasurer's own forecast of jobs growth, which they put at 1 per cent—again the worst in the nation—and what does the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies say about this forecast? They say, 'It is overcooked and highly unlikely to be achieved.' So again the Treasurer is overtalking and massively underdelivering to South Australians. Remember that premier Mike Rann promised 100,000 jobs, but that deadline came and went and the government had not produced 20,000. They missed by that much. They promised 100,000 but did not deliver 20,000 jobs. However, again the Treasurer stands up on the other side of this chamber and spruiks again and again, 'I'm delivering a jobs budget,' but the facts show that he is failing, that this government is failing, and South Australia has had enough.

As a result of the poor economic conditions that are created by this state Labor government, we are seeing our youngest and our brightest exit South Australia. They are up and leaving and heading for brighter opportunities in other states. In fact, net migration to other states totals 6,903. That is right—people are getting up, abandoning this state Labor government, abandoning South Australia and heading interstate because they know there is no future under this state Labor government.

I have talked about unemployment and, as I said, for 30 months in a row on trend we have had the highest unemployment rate in the nation—below Tasmania. There used to be a time when we had the worst unemployment rate on the mainland and Tasmania was excluded because no-one thought we could go below Tasmania. Now we go below Tasmania, and we have been there for 30 months in a row. Holden has not closed and does not close until October 2020, so we have more pain ahead. This government has not been able to get the settings right to create an environment that will generate opportunity for people in South Australia to grow jobs. It is so evidently obvious and, although the Treasury comes out with this budget and says that it is another jobs budget, no-one out there can believe him.

What we say on this side is that we need to grow exports. That is something we are very bullish about. We need to grow the size of the pie for South Australia and not keep strangling or restricting people in this state. If we look at South Australia's export performance, over the last 12 months alone our exports fell 5.2 per cent, to just over $11 billion. The government set a guaranteed target this year of $18 billion but only hit $11 billion. That is a massive shortfall for this government, when $18 billion was the target and $11 billion was the delivery. We need to grow our exports, and I will talk more about our policies to help achieve that.

This government has failed on so many levels, and people out there are feeling it. During the Premier's time in office, economic growth in South Australia has been 1.4 per cent against the national average of almost double that. That is where South Australia sits on the national scale. We are at 1.4 per cent and the national growth has almost been doubled in the Premier's time here in South Australia. How do they keep talking about surplus budgets and what do they do? Before the last election, and they kept this hush-hush, they planned to sell off the Motor Accident Commission, drop a whack load of money into the back pocket of the Treasurer—again, money raised by South Australians—and he has used it to prop up his budget.

A fake budget surplus really is what we are looking at. They promised not to privatise, yet here they are selling off the compulsory third-party insurance market, the MAC as we know it, the MAC that is so actively involved in a lot of community organisations, sponsoring a lot of community sports and community events, and it has been sold off by this government. It will disappear and not come back, and when that money is not there people will know that it was the Treasurer of our state at this very point in time who made this happen. What has he done with the money? He has tried to use it to make himself look good. He has tried to be tricky in saying that he is producing a surplus budget.

Last year, $297.8 million was put into the budget from MAC. The surplus he produced was $239 million, so more went in from the MAC than the surplus the Treasurer claimed. Really, it was not a surplus at all but a cover-up with the MAC money. The Treasurer has tried to be very, very sneaky, but South Australians are waking up and they are saying that enough is enough. Over the last 16 years, Labor has spent $6 billion above budget—$6 billion above budget. That is the way they operate and that is the way they work. That is $6 billion that could have gone into funding projects, but the government instead just overspends. It overspends and overspends, and it is a situation that again has South Australians screaming that enough is enough.

When we look at this budget over the next four years, payroll tax revenue is almost $5 billion. That is a $5 billion tax on jobs. On the other hand, the government are saying that they are going to put $200 million into a jobs fund, and I have talked about their previous job funds and about the fact that they do not have outcomes and do not generate the jobs they promise at the start. They are good at pumping up a big figure—a $200 million jobs fund—but bear in mind that they are getting $5 billion in tax revenue from payroll tax, which is a tax on jobs.

So $5 billion is coming in and they are putting $200 million out in their jobs fund, but what is it going to deliver? That is the question that South Australians are asking. When you compare $200 million for the jobs fund with $5 billion coming in from payroll tax, really the disparity is quite alarming. Because of that big tax on jobs, and because of the payroll tax that this government grab, they admit that they need to put money back in through rebates and concessions to create and grow jobs in South Australia. The problem is again that it is not working.

That is what this government does. They are a taxing government. They want to get their hand in your pocket any way they can. They want to take money from you any which way they can, and the latest way that has come through in this budget, where we say enough is enough, is the state bank tax. We know what this government did to the State Bank back in the eighties, and now they are coming after a state bank tax as well. This is the government's plan, to tax the banks, which we know flows through to every South Australian, anyone with a mortgage or a bank account or who uses EFTPOS in any way shape or form. If you have an association with a bank, this government is coming after you and they want to get money from you.

On the federal scene, we know that there is a bank tax and that creates a national perspective. Everyone is in the same ballpark. This tax for South Australia means that we are at a competitive disadvantage. Make no bones about it: this puts South Australia at a competitive disadvantage. It means that businesses and industry and people will keep leaving, as I was saying a few moments ago. They will go where there are better economic conditions to invest their money and to grow industries in other jurisdictions.

When the government came up with this bank tax idea, did they do any economic modelling? Did they have a look at what damage this will impart on our great state? Did the Treasurer speak to anyone in industry, in the banking fraternity, small business, big business, anyone or anywhere that this might impact? Did he speak to families and ask how they might feel about it? No, the Treasurer spoke to no-one. They did no economic modelling of what this tax will do to the South Australian economy. The Treasurer did nothing, and again I say that enough is enough. A Treasurer who does no economic modelling on an impact such as this has to have some serious questions asked about his operations.

The Labor government has an Economic Development Board, they have an Investment Attraction agency and they have people in place to help give them advice and guidance on how the state should operate when it comes to economic development and investment attraction. In charge of that Investment Attraction agency is a gentleman called Rob Chapman, a very astute person who has had a long career in the banking industry. He is one of the advisers to the state Labor government.

Was he asked what impact this bank tax would have on South Australia? No, he was not. It just beggars belief that the Treasurer of our state will not speak to anyone when he is implementing a tax that will put us at a competitive disadvantage. Everyone out there who has an association with a bank—be it a bank account, a mortgage, shares or superannuation, or someone who uses an EFTPOS machine—knows that this tax will be damaging to them and to South Australia's prosperity. I say once again: enough is enough. South Australians have had enough. We need a change of direction, and the Marshall Liberal team is offering that change of direction for a prosperous South Australia.

From opposition, we have been forced to do this because it was a damaging tax to South Australians. We have already announced more than 40 excellent policies that we believe will reinvigorate this state and take South Australia forward. We have to take off the shackles. We have to stop strangling our state because that is what the people out there are feeling, and that is why South Australians are leaving, that is why business is leaving and that is why we have the jobs crisis we have here in South Australia. Already, we have committed to reducing the emergency services levy. This is a cost again on South Australian homes and businesses. It is another one of those strangulations that this government keep imposing on the great people of our state.

We are going to cap local government rate increases which will again reduce the cost of living on all South Australians. We are going to pursue the Globe Link project, again, an opportunity to grow and export out of South Australia, get businesses that are doing great things in South Australia and take them to an international market through a faster, safer and more efficient railroad and air link project. That is exciting and that is what we should be doing. We should be looking to grow our pie here in South Australia, not strangle it as this state Labor government is doing.

We will also ensure much more effective overseas representation for South Australia, opening up more trade offices overseas to allow our businesses and industries to export—again, to grow that pie. Let's sell overseas. Let's sell interstate. Let's bring money into South Australia so that businesses can grow. When businesses grow, they will employ more people.

We are going to deregulate shop trading hours to allow businesses to operate and compete against other companies that are selling on the internet. This will allow people to shop when they want to shop and allow businesses to open when they want to open. If they have a new and unique way of making money and selling their produce, let's let them do it. Let's take the shackles off South Australia again.

We will also introduce major reforms to our health system. I have talked about the problems with our health system here in South Australia. Wherever you go in local communities, people will tell you that our health system is in all sorts of trouble. We will give local communities and health professionals much more involvement in the decision-making at a local level. That is very important for all the community.

We will move year 7 into high school, and we will look at opening entrepreneurial specialist schools in South Australia as well to allow people to be entrepreneurial and to allow people to start thinking, 'We can do something great.' We can use the greatness that exists within South Australia to open businesses, to open opportunities and to open markets so that we can grow South Australia and, again, take the shackles off and stop strangling South Australians. People are sick of what this state Labor government is delivering. Enough is enough, we need to open up this state and we need to create more things.

As well as that, we will roll up our sleeves and work with South Australians. We will not strangle South Australians as this state Labor government has done. They strangle and they suck the life out of everyone in this state. They suck it out with taxes. Tax is what they know. Someone said to me other day, 'It is T for Tom and it's T for tax. It's all this state Labor government knows.' We need to put the life back into South Australia and we will work with the South Australian people. We will roll up our sleeves. We know that the situation we are in is not good. I have talked about the unemployment rate and I have talked about the lack of growth here in South Australia, but together we can do it.

The Marshall Liberal team is determined to get South Australia back to its prosperous best and to give South Australians, the people of today and the people of our future, an opportunity to grow. We need to get rid of this state Labor government. A Marshall Liberal government will deliver for South Australia. We need to say to this state Labor government, the Premier and the Treasurer, 'Enough is enough. We need to get the shackles off and grow our great state.'

Ms HILDYARD (Reynell) (16:47): I rise to commend this bill to the house. I am very proud that our South Australian Labor government has delivered a budget that focuses on job creation and the boosting of our state's economy through the creation of an environment in which businesses have the opportunity to grow and thrive, which takes account of the need to empower and support the most vulnerable members of our community and rightly focuses spending on infrastructure and health.

It is a budget that provides an opportunity across our South Australian communities for sporting clubs to have inclusive facilities and for community projects to be developed by community members in a way that is impactful and strengthens the fabric of local communities. This is a budget which reflects our values, which speaks to what we, the South Australian Labor government, stand for, and which potentially benefits all South Australians.

I am proud that there are many budget measures which will have a meaningful impact on the lives of many local community members. Getting to work, to study, to visit friends or family, or to go to or from our beautiful beaches and other local attractions is a core part of life. As our southern area grows and as more and more people want to visit our stunning Mid Coast and southern areas, our train patronage is increasing and it is important that we resource transport for our public well.

In this budget a funding boost will rightly deliver more public transport services to South Australians. We have committed $22.4 million to increase train services, including along our Seaford line. This means that local southern community members and visitors to our area can access more train services in the evenings, on weekends and on public holidays, and also during major event periods. This means that more people can get home safer and sooner.

We want more South Australians to use public transport, which is why we are continually expanding and improving our network. For people who work late for a living, including those in essential and emergency services and in hospitality and a number of other professions, these additional services will make getting home easier. Just last week, I was out early at the Noarlunga Centre station and it was wonderful to hear that many people were very happy that we have made their journeys easier through these additional services. As Connor Stewart from Morphett Vale, who was here this week doing work experience with me, said:

My friends and I use the train all the time to commute from the south to the city to hang out and have fun, to 'chill', this gives us more options and will make things so much easier for us.

Local residents are also very happy to hear that we are upgrading our beautiful Port Noarlunga jetty, which sits within our Mid Coast Surfing Reserve, one of only three surfing reserves in Australia. Existing jetty stairs will be replaced and a new landing platform constructed to provide all-tide, safe and practical access to the reef for swimmers and recreational divers. As the other lovely work experience student with me this week, Harrison Hobart-Hards, also a very active lifesaver in our southern community, said to me this morning, 'Every time I go across the platform, I get splinters in my feet. It definitely needed to be redone.'

The jetty is next to our stunning Port Noarlunga reef. Upgrading the jetty will help support our local businesses, grow tourism in our community and enable members of our community to better enjoy swimming, diving, kayaking and fishing at our Port Noarlunga beach. This funding comes as part of a $9.3 million investment into jetties across our state. With more and more people visiting our iconic beaches, these upgrades will ensure that visitors and local residents are safe and enjoy their visit.

Together with the member for Kaurna, we continue to support our community members in their fight to secure funding for the Witton Bluff base track project, a project which will ensure connection between the Christies and Port Noarlunga communities and beaches. This is so important to our community, and the upgrading of our jetty alongside this work will see the whole of this area become more accessible.

Our local area, as well as communities across our state, will also greatly benefit from major infrastructure investment. Our South Australian Labor government has made a record infrastructure commitment of $9.5 billion over four years in this budget. These projects will create thousands of jobs in South Australia and will drive economic growth. Capital investment will support the health, safety, education, housing and transport needs of future generations of South Australians.

Our southern community will benefit from the $305 million duplication of Main South Road from Seaford to Sellicks Beach, with work starting in 2019. With approximately 17,000 vehicles using Main South Road daily, duplicating the road will make travelling to, from and within our southern communities safer and easier. Just last weekend, I was at the Aldinga Football Club watching a local SFL game. I chatted with the president of the club, Danny Wilde, and others about this upgrade, and they are so pleased. They worry about their loved ones and visiting teams travelling from and to the ground and the club and their community on the existing road, and they are very pleased that this step is being taken.

Thank you to the many community members who brought this matter to our attention, and a very big well done to the member for Mawson and the member for Kaurna on their extraordinary efforts in advocating for this upgrade. To ensure that local residents benefit from this project, we have created the Main South Road Jobs Task Force, headed by my colleague the member for Kaurna. Crucially, this task force will ensure that at least half of the 165 jobs a year during construction will go to people living in our southern suburbs. Local people often tell me that they want more local jobs on local construction projects, that they want a job close to home or that they want local opportunities for their kids and grandkids. I am proud that we have listened and that this is exactly what we are delivering.

I am also delighted that our South Australian Labor government is standing by our commitment to ending gender inequality in sport by providing more funding to assist women and girls to fully and equally participate in the sports they love. About 150,000 women and girls are registered with sporting clubs in South Australia. We have delivered a further $14 million for the Female Facilities Program, which provides funding for local clubs to build or refurbish female change rooms and other programs to end gender inequality in sport.

For too long, female facilities have been an afterthought when designing sports grounds. This funding will ensure that women and girls have equal access to change at local clubs and incentivise their participation. I was thrilled to see the first round of the female facilities program overwhelmed with applications. I know that women and girls at these clubs will benefit from new change rooms, from receiving the message that they are welcome to equally and actively participate in every aspect of club life.

Local clubs provide such an important place to bring people together, to keep people active, to get them into teams into great community family environments. As such, they should and must be exemplars in terms of being inclusive places, and this funding enables them to be that. This funding is also a demonstration that our South Australian government is committed to moving beyond words and to real action to support the journey of girls and women in sport and to end gender inequality in every aspect of sport.

Another example of this commitment is our government's investment in netball facilities. I am thrilled that Wikaparntu Wirra, the long-term home to 20 netball courts in our south-west Parklands, the home that has seen generations of girls take to the court week in, week out will see an upgrade to their courts, an installation of seating, community courts, lawn and play space through a $3.2 million Planning and Development Fund grant to revitalise the precinct. Our South Australian Labor government knows the role that netball plays in the lives of many young people, particularly girls, and our further $4.5 million budget investment into an upgrade to Priceline Stadium, the home of netball in South Australia and the home of our beloved Thunderbirds, will ensure that netball and netballers continue to thrive in South Australia.

This iconic South Australian sporting facility is home to 34,000 members and 360 clubs and hosts over 350,000 visitors per year. I recently had the opportunity to help open the country netball championships at Priceline, and it was absolutely heartwarming to see girls and young women from every corner of South Australia gathered, very excited and very ready to take to the court at this much loved home of netball. This funding will ensure that Priceline Stadium continues to provide participation and development opportunities from grassroots netball training and competitions through to the elite.

We are investing in netball facilities so that more women and girls have better facilities in which to participate and excel. This investment will mean that South Australian girls and women have facilities that better enable them to reach for their sporting dreams. This investment again also demonstrates our commitment to advancing girls and women in sport and to achieving gender equality in sport, and it demonstrates our preparedness to take action that makes real and positive change for girls and women. We can all be proud of South Australia's leadership around equality in sport.

For men's and women's sport, we have created a new grant for artificial playing surfaces. Local sporting clubs will now be able to access funds to establish or replace playing surfaces through our investment of $20 million to increase participation in local sports clubs. This funding will help our community clubs thrive. As mentioned, our local clubs are often at the heart of our community. They are vital to the health and wellbeing of so many South Australians in every corner of our state, and we want these clubs to have the very best facilities. This funding is available for sports using synthetic surfaces and wooden or hardcourt surfaces.

I am also proud that our government has delivered a budget with a massive $1.1 billion commitment to health care. When South Australians are sick or injured, we must look after them well. All South Australians deserve access to the best possible hospital care, which we are continuing to deliver. South Australian women will be able to access a new world-class Adelaide women's hospital. This $528 million investment in our women's health will provide tertiary level maternity, neonatal and gynaecological services as well as perinatal infant mental health and access for women to an on-site adult intensive care unit located that the new RAH.

The new Adelaide women's hospital will be a purpose-built facility that will ensure that mothers and babies have access to modern facilities and the best care possible. Giving life is one of the greatest gifts. It also can be a time of intense emotion, sometimes physical and mental stress. It is crucial that we give mothers and babies every opportunity to be supported well in the best possible environment and to thrive. This is just part of our ongoing commitment to our healthcare system, with investments in so many of our hospitals, including our $185.5 million upgrade to our Flinders Medical Centre and $12 million upgrade to our Noarlunga Hospital.

I had the opportunity to visit our new theatres at Noarlunga recently, and they are state-of-the-art facilities. Whilst we could never say that anyone looks forward to using them, I am confident that those who need to use these facilities will be reassured by their excellent standard. These upgrades provide for South Australians when they are most in need, and it is important that at those times great facilities are available.

Our 2017-18 budget is undoubtedly a jobs budget. Our South Australian Labor government is committed to creating employment, to providing crucial pathways for young people to training and work, to supporting workers and their families. We want to do everything we can to create opportunities and to create new and decent jobs—decent jobs with decent wages. I say 'decent' in recognition of our government's long and proud history of supporting the lowest paid workers to receive the penalty rates they deserve—a position that demonstrates our government's support for South Australian workers, particularly those who give up precious time with their families to serve us, look after us, provide vital community and emergency support, to drive us and to be there for us in so many other ways. That is a position that stands in stark contrast to those opposite and their federal government counterparts in Canberra.

We have created a new $200 million Future Jobs Fund to drive employment in key growth industries, including $50 million to be distributed in grants and $70 million in low-interest loans to be available to support job creation. The fund will build on measures in recent budgets that have underpinned jobs growth in shipbuilding and defence, renewable energy and mining, tourism, food and wine, health and biomedical research, and IT and advanced manufacturing. We are committed to building sustainable South Australian industries that will become the jobs of the future.

Through our budget last year, through our extraordinary investment in STEM facilities at 139 schools, we supported our young people who will take on those jobs of the future that we are creating to be ready for them. On this side, we call on the federal Liberal government to match our $200 million commitment to the Future Jobs Fund and to support South Australians, not to support more cuts that hurt South Australian families.

Our South Australian Labor government is also boosting the Jobs Accelerator Grants. We have seen over the past 12 months that these grants have encouraged job creation across South Australian communities with almost 10,000 positions having been registered with the scheme. In this budget, we have provided a larger payment for apprentices and trainees to support employment for our young people.

The expansion of this program will crucially mean more job creation and, importantly, more apprentice and trainee opportunities to upskill young South Australians and to connect them with work. From the many conversations with young people in our southern community, with students thinking about their next steps, the sort of work they want to engage in, I am sure that these new opportunities will give them more to dream about, to aim for and to plan their future around.

We are also continuing to support the successful I Choose SA awareness campaign, extending the project for another 12 months to support local businesses to grow and expand, with a further $2 million grant to double the duration of I Choose SA. The program uses advertising and branding to inform consumers that when they purchase from South Australian companies they are supporting local jobs, they are supporting other South Australian families. As of the start of June, almost 3,000 retailers and supporters had registered with the I Choose SA directory. I encourage all South Australians to get behind the I Choose SA campaign and to keep putting our people first.

Our Labor government understands the dignity that work provides and the security of a regular income. We will always fight for South Australian workers and provide incentives for job creation in our state. To fund these new job measures and to ensure we can support essential services for South Australians, we have introduced a new major bank levy, as has been spoken about many times in this house, expected to raise about $370 million over the forward estimates. This bank levy will apply only to the banks liable for the commonwealth major bank levy, so smaller financial institutions will not be affected.

We all know that banks receive huge profits on the backs of hardworking South Australians. Last year, the five banks made collective profits of $30 billion after tax. We also know companies in the financial services industry are not liable to pay GST. Our South Australian Labor government is applying this levy to ensure that banks are paying their fair share, a share that will ensure those South Australians who are contributing to this extraordinary profit are empowered to access those decent jobs that I spoke about and are able to access the supports and services that they need when they need them most. Big banks must pay their fair share. It is the right thing to do and I absolutely applaud our Treasurer for this measure.

Our South Australian Labor government is also proud to support vulnerable members of our community and in this budget we have invested in the Changing Places program to provide more accessible public toilets to assist people with a disability and their carers. We will campaign for facilities with more special features and more space. Changing Places bathrooms will have a height adjustable changing bench capable of supporting adults.

We will partner with local government and non-government community organisations to make this change a reality. I strongly believe that parents and carers deserve hygienic and dignified facilities to care for their loved ones, and it is our responsibility to make shared spaces more inclusive of people living with a disability. This is an important initiative that will have a meaningful impact on the lives of South Australians living with a disability.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon interjecting:

Ms HILDYARD: Mr Acting Speaker, could you please deal with the member for Newland? To close, I extend my congratulations to the Treasurer and to his staff for his wisdom and their efforts in creating and delivering this budget, as well as his dedication to our shared Labor values.

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (17:06): The budget process is demanding and there are many pressures and needs to meet within it. I commend all the hardworking public servants for their efforts and thank the Treasurer and departmental officers for preparing what I know they believe is the most advantageous direction and plan for the future of this state.

We all love South Australia, which is why we are here. There are so many good things happening here so, to keep it that way, it would be foolish to avoid confronting the obvious issues facing the state as it restructures and repositions itself in many areas as we look towards the future and the still elusive better times ahead. The excitement and vibrancy we hear about and we are beginning to see, which were part of the Dunstan years when I first came to South Australia, prove that we can again create the atmosphere and the settings that lead to prosperity, because we still have that vital component of amazing people who really do punch above their weight in innovation and creativity.

I want to make a few observations in laywoman's terms. For a budget to be judged a success, it has to have bold vision and rigour and then deliver. It is important to have surpluses, but not at the expense of basic services, because we live in a community, not just an economy. That is what I have always said since I first came here as a kindy mum and community activist. I still believe the same things are as important today as they were then. Jobs, safe and secure accommodation and access to good health and education services are still the basics.

From a kindy mum, now a grandparent and long-serving MP's perspective, I want to consider some of the important aspects of this budget. Firstly, how will it stimulate employment? The amounts listed in the Budget Overview, pages 2 and 3, while obviously welcome, seem small when compared with the outlays in other budget areas. Every job is important, as each represents a person and their connections to family and community. We have close scrutiny of jobs in many sectors, such as tourism, food and wine to name a few. Do we have the same watching brief on the jobs that keep our manufacturing, large enterprises and the small to medium ones on the move? Can we really afford to lose one such job?

Infrastructure and construction are certainly keeping many people employed, but it remains a constant challenge to find continuing employment for them and our skilled manufacturing workforce whenever a factory closes or a business folds—and they do, with resulting impacts on the families who not only work in them but also run them. Their struggle is replicated by those of the many primary producing and regional families who face the same daily struggles to make ends meet, while also having to factor in the vagaries of things like weather and water management.

At the end, the banks are there, too, and failure is undoubtedly one of the sad ways they accumulate huge profits, which makes them, not without good reason, the obvious target for budget repair nationally and now at the state level in a romantic Robin Hood sort of way, but there is the rub: hastily thought-out tax grabs, no matter how innovative, eventually affect every single South Australian.

The state proposal, similar to the recently announced federal bank proposal, may be modest and attractive, but it has brought the combined wrath and might of the biggest national companies on us in the most unhelpful and perhaps sustained way. I understand the concept of bullying all too well and the problems associated with a perceived capitulation, but the many people in Florey I have spoken with do not believe that the state government is able to protect them from costs being recovered in some way. They are not too sure about the federal example either.

There must be more than one way to achieve the desired end, and people want those with the know-how and in the right places to apply their skills and come up with a better solution. Levying the same sort of tax twice is not the answer and comes across as though we do not have any original ideas in this state, limited though our options might be in raising revenue, but we could concentrate on ways to make the cake bigger rather than cutting the slices ever more thinly. It has been suggested to me that the proposed state-based bank tax morally dishonours the agreement not to reintroduce bank taxes that was made by all states when the GST was introduced. A technicality on what it applies to will not change the fundamental principle at heart.

Going it alone is a calculated risk that I am not sure the public wants taken. That does not mean giving up but, rather, pursuing a different option to achieve the same end. This is where good relationships with the commonwealth are imperative, from the Murray River to electricity and even taxation. It is a difficult and, in the world of politics we find ourselves today, almost insurmountable situation for a small state. Even so, I repeat that good relationships are essential, and even in politics trust is an important part of that.

Federation needs a major overhaul and we need a credible plan to fix it. Now is not the time to create further distrust and confusion but to work with the commonwealth and other states to somehow identify and provide concrete solutions. It does seem like it is every state or territory for itself. In the end, though, it is a commonwealth, and people want it to work and they look to us to make it work. Let's see a bold South Australian plan and leadership that makes that happen.

Health continues to be a major focus in the Florey area, largely around the continuing life of Modbury Hospital, most lately centred on its place in Transforming Health and into the future, whatever its next incarnation will be called. No longer called a 'general' hospital, Modbury Hospital is now a 'suburban' hospital, linked inextricably to the Lyell McEwin health service. I have watched and fought even before entering parliament, to keep Modbury Hospital the important local centre of health care it remains, although in ever-changing guises.

Over the years, the dedicated staff have put their hearts and souls into defending and keeping the reputation of the hospital's care of the community, and each of us has happy and sad and memories of important events it has played in our lives. Modbury Hospital is the living heart of our community's health services, not some thing people can fund or defund at whim to balance out a bottom line. They can be patient patients, to a point, but they are close to not believing anything they hear. No glossy brochure or letter can change what has happened in our lived experiences.

Luckily, most people seem to find the health service works when they need it and, although adverse outcomes cannot be eliminated, I believe our front-line health professionals do a marvellous job. The perception, though, in the community is that the front-line services people actually need and use are suffering. There are reports that it is taking longer to be seen by a GP or by a doctor in our hospitals in the event of an emergency. Some patients are definitely waiting longer to get the life-altering surgery they need, creating further complications.

People are cynical about good news funding announcements just before an election. This budget sees The Queen Elizabeth Hospital the big health winner, and rightly so—$250.6 million over four years. The Lyell McEwin health service gets a much-needed emergency department upgrade—$52.5 million over four years. Modbury Hospital receives its long needed, much asked-for extended care unit—$9.2 million over three years. I thank and salute the Modbury Hospital emergency department staff for their work and SASMOA, who have also worked very hard to represent their members' interests. No-one underestimates the importance of this investment in out state's acute system. We recognise the health budget, by its very nature, is hard to deliver as promised.

At Modbury Hospital breast cancer treatment and better day surgery are some of the service improvements, but they have come after long periods of uncertainty. Just as we think we have reached a satisfactory outcome for Modbury Hospital or its place in the ever-changing health system seems secure, there is another often unnecessary round of destabilising rumours and changes. This does have to end. No-one believes what is being said anymore. They believe the results. Having a new rehab centre here is fantastic, but not at the cost of other services or funding to areas like palliative care, which does so much at Modbury Hospital and is recognised as a centre of excellence.

People have to be able to trust government and the people in charge, which means they have to be told the truth. Those in authority have to lose the spin and explain what they want or hope to achieve, and how they are going to implement the changes to get there. It is not helpful, no matter how hard the changes will be, to point us in one direction and then hope to pull us back with a reversal plan and an announcement of pots of money to half address the issues raised by long suffering healthcare providers and consumers.

The Transforming Health blueprint and whatever comes from it now is dependent on the paramedics in our ambulance service, and that particular part of the highly trained and skilled health workforce needs to be fully staffed and operational to save lives and move people smoothly through the acute health system. Without help arriving swiftly and treatment coming as quickly as possible, our health system cannot be best practice. For ambulances to be that cornerstone, we need to have universal emergency ambulance cover. If other states can do it, then we must too.

Sick people or those individuals involved in life-threatening accidents not in the ambulance subscription scheme can be charged more to get from Valley View to the Lyell McEwin Hospital in an ambulance than it costs to fly to a holiday destination like China, and 60 per cent of people transport themselves to hospital during a healthcare crisis, for whatever reason, and that is just not safe for anyone. There is nothing in this budget to address either of these situations.

Education sees our teachers remain the vital link between children and their preparedness for life and the jobs of the future. This is a huge area of importance and teachers do their best to provide the best outcomes and safe places to learn. Schools are also a vital link between successful family life and are often a first point where trouble signs can be spotted and supports put in place to prevent family breakdown.

Non-government agencies are more and more a part of the solutions needed to help with issues from child protection to homelessness as governments step back from providing many front-line services and running anything at all. Public ownership is still something people speak with me about wistfully. The LTO is the latest thing we no longer maintain. It is a worry and it is hard to see where it will all end. Selling of South Australia's assets to private operators makes the budget bottom line look attractive but comes at a cost.

Hardworking people like the residents in Florey face increases, albeit modest, in things like the cost of registering and driving a car and catching the bus. They face them stoically and really welcome the additional park-and-ride that is going to be erected at Modbury but are still anticipating the changes to the concourse, which were asked for many years ago.

Getting back to public ownership, the loss of the lotteries, forest rotations and MAC, among other things, means we no longer have their revenue streams. Someone once said to me that it was too risky to keep electricity generation, which leads me to the biggest issue constituents raise, the ever constant household budget issue of power bills.

As with a lot of other everyday essential contracts like mobile phones and NBN access, you really need to be on top of all the fine print, and even if you are it still means that it is a constant struggle to make sure you get the best possible deal. Power contracts are a jungle. Power security is essential and lots is being spent on that in this budget and the transition to sustainable, secure power, and that is very welcome. With regard to contracts, here is where I long for the good old days when you could rely on calling someone in consumer affairs and being set straight fairly quickly, particularly about building homes and issues like private certification. Buyer beware truly remains a golden rule.

There is spending on the arts especially, the Centre of Democracy for school students and adults alike, and sports—which is great and has positive health outcomes too—along with connecting communities, which is where so many great ideas begin. People know what affects them and usually have suggestions on how to put things right.

Volunteering is the backbone of the community. Without volunteers, it is hard to know how we could keep things going. It is a good way to get into employment for those starting out and a great way to stay connected for those at the other end looking at retirement, and I will speak more about aged care later. However, volunteering cannot sustain a person or a family. We have to look at ways of making all their valuable work truly valued in a tangible way while still recognising the donation of time and the important part it plays in so many people's lives. Volunteering is most rewarding to the volunteer and is often the only reason and thanks they need.

Most of the things we need and count on for our lives have funding components from more than one source. Federation comes in here again. It is the maximisation of these funding arrangements that is the key to making sure our communities operate in a cohesive way, keeping jobs and services in harmony so that we can live happy and productive lives. The struggles in day-to-day living can often have detrimental effects on us, and the mental health of our communities is another issue that must be given greater focus. Addictive behaviours are part of the complex needs so many seem to be battling, and the impacts on families are hidden unless you are close to a person confronting the enormous problems associated with that. Disability needs are beginning to be addressed through the NDIS and so this area has started to change many lives.

Another area of great social need similar to disability, child protection and child care that has come sharply into focus is aged care. I refer to remarks in an earlier grievance on places like Oakden in our national aged-care system that we ignore at our peril. As the member for Heysen said yesterday, many of us will live beyond 100, and staying home as long as possible is the aim, but some of us will eventually find ourselves in care.

There is good work being done. The member for Fisher has a committee, and I know there is a Senate committee nationally as well, and work is being done by private providers to look to the future. People are working hard, but it will need funding and a national framework. People trust parliament to look after their best interests in aged care and in every other matter. They want clear direction, and if things go wrong or change they want to know and they want to know how it will be fixed and then they want to see something happen in a timely manner.

Aged care, like retirement villages, needs national oversight. South Australia made good amendments to the Retirement Villages Act recently, and that was led by the member for Ashford, and the member for Colton was involved in that as well, but the changes could not be made retrospectively. Contracts do need to be simplified and in plain English, not traps for unsuspecting people.

As in today's debate in lieu of question time, I find myself having to weigh the merits of propositions and debate within the budget and the adversarial system within which we work—which often means the answer is somewhere in between. I truly believe in the participatory democratic system and the value of the vote. We work with the system that we have and the parliament that we were delivered at the last election, and each of us here who have the honour to speak for our communities do so in good faith.

There are some good measures in the budget and, as we all want to see South Australia great, it would be good to know in advance if everything in the budget will work as planned. However, our challenge is to ensure that we have the inbuilt resilience to see off the dip in the cycle and to make sure our state returns to prosperity. We can all work together to achieve this. Let's hope that is what happens.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Duluk): The member for Morialta.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (17:21): Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. May I say what a fine job you are doing in that auspicious role. I think you are bringing distinction to the chair in a way that we have been waiting for years. The nation casts its lonely heart, hoping to see someone to look up to in that chair and now they do, if only for this brief period, so congratulations.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Duluk): Order!

Mr GARDNER: This bill is to appropriate money for public servants to be paid to enable the government to undergo its business, and it will be supported by the opposition so that supply may continue and government may go on. However, the budget papers contain many things that are worthy of some comment, some of which have already received a goodly amount of comment today, but there are a few things left to say about the government's state bank tax.

I commence my remarks by putting some extra concerns in addition to those I put on the record earlier today about why I think this measure is dangerous, damaging to South Australia, damaging to South Australians who are seeking jobs, and is not in the best interests of the South Australian community or, indeed, any South Australian, in any way. It is a bad tax, and that is why we plan to oppose that aspect of the Budget Measures Bill.

The key factor that determines interest rates is risk, and the riskier the environment the higher the interest rate will be. This is of concern to anybody with a mortgage in South Australia or anybody who plans to have a mortgage in South Australia, anyone who wants to buy a house, anyone who wants to take on a loan to start a small business, anyone seeking to get a job with somebody who has a business or with a business that has a loan, or someone who is hoping to attract investment. All these people—which is pretty much just about everybody, particularly young South Australians hoping to have a better future—will be impacted negatively by this state bank tax.

One component of the risk for South Australians in South Australia that has not existed before is sovereign risk. We have a state government right now that will make policy decisions that will frighten investors. A government that springs a new tax on a sector with no warning will simply mean that investors will require a higher return on the debt they lent because of the fear that the goalposts could change at any moment.

The Treasurer himself said in question time that he did not speak to any of the business groups, that he did not speak to any of the business leaders and that he did not speak to any of the government's own hand-picked economic advisers. He did not speak to any of the 145,000 small businesses in South Australia. This is a tax of the Premier's and the Treasurer's devising that is going to have extraordinarily bad impacts across the South Australian community and is going to create this risk.

This means that there is a real risk in South Australia that our home loans, our car loans, our credit cards and our business overdrafts could all have higher interest rates than those in other states because those state governments are not perceived to be reckless like South Australia is. It would be an outrage if any South Australian were effectively treated as a second-class citizen within Australia, paying more for a home loan than someone in Victoria or Queensland because of the actions of this government, because this government has increased the cost of borrowing thanks to erratic and risky policymaking.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Treasurer, the member is on his feet and he is entitled to be heard in silence.

Mr Pederick: He has had three warnings.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Hammond, I will be alright thank you. If I need you, I will let you know.

Mr Pederick: Always happy to help out.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know you are. Member for Morialta.

Mr GARDNER: This is a Treasurer who has done what very few treasurers have done before, all of them of course Labor treasurers. They have taken a policy decision that will damage—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Treasurer is called to order.

Mr GARDNER: —the people of South Australia by having a differential tax that differentiates South Australia from other states.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Stop the clock. Sit down. It does not appear you were sent out, Treasurer, but you have been warned twice. It would be good to be able to hear the member for Morialta's points, and I am sure that at some point you will get up and refute them, won't you, but it will not be during his speech. Member for Morialta.

Mr GARDNER: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Of course, there is one other person who has done something similar to this to the South Australian people, and that fellow was John Bannon—

Mr Picton interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Kaurna!

Mr Picton interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Stop it! I am on my feet. It is very disrespectful to speak loudly on your phone in the chamber, Treasurer. Treasurer, please do not speak loudly on your phone. I am reminding the member for Kaurna that he is out of order.

Mr GARDNER: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. We have a Treasurer who cannot even remember his own talking points and needs to be on the phone to outside the chamber while he is in here so that he can prepare his response—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no need for that to happen. Let's all try to behave, though.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sit down.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: It's juvenile, John.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not think 'juvenile' is listed, but we can try to see if you can have it incorporated somehow later on. I am asking the members—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Stop the clock. No, listen, you have all been pretty good so far. I am not going to accept the interjections. Please do not interject. Give the member the respect he deserves. You can have a time to speak again later on in grievances tonight. We will be here all day if there are interjections. I do not intend to let it happen.

Mr GARDNER: There was an interesting word used seven times in question time yesterday by the Treasurer in relation to answering questions about this bank tax, and that was about his entitlement. I think what we have just seen demonstrates the entitlement that the members of the front bench—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no need for that. Back to the speech.

Mr GARDNER: —demonstrated in their budget—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sit down. Sit down. Back to your speech.

Mr GARDNER: —demonstrated in their budget—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Back to your speech.

Mr GARDNER: In the bill ahead of us, they do feel entitled to do whatever they want to the people of South Australia and indeed to introduce this tax, which is of course a different situation from the federal tax, where the federal tax is in response to the guarantee the federal government provides the banks. This state government does not do that. All this state government does in relation to a guarantee is guarantee that South Australians are going to be kicked in the teeth when it comes to their financial arrangements. They have form. It is not enough for them to have ruined South Australia once with a state bank disaster; they are now seeking to do it again.

I was at school when the State Bank went into difficulties. However, I am still old enough to remember how it worked, and I am familiar in a very personal way with some of the impacts of the State Bank disaster and what it did to business confidence in South Australia. I am 38 years old. I was—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr GARDNER: Sorry, what was that, Treasurer? You were interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you both know that it is unparliamentary to interject or respond to interjections.

Mr GARDNER: I was 12 years old in 1989.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Ignore him.

Mr GARDNER: I grew up in a small family business environment, manufacturing water treatment equipment. It was my father's company, as he started it, and it was owned by my mother and my father and another investor who worked in the company. It was a small business that employed between nine and 16 people from year to year depending on how it went. After the State Bank disaster, after the calamitous subsequent recession we had to have at a federal level, I well remember that every few months we would have the company's accountant sitting at the dinner table because that is what happens in a small family business. The accountant is a family friend and he sits there and gives us advice on what is going forward.

I remember the lack of confidence that we had going forward at the time. I remember the way that businesses respond to these sorts of calamitous issues. The fact is that if you go back to that period in 1991 there was a loss of $3.15 billion in state government guaranteed funds. It cost hundreds of millions of dollars per year for the state government to cover the bank's bad debts. Samuel Jacobs QC, the commissioner, said:

John Bannon failed to listen to the messages of doom, ignored the warnings—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Point of order: relevance.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, I was talking to the Clerk. We are going to have to listen to you very carefully, member for Morialta.

Mr GARDNER: He continued:

shut down debate in the Assembly and refused to listen to the people who had insight into the impact of what was happening in the State Bank would have to the people of South Australia.

That is what we see again here today in this bill. In this bill, the Appropriation Bill and the consequent budget papers that go with it, we see a tax that is going to have an extraordinary impact on the people of South Australia. It is not that the Treasurer has ignored the warnings of what will happen before introducing this measure; he did not even talk to anybody, certainly nobody who remembers the consequences of the State Bank disaster that a previous Labor government committed on the people of South Australia. It is utterly destructive to confidence.

But of course we did have insight into where the Premier gets his advice and support from. He read an article into the parliament's Hansard from The Australia Institute, a group led by a nice fellow called Ben Oquist, most well known of course for working as chief of staff and adviser to Bob Brown for many years. It is perhaps not surprising that this is a government that is focused on receiving financial advice and support from people who are running mates with the Australian Greens.

The other media outlet that is supporting the government's measures is the government's own version of Pravda, The Express, a newspaper paid for in funds out of this budget by the people of South Australia's tax dollars and handed out by ministers on street corners. It is the only publication in town that actually says that any of these measures are a good thing and that any of these measures are going to have good consequences for the people of South Australia.

Frankly, I heard the minister talking in his speech on this bill about advertising campaigns which he accused as being designed to mislead people. The government is spending money, taxpayers' hard-earned dollars, taking their taxes into the state government coffers, spending money printing newspapers to hand back to them and telling them that the government is in fact doing a good job. What do the people who understand how economies work say about this budget? They say that it is not a jobs budget. In fact, even the Treasury papers suggest that it is not a jobs budget, the Treasury papers which show that jobs growth will be less than half that of Victoria and half the national average.

It defies belief almost that Labor would just dismiss the legitimate concerns of South Australian employers and fail to commission economic modelling about the impacts of a state bank tax and then seek to impose it on the South Australian people. It is a tax that will break South Australia's economy, and therefore it is necessary that it be opposed. The importance at this stage in particular of not undertaking measures that will hurt South Australia's economy cannot be overstated.

We have a seasonally adjusted unemployment rate of 6.9 per cent in May, which is the highest in the nation, and a trend figure of 7.1 per cent—that is the steady figure—which has been the highest in the nation for 30 consecutive months. The youth unemployment rate is 17.2 per cent—the highest in the nation. Tasmania is beating us, Western Australia is beating us and so are Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. There are 60,300 people unemployed and another 85,900 people underemployed, seeking extra hours. They are in a situation where, in many cases as the result of policies enacted by this government, they are not able to work to the extent that they would like.

We need to be doing everything we can to create a state in which every South Australian knows that they can achieve their full potential, that they can get a good day's pay for a good day's work and that their work will be rewarded. That is not what this state government delivers or what they have delivered. Commonwealth Treasury forecasts that there will be a 1.5 per cent employment growth in 2017-18 nationally, and our state Treasury forecast is 1 per cent. The fact of the matter is that, at a time when unemployment is in such a significant crisis, we can little afford to take measures that will damage it even further.

In relation to my portfolio of education, multicultural affairs and the arts, there are a number of measures in this budget, some of which are welcomed and some we have some questions about. For the benefit of the bevy of advisers who may come with the education minister to the estimates procedures in the next couple of weeks, I will put a couple of those questions on the record at this point. Hopefully, when we are in estimates, we might be able to get some quick answers and we will not have to spend all the allocated time going back and forth, looking up documents that really should be quite easy to find.

On Budget Paper 5, page 31, we see $7 million pledged over four years for two new super schools. These are at Munno Para and Sellicks Beach, although I note that some of the materials talk about Sellicks Beach/Aldinga. I am interested to know from the government what their plan is there. They are to be built as public-private partnerships and the funding in the budget, the $7 million, is to manage those public-private partnerships. It is suggested that there are going to be 1,400 R to 12 students, 100 special-school students and a 55-place children's centre in each of them.

We do not have any details in that budget announcement as to the location of the school, whether it is Sellicks Beach or Aldinga. If it is to be both, I suspect that would be quite a piece of land. What schools are going to be impacted? What modelling has been done on whether the government is expecting other schools to close as a result of these schools being built?

We understand that there is a demographic increase in these areas and there is some level of need for new school infrastructure, which is supported, but we need to know a lot more detail about the government's expectations. When these schools open, what year levels are they going to contain? What local schools are going to be impacted? Where does the government model that these 3,000 new students across both sites are going to be drawn from? They are not just going to be coming out of thin air. A number of those students are currently attending other schools.

We note that there is no funding in this budget for the Magill school. Four years ago, at a similar point on the time line as these new Munno Para and Sellicks Beach schools being announced in the last electoral cycle, the member for Wright—education minister as she was then, and representative of the Speaker at a presiding officers' conference as she is now—as education minister promised that there would be a birth to 12 school at Magill.

When it came down to it, that was in the election promise and the subsequent 2014 budget. That was taken down into what was, in effect, a business case or a scoping study, and we got hung up on the jargon, but several hundred thousand dollars were spent. Aurecon worked with the department and built up what that school might look like. It was 2014 when that money was subsequently committed. UniSA have been working on the project, as well as the Norwood Morialta High School governing council joined by other governing councils, the Magill Primary School and the Magill Kindergarten. An awful lot of work has been happening in recent years.

In particular, I note that a lot of volunteer work has been happening because a number of people in the working groups have been working in good faith with the government because it promised before the last election that there would be a new school at Magill. They have been giving up enormous amounts of their time. They are people with jobs, people who are raising a family and people who do not just happen to have a lot of spare time. However, because they are on the governing council and because they want to support their child's education by doing everything they can and by giving their expertise and energy, they work with the government to find a best outcome that suits all the needs of the different stakeholders of new facilities at Magill.

Frankly, the facilities at Rostrevor, which I identify are in my own electorate, are inadequate. The current 10 to 12 campus at Norwood Morialta needs quite a lot of work if there is not to be a new school at Magill. The minister has been there and knows what I am talking about. The government has not put any money in the budget to provide the work necessary to bring Rostrevor up to scratch, and it has not put any money in the budget after four years to develop the new school at Magill.

I have questions for the education minister at estimates or the Treasurer, and if he knows the answers he can answer them. What is the government planning to do at Magill? When will the work of the parents and the endeavour that they have put into helping the government develop this project come to fruition? These parents, by the way, know that their children will not see this school completed while they are still at the school. They know it is a longer term project, but they want the best for the school community and, therefore, they are taking whatever steps they can to support its development. I commend them for that.

I hope the government identifies a time line for an answer. Hopefully, there will be support for it before the end of the year and hopefully some of the Treasurer's several hundreds of millions of dollars worth of contingencies will go towards supporting it, but at the very least we need a time line and answers for those schools. There are several schools involved, as well as the University of South Australia, and there are more than 1,000 future students.

Going to the education minister's future potential responses in estimates, I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, pages 14 and 15. I have identified at least seven examples of delays to school infrastructure works compared with last year's budget papers. They are the Christies Beach High School Disability Unit, Evanston Gardens Primary School, Le Fevre High School, Playford International College, the Preschool Relocation Program, Swallowcliffe Primary School and Yalata Anangu School. Some of those delays are as short as three months and some are over a year. I hope the education minister will take the opportunity, when I ask this question in estimates, to answer quickly and concisely, having had several weeks, from my raising it here, to identify the answers.

Whilst she is at it, she can also identify the staff fluctuations and what they are about in Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 20. Since the 2014-15 budget, staff numbers have dropped by 300 in 2016-17 only to increase by 200 in 2017-18. There is also $608,000 over two years for the Right Bite pilot program. I would like the minister to explain why we are spending that money. What is that giving us in addition to what Foodbank and KickStart For Kids already give? Which schools will benefit and how will they benefit more than they already do from other charity programs? I will be supporting this part of the budget through the Appropriation Bill.

Ms WORTLEY (Torrens) (17:43): I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill 2017. The 2017-18 state budget is a budget—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Ms WORTLEY: —that is innovative and that looks to the future, putting South Australians first. It is a budget that invests in our children's schools, in our hospitals, in the neighbourhoods we live in and in our state's infrastructure. Importantly, it is a budget that has as its aim supporting existing jobs and creating new opportunities right here in South Australia. It is a budget that funds Our Energy Plan to secure the state's power supply and to put downward pressure on prices.

It is a budget that shows that, as a government, we are listening to and hearing what the community is saying, one that focuses and delivers on the core values of jobs, health, education and community neighbourhoods. It is a budget that affirms the government's strong economic management with estimates putting us on track to deliver surpluses every year from 2015-16 through to 2020-21.

On the jobs front, disappointingly and sadly, in a little less than four months' time more than 50 years of automotive manufacturing history will end as Holden closes its factory at Elizabeth. It is not for the want of trying by our state Labor government, but the federal Liberal government and the state Liberal members opposite failed to see the significance and its importance to families in our state. I have witnessed the impact the closure is having on workers and their families. As a government, we are working hard to protect existing jobs while trying to help our traditional manufacturers through these very tough times.

This state budget delivers a new $200 million Future Jobs Fund to drive employment in key growth industries in our state. It will deliver grants and low-interest loans to support job creation in the growth industries of shipbuilding and defence, renewable energy, mining and tourism, food and wine, health and biomedical research, and IT and advanced manufacturing. The very successful and popular I Choose SA campaign will be extended. There will be support for the automotive supply chain ahead of the closure of Holden and the end of automotive manufacturing in SA, and that will be a sad day.

In addition, there is an allocation to support bids to secure major events and conventions to further drive growth in the visitor economy and to further support and secure new investment in the state through low-interest loans and grants. The state government has also established an SA Jobs Today website to act as a portal for information for job seekers and businesses. This budget will also see the Job Accelerator Grants increase by up to $5,000 for each new apprentice and trainee hired. Coupled with the already existing grant, the benefit increases up to $15,000 and supports an estimated 2,000 positions. I know that many young people in my electorate, some of whom I have spoken to, will benefit from this initiative.

The state government will upgrade our transport with safer and more efficient roads and better, more frequent public transport. These new infrastructure projects are a boost for local jobs and contractors. Over the past 15 years, the government has almost doubled park-and-ride vehicle capacity for public transport users across Adelaide. Now, with the O-Bahn's extension to the CBD via the City Access Project nearing completion, it makes sense to augment current facilities to make accessing the upgraded services as easy and convenient as possible.

We want to encourage more people to use public transport as their preferred mode of transport, and that is why we have invested in the O-Bahn City Access Project which, when completed, will transport more than 31,000 commuters each working day. This transport option certainly lives up to its reputation as the most popular public transport network in Adelaide.

This budget has allocated $50 million over two years for additional parking facilities at the Klemzig O-Bahn interchange and the park-and-ride at Tea Tree Plaza, delivering an additional 500 car park spaces. An extra 200 places will be created at the Klemzig O-Bahn interchange, including additional accessible car parks, with building work set to start next year. This will take the available car parking spaces at the Klemzig interchange to 430. The new facilities at Klemzig and Tea Tree Plaza will comply fully with access standards and will feature security lighting and CCTV coverage to enhance user security, and we will clearly delineate pathways to the platforms.

Having spoken with residents in Klemzig and Windsor Gardens, I have advocated on their behalf for additional parking at the Klemzig O-Bahn interchange. I know how pleased residents will be having their streets free of congestion from commuters who park their cars in their streets and out the front of their houses and also the commuters with having additional car parking spaces made available.

These upgrades will build on the success of the current sites. It is a great outcome for O-Bahn commuters and nearby residents. Of course, I will continue to advocate for upgraded facilities for residents who live closer to the Paradise O-Bahn interchange. I understand the government is still committed to working with the City of Campbelltown to find the best solutions for the Paradise interchange. Having spoken with residents in Klemzig and Windsor Gardens, I know that they are particularly pleased about this outcome.

As a government, we are supporting industries that are growing today to create the jobs of tomorrow for this generation and for future generations. The state government is determined to deliver a modern cutting-edge health system, despite the federal government's cuts to health funding in 2014, which will cost South Australia $1.5 billion. Some of the 2017-18 state budget investment in health infrastructure includes a new eight-bed emergency extended care unit at Modbury Hospital; the expansion of the Lyell McEwin Hospital's emergency department; the redevelopment of The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, including a new emergency department—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members on my left.

Ms WORTLEY: —a new Adelaide Women's Hospital, physically connected to the new Royal Adelaide Hospital, to provide world-class care for women and newborn babies; a major upgrade of the Women's and Children's Hospital site; additional operating theatres at Flinders Medical Centre; and the development of a new older person's mental health facility.

Mr Bell: Where are the country ones?

Ms WORTLEY: In addition, the state budget also commits funding to redevelop—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Torrens, just sit down. Stop the clock. You are on two warnings, member for Mount Gambier. You will leave us if you need to say another word. The member for Hammond is not in his seat and he is on one warning.

Mr Bell: Can I ask how many warnings the Treasurer is on?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with it. Come and speak with me here if you want to ask a question. The member for Torrens.

Ms WORTLEY: —the higher courts precinct, including an additional two jury rooms for the Sir Samuel Way Building; upgrade Her Majesty's Theatre; provide grants to sporting clubs for facilities for women, which I know is very welcome, and for artificial playing surfaces; improve jetties at Henley Beach, Port Noarlunga, Whyalla and Port Bonython; stage 1 development of the Priceline netball stadium; the extension of GigCity, offering new precincts access to ultrafast internet; and initiatives to reduce the supply of crystal meth in our communities.

On education, the government continues to invest in public education, honouring the full six years of the original Gonski agreement, and rolling out the STEM program, redeveloping 139 schools to deliver science, technology, engineering and maths. Under a public-private partnership, two birth to year 12 schools, one in the north in the Munno Para region and one in the south in the Sellicks Beach-Aldinga region, will be built. Of course, construction has already begun on the new Adelaide Botanic High School in the city.

Our government is continuing to work hard to further improve hospitals, public transport, education, roads and public housing to create a dynamic, livable, vibrant and safe place to live now and into the future. In the words of the Premier, 'We're supporting industries that are growing today to create the jobs of tomorrow.' I commend the budget to the house.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Treasurer, Minister for Finance, Minister for State Development, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy) (17:52): Can I pass on my thanks to the House of Assembly, all the members of the government, Independents and opposition who have made their remarks. When it comes to the budget, it is my very strong view that budgets are a reflection of government values, whoever that government is. All members come to this place with high ideals. All members come to this place with the very best intentions. All members want to do the very best for their constituents and, of course, their political movements.

Every side thinks that they are right. Every side thinks that they have justice on their side, but the constitution of our great state recognises that not everyone is going to agree with everything everyone does. The constitution, which was drafted by our founding fathers, decided that, to have responsible representative government in this state, it would set down some precedents, and those precedents have been held in this state since 1857.

The Constitution Act is pretty explicit in providing that the benefits of the House of Commons and the practices of the houses of parliament would flow on to these parliaments. The constitution made it very clear what the founding fathers wanted for the budget process because they foresaw what could occur if governments were not allowed to govern, that is, that they were not allowed to pass their budget measures.

Members opposite have taken this budget as an opportunity to express their dissatisfaction with those precedents since 1857. That is fine. I assume that this will be now the last budget this House of Assembly will ever debate without the traditions of those 170 or so budgets that have been passed. That is all the doing of the Leader of the Opposition. To be frank and fair, every parliament is the master of its own destiny, and every parliament can choose to keep or smash those traditions. Every parliament, from Playford, Dunstan, Bannon, Brown, Olsen, Rann and Weatherill have kept those precedents. They are now gone.

It is a sad day for our parliament, and it is a sad day for our state, because what it will mean is the ultimate politicisation of every single decision and government will grind to a halt. But that is the government that members opposite want and aspire to have, and that is fine because, if they are successful at the next election, those are the terms under which they will govern from now on.

Mr Picton: It's radical.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is radical, but it is a decision that they have made. Apparently, it was a unanimous decision in their party room. And good luck to them. Finally, after all these years they are unified on one issue—that is, trashing 170 years of tradition. Congratulations.

As was said on a number of circumstances, the major bank levy, in my mind, is a very elegant solution to a very difficult problem. States need revenue and that revenue has to come from somewhere. We have decided that that revenue should come from the most profitable undertaxed part of the economy. Members opposite think that that revenue should come from mums and dads because, when they knock off this revenue measure, they are not at the same time suggesting any pullback in expenditure.

They are not offering any solutions. In fact, in all the budget speeches that I have just heard they have all called for more expenditure, whether it is for more regional roads or more in the regional economy. I just saw the shadow minister talking about wanting to have a new campus at Magill. Again, it is a call for more expenditure. I also note that members opposite say that we are on the eve of an election and are still calling the government to do more, yet make no commitments of their own.

We are heading into a new era. Whatever happens at the election, last year was the last budget when budget bills go through unmolested. That will never occur again, ever. That is something that members opposite have voted for unanimously. It is a shame because, even in the heights of the Olsen-Brown feuds, the opposition never took advantage of that through the budget process. But every opposition makes its own decisions. It is interesting that this opposition is following this leader off this cliff, but maybe that is an experiment that they have to have. Maybe they have to go through this to realise the error of their ways. However, it is a shame that last year was the last budget to have that level of cooperation.

Mr Picton: At least the banks will be happy.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: At least the banks will be happy. I would have thought that the appropriate measure, the honest measure, would be to say, 'It's a budget measure. We'll let the government's measure pass. If we are successful at the election, we will revoke it.' I would have thought that would be something that this government would have respected as a position. It would have been in keeping with the traditions. It would have kept in line with their position, but as I said today, my judgement on this is that the opposition thinks that this election is a fifty-fifty call. Given the polls, I think they are right. If they were serious about winning, that is the path they would have gone down. I think this obstructionist view is very dangerous because they are not actually psychologically imagining themselves to govern. It is a sad day, but that is the way the cookie crumbles, as they say.

I do look forward to the debate on the budget bills. I thank members for passing appropriation unmolested. I thank members for passing it and maintaining that tradition. But of course the budget is not just about appropriation; the budget is multiple measures. We are now down this new path and I do not know where we will come out at the other end. Thank you, and I look forward to the grievances remarks. I will not keep the house any longer so members can enjoy their dinner break.

Bill read a second time.

Estimates Committees

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Treasurer, Minister for Finance, Minister for State Development, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy) (17:59): I move:

That this bill be referred to estimates committees.

Motion carried.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Treasurer, Minister for Finance, Minister for State Development, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy) (17:59): By leave, I move:

That a message be sent to the Legislative Council requesting that the Minister for Employment (the Hon. K.J. Maher), the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation (the Hon. I.K. Hunter), and the Minister for Police (the Hon. P.B. Malinauskas), members of the Legislative Council, be permitted to attend and give evidence before the estimates committees of the House of Assembly on the Appropriation Bill.

Motion carried.

Appropriation Grievances

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Treasurer, Minister for Finance, Minister for State Development, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy) (18:00): I move:

That the house note grievances.

Sitting suspended from 18:00 to 19:30.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (19:30): I will continue my remarks. The South Australian Liberal approach to export growth will include a focus on export training, marketing, and export funding support initiatives to attract more international students and a targeted policy to grow population and attract more skilled and business migrants. The state budget has provided just a $737,000 increase from the 2016-17 estimated result for the 2017-18 budget for international engagement, trade, migration and international education programs. These are key pillars and drivers of our economy, yet the total budget for this totals less than $20 million.

We have seen industry growth in a number of export sectors in South Australia, particularly in service exports such as international education, but we can and we need to do better. Our share of merchandise and service exports on a national stage is nowhere near where it should be. The Department of the Premier and Cabinet's economic brief on merchandise exports, available online for the public to view, summarises that in the 12 months to April 2017 the value of South Australia's overseas goods exports totalled $11.1 billion. This was down 5.2 per cent on the previous 12 months in original terms. Nationally, the value of overseas goods exports was up 15 per cent in original terms over that same period.

The Department of the Premier and Cabinet's economic brief goes on to say that increases in the value of overseas goods exports in the year to April 2017 were recorded in Queensland up 27 per cent; Western Australia, up 19 per cent; New South Wales, up 15 per cent; the Northern Territory, up 0.8 per cent; and Victoria up 0.6 per cent, while decreases were recorded in Tasmania, down 8.1 per cent, and in South Australia it was down 5.2 per cent. The figures can be spun all they like to suit the argument, but the state government's own figures from the Department of the Premier and Cabinet are as clear as day. If the minister wants to dispute those figures, he needs to go and argue them with the Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Simply, we believe that South Australia can do much better. We can continue to build on the fantastic work of our food and beverage exporters in particular who are tapping into premium overseas markets. Those overseas markets are new, they are markets looking for value-add and they are markets that can hugely increase the value of that product. The Labor government here in South Australia created a target to reach $25 billion in goods and services exports by 2014. They missed that by a country mile. We are still well behind the newly established $18 billion target by the end of this year, which the Minister for Trade is on record saying will be achieved, so we are significantly behind that target.

There were initiatives in the state budget for Labor to achieve that target. Where was the funding to try to achieve that target? So is it a target or is it an aspiration? That is the question. We here in the Liberal Party want to fulfil those aspirations. We want to fulfil those targets because there is huge potential, as export international engagement will be the number one economic driver. Labor also missed the 45,000 international student target by 2014. This is the same Labor government that promised a staggering 100,000 jobs to the people of South Australia in the lead-up to the 2010 election and fell 80,000 short.

Recently, ABS figures relating to the number of businesses exporting were released, and it was great to see the total goods exported numbers have increased, from 2,354 to 2,556 between the 2014-15 and 2015-16 years. However, of the total goods exporters in the nation South Australia has less than 5 per cent. In comparison, New South Wales has 29 per cent of Australia's goods exporters and Victoria has almost 25 per cent. Again, I believe there is an opportunity for South Australian exporters to have better government support.

It is not just about handouts. It is about the state government having a strategic approach. It is about customising that approach. It is about using all the wonderful work that our SMEs are doing here in South Australia as exporters to the world, and it is about utilising the investment that those businesses here in South Australia are putting into their product and putting into their marketing. It is about a government that utilises that investment and is putting it to the world.

South Australia also has the opportunity to capitalise on the free trade agreements, including with China, Japan and Korea. There are many free trade agreements currently underway, and I know that in the Riverland the citrus industry is at the moment experiencing a boom with those free trade agreements in place. The stone fruit industry has seen biosecurity measures that have been adapted, and they are benefiting as well, as is horticulture right across the board, including all sorts of products, such as almonds and wine. The high value plus the marketing strategy with that value-add is of huge benefit and is bringing home great reward at the moment.

In regard to population growth, over the last 12 months South Australia has lost 6,903 people interstate in net terms. Back in December 2003, South Australia's share of population was 7.7 per cent. In December 2016, South Australia's share of population was 7.1 per cent. What is going on? What part of the strategy does the government not get? Headline numbers here in South Australia revealed that the population grew 0.6 per cent in the 12 months ending December 2016, down from 0.7 per cent growth in the previous 12 months. Nationally, Australia's population grew 1.6 per cent in the 12 months ending September 2016, up from 1.4 per cent in the preceding 12 months. In terms of net interstate migration, South Australia lost 2,184 people interstate in the December 2016 quarter, up 82.6 per cent on the previous quarter over the last 12 months. We do have a serious issue with population decline.

I would like to talk about the Riverland for the couple of minutes I have left. A point of concern is the neglect of the regions of South Australia. Today, we heard the Treasurer say, 'Well, if they want more money spent in the budget, what do they want? Do they want more taxes to get more money to spend in the region?' The answer is, no, we do not. We want more investment in the region, and we want government to get out of the way so that the regions can actually benefit and be a major player on the national stage. That is one on the list of regional issues spruiked as being part of the budget on a number of projects already underway. Many of these projects are commonwealth funded, yet the government will stand front and centre and take credit for those projects. That is great, but I hope that the Riverland continues to see that commonwealth funding come to our region.

The Riverland is the premium food bowl of South Australia with more than 4,000 SMEs, yet we barely saw this important region mentioned in the budget. There was a commitment of $3.3 million of joint funding between federal and state funding that went to the Riverland storm recovery assistance in 2016-17. I am interested to find out just how much of that $3.3 million has been spent on the people who really matter. How much of that $3.3 million actually hit the ground? As I understand it, 80 applicants have put in for a $10,000 grant so, if you do your sums, there is a lot of money left over. How much money went into administration? How much money has the state government prospered from that joint federal and state funding?

There are key transport freight routes across the regions. We are seeing more and more heavy vehicles on our roads, and the roads are now more important than ever. We have seen the cessation of rail out of the Mallee, out of the Riverland, and we are not seeing the equivalent amount of money invested into the region by way of productive infrastructure.

In conclusion, at a time when South Australia needed a budget to boost the economy to grow jobs, this budget delivers little. The blame game with the commonwealth by the state government continues, despite the fact that the federal government has continued to provide well over 50 per cent of the total budget revenue this state government receives. On the other hand, the state Liberals have already announced several positive policy initiatives, including comprehensive programs to improve literacy and numeracy outcomes for all school students, the decentralisation of the public health system to provide fresh leadership and which engages the community and backs the front-line professionals who shape our services. We are working hard to deliver relief for families, opportunities for businesses and more jobs for South Australians. This budget has failed South Australia yet again.

Time expired.

Ms COOK (Fisher) (19:40): I rise tonight to make a grievance contribution to the Appropriation Bill debate. Over the past few years I have heard a lot of criticism hurled from those opposite accusing SA Health of not consulting clinicians in respect of the delivery of critical health reforms. As a clinician, I have been involved in many forms of consultation prior to, during and after the implementation of change at both the local and statewide level.

Consultations continue to take place as our government delivers some of the cornerstones of our health reform. One in particular is the work being done in preparation for the move to our new Royal Adelaide Hospital and changes to practice and patient experience owing to the transition to a hospital made up entirely of single rooms.

I was invited to chair the external oversight group regarding the impact of a single-room environment in the new Royal Adelaide Hospital by Adjunct Associate Professor Elizabeth Dabars, CEO/Secretary of the SA branch of the ANMF, an invitation I was honoured to receive and gladly accepted. The group was tasked with the oversight of an ANMF-funded case study to review the care delivery, working practices and experiences of nursing staff, as well as the experiences of patients in multibed rooms.

Why is this important piece of work even necessary? In the UK and Netherlands (a replicated UK study), the evaluation of single room accommodation in hospitals has led to a call for further research in this important area to build on the evidence of the significant hospital design change from the traditional Nightingale multibed wards, with shared toilets, to single rooms with ensuites. Dr Jill Maben from the National Nursing Research Unit at Kings College led the first evaluation of the Pembury Hospital (Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust), which has been subsequently replicated in the Netherlands. Importantly, this research study evaluation examined patient outcomes, privacy, social interactions, communication, nursing practices and risks such as patient falls.

Internationally and nationally, there is a gap in the research about the impact from a patient and nurse perspective of single room accommodation. Are the potential advantages realised and are the potential disadvantages real? It has been argued that the potential disadvantage of single room accommodation could include less surveillance by staff, increased falls, reduced social interaction with patients, increased time to travel, and concern that nurses will be working in more isolation.

It is worth noting, however, that private hospitals and newer wards in our public hospitals currently run with single patient rooms under clearly established models of care. The advantages of single rooms include an increase in patient privacy, greater dignity, enhanced sleep, enhanced contact with families, better communication with staff, increased patient satisfaction, improved patient outcomes, fewer medication errors, reduced infection rates and faster patient recovery rates; and, for nursing staff, more personalised patient contact and fewer interruptions.

The purpose of the research was to build on the evidence of patient and nurse experience, satisfaction and patient outcomes moving to single room accommodation in hospitals, therefore addressing a known gap in research, as the new Royal Adelaide Hospital will be the first 100 per cent single room accommodation for tertiary-level care in South Australia.

This first phase of a three-year study will provide a baseline for the evaluation of impact of longitudinal study of single room accommodation at the new RAH by observing, interviewing and measuring different metrics, such as patient and nurse satisfaction and experience, as well as analysing the perceptions of the impacts of single room accommodation at the new RAH, from both patient and nursing staff points of view. Importantly, phase 1 provides the base for subsequent evaluation to occur after a period of 12 months, in September 2018, and a further two years later, in September 2020, of the impact of single room accommodation on staff and patients and health outcomes.

The external oversight group and the Adelaide University research team are working in conjunction with Dr Jill Maben, replicating the study and utilising the validated research methodology and tools. The funding and research of the project consists of the first phase, which is research funded by the ANMF (South Australian Branch); the research governance, external oversight group, which considered and advised on the broader implications of the research findings for the healthcare system in South Australia; and the Adelaide University that partnered with the ANMF (SA Branch) and the Central Adelaide Local Health Network (Royal Adelaide Hospital patients and nursing staff) research team.

The findings from the first phase of the research have shown us that it is time to move. Though the nurses in the study think very fondly of the RAH, many have worked there for a long time and recognise that it is time to go. Patients who have also had a long relationship with the hospital are looking forward to the new lighter, brighter and quieter environment. The current environment was described as having limitations, of being tired, cramped and with a need for more modern equipment. The new environment, though with some challenges particularly related to orientating care to a new space and new technology, will provide many positive opportunities for delivering care in single rooms.

Across the five components of the study, the researchers found that the two most common important issues over any environmental factors for nurses and patients were concepts around being cared for and the staff relationships with the patients. A number of potential benefits and problems arising from moving from multibed bays to single-bedded rooms were identified by nurses and patients. These findings will be used to help inform the move to the NRAH and as a baseline for comparison with the proposed stage 2 research project that compares the care delivery and work practices of nurses and perspectives of patients 12 months after the NRAH is open.

A question we should ask is: has the recently released research findings influenced the nursing practice and the move to the NRAH? There are three examples that show that this is the case. In response, a nursing intentional rounding initiative, led by Jackie Wood, the Executive Director of Nursing, Central Adelaide Local Health Network, will be implemented through July at the Royal Adelaide Hospital. This new initiative is being implemented using the internationally successful RNAO Best Practice Spotlight Organisation Program working in partnership with the ANMF (SA Branch), the Australian hosts.

This nurse-led initiative will support nurses to provide safe, quality care by focusing on the early recognition of clinical deterioration, falls risk, improved communication—handover and referrals—privacy, and the reduction in medication errors and pressure injuries. This initiative is nurse-led and being implemented in partnership with the ANMF (SA Branch).

In response to the nursing staff feedback regarding a lack of education or training to support the move to the New Royal Adelaide Hospital, a comprehensive education, training and orientation program to support nurses in the new work environment—including EPAS, the phone system, medications and call bells—and site visits to their new wing have been successfully implemented and are ongoing. In response to workflow concerns, changed workflows within the different areas of the NRAH have supported nurses to transition to new work practices such as the buddy nurse system, that is, two nurses working together to care for the allocated patients.

The next steps are vital, that is, secure funding for the replication of the study 12 months after the move to the NRAH in September 2018, and then in 2020 working with the broader research team (the UK and the Netherlands) overseeing the development of a longitudinal study that explores broader aspects of the effects of single rooms on both patient care and the nursing workforce. Importantly, the research findings from the UK, Netherlands and now SA, will provide a bridge to fill the known gap and will support the National Safety and Quality Standards and improve patient outcomes, satisfaction, safety and nurse staff satisfaction.

Furthermore, this has the potential to influence and inform new hospital designs and builds across the world. Thank you to the ANMF, the University of Adelaide and the Central Adelaide Local Health Network, and particularly the staff of the Royal Adelaide Hospital for leading, supporting and facilitating this work. I commend the work of the research team, headed up by principal investigator, Dr Lynette Cusack, and co-investigators, Dr Rick Wiechula, Dr Tim Schultz, Dr Joanne Dollard, Ms Jyothi Jadhav, Professor Alison Kitson, Mr Rob Bonner, Ms Jennifer Hurley and Ms Fiona Mackenzie.

I thank the members of the oversight group, including researchers Lynette Cusack, Alison Kitson and Rob Bonner, as well as our chief nurse and midwifery officer, Adjunct Associate Professor Lydia Dennett and Jenny Hurley. This great work will be followed up with a symposium coming up at the beginning of August. I will also be there and I am looking forward to it. Lydia Dennett, the chief nurse, summarised this work best to our group recently when she said:

Whilst there has been significant work undertaken over the last year or two in the planning and preparation for new models of care and different ways of working, the research has enabled a targeted focus in a number of areas, to ensure that the care that patients receive in the new Royal Adelaide Hospital is contemporary and tailored to the very different environment.

It has been an absolute privilege to work with this amazing group of nursing leaders. I look forward in anticipation as the work continues into its next phase during and post the move to the new Royal Adelaide Hospital. This consultation is a great example of the type of engagement required and being undertaken that we often do not hear about as we transition our healthcare system. This good work, launched and overseen by this government, can be summarised very succinctly by borrowing a quote from Premier Weatherill: 'If the question is health care, the answer is never Liberal.'

Mr SPEIRS (Bright) (19:50): I would like to spend some time this evening reflecting on the government's recent budget and its impact on the portfolios I am fortunate enough to be able to shadow. I had the opportunity to enter shadow cabinet at the beginning of 2017 as the state shadow minister for the environment. This portfolio covers areas which I have a lifelong passion for and which I have pursued since my youngest memories growing up on the land in rural Scotland.

In fact, it was my interest in Hallett Cove's coastal environment, and in particular the restoration of the lower Field River, that led me into public life, first running for council and then entering state parliament in 2014. It was great to spend a couple of hours last Saturday down at the Field River at Hallett Cove during a planting day and to continue the great environmental restoration work there. It was also great to see the fruits of 11 years of labour where trees once planted as tiny saplings now tower over the river, a great example of grassroots community action delivering for our natural environment.

By way of introduction to my remarks about the impact of the 2017-18 budget on the portfolios I shadow, I acknowledge that governing is not an easy task. Balancing the multiple competing interests between multiple competing portfolios is part of the art of governing. Ministers must strike the right position between funding the day-to-day operations of their departments and their statutory obligations that must occur by law while evolving their projects, programs and initiatives to meet the ever-changing needs of an evolving society.

They must also go about the business of pleasing to an extent, or at least trying to please, a cacophony of stakeholders and interest groups who will energetically and rightfully advocate for their sector. Since becoming shadow minister for the environment, I have met with an incredible number of stakeholders, interest groups, businesses, passionate individuals and peak bodies keen to build a relationship with me and tell me about their work and why it should be supported. This is part of the political process, a necessary part of it and a good part of it. It has been the way in which I have learned about the portfolio areas, building an initial personal interest into a deeper knowledge and understanding of the environment and water sectors.

The balancing of many interests is a difficult task for any government or minister regardless of their political persuasion, and I acknowledge publicly that this is the case. While there are parts of the budget I disagree with, there are equally many components I think are worthy, whether they be new or existing activities. That is the case across the entire budget as well as in the environment and water portfolios. My time as shadow minister has taken me around our beautiful state, although I have plenty more places to go and people to meet, and into discussions with informed, interesting, interested and engaging people. I have also been appointed to the state parliament's Environment, Resources and Development Committee.

In all my activities, I have been struck by the fact that the government does not have a lot of goodwill left amongst environmental stakeholders. Even groups and bodies that would traditionally be regarded as left wing or leaning towards the Labor Party feel that the environment is not the priority of a 15-year Labor administration. The environment department has endured cuts at every budget for the last decade. This year is no exception to this sorry situation, with a further 43 full-time equivalent positions disappearing from the department as the agency contracts even more.

To take a more historical look at this, if we go back less than a decade to the 2008-09 budget we find that the environment department had 2,236.6 FTE positions. That is now 1,505.1 FTE positions. That is a catastrophic decline in this department. While I am and always will be a proponent of smaller, leaner, less intrusive, more effective government, I also believe that there are areas like the environment that require government to step in and help facilitate positive action. I want to see an environment department which builds capacity in communities and which forges relationships between landowners, land managers, volunteer groups, local government and which leverages activity for multiple sectors to benefit our environment. That is why I believe it is so devastating that our state's front-line environmental workers have borne such significant cuts.

When the Liberal Party was last in power in 2002, there were more than 300 park rangers working in the state. Today, that figure is a mere 93. That is why I am delighted that, if a Liberal government is elected in March 2018, we will increase this figure by 20, which I believe will be an excellent start to rebuilding our front-line environmental workforce. As mentioned, the 2017-18 budget sees a further decline in the number of staff in the environment department in what I can only characterise as an underwhelming budget for South Australia's amazing natural world.

The budget's high-level overview document did not even contain a stand-alone section for the environment, instead rather strangely co-locating environment in a section called Environment and Neighbourhoods. It is apparent that that this co-location occurred because the budget does not include many significant environmental highlights and so had to be beefed up with some other projects more suited to a community development-style category.

The environmental highlights the government has chosen to showcase include $13.5 million over three years for the River Murray, in partnership with the commonwealth, to restore natural flow patterns in key SA tributaries of the River Murray. It is a commendable project, which I will certainly not criticise. It was a pleasure to be able to visit the Riverland last week with my colleague the member for Chaffey and to be able to meet with many people who rely on that precious river environment for both their lifestyle and economic livelihood. It is an important part of the state, and I have said on a number of occasions that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan should be delivered on time and in full. I believe that politics needs to be taken out of the debate when it comes to dealing with that river.

The government's budget also includes $2.7 million over three years to address environmental issues from the previous closure of the Dry Creek salt fields. We have $200,000 for the construction of a dedicated new pedestrian bridge within the Brownhill Creek Recreation Park. I know this is a project that my colleague the member for Davenport has raised with me on a number of occasions. It was a pleasure to meet with Ron Bellchambers from the Brownhill Creek Association a few weeks ago in a meeting facilitated by the member for Davenport. I am pleased to see that the government saw fit to fund that project.

The budget contains $4.2 million to extend the Community Wastewater Management Systems funding agreement with local councils, $1 million over two years to kickstart the carbon offset industry in South Australia, $2.5 million for the creation of a comprehensive master plan for Cleland Wildlife Park and there is also funding of $12.7 million over two years to repair assets, particularly in national parks, damaged by severe weather in September 2016. There is also money to deal with the development of a dog and cat management database in partnership with local government.

Those projects are all worthy, but it is disappointing that there are no real reformist or exciting projects being offered up by our state's environment department. Unfortunately, that does appear to be characteristic of the environment department under its current bureaucratic and ministerial leadership. I am very disappointed with the budget's lack of innovation and creativity in what I think is an incredibly important and exciting area for our state.

Often I am asked: what would the Liberal Party do differently if they were elected to government next year? That is a very fair question. I think we have a very strong suite of environmental policies that we can be proud of, a suite of environmental policies that we will build on as we approach the election. I am certainly committed to working with my colleagues to build that sturdy and exciting range of environmental policies.

We have put a clear line in the sand when it comes to our environment and said that we will not support a nuclear waste dump taking international waste for South Australia. I think that is just a step too far for this state. We are also saying that we will put in place a moratorium on fracking in the state's South-East, protecting precious water resources there. I have already said that we will increase the number of park rangers by 20. We of course have the exciting vision for Glenthorne National Park in the southern suburbs of Adelaide, a transformational project which will preserve and revitalise open space there.

We are also committed to reforming our state's natural resources management system. When I became shadow minister, it quickly became apparent that many people, particularly those in regional communities, feel disengaged and disillusioned by a centralised natural resources management structure that is now in place. NRM boards are disempowered and, again, goodwill towards that bureaucracy has really drained away.

We are certainly committed to building the partnerships with rural communities and reforming that natural resources management process. With that, I commend the budget to the house and in particular draw attention to those environmental initiatives.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (20:00): I raise today the state Labor government's proposal to move the Dardanelles obelisk memorial from its present South Terrace site to the new memorial walk. As the member for Unley, I have a particular interest because it was the Unley residents who largely funded what is recognised as the world's first memorial to the fallen of the First World War. Unfortunately, this could be the second time in its existence that it has been threatened with relocation.

In early 1915, the disastrous Gallipoli campaign was only a few months old. Shocked and saddened by the heavy death toll among the troops of the Adelaide and Unley battalions, the 10^th and 27^th, the Wattle Day League approached Adelaide city council for the siting of a memorial to the casualties. Their request was approved and the Dardanelles obelisk, surrounded by a grove of wattle trees, was erected in the south Parklands, halfway between the City of Adelaide and the City of Unley on what is now Sir Lewis Cohen Avenue, to symbolise their shared sacrifice.

The memorial was funded entirely by public donations, so not a single cent of ratepayers' or taxpayers' money was used. The money was collected by the Wattle Day League from members of the public. In approving this memorial, the Adelaide city council insisted that it should be done at no cost to the council, so it could be fairly argued that the obelisk was and still is public property and not that of the Adelaide city council or the state government to do with as they wish.

Despite this, in 1940, the Adelaide city council unilaterally decided to adapt and move the memorial to its present site at the junction of South Terrace and West Terrace. The move destroyed the significance of the original siting as a joint tribute to the fallen of both the City of Adelaide and the City of Unley. They removed it from where it had been placed, deliberately close to the Repatriation Hospital on the now site of the Keswick Barracks.

Seventy-seven years after the first re-siting, the state government, supported by the Adelaide city council, propose a second shift to the memorial walk on Kintore Avenue. Not only that, there is talk again of it being altered, possibly to fit in with its new location. In my view, that would be disrespectful and unacceptable. One dubious tampering with a remembrance monument is bad enough, but to relocate and tamper with it a second time is certainly disrespectful.

At worst, the obelisk should be left at its present South Terrace site. At best, the wattle grove memorial on Sir Lewis Cohen Avenue should be replanted and reinstated. This memorial and the sacrifice and remembrance it represents are not the playthings of governments and councils. By all means, add to the memorial walk, but not at the cost of demolishing and dishonouring part of our and the world's military heritage.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (20:03): I would like tonight to say a few words about a wonderful South Australian, an astute businessman, a great husband, father and grandfather who sadly died in the Angel Flight crash last week in Mount Gambier. That man was Grant Gilbert of Mount Barker. He was born on 13 October 1938 and, very sadly, passed away on 26 June this past week. Grant was an institution in Mount Barker and around South Australia. His generosity knew no bounds. He was an astute businessman and, as a matter of interest, from 1963 until last week he was a member of some 30-odd organisations.

From 1976 until now, he was managing director of Gilbert Motors Ltd Automotive group. Some of the organisations that Grant was involved in and some of the awards he received included Citizen of the Year Local Government: Australia Day Award for Mount Barker in 1987. From 1956 to 1979, he was a life member of the Association of Apex Clubs. In 1997, he received the James D. Richardson Honour Award for Hahndorf Lions. From 1981 to 1985 he was a councillor and deputy mayor on the Mount Barker District Council.

From 1995 to 2003, he was deputy chair to me, after the former chair, Grant Petras, left for Queensland. He was my deputy for a number of years on the Hills Mallee Southern Regional Health Association. From 1986 to 2001, he was Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Mount Barker District Soldiers Memorial Hospital. From 1999 to 2005, he was the South Australian government appointed member of the Nurses Board of South Australia on which he served two terms. He had an amazing life.

From 2006 to 2012, he was a council member of SHINE. He was a member of the Mount Barker Concert Band and German Band. He loved playing the trumpet. The list goes on. I will not read it all out, but the contribution that Grant made to South Australia, and Australia more so, was profound. He was one of the most generous people I have ever met. He was acutely and intensely loyal to everybody he had dealings with, and I can only speak highly of that from a personal point of view.

He was loyal to the extreme to his wife, Margaret, and his family, and that was borne out at a large gathering at Auchendarroch at Mount Barker yesterday where a number of people spoke in a tribute to Grant. His dear wife, Margaret—who he referred to as Lady Margaret, I might add—said that Grant did not want a funeral if anything happened to him. They were just to do what they had to do and that was it, and he did not want any speeches. But as Margaret reminded us at the gathering yesterday, he did not put that in writing, so we had an hour to an hour and a half of a lot of comments about Grant.

I specifically wanted to talk about the time I worked with him on the Hills Mallee Southern Regional Health board. That was a regional board that worked extremely well, and in my view was the most successful regional board in the state ever brought into place by the former Liberal government. We did an enormous amount of work with Grant Gilbert and, I might add, Kevin Eglington who was the regional general manager. We achieve lots of things across the country from out as far as Pinnaroo and Lameroo down to Kangaroo Island and Meningie.

Grant had a huge amount of respect for humanity and he always did what he could for people. It did not matter who they were. If he thought he could do something for people, he would. It was added yesterday that he did not suffer fools well. He and I got on particularly well on that score because it is a failing of mine, I am afraid. But be that as it may, Grant's legacy to the state is profound, particularly his legacy to Mount Barker where the Gilbert family are well known in business.

He and his brother, Rob, took over the business from their father, the late Roy Gilbert, and they run it in a highly successful manner to this day. They have branched out into other things. Grant was known for his capacity for work, along with his friendly and funny nature, but behind that sense of humour lurked an astute brain. His family were always at the forefront. Grant liked nothing more than to be able to have people at his and Margaret's home at Mount Barker and have functions there.

Grant was still giving until his untimely death in the tragic airplane crash at Mount Gambier. He was doing an Angel Flight. The CEO of Angel Flight spoke yesterday. Grant came to Angel Flight at the end of last year. This year has been his great contribution. In less than six months this year he had done around 40 Angel Flights to all parts of the state. This is at his cost and his time. He was a very special man. I know he had flown into Kingscote Airport regularly.

As I indicated yesterday, he had been to Port Lincoln and Mount Gambier numerous times and everywhere else. That was Grant: he just gave and gave and never stopped giving. I am sure his family will strive to do exactly what Grant did. They are a very proactive family. They are a great family, a lovely family. I had all the respect in the world for Margaret when she got up and spoke yesterday. She was just wonderful. Of course, his nephew, Tom, spoke as well along with other people. The world is a far better place for having had Grant Gilbert in it. He will be very sadly missed.

Can I also say that tragically there were two others who perished in the accident. The other family are known to me, not directly through the ones who were sadly killed but through the Redding family, who are originally from Kangaroo Island. It really was a terrible day. Grant was just so meticulous. He was an absolute perfectionist in everything he did. What happens, happens. In closing, I wish to record again my deep admiration and respect for the late Grant Gilbert of Mount Barker. May he rest in peace.

Mr WINGARD (Mitchell) (20:12): I rise this evening to speak about some of the portfolio areas impacted by the budget. I did speak at length earlier today about the overarching position of the budget and why we do need to change this horrendous Labor government.

Tonight, we want to look at what the Treasurer entitled a 'jobs budget' because that is important to everyone in South Australia but in particular to the industry portfolio that I cover. The Treasurer said this was a jobs budget; it is his third jobs budget. When we look deeper, what we see is a tax budget. We see a $370 million state bank tax which will not deliver jobs, will not help industry, will not help business and will not help struggling households with the cost of living. That is what has been delivered by this state Labor government and the Treasurer just the other day.

When we look at how South Australia is travelling and we go out and speak to people in our communities, to small business operators, people in the industry, people who are wanting to get ahead and make a go, we ask them, 'How is our state going?' Sadly, the response is, 'We are not going good. We are going poorly.' We are travelling very poorly on the spectrum when we look across all the states and South Australia. It is because of the budget and the taxation measures that this Treasurer wants to put in our state. That is a very key reason, and we have seen it in this budget as well.

We know we have had the highest unemployment rate in the nation for 30 months in a row. That should set alarm bells ringing right across the board. We need to get people working. We have very high youth unemployment in and around my community as well. That is a real issue. I think it is a real issue right across the state, and people are very conscious of that. In fact, if we go back to Labor's promise in February 2010, they promised 100,000 jobs. We know that by the deadline that they set for themselves at the time that they had produced only 17,200 jobs.

The state Labor government has form in this area, and it really is not very good. We know South Australia's economic growth has been at 1.9 per cent of gross state product compared with the national growth, which has been at 2.8 per cent, so again we have struggled there. Only Tasmania and Western Australia grew slower than our state, so we are sixth out of eight on that measure, again towards the bottom of the table. I mentioned jobs, and when we look at this budget we know industry right across the board is very interested in jobs.

The government's own budget paper shows that they are predicting just 1 per cent jobs growth for South Australia, half of Victoria and below Tasmania. It is incredibly disappointing to see South Australia struggling so much. The South Australian Centre for Economic Studies, an independent body, gave their assessment of the 1 per cent target that has come from the Treasurer's budget. They think that that is overly ambitious, and they do not think that South Australia will even get to that 1 per cent jobs growth target.

That is alarming right across the board. We look at industry and say, 'How is industry going to help? How are small businesses going to help?' particularly when we have a high-taxing budget as has been brought down here with the state bank tax, which we know is going to hurt families, hurt businesses, and hurt growth opportunities right across this state, so that we will again be languishing at the bottom. The government does roll out and say that they have jobs creation programs. I think the newest one is the Future Jobs Fund, which is a rehashing of some old money, but that is what they are saying is going to help grow jobs in South Australia.

Yet again I mention the Treasurer with his jobs budget. He has had three of these before and we have been at the bottom of the unemployment table ever since he started this project. A number of other programs have come into place with this Treasurer. We have had Manufacturing Works, Our Jobs Plan and the Northern Economic Plan. The list goes on and on and, unfortunately, none of them have returned jobs outcomes. That is what we keep asking in estimates and through the other place of the minister there. We keep asking: of these programs, what are the job outcomes? The response we get back is, 'We don't measure that. We can't tell.'

Manufacturing Works is a 10-year program, and a couple of years ago a report was done. Taxpayers' money was spent on the Frost and Sullivan report, and the big outcome from that report was that there were no job outcomes from Manufacturing Works. So, it really is quite incongruous that these programs that the Treasurer keeps putting in place to grow jobs are failing and are not working. It is hard to trust any program that he puts forward now because of the history of failure by this government, and industry probably has every reason to be doubtful and scratching their head. We know industry development is one of the major requirements of any state to grow its economy; however, in this year's budget, Labor has cut industry and innovation by $20 million.

The estimated result from 2016-17 in the budget was $52.325 million and the budgeted figure for 2017-18 is $32.896 million. Here we are wanting to grow industry and the government is cutting $20 million from its industry and innovation budget, and that is disappointing for South Australians. The budget for industry development has been cut by $10.26 million. Funnily, it used to be called industry manufacturing and it is now called industry development, and they have taken the term 'manufacturing' out of this budget line.

Again, the estimated result in 2016-17 was a $19.379 million spend and the budget for 2017-18 is an $8.755 million spend, so there has been quite a dramatic cut in industry development. Again, the government will say it is putting investment into its Future Jobs Fund but, as I have pointed out, we will inquire further about this because a lot of these funds and programs that the government has put in place in the past have not produced jobs outcomes.

Regarding automotive transformation, Holden will close its doors for the last time on Friday 20 October 2017, so again more job losses are coming to South Australia. With that closure coming, and the state government has known about this since December 2013, they have had a poorly run range of automotive assistance programs that have failed to manage that transition in the automotive manufacturing components supply industry into developing industries in South Australia.

They have underspent this program for a number of years. They could not get it working, they could not get outcomes, as I have mentioned. They had underspent by $10 million up to last year. They loaded a heap of money in last year and did not get the results but, this year, as we see Holden about to close, let's have a look at the budget lines and see what is being spent: the estimated spend in 2016-17 was $18.285 million, and in 2017-18, the year that Holden is going to close, we have been given a budget of $10.438. That is an $8 million cut, and Holden workers and the supply chain workers deserve a whole lot better. This government has failed to do that transition. They have talked about transitioning workers, but they have failed to deliver. Of course, we will be keeping them to account on that in estimates.

The government will talk up sport and rec as well, and I will brief because I only have a couple of minutes left. The government has talked about injecting money into sport and rec. For a long time, they have really turned their back on grassroots sport and recreation funding, and on this side of the chamber we know our communities. Our electorate candidates and members who live in their electorates know how much this is needed for local community clubs in their local regions.

Between 2011 and 2015, the government underspent their budget by $16.2 million. They ignored the community grassroots recreation and sporting clubs and facilities for a long time. The state Labor government underspent by $16.2 million between 2011 and 2015 and then all of a sudden, because of badgering by good local members, mostly on this side of the chamber, the government realised this was where they needed to start investing money. They listened to what we had to say and they started investing money at the grassroots in community clubs, coincidentally just before an election, but we take it whenever we can get it. The government is starting to do some work.

Since early this year, we have had the SA Sports Survey, which has been listening to community groups. Really, it is just a formalisation of what each member on our side of the chamber does in their local community. They listen to what their local communities need and want as far as this is concerned. We will be keeping the government to account. We will be making sure they know of all the projects that need doing in our electorates and in our communities, and I know that it is very prevalent in my community as well.

I have recently been out at Tea Tree Gully and Golden Grove, up in the Adelaide Hills as well as around Mount Barker. I know that down at Reynella and Morphett Vale and also in the Marion vicinity and Glenelg that we have some good people working very hard in those areas making sure that the government knows about community facilities that need upgrades. For too long—those years that I mentioned before, between 2011 and 2015—there was a $16.2 million underspend in this area. We are making sure that our communities are looked after at grassroots sport and rec, which the Marshall Liberal team knows so much about and does so much to support. We will ensure that these community groups are looked after well into the future.

They are just a couple of things, but there will be more, of course, in estimates, and I look forward to going through those matters with the ministers associated with these portfolio areas and making sure that South Australian taxpayers are getting good bang for their buck and not having more money ripped out of their pockets.

Mr BELL (Mount Gambier) (20:22): I rise to make a few comments on the Appropriation Bill 2017, the budget. If only it was as easy as carrying around the budget or the energy plan like the Premier and the Treasurer do from time to time. In fact, it is almost becoming a bit of a joke, and I am sure that in some diehard Young Labor or even probably in Young Liberal gatherings there would be drinking games going on around how many times you can see the Premier and the Treasurer with their plan tucked under their arm. I am sure that some focus group, expert marketing group or well-paid government flunky group indicated that all you have to do is carry it around, make sure the cameras get it so that it is in full view and then people will believe that you actually have a plan.

It does not matter what is in the booklet, as long as it is carried around in your arms you will be okay. Quite frankly, that is all we see—lots of photo shots with these comical looks on their face. I am sure that they are even embarrassed by the fact that they are posing for the cameras with the budget or the energy plan neatly tucked under their arm. That is all you have to do because the people of South Australia will know you have a plan and then vote for you at the next election.

I want to give the government a few ideas for the Lower South-East that are sadly lacking from this budget. However, they would have been quite welcome inclusions because, as I have stated before, this is not a South Australian budget, this is not a South Australian plan: this is an Adelaide budget and this is an Adelaide plan. You only have to go through this so-called Adelaide budget to know that I am telling the truth. There is a record spend on infrastructure, record spend on hospitals, but very, very little—in fact, almost zip—in country areas.

Here are a few ideas for them. The reinstatement of community mental health beds: people may not know that 10 beds were cut from Mount Gambier and 10 beds were signalled to be cut from Whyalla or the seat of Giles. Then, all of a sudden, there was a complete backflip by the Minister for Mental Health and she reinstated the 10 community mental health beds in Whyalla due to the uncertainty of the Arrium steelworks and the hardship that it put on the community. I have absolutely no issue with that at all. But, of course, in the seat of Mount Gambier those beds were cut and have not been reinstated. I would have liked to see something in the budget around mental health for the people of the South-East.

The reinstatement of the South East Community Legal Service's funding: a service that provides legal advice to our most vulnerable has been consolidated back into Adelaide and will be run by a teleconference-type facility, that is, of course, until you start talking to these people and work through the process. If you have a pressing legal issue, you need to ring up, fill in the paperwork, send in your bank statements, prove that you are of low income and then perhaps in two to three weeks somebody will get back in touch with you and let you know whether you are in receipt of legal assistance.

The impracticality of this, when people are facing legal issues at their most stressful time, is quite outrageous. I can guarantee that if I were Premier and ripped all these services out of metropolitan Adelaide there would be outrage, and quite rightly so. I am standing here fighting for the South-East because so many services have been ripped out and so little is being put back in in terms of this Adelaide budget.

Renal dialysis: try sitting in the living room of a family who is going through renal dialysis in Mount Gambier, with eight hours in a chair in basically a disused storage facility at the Mount Gambier hospital with three other people, where the infection control is a yellow line on the floor. The people of Adelaide would be outraged if that were the service provided to them by this so-called state government. This is not a state government: it is a government of Adelaide.

Road upgrades: we talk about fatalities on roads, and many of these fatalities are due obviously to compounding factors, but some of the factors are the poor state of our country roads, the lack of overtaking lanes and the lack of clearing of native vegetation away from the verges of roads. I have seen nothing in terms of road infrastructure in this Adelaide budget.

Drug rehab: we need to tell the people of Mount Gambier and the South-East that if you have a problem with ice, and if you have a problem with substances, you need to come to Adelaide because that is where the rehab facilities are. Again, it is completely outrageous and there is not even a hint at what services will be provided to regional South Australia. The Minister for Corrections in the other house, who actually set up a South Australian ice task force, and I give him credit for that, has promised 15 beds for regional South Australia.

Where are these beds? We are yet to know. I find it quite interesting that the Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, who sits in this chamber, neither chairs that task force nor seems to want to have anything to do with it. Those are a few suggestions for this Adelaide budget on how it could truly become a budget for South Australia instead of an election budget, which is basically pork-barrelling marginal Labor seats.

I will now come to a more pressing issue, and that is the experimentation with the people of South Australia. Basically, we have a Premier who is experimenting with this state as if it is his own private plaything, his own thing to tinker around with. Unfortunately, I was in the education department in 2011 when the merger of Families SA and the education department was put together by this—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr BELL: I was one of the very few liberal-minded people in that department. Everybody you spoke to in the department said that this was an out and out disaster and that it will not work, it cannot work. We have taken our eye off education and now the entire education department is focused on child protection. Again, there is a place for that, but in terms of turning a department inside out, it was a disaster. It is with regret that I read the following words because, quite later in the piece, once a lot of damage had been done, the royal commissioner, Margaret Nyland, said she felt compelled to release interim recommendations on a system now in crisis so that the government could take 'immediate steps to begin setting up a new child protection department'.

The Premier himself conceded that merging Families SA with the wider education department in late 2011 was a wrong decision. The Premier said: 'It was my idea, I put it in place and it hasn't worked, so I have to take responsibility for that.' Well, knock me down with a feather! All you had to do was go and talk to people on the front line in the departments and they would have told you that this was a disaster from start to finish.

Then, of course, we have the renewable energy experiment, an experiment about which the Premier himself said at the Paris compact, 'We are running a big international experiment right now.' What was that experiment? We are going to go to 40 per cent renewables, 50 per cent renewables and, ideally, 100 per cent renewables, but we have no idea how we are going to get there. We are not going to transition smoothly to that end. We are just going to do it and to hell with the consequences: higher prices for electricity, lower reliability in terms of electricity, and here we are—businesses absolutely suffering.

Now he wants to experiment with a state-based bank tax, a bank tax that would be applied in no other state but South Australia. Quite frankly, Premier, your past record on experimenting with the people of South Australia has been an unmitigated disaster and we do not trust you to get it right in the future.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (20:32): As have many members at this time of year, I have been greatly appreciative of the opportunity to join with a number of local service clubs in my electorate in recent weeks as they have had their changeover and handover dinners, celebrating years of successful hard work for their communities where volunteers have made an extraordinary impact in the community, and looking forward to the year ahead.

Particularly at this time of the year, the Rotary clubs and Lions clubs have their changeover and handover dinners and lunches and brunches respectively. The Kiwanis are still to come and, of course, we look forward to those as well. In the electorate of Morialta, the contribution made by service clubs is profound, and I am grateful to all the service clubs in the electorate of Morialta. This year, I have also particularly appreciated the opportunity to get to know some of the new service clubs, in the new areas of Morialta, which previously had been in neighbouring districts.

The stories they tell have been fascinating to hear. Every service club is different. They have some of the same forms that cross over from one to the other, but they all have their own unique culture and they have terrific camaraderie and fellowship but, importantly, they make an enormous difference in our community.

Lions, Rotarians and Kiwanians and other service clubs do the jobs that so many other people do not necessarily want to do themselves. Volunteers in both service organisations that I have been visiting in recent weeks—Lions and Rotary—join together with over one million volunteers in each organisation around the world.

Their achievements have been profound, particularly those of Lions in the area of eye health and the development of widely available canes for blind people, international eye banks and vaccinations against river blindness fever. Lions around the world have accomplished a wide range of achievements over what is now, as of this year, a 100-year history since they were founded by Melvin Jones. They celebrate that 100 years in style at their handover lunches, brunches and dinners this year.

Rotarians, in the last 32 years in particular, have been particularly associated with the fight to end polio in conjunction with partners from governments and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. In the mid-1980s, one Rotarian in Australia came up with the idea that a group of people of like mind, will, purpose and goodwill could band together to end a vicious disease that at the time was consuming hundreds of thousands of people around the world and destroying their lives. To date, it was reported at the last Rotary meeting that I think just six cases of polio have been uncovered in the whole world this year.

It is an extraordinary achievement, and it would not have happened without a whole world of partners and other people contributing towards it. I do not think that we would be anywhere near this situation without the contributions of more than a million Rotarians around the world who each constantly put in their money at their dinners. Many of them put in their efforts. Many of them spend time helping in other countries by volunteering their efforts, and that is an extraordinary achievement.

I was not able to get to all the events, unfortunately. There were a couple I missed and there are a couple where I am still looking forward to the opportunity to get to know the members in the years ahead. I want to particularly acknowledge the outgoing and incoming presidents at the service clubs in the Morialta district whom I have so far been able to make contact with or whom, on a number of occasions, I have been in touch with for many years. Beginning with the Rotarians, I congratulate the Rotary Club of Morialta on a tremendous changeover dinner at the Naval, Military and Air Force Club, where outgoing president, Brenton Summers, was replaced by the new president, Judi Brown. We are certainly grateful for all their support for the community.

The Magill Sunrise Rotary Club had a tremendous changeover brunch at the Wholly Belly cafe on Magill Road. Outgoing president, filmmaker Kirsty Stark, celebrated a terrific year. I am sure that the new president, Ian Coat, will do a wonderful job. The Rotary Club of Campbelltown is a club that I was an active member of for a number of years. I am very privileged that I maintain an honorary membership through the generosity of the Rotary Club of Campbelltown. It is the largest club in the district, and without the efforts of the Rotary Club of Campbelltown, I think the Campbelltown community would be very different.

President Bryan Schell did a terrific job over the last 12 months, and I am sure that the new president, Elizabeth Gagliardi, will equally uphold the extremely high standards that that club has always expected of its presidents. I know it will be an interesting year. I was not able to go to the changeover dinner for the Rotary Club of Tea Tree Gully this year, but I am looking forward to getting along next year. I appreciated the opportunity to go to a dinner that they hosted a couple of months ago, where the Governor was able to speak about the important role that multiculturalism is going to have in helping service clubs grow in the years ahead.

Of course, the Governor was able to identify his migrant story and the story that is shared by so many migrants and refugees, people who come to Australia for whatever reason. One thing they often have in common is a desire to show their support and gratitude to their new communities. I think he compellingly put the case for service clubs to reach out to those communities, where they are going to find many new members who will serve them well, I am sure. Presiding over that dinner was the previous president of the Rotary Club of Tea Tree Gully, Ray Whalley, and we congratulate the new president, Ynyr Hughes. I am sure that she will do a terrific job as well.

In relation to Lions, I particularly want to pay tribute to past district governor, Paddy McKay. Paddy, of the Lions Club of Athelstone in my electorate, finished up her role as district governor of Lions about four hours ago. Having just spoken to her, I can tell you that she is enjoying her retirement from the role and is already missing it a little bit. Paddy has done a tremendous job and has grown the Lions membership in the last year and has had new clubs start. In the 100^th year of Lions, it is tremendous to see the reinvigoration of Lions International in South Australia.

The Athelstone Lions' old president, Mike Cook, at Cafe Va Bene handed over to the new president, Lloyd Nelson; it was a terrific night. I was not able to get to the Rostrevor Lions' handover, where Cameron Wyers continues his role as president. He has done that job several times in the past. He is a remarkable contributor to the community and the club, and they are grateful for that support. I am looking forward to getting along to the Black Hill Challenge, a running race they hold later in the year to raise money for The Royal Flying Doctor Service. I am pleased to sponsor the trophies.

The Onkaparinga Lions Club met at Lobethal. Although I was not able to be there, the member for Kavel was able to attend his last event as their local member. Their previous president, Brenton Heinrich, was replaced by John Wenham. I know that they will do a terrific job. Malcolm Storry of the East Torrens Lions Club has been replaced by Daryl Golding. Both Malcolm and Daryl have done the job on a number of occasions. The club continues to power on and, despite lower numbers than they have had in the past, their contribution is still substantial.

The Torrens Valley Lions Club president, Dave Richards, handed over to the club's first female president at its handover this year. In the 100^th year of Lions, the new president of the Torrens Valley Lions Club is Pauline North. She has a lot of energy, and she will work very hard and do a terrific job. A lot of people came to see Pauline take up the reins at the handover at the Birdwood Lutheran Church Hall. I think that club will do very well this year and continue to make a tremendous contribution to the Torrens Valley communities.

Tea Tree Gully Lions Club past president, Jack Rogers, has been replaced by Maurice Stone. Now that the Morialta electorate is heading far north of the river, I am looking forward to also spending a lot more time with that club. To finish, I particularly pay tribute to the newest Lions Club in the Morialta electorate, which is the Lions Against Violence group, a special-purpose Lions club set up to do work to support the prevention of violence against women. Councillor Jill Whittaker of the Campbelltown council is its inaugural president. The club had its first meeting, and I am looking forward to getting along to future meetings and seeing the tremendous work they will do in the future.

As the member for Morialta, I am sure I am joined by all members in this house when I say that it has been an honour to work with these fine volunteers in our community. I look forward to doing so in the future, and I am sure they will have a terrific year. I thank the past presidents for their service to their clubs and to the community.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (20:42): I rise to remark on one of the very important initiatives in the state budget for the southern suburbs, and that is the duplication of Main South Road—

An honourable member: Hear, hear!

Mr PICTON: —hear, hear!—which has been funded for $305 million for stage 1 of that project. This is a project that both the member for Mawson, the Minister for Tourism, and I have been campaigning on for some time. It is something that we have been working on with the local community because it is a very much needed project in the growing southern suburbs of Adelaide. These are areas in which more and more houses are being built and in which more and more developments are occurring. Also, more and more tourist opportunities are opening up in the Fleurieu all the way down to Kangaroo Island; hence, the traffic on this road is increasing all the time.

The latest estimates are that at least 17,000 vehicles a day use Main South Road between Seaford and Sellicks, which is a very large volume of vehicles for a road that has only one lane in each direction. The government has committed to—and I congratulate the Treasurer, the Premier and the Minister for Transport for this initiative—duplicating that road, to add an additional two lanes of traffic to ensure that it is easier for people to get to the southern suburbs and all the way down to the Fleurieu and onto the ferry to Kangaroo Island.

So $305 million has been funded for stage 1, which will be from Griffiths Drive at Seaford down to Aldinga Beach. Then, in the Mid-Year Budget Review, stage 2 will be funded, which will go from Aldinga down to Sellicks Beach. Construction will occur between 2019 and 2022. Of course, in their most recent survey, this road was listed by the RAA as the riskiest road across South Australia, so this is a high priority for safety reasons.

We know that between 2012 and 2016 there were 77 crashes on this stretch of road, which resulted in 126 serious injuries to people from South Australia and, unfortunately, just last year there was one fatality on the road just outside Aldinga. Safety is a very important reason for proceeding with this road upgrade project, but another reason is the capacity of the road. We know that traffic is increasing all the time and is only going to increase more as there is more development in the southern suburbs and as there is more tourism development in the southern suburbs. The third issue that does absolutely get raised about this road is the road surface quality. We know that the road has reactive soils underneath it, so it can be quite bumpy. An upgrade of this magnitude will also help to address that issue.

As members would be aware, there is a smaller upgrade around the Aldinga district which has been planned to address some safety issues and which has been funded via funds from the Motor Accident Commission through their road safety funds. That will still proceed and it will be incorporated into the larger development, which will start in two years' time. It is important that that road upgrade proceeds in the short term because we know that there is such a safety risk at the moment around the Aldinga township and the Aldinga suburb. We need to make sure that, to the best extent possible, we can address those safety issues in the meantime while the larger duplication works are planned and then proceeded with.

A number of my residents who live next to the road corridor are very keen to know lots of the details in terms of what the exact route will be and what the exact construction of the Pedler Creek Bridge will be, which is a very significant bridge involved in this road. A second bridge will need to be built. Of course, we need to do a lot more planning work before we are ready to release all the detailed plans. I know the minister and the department are very keen to ensure that there is good community consultation as that work proceeds to ensure that we are talking to the communities affected.

The second issue that does get raised by members of the community is the need for a future rail extension down to Aldinga, which is something that both the member for Mawson and I are very keen to promote in the future. That is certainly something that we will continue to lobby for in the future. A key aspect as part of this project is to make sure that we are appropriately planning to ensure that that corridor is protected for the rail line to go in in the future so that we will have enough room for both four lanes of traffic and the rail line down to Aldinga in the future.

Of course, this builds upon our work in the southern suburbs in terms of not only extending of the rail line and the electrification of the rail line to Seaford but also fixing the hideous mess that we were left with from the previous government in terms of the nation's most embarrassing road, the one-way expressway. I think we are now three years into having a two-way expressway and I think everybody in the south thanks their lucky stars every day that we did fix that problem. So now, through this project as well, we will have a proper road corridor for the entire length of the Adelaide metropolitan area, from Sellicks in the south through to Gawler in the north. There will be an appropriate road corridor right through the spine of Adelaide, which is very important.

Another very important aspect of this project is the jobs that it will deliver. We know that we are investing hugely in infrastructure across the state, even just in the next financial year, to the tune of $2.2 billion across the state. We want to make sure that as many of those jobs as possible are being delivered for South Australians. That is why we have an Industry Participation Policy for the government which is aimed at doing that, as well as the Industry Advocate about which the other place will be debating legislation to strengthen its powers soon.

Out of this project, we estimate that there are going to be 165 jobs every year that the construction work is underway, so that is going to be very positive for jobs in the south. We will make sure, as part of the contracting for this work, that at least half of those jobs come from the southern suburbs of Adelaide and the Fleurieu Peninsula. We have nominated Onkaparinga, Victor Harbor, Alexandrina and Yankalilla council areas to receive at least 50 per cent of the jobs going to this project.

The minister has established a jobs taskforce to be set up to work with this project, to work with whoever eventually gets the contract for this, as well as the Industry Advocate to ensure that takes place. He has asked me to chair that taskforce and I am looking forward to working with him and the department to ensure that we get the best economic benefit for the southern suburbs as possible, which we have also done. The member for Mawson was the head of that taskforce for the southern suburbs which had excellent success, and I know the member for Little Para is the head of that taskforce for the Northern Connector which is having some amazing success in getting jobs for the northern suburbs out of that project. We are hoping to achieve exactly the same thing with this Main South Road duplication project as well.

The plans are being considered and worked on right now. We are looking forward to consulting with the community. I have to say, unfortunately, we have seen some people knocking this. In fact, it was only in parliament the other day that we saw the member for Finniss refer to this project as pork-barrelling. I think it is really unfortunate to see that level of criticism from the Liberal Party about this project because I do not think anyone in the southern suburbs of Adelaide thinks that this is a pork barrelling project. They think this is a very much-needed project for the south. They think it is something that will save lives. It will make their lives easier, but it will also encourage more tourism and more visitors to the southern suburbs.

To hear words like that being used about pork-barrelling is unfortunate, and I encourage the member for Finniss to consider withdrawing that sort of statement because I think it is quite offensive to people who live in the southern suburbs who need to use this road every day. I have been inundated with people saying how much they are supportive of this project. They think this is long overdue and necessary. There is a lot of excitement for it. We want to make sure that we deliver it in consultation with the community, that we deliver it in an efficient manner and that we deliver it achieving the best jobs outcome that we possibly can for people in the south, as well as the broader South Australian economy.