Appropriation Bill 2017

Estimates Committees

Adjourned debated on motion:

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

(Continued from 2 August 2017.)

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (17:16): We left off yesterday around Police, that we heard the extraordinary admission by the police commissioner that the inability of SAPOL to keep up with the volume increase in e-crime exhibits needing to be processed through the e-crimes branch had regularly caused delays to judicial proceedings and had, on regular occasions, earned the ire of judges in their judgements for failing to be able to provide evidence on time. He went on to say that things are being looked at with regard to a strategy to improve that, and we wish him well in his endeavours.

I have spoken about Marksman and the issue that existed there. We then went on to ask questions around a number of other things, including what will happen when Holden no longer makes Commodores for the police fleet to use. The answer from the commissioner was, 'Look, even though it is coming up in October, we haven't made a final decision yet as to what we're going to do, but we have plenty of time.'

We then asked a whole host of questions, especially around the fact that for Blue Light discos, which in 2015-16 engaged 40,000 young people in South Australia, in 2016-17 that figure was only 20,000. I wanted to know what those other 20,000 children were doing. Unfortunately, the minister was not able to provide any answers, but it seems that Blue Light discos are not as cool perhaps as they were even 12 months prior. We will get to the bottom of that burning issue in the South Australia Police portfolio. We asked questions around psychological assessments and how our police are going in relation to dealing with the immense pressure they are often under, as well as a whole host of other issues.

We then moved on to Corrections, and each of us put on our different hats. I must say that a number of issues were identified in Corrections. For the first time, certainly in a long time—and I have tried to ask around to see when was the last time the government predicted that the prison population would drop, and nobody was able to give me an answer—the government is predicting a plateau or a small drop in the average daily prisoner population for the next 12 months. That is astounding, given that last year we saw a 3.2 per cent increase and the year before that we saw a 7.9 per cent increase. In fact, the five-year average of prison population increase has been just a touch over 6 per cent over the past five years. We went back, and in 2013 they first predicted what the 2016-17 daily average prisoner population year would look like.

It started off at about 2,475-odd prisoners, and the actual result was 2,998 prisoners. With each revision, as they put new capital projects through the Public Works Committee and as they provided new evidence to the Budget and Finance Committee, that prediction went up and up every single time. In fact, for the 2015-16 year where the final result was 2,870, in August of that year the government reported a number 100 prisoners underneath the actual result. They have consistently and repeatedly, over and over again, understated what our daily prisoner population average is going to be.

In this year's budget, when we saw that they were predicting a small decrease in the prison population for this year, my jaw dropped. On questioning, we were given some very vague answers about a very complex formula into which they somehow chuck a heap of numbers and it spits out the result. I have absolutely no confidence in that figure—absolutely no confidence. With a 20-year average of a 3 per cent year-on-year increase and an over 6 per cent increase over the last five years, how it is that somehow this year we are going to be able to reduce our prison population borders on the absurd to me. I hope for the budget's sake that they are able to achieve that; I just hold very little hope that they actually will.

The second bit of big news that came out of Corrections estimates—and it seemed as though minister Malinauskas inadvertently released this information—came when I benignly asked, 'How is the Port Augusta Prison project going?' He counted on his fingers: 'It will be open in four months' time.' I said, 'Hang on, that's November.' He said, 'That's right. It will be open in November.' I said, 'Actually, it was supposed to open in March, the CE of corrections previously told us that it was going to open in August and now you are saying November?' At that point, he very quickly backtracked and suggested, 'We are still hoping it will be open in September.' He went from saying, 'It is going to be open in November,' to saying, 'We hope it is going to be open in September.' He then very quickly, I think, tried to cover up the fact that he had told us.

I was lucky enough not that long ago, six to eight weeks ago, to go along to the opening of the Eyre Unit at Mobilong. I very much await with anticipation my invitation to the opening of the Port Augusta expansion. I can bet that that invitation is not going to come with a September date on it. Right at the time when our prison system is under extreme pressure, when only a few months ago we saw the peak of our prison population at 3,093—I think that was on either 1 or 3 February—we have another delay to the opening of the Port Augusta Prison expansion.

The expansion is desperately needed. It comes at a very inopportune time, especially when we know that the Port Adelaide and Elizabeth police holding cells are undergoing renovations. We need these new beds to come online, and they simply are not. That is a cause for concern. I genuinely hope that, over the next few months, we do not see a peak in the prisoner population that would put further stress upon that.

We went on to ask questions about a host of other issues within Corrections, especially around how 24-hour surveillance is undertaken, how prison guards and prison officers are dealt with, the 10 by 20 report and when these new programs—New Foundations and Work Ready, Release Ready—are actually going to come into effect. Again, a lot of the answers were quite vague. There was some question mark about spending in this year's budget, whether it is actually going to be expended, because they actually need to develop the program, then they need to go out to tender and then they need to contract someone to deliver the program.

I commend the minister for new money being available in this space, and I commend the minister for looking at transitional assistance and housing assistance for people. I congratulate the minister on realising that, unless we prepare people to come out of prison and get back into the community properly, they are going to commit more crime and that will make our community less safe. They will be back in gaol in a short period of time, statistically 50 per cent of them within two years.

There is a lot of unravelling the government has to do to unravel the failed rack 'em, pack 'em and stack 'em policy. To my mind, we have now created a cohort of hardened prisoners who will not respond that well, given the way the system has operated to date. How we deal with this balloon of hardened criminals is something police ministers and Correctional Services ministers will have to deal with for a generation to come.

We then moved on to emergency services where we were very keen to unpack government spending on 38 new CFS trucks, as well as 137 upgrades to existing single-cab vehicles to ensure that they have better fire protection, hopefully upgrading them to dual-cab vehicles with sprinkle and burn-over provisions, so that our CFS volunteers are as safe as they can be when they are out on the fireground. A number of burn-overs had to happen during the Pinery fire, and it is an extremely dangerous and difficult situation. We need to make sure our volunteers are kitted-out with the best gear available so that they stay safe.

We then moved to road safety. It is interesting that fines revenue increases year on year and that the cost of fines increases. This year, the government announced that they are putting in 10 new fixed-speed cameras around South Australia, five of them at school crossings. That is quite a novel approach and we look forward to seeing where that goes. The minister was at pains to say that all speeding fine revenue goes into the Community Road Safety Fund. He was very clear in excluding red light cameras and unregistered drivers, which raise significant sums of money.

He said that the Community Road Safety Fund still sits well in excess of what we collect in speeding fines anyway. That is true, except that, even though speeding fine revenue has continued to increase—and in fact the government is looking at an extra $14 million over the next four years of increase with its 10 new cameras—the value of the Community Road Safety Fund has stubbornly stayed at $81,021,000 million for at least the last three years and is projected to stay the same for the coming year.

Basically, fines revenue is increasing, but the money put into the Community Road Safety Fund is not increasing. That is the message that South Australians need to take out of it. It is exactly the same as when the government increased the bills that South Australians have to pay for the ESL: there was no corresponding increase to emergency services funding in that hypothecated fund. The minister could not have been clearer about it.

We then went on and did health estimates on Tuesday morning. Health has been the subject of much discussion in this place and in the media. Once again, it was a fantastic estimates season, and I hope that next year we will be sitting on the other side of the table answering questions rather than asking them.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (17:27): I, too, rise to talk about the Appropriation Bill and estimates for 2017-18. Having been in this place for a little while now, there were some highlights and lowlights. There are ministers who are across their brief and ministers who are not across their brief. I commend those ministers who are across their brief.

I am somewhat sceptical when I listen to ministers make more than a 10-minute opening speech and take Dorothy Dixers. In this day and age, a minister of the Crown has a portfolio responsibility. If they are of benefit to South Australia and they are not across their brief, perhaps they are not worthy of being a minister. There was an opportunity for me to understand different areas of portfolio responsibility. It gave me good insight into what is presented and how and why ministers deserve respect if they are across their brief: if they are not, they continue to overstate their presence in an opening speech and have staffers text messages from the gallery to the committee members so that they can ask questions to consume time and protect the minister.

All in all, I have heard many opposition members state that they think estimates is a waste of time. I think estimates is a worthwhile process. Yes, it is frustrating, but it is about holding the government to account and giving the taxpayer some form of assurance that the government is not squibbing away their hard-earned taxpayer dollars, that they have the representation they think they deserve, and perhaps they would like to think that, if they had a change of government, that they might get better value for money.

In saying that, the process is relevant in today's age of politics. I think that there could be change and that there could be refinement. Information from Dorothy Dixers is usually in the public domain anyway and something that taxpayers should deem a waste of their money. I look at ministers and their staffers, and I congratulate a lot of those staff because they have to spend countless hours preparing those big fat folders full of information so that the minister can open them up and give an answer. But it is more than that: it is about the team. If the minister has a competent team, that portfolio is in good hands.

I sat on a number of estimates committees. My portfolio responsibilities of trade and investment and health industries produced some good information, and I was quite happy with how that all came about. I commend the Minister for Trade that his opening statement was brief, that he had one Dorothy Dixer and that he was happy to take questions. He did his best to give me answers, albeit that a lot of answers were extended conversation. It is heart-warming when we have a minister who is prepared to take on the questions and the challenges that are put to him.

Health industries, under the Minister for Health, is a relatively new program that was established in the 2015-16 year. The health and biomedical sector is a key industry for opportunities relating to the state's exports and investment and I think that area will continue to grow. We have our health precinct on North Terrace, the SAHMRI building and the ever-increasing buildings going up down there towards West Terrace.

The budget is $8 million, supporting nine FTEs. The majority of that budget is spent on grants and subsidies, that is, $4½ million with $4 million of that being the Health Industries Fund. We did not get a lot of new information, but it did show me that health industries will continue to be a very important export for South Australia. We have some fantastic people within that area, and I think that South Australia will be a beneficiary. As an industry, it will grow and promote our exports as well as some of the new technology that South Australians will enjoy when it comes to dealing with the health industry.

Trade and investment was interesting. Straightaway, the minister's plan of attack was that his opening statement justified why South Australia was doing so poorly. Rather than looking at ways in which he could commend his team and the state's initiatives, he targeted what other states are doing to increase their trade and exports to justify why South Australia's trade and export numbers have flatlined. That is very disappointing. I have had a number of healthy debates with the minister about why it has flatlined, and the minister continues to deny it. We continue to see a lot of the key targets moving. The trade targets have moved over and over again and South Australia desperately needs a change of strategy.

I have watched the current government doing the same things for the last seven years, and over the last seven years, or over a more of an extended period of time, we have seen our national footprint go from 7.5 per cent of the national exports to dithering down around the 4 per cent. It worries me that South Australia could get to those lows, particularly with a minister who has been there teetering on four years.

He was given the opportunity in opposition to travel with the then trade minister. He was given the opportunity to have his input, but he is not prepared to put the shoe on the other foot and offer that bipartisan approach and look at ways we can make South Australia's trade bottom line better and look at new initiatives. We see the same old, same old with a minister who keeps on trying to justify why he is doing the same things the government was doing seven years ago. That is a concern.

One of the shining lights of the state has been the growth in international student attraction, although as part of the national stage our share should be much higher. We questioned the Export Partnership Program, which provides grants to exporters of up to $50,000. After about $1.7 million of extra money was put into the program in the 2015-16 Mid-Year Budget Review, there is now no new extra funding. We found out that the 2016-17 budget was $2.6 million and that only $1.05 million had been provided to grant recipients to May. Obviously a lot of money is going in administration and a lot of money is going into business offices. I would like to think that we could put further effort and support into exporters, particularly looking at how we can get would-be exporters ready and how they can be supported.

I know that over the last couple of years there have been many outbound trade missions from South Australia doing the rounds around the globe. A number of exporters have come back very disappointed that they did not get the support they thought they needed. They were not export ready. They had spent a large amount of time and money on those trade missions, yet they saw no benefit, so they walked away and continue not to be part of those new SMEs in South Australia that would be of benefit to our economy.

Remembering that when the current government came into power in 2002 we had 7.5 per cent export share of the nation, if we had kept in sync with the rest of the nation we would have an extra $9 billion in exports. If you do the sums, that is about 90,000 jobs. What happened? Where did we go wrong? Those are the questions, and if we can put answers on the table then South Australia will be a much better place to support those SMEs.

The Export Partnership Program has been successful. I did ask about MOUs. They are fluffy bits of paper, nice agreements that governments sign to governments. Do we get any benefit from them? That is the question I asked. I did not get the answer. A number of big dollar MOUs were signed almost two years ago now, yet we have not seen any fruit. It is about getting the deal done. Exports are about getting businesses over there, doing negotiations, getting the deal done, getting those products into containers, onto ships and into planes, any way that they have to go over there. The value will certainly determine how they travel abroad, and it is about making sure that you get a deal and you get paid for it so that you can actually go again and continue to grow the value of our exports.

There is still plenty of work to be done. We learnt that SinoSA House in Qingdao, a collaboration with Bio Innovation and the current government—and the minister gave an almighty spruik a few years ago—did not have any official government status. When that funding was handed over to the minister's area for that initiative, he decided to use the resources of the newly moved Jinan office. Essentially, that is how the SinoSA House closed: as the state government funding stopped, the minister did not apply for it to continue.

I am a little concerned that South Australia has one real stand-alone trade house. The British High Commissioner is over there doing an outstanding job, but we have one stand-alone office in Jinan. The minister told me that it had been there for 10 years—and I understand the minister has been in the job for four—so I was quite bedazzled that it was not suitable. The paint was falling off the walls, and it was in a high-rise building. It had been there for 10 years, yet it had only been moved this year.

South Australia's only real stand-alone office was totally unacceptable because it was in a shambles. As the minister said, it was run down, the paint was literally peeling off the walls, there was no storage, there were occupational health and safety concerns and it was an embarrassment to the state. So it is good to see that it has moved, but I am concerned that there is a lot of work that needs to be done, after the Hartley review recommended our offices close. They were barely staffed, so is it any wonder that they were not working? With one person working in a trade office, you have to ask yourself: how do they motivate themselves? How do they get the support to make it work?

My recent trip through South-East Asia and into Japan with the Leader of the Opposition showed how some states do it well and how some states do not. One of the concepts I saw in Tokyo was the Queensland trade office—they do it exceptionally well. It benefits Queensland that the trade minister is also the Treasurer, and as Treasurer he would fund his trade initiative.

What I saw over there was that the trade commissioner was driven, and he had staff who were driven. He had a number of staff. If you unpackage the trade initiatives within the Queensland office, they were separate from the investment office and they all had KPIs. They all work and they are all driven by targets. The way that he explained it is if they do not reach their targets, they do not go home happy. I think they are meeting their targets, and they have government support.

The trade minister has the Treasurer's support (because they are the same person), but I saw that it was a presentable office. It is an office where I would be very happy to take any of my customers. It had areas where you could have negotiating rooms, presentation rooms and function rooms, and it is something that Queensland are benefiting from. They are actually reaping the rewards of an investment in a trade office.

All in all, I think that the questions still need to be answered as to why the current government continues to try to justify why the Austrade offices are the only answer and stand-alone offices are not. I look around the globe. I look at the way New Zealand market their country. New Zealand's advantage are that New Zealand is a one-government country and they do not compete against each other.

In Australia, we have Victoria competing against New South Wales competing against Queensland competing against South Australia, to a degree. I really worry about how we are going to get the targets and meet the targets in South Australia to make South Australia a force in exports and to make our economy grow.

As I said, imagine if we could have kept South Australia's 2002 export footprint when this government came into power. If we had the current strategy—the current footprint in place—that extra $9 billion in trade would have been achieved. So I think South Australia has a long way to go. I think the initiatives are few and far between. The South Australian Liberal Party has put some initiatives on the table, but we have more to come.

As an exporter for over 25 years, I was given opportunity to see what worked and what did not work. It is about face-to-face contact. It is about South Australia having a presence, and it is about South Australia committing to a country they want to do business with. It is not just about turning up on someone's doorstep and saying, 'I have wine under my arm,' or, 'I have food under my arm,' or 'I have services.' You actually have to show that you have a commitment to that country so that they know you are fair dinkum.

We moved on to the $200 non-refundable business administration fees to register on those outbound trade missions. About $33,000 was received in 2016-17. It is an interesting cost recovery exercise, particularly when you have those businesses that are trying to be exporters and trying to get into the game, and you have this little $200 fee. It is a pittance in the big picture. I think the key is having a business that is concentrating on exporting, is serious about it, is given support and is export ready—they have to be export ready.

I have said already that a number of businesses that have been over on these trade missions were not export ready. They got over there and had no interpreters and had presentations in English. They would swap business cards, have a drink and expect things to flow, and it is just not as easy as that. Exporting is a tough game. Exporting has a large amount of strategy, a huge amount of trust and an outcome that every business would like to realise. They would like to realise an outcome, the hard work they have put in, and, in most cases, every dollar that they have ever worked for—all raised through their business.

To venture out from a domestic market into an international market is a huge leap of faith, it really is. A lot of the marketing we do is somewhat lacklustre in South Australia. The government likes to market to itself. Look at the fantastic Barossa ad. That was played more in South Australia than it was played anywhere else in the universe. Why are we doing that? Why are we trying to sell ourselves? It is about the government trying to show the people of South Australia that they are actually doing something.

It is very good to see the strategy, but what we would like to see is that strategy put into place in the markets where we want to do business. It is about doing business in those markets. It is about getting the deal done, and to get the deal done we have to be fair dinkum about not playing to our own people; we have to play to our potential customers and marketplace.

All in all, I think the estimates process delivered some winners and some losers. It is another year, and I would like to think that in March 2018 this side of the house will win the election. I am quite confident, and I think that being in government is an exciting proposition. I look forward to being part of an export team.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Treloar.

At 17:48 the house adjourned until Tuesday 8 August 2017 at 11:00.