Budget Measures Bill 2017

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 22 June 2017.)

Mr PISONI (Unley) (16:56): I indicate that I am not the lead speaker but simply one of the pack, one of the team. I rise to speak on the bill, particularly in the areas within the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure on some of the measures that are outlined in the budget. Obviously, there is a commitment from the federal government, from the state government and from the Liberal Party opposition to get the north-south corridor (South Road) done within 10 years from 2014.

It is unfortunate that it is very unlikely, under the management of this government over the last four years in particular, that we are going to get anywhere near achieving that. With the next stage of the north-south corridor—that is, part of South Road from Regency Road to Pym Street—all the state government could present was a draft plan that they sent to the federal government within about two weeks of the federal budget being printed, which is extraordinary, really. We all know that it is around about August/September of the previous year before the May that the budget comes out. In other words, this minister knows that August, September and October of this year is when the conversations start about federal funding for infrastructure projects around the country.

The Labor government here in South Australia has again tried to find someone else to blame for their poor management over the last four years in preparing the next stage of the north-south corridor, and once again it is Canberra. I think South Australians are absolutely sick of hearing the word 'Canberra' from the Treasurer or the transport minister or the Premier. It always seems to be that all problems lead to Canberra as far as this government is concerned. Of course, every other state has the same government in Canberra, but every other state is doing so much better than South Australia in their management of their projects and infrastructure and, of course, in their economies and employment.

The thing that was very interesting in the draft document that went to Canberra in April—it is dated April 2017, remembering that the federal budget came out in May, so it was only a few weeks before the budget was printed that Canberra received the draft submission from South Australia—was that no money was going to be spent by this government on that new north-south corridor project, the Regency Road to Pym Street project, until January 2019, not even in the next financial year.

Yet I remember that the Premier and the Treasurer said straight-faced to cameras—because it was about the same time as those appalling unemployment figures came out when we saw a massive increase in unemployment to 7.1 per cent—that Canberra did not allocate any new funding for infrastructure in South Australia and that was why we had high unemployment in South Australia. What an extraordinarily long bow that was.

They are the Pinocchios of the South Australian parliament with those sorts of comments. I think the South Australian public is waking up to the fact that noses are getting very long in the leadership of the government. Every time something is said, the noses get longer. Every time a promise is made, the noses get longer. South Australians are very cynical about what is going to be delivered by this government. Even if this government is returned in March 2018, there are no guarantees that it will deliver on many of these budget measures.

I take you back to the Gawler railway electrification. That was promised in 2008. In 2012, the work was stopped after about $100 million had been spent on infrastructure between Salisbury station and Gawler station. The treasurer at the time, the member for Playford, who is now the health minister, said that the state government could not continue to do the work because of a shortage of money, so it was stopped in May 2012 by this Labor government. By 2013, the Gillard government had insisted that the leftover federal money that had not been spent be returned to Canberra.

What did the Pinocchios of the Labor Party tell the public? They told them that the money was taken by Canberra and that was why the project had to stop. It is all in the Auditor-General's Report that it was this government's decision to stop the electrification of the Gawler line. It is not just the fact that the electrification was stopped; $46.6 million worth of infrastructure, scoping, studies and other important facets of that project were written off and have to be redone whenever the Salisbury to Gawler part of the electrification is completed.

Do not forget that this government promised to have the Adelaide to Salisbury line finished by the end of 2015, before the last election—that is what they promised. After the election, they pushed it out to 2017-18. We see that in the budget, but again it has been in the budget before and taken out of the budget. This government has form.

From memory, about 10 years ago there was the promise of a brand-new prison in South Australia. Even though it was in the budget (it was a PPP), the outcome of that promise was a multimillion dollar payment to those who had submitted tenders because at that time, if my memory is correct, the preferred bidder had not been chosen and so all three or four of them, whatever number of bidders there were, were given multimillion dollar payments by the state government basically to thank them for their time, the time this government had wasted in putting out tenders to do the job. Just because it is in the budget and just because the government says it is going to happen, do not believe that it is going to happen at all. Just look at the noses of those on the other side to see how much longer they are growing.

There are other budget measures in here, including the duplication of Main South Road. We understand that the request from the Treasurer to the Department of Transport was a complete surprise. It was not driven by the Department of Transport: it was driven by the Treasurer. The Treasurer wanted this project up, and that was why it was pushed out to the very end of the forward estimates process. It will be very interesting in the budget estimates process to get some more information about when the planning started for this project, when the decision was made to start the project and on what basis.

We absolutely support the project. It was the first thing that Andy Gilfillan, our candidate in the seat of Mawson, raised when he won preselection for his seat. He said that he wanted to talk about the duplication of Main South Road. He had all the correct details about the increase in traffic, the benefits for tourism and how it is important for people living in the south to have a safe road to get into the city, because we know that the northern end of Main South Road down to Cape Jervis is a growing commuter suburb.

We support that, but we question why, of a $305 million project, we will see only $100 million in the forward estimates, of which only $25 million, the first of the money, start to be spent in 2019-20. If this is something that the government had been planning through the proper processes, why is it that the work on the roundabouts was planned? We know that South Australians become very frustrated when they see money being spent on infrastructure and then that infrastructure is trashed and replaced by new infrastructure because they have changed the way it was happening.

A classic example of that is the tram overpass on South Road where the tramline was closed down for a period of about six to nine months (I cannot remember how long it was). They could have built that overpass or even an underpass when the tram was not working while they built the Gallipoli underpass on Anzac Highway. Then, of course, they got to the stage where they thought, 'Gee, once this Gallipoli underpass is finished we're going to have a situation where people are going to have that smooth run underneath Anzac Highway on South Road and then the boom gates are going to come down because the tram is going to be crossing.'

I was on the Public Works Committee at that time, and I have to say how shocked I was that it was seen to be an afterthought, something that should have been done at the time of the closure of the rail line for the new track work when they were preparing for the new trams to come into Adelaide as part of the extension beyond Victoria Square and the Adelaide Railway Station. They have had plenty of opportunity to separate the grade between the tram and South Road without interrupting the locals, without bulldozing or cutting down 80-year-old street trees. They had to cut down those street trees not for the overpass but for the temporary tracks they laid either side of the overpass so that the tram could continue to run while the overpass was being built.

When the Public Works Committee received the report for the bridge, it did not include the bikeway because that was added at the last minute after furious concerns, and rightly so, from those in bicycle user groups who just could not believe that this bridge was going up and there was no facility for bikes to get across South Road. We saw just how inconvenient and dangerous that was, and how it is now, with that bikeway across South Road being closed while the department is still working out how they can fix the bridge.

We know that added about $4 million to the cost of the bridge. We also know that within seven years it virtually collapsed. It got to a stage where they had to immediately close down the traffic on South Road for close to three or four days, I think it was, so that they could make it safe and prevent it from falling on traffic below, once they opened South Road, and to protect pedestrians near the bridge. When I went out there to inspect it, they were so concerned about it that no-one was allowed to walk underneath it. It was all fenced off and you were not allowed to walk underneath it. It was an extraordinary situation.

Again, that goes back to the way this government focuses on electoral time lines for the completion of much of its infrastructure. The government is now in the process of buying second-hand 10-year-old trams from Spain so that it can have three more trams for the 950 metres of extension of tramline to the old Royal Adelaide Hospital site. Trams are being built all over the world, but they take time when you have a particular gauge and a particular type of tram that you are running on your system. There is more than one maker of those trams, of course, but there is about an 18-month or two-year lead time from the order if there are not any in production.

We know that we ended up, in the first instance, with the narrowest trams on one of the widest gauges because that suited the production schedule at the time that suited the 2006 state election. Now we see second-hand trams being purchased to suit this government's timetable and this government's desire to be able to cut a ribbon in the lead-up to the 2018 election in nine months' time.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me, member for Unley. I have just been advised by the table that we need to remind all members that this debate is specifically about budget measures.

Mr PISONI: Certainly.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Okay. Carry on.

Mr PISONI: This is a budget measure.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are going to listen very closely.

Mr PISONI: These trams are actually mentioned in the budget papers. As a matter of fact, I can give you the page number.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not what we mean.

Mr PISONI: The trams are, in fact, a budget measure.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is not the Appropriation Bill; it is about budget measures.

Mr PISONI: Yes. I am actually reading from the budget measures statement.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hang on a second. I am going to relay the advice I am being given before we have the next bit. The debate is about the imposition of the bank levy, the first home construction grants and payroll tax. So it is not about appropriation; it is about those specific budget measures. I am sorry to interrupt you, but I am giving you that advice so that you can stay right on track for your last three minutes or actually talk to those three things.

Mr PISONI: Certainly. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition has made it very clear what our view is on one particular budget measure, and we have taken the extraordinary decision to partner with some members of the crossbench in the upper house to extract the state bank levy from the Budget Measures Bill. Why are we doing that? We are doing that because it is another tax on jobs, investment and growth in South Australia.

The fact is that, just on shareholders alone without including super funds, about 145,000 South Australians own bank shares. The banks are owned by Australians. They are not owned by some faceless people living in New York or some faceless corporations on a Monopoly board. These are actually real people. One of the reasons I can understand why South Australians are so angry about this tax is that we have always been a state that has been aware of the impact of messing around with financial systems.

First of all, we have the highest proportion of Australians who run self-managed super funds. As a matter of fact, self-managed super funds were born in South Australia. Self-managed super funds came out of South Australia. Many people would have things such as bank shares in those self-managed super funds. Of course, all those people who are in industry super funds, the super funds that unions like and my parliamentary colleagues from across the chamber like, have enormous investments in banks.

All those super funds are going to be hit by this additional tax by this government, which means someone who may have planned to retire at 65 may now need to wait until they are 66 or 67½ because of the impact this will have on the profits that are distributed to those members of super funds in South Australia. We still do not know what impact this is going to have on business attraction in South Australia, but the early signals are that it is going to be very, very bad for business and jobs in South Australia.

Time expired.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL (Mawson—Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Tourism, Minister for Recreation and Sport, Minister for Racing) (17:16): I rise to support the budget measures that have been implemented. I think the bank levy is one of those great measures that has been brought in here and it is just one-third of 1 per cent of the profits that the banks make in South Australia. When we look at the salaries that the chief executive officers of these banks take home, they are in the vicinity of $5 million to $8 million per year.

We have just heard from the member for Unley. He has come in here defending the banks and fighting the fight for the banks. We are here to fight the fight for small business in South Australia, because there are 140,000 small businesses in this state employing 250,000 to 300,000 people, and the banks will not loan many of these small companies any money. That is where the handbrake is being put on on our economy, particularly in regional South Australia.

I know people on Kangaroo Island who have been told by the banks, 'We don't believe in the future of Kangaroo Island so we are not going to loan you any money.' These are people who are building accommodation down on the island. I can tell the people of Kangaroo Island that we do believe in Kangaroo Island. We have put $9 million in, the federal government has matched that $9 million, and we are extending the runway there. We have gone out and we have fought hard to get Qantas to begin flights into Kangaroo Island in December this year.

What we hear from people on the island is, 'We need more accommodation.' We believe in Kangaroo Island and we believe in the future of tourism in this state, which has grown by 30 per cent in the past four years. It has gone from $4.9 billion a year up to $6.3 billion, so why would the banks not loan these people money so they can expand their businesses, so they can start new businesses and so they can employ more South Australians?

Why will the banks not join forces and work alongside small business in this state? It is because they just want to take the cream off the top. They want to loan money with no risk at all to hardworking South Australians and then just cream the profit off the top. People in South Australia are pretty fed up with the banks and all the charges they put on everything. What other industry can charge you $2 to get your own money out of your account? They have had it too good for too long and they are not there supporting businesses.

They go out bleating that this is going to be bad for business in South Australia. No, it is going to be bad for a microscopic portion of these big banks' profits. That is all it is going to be. One-third of 1 per cent of the profits is all we are looking to take so that we can give that to small business across South Australia in terms of loans. We have $70 million worth of loans in the budget and $50 million worth of grants, because sometimes these businesses just need a helping hand. That is what governments are here to do. We are here to help those small businesses.

I have already spoken to some people in the Riverland who want to build 12 cabins. They are going through the process now because the banks will not loan them the money. They are going through the process now to access some of this money as a loan, or if they can, to get some as a grant. We have people on Kangaroo Island going through the process to get the money. For members opposite, many of them who come in here as members of the Liberal Party represent country areas. It must be galling for the constituents in those areas to have their local MP come out on the side of these big profit-taking banks.

Have a look around rural South Australia and the dozens of country towns that have had banks ripped out of their communities. I am thinking of Crystal Brook, Jamestown, Willunga, Mount Compass, all these places that do not have local bank branches anymore. They employed people in those towns, so it is galling to hear representatives of the Liberal Party come in here and defend bank shareholders. Guess what? A lot of South Australians cannot afford shares.

The member for Unley has just said that people on their self-managed superannuation schemes might have to work another year longer. That is complete rubbish, and the member for Unley knows it is complete rubbish. He said that they might have to retire at 66 instead of 65. We are talking about one-third of 1 per cent of these big banks' profits. No-one has all of their super wrapped up in bank shares and, even if they did, it is not going to put off their retirement for a year. It is just absolute rubbish. The people of South Australia deserve better from the opposition, and it is why people are getting behind the Labor Party because the Labor Party, led by our Premier, goes in and fights for South Australians.

We do not kowtow to Canberra; we do not kowtow to the big banks. The Leader of the Opposition had one visit from a banker and suddenly changed his mind because he was too scared. The AHA has joined in the campaign with Business SA, and I mentioned in here the other day in an answer to a question, that Vincent Tremaine, who is the chair of Business SA, is running this campaign, talking down the economy of South Australia. That is a disappointing thing because we should have confidence in this state.

We have so many great small businesses out there doing a terrific job. We should be in there giving them a hand. The Chamber of Commerce, Business SA, the very organisation that is meant to be there representing the interests of those businesses in South Australia, instead is representing the interests of five big massive profit-taking banks that are screwing over South Australians that will not loan them the money but they are gouging the people of South Australia and taking these huge profits.

Vincent Tremaine is the chair of this organisation. He also runs Flinders Ports, which was basically given away by the former Liberal state government for them to run this organisation. I do not know another organisation that gets something from the government, pays for it from the government, but then they expect the government to keep paying for it—$1.8 million is what Vincent Tremaine and Flinders Ports want from this government to fix up some elevators and a stairwell at the Port Adelaide passenger terminal.

That terminal welcomes thousands and thousands of people from around the world who come in here on cruise lines. When the Liberals were in, the only cruise you could go on was Popeye on the Torrens. We have grown to extraordinary lengths. The cruise industry is worth $36 million a year to South Australia. We want to see that grow. The South Australian Tourism Commission are not people who play politics, but Vincent Tremaine wrote to us and said that if the government does not pay this $1.8 million he is going to put a $7 per passenger levy on visitors to South Australia who come via cruise ships.

That is a terrible thing for the tourism industry, and South Australian Tourism Commission staff—who, as I said, do not play politics—tell me that it will be an absolute deterrent for cruise ships. So while we have built this up to have nearly 50 ships a year coming to South Australian ports, we have the bloke who is the chair of Business SA out there repelling tourists, sending them away, preventing them from coming here. It is either that or he blackmails the government into spending $1.8 million.

Here is a man who runs an organisation that is against us putting a very modest levy on big, profit-taking banks who, at the same time, wants to levy passengers to this state with $7. So either the boats do not come here and we miss out on millions of dollars in tourism or they do come here but he has his hand in their pockets as they are getting off the boat to take $7 off them, $7 that cannot be spent in Hahndorf or McLaren Vale or the Barossa Valley or Rundle Mall. That is a disgraceful thing to do from a mob that is making massive profits out of our ports.

We have seen that over at Thevenard, at Ceduna, they have not maintained things. The port has been closed, so our wheat farmers cannot get their grain out of the port because Flinders Ports has not spent the money. They will probably come to us again and ask us to bail them out and pay for an upgrade of the Thevenard facilities. You bought it off the government and you got it for a steal because the previous Liberal government was the worst in the world at selling off assets. Not only did they sell off what the taxpayers of South Australia once owned but they sold it at hugely discounted prices. They sold the TAB for two-thirds of what it used to make us each year. That was an absolute disgrace of a deal. The Flinders Ports deal was no better; it was an absolute steal for the people behind—

Mr Pederick: How did the forests go?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Pederick: That was a ripper.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Hammond!

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: It was an absolute steal for the people who bought Flinders Ports, and they keep coming back to us wanting us to pay for maintenance and things. They are your assets; you pay for them and stop trying to pass it on to the poor people who get off the ships, having the cruise of their life, who want to get out and see South Australia. We look at the cruise industry as offering a tasting plate. You have people who will spend a day in Adelaide and the regions around there, a day in Kingscote and Penneshaw when they are on Kangaroo Island, and then a day in Port Lincoln and the beautiful areas of Eyre Peninsula. It is a tasting plate. People get off and they have a good experience and then they decide they are going to come back here and have a longer holiday in South Australia.

However, what we are seeing is a disincentive for the cruise liners to come here, and if they do come here they going to be slugged $7 unless the government coughs up $1.8 million of taxpayers' money to bail out Vincent Tremaine's organisation. That is absolute evidence of the hypocrisy of this gentleman and of this organisation, Business SA. It is terrible that they only look after the big businesses, the absolutely huge businesses in Australia; they look after them while at the same time they make it harder and harder for small operators in South Australia to take on more employees.

In this budget, we have some wonderful financial assistance so that people can take on more apprentices and so they can take on more workers. We want to give the small businesses of South Australia—and the tourism industry is made up of so many of them—a hand. We want to help them when the banks will not help them but, at the same time, Business SA, the AHA and many other organisations are in bed with big business. Do you know who else is in bed with big business? It is the Liberal Party of South Australia. It is a disgrace the way they have been carrying on about this bank levy.

We will stand shoulder to shoulder with the workers of South Australia and those small businesses of South Australia who need a hand. They need a hand to expand their businesses and we will continue to support them in any way we can. I have had hotels come to me over the years and say, 'We want some sort of grant program. Cellar doors can get grants and other industries can get grants, why can't we get some grants?' There is $50 million worth of grants in this budget and, as I said, $70 million worth of loans.

All these small hotels—and we know them; they are at Pinnaroo and Lameroo, right through country South Australia, up in the Riverland and across on Eyre Peninsula, at Peterborough, which still has four pubs—are doing it tough out there. These pubs want a bit of a hand. I have been approached in my own electorate in Willunga by a publican. They just want a hand.

This $120 million of grants and loans can give these people the sort of support they want, but what does the Hotels Association, the people who are meant to stick up for these publicans, do? They go out and join the fight on behalf of the banks. It is beyond me. For anyone who is out there in South Australia talking to people and knowing the sort of assistance that they want, it is beyond me how anyone can take the side of the five massive banks ahead of all the small businesses in South Australia.

Small businesses employ a lot more people than the banks do. We just have to look at the banks' records and how many branches they have closed across South Australia, particularly in country areas, to know that they do not care about jobs. The banks do not care about jobs. The only jobs they care about are the jobs of their executive teams. They take home tens and tens of millions of dollars that have been made off creaming the profits of South Australians.

All we want is one-third of 1 per cent of those profits made in South Australia so that we can return it to the business sector in South Australia that employs 250,000 to 300,000 hardworking South Australians. That is a lot more people than work in the banking sector. The Australian Bankers' Association is playing the same game as the mining companies did a few years ago when it was proposed to bring in a mining tax, something that would have helped out the whole of the Australian economy.

The mining companies had people in hard hats in these ads saying, 'This is hurting the workers in the mining sector.' Guess what happened? A few months after the mining tax was proposed and there was a downturn in the mining game in Australia, all those poor people who were working in the mining sector were all sacked. Thousands and thousands of Australians were out of jobs because the mining companies did not care about their workers. The mining companies just cared about preserving their multibillion dollar profits and making sure that all those dollars went into their pockets so that they could not be distributed amongst other Australian people and other Australian industries.

How can anyone think it is a good idea to get behind the five big banks and support them and the super profits that they are making ahead of the hardworking workers of South Australia and the hardworking business owners who do it so hard? The tourism industry is a lot like farming; it is a seven-day enterprise. You never, ever get to knock off. It is a hard grind. It is a really hard grind. That is why we have put an extra $70 million into the budget to help market South Australia, because we need to be there working side by side and shoulder to shoulder with these tourism operators. I talk to them around the state and I know the sort of assistance they need. The sort of assistance that we can give them will come from taking some of the profits from the banks.

One-third of 1 per cent of the profits made by the banks in South Australia is all we are asking for. That money does not mean a lot to the big banks, but it means a hell of a lot to a small business that might be able to get a grant or a loan for tens of thousands of dollars or maybe a few hundred thousand dollars if it is a loan. That will make a huge difference and, in turn, it will help us grow the wonderful visitor economy that we have in South Australia.

This is a sector that has grown by 30 per cent in four years, from $4.9 billion to $6.3 billion. There were 5,000 extra people employed in the tourism sector in South Australia in the past three years alone. That takes it up to 36,700 South Australians who have a job thanks to the visitor economy. We want to grow that. We think it is a good idea to take a bit of money off the super profits of the big banks and redistribute that to these small businesses and operators in South Australia who do a wonderful job.

I will continue to stand side by side with the publicans of South Australia. I will continue to stand side by side with the tourism operators in South Australia. We will be there. We will work shoulder to shoulder with you. It is a hard grind, but we will help you get through because we know that when your businesses profit and when your businesses grow, more South Australians have jobs and there is more money coming into our wonderful economy.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (17:34): I rise to speak to the Budget Measures Bill, and sometimes I feel like I live in a parallel universe in this place. We hear about jobs and the need for jobs and certainly we do need jobs. It was only several years ago that the Premier, the member for Cheltenham, indicated that he was going to attract 100,000 jobs into this state. Well, I think he might be scratching to get 8,000 jobs. Now we have all these so-called job attraction initiatives. Do you know what? The only jobs that are coming to South Australia are the ones that are financed by the government. It is either the $10,000 grants, the $4,000 grants or now, with new apprentices or trainees, the $15,000 grants.

Companies like OZ Minerals only brought their head office here because they got a $10 million grant. How many others are there? It is such a fallacy that this state cannot stand in a competitive environment without public funding going to support these businesses and jobs. Do not get me wrong, I am all for jobs, but it is ridiculous when all these jobs have to be financed to stay in this state when we have a net migration loss of 6,000 people out of the state. We know of so many people who have left this state because they believed there was no opportunity here under this current Labor government.

I want to talk about some of the budget measures outlined in the bill. There has been a bit of debate, and it is certainly our position to knock the bank tax out of this bill—and we will because we believe that we need to do the right thing for South Australians. To reflect on other issues that have been knocked out of budget measures bills, I managed to get rid of the biosecurity levy. Some people say that it did not amount to a lot of money, but it does amount to a lot of money across our primary producers of this state. We knocked out the car park tax, which was something like $25 million a year, and there was also a piece of legislation around court costs that was knocked out, so this certainly is not the first time that something has been knocked out as a budget measure.

I note that only last night the appropriation grievances finished, so the Appropriation Bill, the actual budget bill, will go through to estimates in the next few weeks. In regard to issues around money, for instance, the Supply Bill was set for $5.9 billion this year, when it was only $3.4 billion last year, and that certainly means there is enough money in the bank if an early election is called. We have said to the government, 'Bring it on. Make the bank tax an election issue.'

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I need to remind you, member for Hammond, that this is the Budget Measures Bill—

Mr PEDERICK: Absolutely.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: —which refers specifically to three things, so we need you to come back to the three things it refers to.

Mr PEDERICK: Absolutely. I am talking about issues that could happen when we block the bank levy. The $370 million bank levy is certainly part of the Budget Measures Bill. The government could argue that the defeat is significant when we block this part of the legislation because the budget goes into deficit and we can call on the Governor for an election.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Clerk has reminded me that I should advise you that we really do need to stick to the actual budget measure, not whatever might happen. I do need to draw you back to the substance of the bill.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did notice some leeway earlier, but I will let that go.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I had to advise the member for Unley and the member for Mawson. I have had to advise all of you, so that is as fair as we can be, I think.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you. The government talks as though we are knocking out the whole Budget Measures Bill. It could not be further from the truth. There are tax concessions outlined in the Budget Measures Bill, there are payroll tax rate concessions, there are off-the-plan stamp duty concessions and there are land tax exemptions. We will support these amendments.

There is also an increase in grants. There are $15,000 grants for off-the-plan apartments for a contract entered into while the development is still at the preconstruction stage for the period between 22 June 2017 and 30 September 2017. We support those amendments. As part of the legislation, there is the foreign ownership surcharge, a 4 per cent tax on stamp duty for foreign owners for purchases of residential property after 1 January 2018. Provisions similar to this already exist in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland and are about to be introduced in Western Australia. Some states also have increases in land tax for foreign owners.

It is interesting that when the Treasurer was asked about the possibility of introducing this new tax last year, he strongly rejected the need for such an impost in South Australia and described supporters of the tax as xenophobic. How quickly things turn. Certainly, the Treasurer has provided no evidence to indicate that foreign investors are leaving eastern state markets and driving up prices in the South Australian market.

In regard to both foreign ownership and off-the-plan apartments, I happened to be at a forum the other day and there would have been 50 to 60 either Chinese nationals or new citizens to this country all looking at off-the-plan apartments. They will certainly have to make some relatively quick decisions if they want to get in before the September cut-off date. Obviously, if they get in before then, it will be before the 1 January date when the foreign investment surcharge comes in next year. I am sure the accountants, the lawyers and the conveyancers are all working overtime as we speak looking at those proposals for those people.

I am a little concerned about the foreign surcharge tax. In my electorate of Hammond in the Murraylands, it is just a fact that we would not survive without foreign workers. If we did not have visa holders of various numbers—and there have been 457s, 417s and there are others; a new visa just came out recently with the minor shake-up federally in regard to visa laws—and if we did not have these foreign nationals coming into the Murraylands, into Hammond, to take up so many jobs that need to be filled to promote agricultural add-on businesses that are all pretty well in the food production sector, in primary production or in value-add areas, in meatworks or on lettuce farms, or mushroom farms (Costa mushrooms), we would have been lost over the years and we would be lost right now if we did not have that great cultural input from so many internationals coming into the region.

I noted only the other day at our All Culture Fest in Murray Bridge that 26 people became Australian citizens. I salute the many people who come from many countries across the world to make our area a much more colourful and cultural place. They are the people who are willing to take on those jobs and do the work that is needed. This foreign investment tax could be an impost on people who are doing fine work in Australia, growing our agricultural economy and making our area a better place. The minister said he was concerned about Flinders Ports putting on a levy of $7 a head for tourists, yet when the government wants to hit people up for levies and taxes, like the foreign investment tax or the bank tax, that is okay because that is their plan and that is what they want to do.

I want to talk about the bank tax. As I said, it is estimated to collect $370 million of revenue over four years. The levy in 2017-18 is $97 million, while the estimated surplus is about $72 million. That shows that, if the levy is not collected, the budget in 2017-18 would be in a small deficit without any compensating actions. I understand that there is something like up to $600 million in allocated funding in the budget that could be utilised, if it had to be. We only have to reflect on the $1.1 billion that came out of nowhere the other day to completely turn Transforming Health—which anyone could have told the government was a mess—on its head. When money needs to be found, it seems to be able to be found.

It is true that sometimes banks are not held in high regard. When a Newspoll was conducted, it recorded a 68 per cent approval for the federal bank levy, so the Weatherill Labor government thought there would be strong support for the state major bank levy. However, The Advertiser-Galaxy poll showed 55 per cent opposed the state major bank levy and only 28 per cent supported the levy. Certainly, internal polls by the banks have shown very similar results.

Even though the financial operatives—the banks and businesses—are well aware of our position in regard to this part of the Budget Measures Bill and that we will vote it out, they are still carrying on with their multimillion dollar advertising campaign outlining the impact that this will have on individuals right throughout South Australia.

The minister indicated that he was here for individual South Australians. Well, guess what? This is going to hit everyone who has any amount of superannuation, everyone who has a loan, everyone who has any sort of shareholdings in banks—they will all be hit. I have come off the land and I have not been afraid to borrow a few dollars. When I needed it, my financiers have always been there and it has always been handy. Someone has to pay the bill and that is exactly what happens.

The Labor government wants to impose this $370 million tax on this state. What are we going to see next? Will there be a poll tax when you drive over the Victorian border, the Western Australian border or the Northern Territory border if you want to return to live in South Australia? Will there be a road toll put in place to fund road building? Will there be something like a state-based GST? It would not surprise me if the member for Cheltenham, the Premier, thought that he could get away with that as well. All this could happen and that is why people are concerned about this tax.

What upsets me is that rivers of gold have entered this government since 2002, from back in the days when the former member for Port Adelaide was the treasurer. I was here when they announced the extra $500 million of GST money that came out of the blue. It came in and it was squandered. It has happened time and time again. All this money has been squandered as if it just did not exist in the first place. What really upsets me is the complete lack of knowledge on the Labor side of this house about how businesses and banks operate and about the fact that someone has to pay the bills.

The Cooper family was mentioned the other day. They have been fine brewers in South Australia for over 100 years. It is a fine family company. When they were mentioned, there was laughter on the government benches. Do you know what the Premier said? He said, 'They are not just the business class; they are the donor class.' What a disgrace! The government want to play a class war; that is all they want. They want to play a class war in this place, and that is how they operate. Well, God help them if they ever had to run a business in real life because it would not work.

We have a government that want to tax South Australians to death. They just want to tax us into oblivion. Even after selling the forests, after giving them away for something like $650 million when they were worth over $1 billion, the new owners, a Canadian superannuation firm, has managed to make four times the profit. That goes to show how badly the government treated ForestrySA. They were generating only $43 million a year and now there is four times that profit coming through.

We have seen the Motor Accident Commission sold off. That was budgeted at about $500 million—$2.8 billion and climbing. There is not much left. After all these assets have been sold, we have a bank tax, a major bank surcharge. It will impact on South Australians. South Australians just want to have the right incentive, the right impetus and the right modelling in place. They just want to run their businesses. They do not want to have to have a handout from the government in order to expand. They do not want to have to have a handout from the government to employ someone, but that is exactly what is going on in this state. That is exactly what is going on, and it is a disgrace. This affects every business and every individual in the state.

Today, when the Treasurer was asked questions about power and why the climate change target for South Australia was dropping from 55 per cent to 43 per cent, he had no idea. He had obviously completely forgotten about all the diesel generators that will have to come to save all of us over summer. When I say 'all of us', it will not be just big business; it will be every individual in this state who will need that power because the lights are going out. The lights are going out because of green ideology, which is driving businesses out of this state and others are just hanging on.

I talk to shopkeepers who have to put up their prices because the forward contracts of their power prices have gone up by over 140 per cent. It is an absolute disgrace, when we have so many mineral resources in this state, that we have this green ideology that is destroying the place. To top it off, we have this evil bank tax being put in place. It will impact every individual and every business, and it will not matter whether they are a worker, a unionist, a non-unionist or an employer. Every individual will be impacted if this insidious bank levy goes through.

We will support the Budget Measures Bill, but we will be doing all we can, working with colleagues in the other place and this place, if they will come with us, to chuck out this insidious bank levy.

Time expired.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. S.W. Key.