Supply Bill 2018

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 May 2018.)

Mr MULLIGHAN (Lee) (16:14): It gives me great pleasure to carry on from my preliminary remarks made last night on the Supply Bill. As I mentioned to members last night, I was only really just starting on some of the areas that needed exploration in the debate on this important bill. As we wound up debate last night, we were touching on the proposal for the new Liberal government to establish a South Australian productivity commission.

I was going to say that I was surprised—but we should not be surprised—at the commitment made by the Premier on becoming the state's Premier on 19 March that the membership of this body would be settled within the first 30 days of the new Liberal government and that, once that membership was settled, it would enable this body to start driving some of the policy agenda in relation to economic matters for this government, which, as I discussed last night, is imperative for the state of the budget and the state's finances, given that in some areas there is a direct correlation between economic activity and revenues enjoyed by the state budget. The example I gave last night was about the housing industry and how activity in the housing industry, particularly house purchase decisions, manifests itself in conveyance duty receipts in the state budget.

I want to talk in a little more detail about the concept of the establishment of a state-based productivity commission, hypothetical as it is at this point in time because we have had that broken election commitment from the new Liberal government to establish the membership of this organisation within its first 30 days. Instead, we had the Premier come into this place at the beginning of question time and, via a ministerial statement, advise the house that, rather than the commitment that he made to South Australians to establish the membership of this organisation within the first 30 days, he would seek to issue drafting instructions for a bill to be prepared to establish enabling legislation for a statutory authority to be made. That is, I think, quite obviously a stalling tactic.

It is pretty clear that whatever entreaties had been made, by either the Premier or his representatives to potential members of this organisation, some or all of those entreaties must have been rebuffed, and hence the election commitment cannot be delivered, unless of course in the commitment we were given by the Premier—that not only is he personally monitoring every single one of the election commitments and the progress that the government is making on them but each and every one of his cabinet ministers is monitoring them personally, and everybody within the cabinet office of the Department Premier and Cabinet is monitoring them directly—there has been some sort of mass abrogation of responsibility by the Premier, his ministers and by the cabinet office in keeping check on these election commitments.

Regardless of that, we find ourselves in a position with a hypothetical concept of a productivity commission and what that productivity commission might do and how it might affect the economy and the state's finances. It is an important point to raise because we see the work of similar bodies nationally and interstate and some of the recommendations that they make.

Last night, I also touched on the almost revolutionary policy objective, for the time, of then prime minister Paul Keating in establishing a competition policy regime. That was designed to free up, through targeted bursts of micro-economic reform, economic performance nationally and within the states in particular industry areas. That national competition policy agenda was pursued innovatively, I think, with a carrot approach to provide competition payments to participating jurisdictions who successfully undertook what were initially competition reviews of parts of state legislation, in particular, which were found to be providing a barrier to improved productivity and efficiency either within those areas of government service delivery or in areas of private sector industry performance. Once those reviews were carried out, then payments would be made from the federal government to the states to incentivise that competition reform.

That agenda ran throughout the latter part of the 1990s and the early part of the first decade of the 2000s, give or take a couple of years at each end. In various areas, that was a success. In various areas, that did not amount to much. There were some very politically sensitive areas where state governments, for example, undertook their competition policy review, but did not implement any competition policy reforms, either because, for example, it would negatively impact service delivery or the public's expectations of what role government should play in superintending that service delivery, industry area or the standards that were being provided in the delivery of those services or the standards that industries were being held to in providing their goods and services to the market.

That wound up, as you can imagine, at least 10 years ago. I can remember having a number of conversations with federal ministers when I was a minister in the former Labor government, saying that, if the federal then Coalition government expected state governments to drive further reform or improvements in the area that I was responsible for in transport regulation or reform, then there needed to be an incentive approach, bearing in mind though that we were nearly the whole of the way through that national competition policy reform agenda that had been instituted more than 20 years ago. The low-hanging fruit, so to speak, had been plucked. Most of the reform that was deemed worthy or beneficial had been undertaken or other arrangements put in place.

What is the work program then for a productivity commission to undertake? I do not think that anybody would argue on either side of this chamber that we should not continue to seek productivity improvements. Of course, for a given level of input, we should seek to maximise economic outputs. That, I think, is something that can be broadly accepted and agreed upon. But what we are talking about is the public means by which we facilitate that outcome and what role there is for a state government to add in another layer of policy advice or reform options on top of what is already available to state jurisdictions.

What we currently have is a Public Service here in South Australia. It is an independent Public Service that is there to provide frank and fearless advice. We know that it must be frank and fearless and we know that it must be independent because we had the Marshall 'Passover' at the beginning of its term of government, with their going through the ranks of the South Australian Public Service and singling out those people whom they thought did not conform with their view of the world and removing them from the Public Service. We assume, given that the 'Passover' is now complete, that the Liberal Government now has what it desires and that is a frank, fearless and fiercely independent Public Service to provide it with the necessary policy advice.

We also have the national Productivity Commission and, say what you like about the national Productivity Commission (and I will certainly be saying some things about it), the very least you can say for it is that it exists. You would have to ask what in addition a state-based productivity commission could derive of value for Australian Public Service delivery, or for the pursuit of productivity or economic growth in addition to that national Productivity Commission.

I have to say that, while it is always good to have sources of advice when it comes to the formation of public policy, I am not sure that the national Productivity Commission has always got it right. It is always easy from a dry economic perspective to identify changes or policy options, which can derive at a very dry level improvements to economic output and productivity. But we are not here as elected representatives to achieve merely a set of economic metrics in South Australia: we are here, of course, to represent our communities first and foremost. We are here to do what is best for our communities collectively and, as much as possible, individually for members of our community.

When we have national policy bodies like the Productivity Commission that make recommendations about the abolition of penalty rates for some of our lowest paid workers in the community, then that is a very poor outcome for our community. That is one example that I will draw the parliament's attention to that the Productivity Commission can come up with. Of course, the other thing which we are waiting with bated breath to see is the outcome of its inquiry into horizontal fiscal equalisation, which is the basis of our GST distribution regime between the states and territories in Australia.

It is a regime that has been in place for the best part of 20 years since the introduction of the goods and services tax. This is an almost completely confected national issue that has now got itself a head of steam and momentum out of control of the federal government, let alone individual jurisdictions. In fact, I should not say 'individual jurisdictions' because individual jurisdictions in fact do retain a great deal of control over the outcome of this debate and this issue. Let's cast our minds back to how we got into the situation where we have had a Productivity Commission which is examining the principle of horizontal fiscal equalisation and the distribution of the GST and which is made based on that principle.

I will not go through the arguments for and against and the mechanics of the introduction of the goods and services tax but, once that argument was run and won by the then Howard government, then it was up to the Howard government and the states and territories of the day to work out how best to disburse those revenues on a reasonable and a fair basis to Australian jurisdictions. All of us would recognise, particularly here in South Australia, that the jurisdictions are remarkably different from one another in their geographic context, their size, their population and the population distribution over the land mass of the jurisdictions.

All these factors, amongst many others, are important in contemplating how we can come up with a fair way of disbursing these goods and services tax revenues so that, in principle, each Australian has the opportunity to avail themselves of government services that are of a same or similar standard regardless of where they are around the country.

That is an incredibly important principle and one that is clearly held closer to the chests of state and territory governments than it is to that of the federal government. It is not really surprising in the current political context. There is one jurisdiction in particular that has been making a lot of noise about how it feels it is getting the rough end of the pineapple on the carve-up of the GST in recent years, and that is Western Australia. There is no doubt, to be fair from the outset, that Western Australia has had literally fluctuating fortunes when it comes to GST receipts in that state.

Many moons ago, when I first started working in government as an adviser to a former treasurer, I can remember attending annual treasurers' conferences where there was a traditional divide between those larger states, principally Victoria and New South Wales, and the smaller jurisdictions like South Australia, Western Australia, even Queensland, the Northern Territory, the ACT and Tasmania. Ribbing and jibes would occur between New South Wales and Victoria and the rest of us about how they were coughing up and generating all this goods and services tax revenue for the benefit of the remainder of the jurisdictions.

Importantly, I make that point to include Western Australia as a net recipient of GST revenues in those early years of the 2000s. Indeed, in the Productivity Commission's draft report on horizontal fiscal equalisation, which it made available last year, there is some analysis of the fortunes of Western Australia when it comes to GST receipts—particularly when their mining royalty revenues are taken into account—and whether there is an argument that Western Australia is ahead or behind the curve in what they should have been receiving in GST revenues.

I think we can all admit that where we are today we can see that Western Australia, in the most recent financial years, has had a rapidly declining share of GST revenues. Indeed, I think its share, expressed in cents in the dollar, fell to 50, then 40 and then down towards 30¢. That is obviously a very significant financial impact, but it needs to be placed in context. For a 10-year period, between 2004-05 and 2013-14—despite the record revenues Western Australia was receiving as a result of the mining boom, the many extra billions of dollars it received over that period and, indeed, extra billions of dollars within some financial years—the lag effect of the regular assessments of the relativities by the Commonwealth Grants Commission left Western Australia in front rather than behind. It has only been in the most recent financial years when this has been a problem.

Of course, it is in those most recent financial years that the Western Australian fiscal problem has coincided with the federal Coalition's political problems in terms of being manifestly unpopular, particularly so in Western Australia. The reference to the Productivity Commission to review horizontal fiscal equalisation and make recommendations about that principle, and also about whether the GST distribution regime needs amendment here in Australia, was designed to try to assuage those concerns in Western Australia and those concerns of the Western Australian caucus members of the federal Coalition. It is a vexed issue, a complex one, a political issue that the Coalition government has created.

A short-term—maybe even, if necessary, a medium-term—fiscal and political solution to this problem would be what the Coalition government commenced doing but has now ceased doing, and that is providing some sort of top-up or transition payments to Western Australia to ease the impacts of the fluctuations of GST receipts on that state. Off the top of my head, I think it was $1.2 billion in top-up money that was provided to Western Australia from the commonwealth government.

If that can be done in a way that does not impact further the CGC-assessed relativity by which commonwealth GST grant payments are made to Western Australia, let alone the other states, that is a temporary but, perhaps in the context of the options available in the scheme of things, perhaps not a bad solution. It is not an ideal solution, not a very fiscally pure option, but a temporary solution nonetheless. However, this argument now has gathered such a head of steam that we have seen lobby groups crop up in Western Australia to lobby nationally for reform within the GST distribution regime as it will affect all other states and territories, including Western Australia.

The draft report of the Productivity Commission that was provided to the federal government, but also released publicly last year, makes for terrifying reading for the other states and territories—absolutely terrifying reading. Changing the manner of equalisation between states, moving from full equalisation to a watered-down reasonable equalisation, would have disastrous consequences for the level of our GST receipts here in South Australia. The figures bandied around in the media would be that if there were a reasonable equalisation rather than a full equalisation, we could see an impact to South Australia in the current financial year of up to $550 million, which is an extraordinary reduction in our level of GST receipts.

To put that in context, what does half a billion dollars mean in one financial year for the state budget? Well, it is a very significant amount. It is well over 5 per cent of our annual operating expenses. In the context of a health budget, it is far more than that even: we are talking well north in the order of 10 or 15 per cent. In the education budget, it is even more. In the police budget and the Corrections budget, for example, it would have a very significant impact.

We have had quite a heated debate in recent days about whether appropriate levels of infrastructure funding have actually been committed to South Australia and when those infrastructure payments will be made from the federal government to South Australia. The sum of $550 million is no 5¢ piece down the back seat of the car: it is a very substantial amount of money. It is more than the whole of the funds required for that next stage of the South Road upgrade, Pym Street to Regency Road. It is more than the whole of the required funding to complete the Gawler electrification project. It is a very substantial amount of funding.

I think it is always alarming when we have an almost blind adherence to wanting to establish these quasi independent so-called expert economic advisory groups because what they have come up with in the past, at least at the national level, has been potentially very, very bad news for South Australia.

To give a third example, when we pushed the Premier in the very early days of sitting of this parliamentary session about what again seems to be his blind adherence to the deregulation of shopping hours, he claimed that there is very favourable assessment from a productivity commission, albeit the Queensland Productivity Commission, to allegedly demonstrate some sort of positive jobs impact. I guess you have to search long and hard to find some modicum of economic research to support your policy position when you are pushing a policy that has many detractors and few supporters, although there are of course a few very major supporters such as Coles and Woolworths, who stand to gain the most in terms of market share and profiteering from such a change.

It is concerning that this policy is being pursued particularly when, if we were after a quasi-independent economic agency in South Australia, there is a third alternative for that source of economic advice and that is the Essential Services Commission of South Australia, which already has a provision within its act to enable a Treasurer to seek advice, either through public process or on a confidential basis, and hence provide advice to the government of the day on any matter that the Treasurer refers to it. That is an opportunity which, from time to time, has been taken advantage of by the government of the day since its establishment.

Now is perhaps a good time to give an example of that, given that the member for Hammond has come into the chamber. He and I, and another clutch of members across the political spectrum, have continued to raise concerns about the virtual monopoly that exists on grain handling in South Australia. In fact, as the member for Flinders, Deputy Speaker, you probably share those concerns. That is a great example of how the Essential Services Commission of South Australia can be tasked to provide either public or confidential advice to the government of the day on a matter of pressing economic importance.

That particular example is a concern, I think, for all South Australians. It is a concern that we have an extremely dominant market operator that may be imposing either inefficiencies into the system of grain handling or could be imposing unfair restrictions on competition or could be imposing poor-pricing outcomes, particularly for farmers, as well as for hauliers of grain throughout regional South Australia. That, I think, is an example of where a government has a good opportunity to examine ways, whether they are policy changes or legislative changes or some other market interventions, where they can look at micro-economic reform.

Again, I come back to that point of these different structures that we already have available to us, principally a now freshly minted independent Public Service, as we are told, after the Marshall pass over through its ranks, and also the Essential Services Commission of South Australia. Of course, it is not just the South Australian productivity commission which failed to be established within 30 days, as promised, by the new Liberal government, it was also Infrastructure South Australia. There was a commitment that within 30 days the membership of that and the entity would be established, so that it could be put to work on the new government's priorities.

It is actually an interesting story, in the context of recent Australian political history, of how infrastructure policy development has been superintended across the country. It is a little-known fact that until 2007, with the election of the Rudd federal Labor government and the appointment of Anthony Albanese to the federal cabinet, there previously had not been a ministry for infrastructure at the federal level. He was the first minister to hold that title and that portfolio responsibility, which seems extraordinary in the context of the sorts of assumptions and discussions that we have about government expenditure at federal and state levels of government.

If you cast your mind back a little further, Deputy Speaker, in 2002, on the election of the former state Labor government, the former member for Elder (Hon. Patrick Conlon) was the first minister for infrastructure we had and, again, we established the first infrastructure portfolio of government. It has been interesting to watch how those two separated—not quite correlating in terms of periods of time—and parallel infrastructure ministries progressed priorities over their times in government.

We will start with the earliest first and the state Labor example. In 2005, the former Labor government released a strategic infrastructure plan, a 10-year plan identifying infrastructure needs and priorities. As I discussed in some detail last night, that then guided a raft of infrastructure investments over the intervening years, up until 2015. In the second half of 2013, in the months leading up to the 2014 state election, the former minister for transport (member for West Torrens) and the former minister for planning (member for Enfield) released the Integrated Transport and Land Use Plan, a 30-year infrastructure plan, to again identify infrastructure needs, to prioritise the delivery against those infrastructure needs and also to identify funding options to meet the infrastructure financing costs of that plan.

I raise those infrastructure plans for a couple of reasons: (a) South Australia was one of the first jurisdictions to engage in long-term planning for infrastructure within the jurisdiction in the Australian context and (b) the other infrastructure agencies, akin to what is proposed to be established in South Australia via Infrastructure South Australia, hold out their key achievements as providing long-term plans for infrastructure development.

If we look at Infrastructure Victoria, Infrastructure New South Wales or Building Queensland, it does not take too much searching around on their websites to see that pretty much front and centre of their long-term infrastructure plans are what they hold up as exemplars of their achievements since establishment. The point I make is that we are already ahead of that curve. We have already been ahead of that curve.

Aside from what you would anticipate as being some pre-election argy-bargy between the former Labor government and the former Liberal opposition about, 'Well, it's a 30-year plan,' 'It's $36 billion worth of infrastructure works,' 'How much do you expect to pay?', 'How much can local government be expected to contribute?' and, 'How much can the private sector be expected to contribute?'—aside from that particular argument, which got some ventilation at the time, there has not really been any questioning from Liberal members of parliament about the priorities identified in that document. There has not even been much criticism about the balance between metropolitan and regional projects or about transport infrastructure projects and other areas of infrastructure, like utilities, ports or water infrastructure, for example.

In South Australia, that was supplemented by the development, over a number of years, of the Regional Mining Infrastructure Plan (RMIP). This document does two things. The first, I think, is a pretty radical achievement for an Australian jurisdiction looking to facilitate the exploitation of its mineral resources; that is, at the time identify all those potentially productive areas of the state when it comes to mineral exploration and development.

There is nothing new in that. We discussed the PACE initiative last nigh, although perhaps I should pause in my comments now and admit to the house that in the contribution I made last night I did get one particular fact wrong, for which I have been admonished this morning.

Mr Pederick: Outrageous.

Mr MULLIGHAN: It is outrageous.

Mr Pederick: You've taken this long to remedy it. You should have done it when you first knew.

Mr MULLIGHAN: A mere three hours to remedy it, I think. That is, I said that the PACE initiative was an initiative of the former Liberal government. I can tell you, Deputy Speaker, that I have been roundly chastened this morning by a number of my colleagues who have pointed out that it was actually Frank Blevins who started this initiative in the late 1980s/early 1990s. I offer my unreserved apologies to the house for getting that fact wrong. Perhaps we will move on.

Members interjecting:

Mr MULLIGHAN: There is furious agreement with that suggestion.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That done, member for Lee, I would bring you back to the subject at hand.

Mr MULLIGHAN: Thank you for your guidance, Deputy Speaker; it is always gratefully appreciated. That Regional Mining and Infrastructure Plan not only assessed those productive areas of the state but also—quite radically, I think—made an assessment of the market conditions of the day as well as the likely medium-term market conditions, about how quickly those projects could come to fruition (those projects not already in production), what the long-term commodity prices were going to be for those products or ores, etc., that were to be exploited, how financial or otherwise those tenements would be, and then the infrastructure to bring those to market.

It stepped those out in a batting order to make sure that we were taking advantage of those mineral resources but also that we were using our financial resources to invest in the right infrastructure at the right time to bring those projects about. There was some unpleasantness in global commodity markets in the intervening years, and those equations have changed somewhat for many of those developments, particularly on Eyre Peninsula for example; nonetheless, that work has been done.

This is the sort of work which, as I said, is held aloft by these infrastructure agencies around the country as what they are there to do. Some of those agencies go a little step further; some of those agencies start making recommendations not just about the provision of new infrastructure but about the management or superintendence of existing infrastructure. There has been quite a hullabaloo in Victoria about the proposal to introduce congestion charging on some of its inner-city road network, which is, of course, of great concern to many Victorians. Notwithstanding that, in very, very populous cities like London they would point to that as being somewhat successful in alleviating congestion and pollution and reducing the risk of road traffic accidents between different classes of road users.

That is not to say that there is not something that can be taken from agencies interstate. Indeed, I am very proud to say that in our time in government, especially in the last term of government, we borrowed quite heavily from one or two agencies in particular, that is, Partnerships Victoria and their equivalent in New South Wales. That is because South Australia had engaged in a series of public-private partnerships to try to balance the impact of investment in infrastructure on the state budget and on the state's balance sheet.

I am pretty sure that I will get this right, but the first I can remember was indeed done by the former Liberal government with the regional courts and police stations PPP, I think one or two facilities of which were provided at Murray Bridge in the member for Hammond's electorate. That was a relatively small PPP but an important one because it was the first that had been done in South Australia. It gave the next government, the Labor government, the confidence to embark on another PPP, which was the schools PPP, to deliver six new schools in metropolitan Adelaide. We then had the PPP to deliver the new Royal Adelaide Hospital.

The pipeline of PPPs, and the extraordinary amount of work it takes for a bureaucracy to successfully call, negotiate and execute those agreements with the private sector, is important but, while we were out to market with those particular projects, we were getting increasing calls from industry, from the private sector, with new and more innovative projects and means of delivering either infrastructure or government services. It is difficult when somebody comes and pitches to a department, let alone to a minister, something that has not previously been attempted by a state government agency.

It might be very attractive, both in terms of service delivery and benefits to the community, and also in terms of impacts on the state budget, to take up that opportunity, but of course you cannot award a contract or an agreement to one company just because they have come and pitched to you a new and innovative idea. That is why South Australia, like Victoria and New South Wales, developed an unsolicited bids policy.

There are things that can be drawn from these advisory agencies, but does that really mean that we need the replication of the agency here in South Australia? That is no doubt something that we will be debating. In lieu of having the election commitment delivered with Infrastructure South Australia established within 30 days, we are instead getting a bill to establish a statutory body to comprise this new agency so that members can be appointed and whatever the work program of this organisation is to be can be contemplated.

I think it is an interesting signal in the context of another initiative, this time in the health portfolio, put forward by the new Liberal government, which is the re-creation of local health boards within SA Health, or whatever SA Health is now to be called given that it is to be rebranded. On the surface, it perhaps seems to be a fairly basic argument about whether you subscribe to the theory that local health boards, and hence corporate governance, are best located as close as possible to the service delivery functions of health, or whether you do not and argue that financial and corporate management of health services should be done centrally.

I am sure that the health minister, the shadow health minister and those with particularly close interest in the health portfolio will have much to say on this on an ongoing basis. However, in the context of the state budget, I think there is an important point to consider in the establishment of these boards, and that is: who is accountable and who is responsible for the financial performance of those health units? I talk about that in the case of a regime where we have local health boards re-established above, for example, a major metropolitan hospital.

All of us are very familiar with the pressures that the health agencies generate for the general government sector and the state budget. I spoke about that at some length last night. On the basis that a health unit (for want of a better description) finds itself with greater demand than was originally anticipated—more people coming through the doors for treatment, more expensive treatments, or perhaps even some unexpected circumstances to arrive, for example a worse than anticipated flu season and so on—let us assume that that health unit is unable to meet the budget that has been provided for it in a financial year.

The previous Labor government wrote into chief executive contracts a direct responsibility for meeting budget outcomes, for meeting budget requirements, for the agencies that fell within that chief executive's purview and responsibilities. They were to achieve balanced budgets in those agencies or they would be held accountable. There are others in the room who have a just as good if not better understanding of fiduciary responsibilities in the context of the corporate environment and serving on boards, as I do.

When it comes to the accountability to the central government, to the cabinet, when it comes to accountability to the Treasurer, who will be accountable for a health unit's budget if it fails to meet its budget targets? Will it be the health minister who is accountable to the Treasurer? Will it be the chief executive of SA Health, or whatever it is to be rebranded, or will it be the chief financial officer or the chief operating officer of that same agency, or will it be the local health board?

Are we either mistakenly or, even worse, quite deliberately confecting an environment where the health minister can place themselves at long arm's length away from financial responsibility for the financial management responsibility of his portfolio? That is a vexed question, and a question to which I am yet to hear a cogent let alone acceptable answer. It is going to be very important in the context of what I also discussed last night, and that is the current Treasurer's confection of a budget deficit in the current financial year claiming that health as well as child protection is exceeding its budget or is not living within its means, or not delivering its savings targets despite of course the extra $148 million provided within the Mid-Year Budget Review to offset those very pressures.

In that context, where we have a Treasurer who is already indicating that SA Health, or whatever it is to be called, as a department is constantly placing pressure on the state budget and on the general government sector more generally, and that that is caused by underperformance in terms of financial management, or overperformance in terms of service delivery and hence additional cost pressures within that health unit, that question needs to be answered. That question I am sure is going to be the subject of some commentary and examination by the Auditor-General.

The principles of the Westminster system of government and responsible government would deem that the health minister is ultimately responsible to the Parliament of South Australia for the performance of the departments that fall within his portfolio responsibilities. That much is clear. What is less clear is what happens at that lesser level from the minister down and whether he has a single individual whom he can hold accountable under a regime of local health boards for financial performance and budget management.

Whether or not he realises it, that is creating a very difficult circumstance for the Minister for Health, particularly when it comes to the estimates process and particularly when it comes to the thorough examination from the Auditor-General which, while members opposite might like to think is a great opportunity in terms of this parliament, they will soon learn is something very much akin to what men over 50 have to experience on a regular basis from their general practitioner. I would finish perhaps slightly further on from that note by saying that those three—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr MULLIGHAN: That is right. I slipped in that little example and it went straight through to the keeper, didn't it? Maybe not. I will finish, to members' great relief—

Mr Pederick: No, no, please.

Mr MULLIGHAN: Really, it is only 54 minutes.

Mr Pederick: As I told you earlier, your call.

Mr MULLIGHAN: It is a mere canter. I will finish on one summation of the last three issues that I raised, that is, putting together the concept of the establishment of a South Australian productivity commission of Infrastructure South Australia and also the re-establishment of local health boards. This seems to suggest a worrying trend of this new government divesting itself of certain responsibilities of executive government.

It is the responsibility of the cabinet, if it believes it has a role in trying to manipulate, improve and provide beneficial outcomes in the South Australian economy for the government and executive government themselves to articulate an economic strategy and vision for South Australia. That is not something that can be outsourced to a panel of appointed acolytes on a new productivity commission for South Australia.

The same goes for Infrastructure Australia. I have already mentioned that there are ample policy advisory capabilities that the new government can draw on without having to establish yet another organisation and pay yet another tranche of board fees and sitting fees and create yet another environment where at least a minister, if not a cabinet, can abrogate their responsibility for making decisions when it comes to priorities for the new government.

I commenced my comments by saying that the state budget is an expression of priorities of a new government and that I would hope that, in those three different examples of the establishment of organisations, what we are not seeing is a state budget that is the expression of priorities external to the government, an expression of priorities of a group of unelected and unaccountable people who sit around a table and decide what decisions a government should make. That would be a very poor outcome indeed. Members will be greatly relieved to know that we are nearly at the end of my comments—

Mr Pederick: No, no.

Mr MULLIGHAN: —although I am being asked to continue my comments by the member for Hammond.

Mr Pederick: I am riveted.

Mr MULLIGHAN: I think the former member for Ramsay, former premier Mike Rann, called that a goad to action and I am trying to resist being goaded. I want to finish by saying one thing. I did make mention at the outset of my remarks last night that I thought it was regrettable, but I had assumed a mere oversight, that the Treasurer, or his agency or staff, had neglected to offer the opposition a briefing on this bill. Perhaps they thought that this is such a routine matter for the parliament that a briefing would not be necessary. Perhaps they sought to flatter me so by ignoring me, thinking that I had, perhaps, been around the traps long enough to understand what all this is about and I did not need a briefing, and if that is the case, well, consider me flattered, Mr Lucas. However, I did make the point that it is a courtesy to extend the offer of a briefing on legislation to other members of parliament, particularly the opposition.

I am pleased to say that I have since been offered a briefing. I do not mean to make a big deal of that in itself but it does lead me to make a subsequent point, and that is the regime that we are finding ourselves in in terms of sitting. Now, it was a surprise to us, I think, that late yesterday afternoon we received the directive that we would be sitting to midnight—although not an unpleasant surprise; I have certainly enjoyed it and I am sure that everyone else has—but also that we will be doing the same again tonight and that is terrific.

Nearly all 47 members of parliament have made a contribution to the Address in Reply and, of course, this debate gives the opportunity for those same members to make another contribution and indeed a third contribution in a subsequent grievance debate related to the Supply Bill, so I do not begrudge that at all. I am not sure whether I am going to be in a position to avail myself of the briefing that has been offered to me tomorrow morning, given the competing commitments that I have on my time, but I will do my best.

However, I do want to place on the record a query as to why the hurry with the Supply Bill. We know that it is important; there is no question about that. I said in the opening sentences of my remarks many, many thousands of sentences ago, that of course the opposition supports this bill and will be supporting it the whole way through in both houses. I do not think that anyone should feel that there is a problem or any threat to this bill being passed by the last sitting week in June, which I note is the second to last sitting week on the agenda which has been circulated by the government for sittings in parliament for the rest of the year.

I raise that point because, even if the parliament in its entirety took right up until the last moment of that last sitting day in June, it is only the second to last week of June and there is more than enough time for any further consideration—principally by the Governor—for the bill to be assented to and for supply to flow and for the lights to be kept on. But I do ask, somewhat rhetorically, because it would be good to have an answer at some point: why the hurry in here? Why the hurry to get this bill through?

There are four sitting weeks left. There are 47 members of the lower house all just as entitled to have full consideration of a bill, not just compared with one another, and, of course, we are provided an equal opportunity to make contributions on bills—some more equal than others—and there are only 22 members upstairs in the other place. I would ask, perhaps somewhat controversially as a member of parliament with a definable constituency, why my opportunity as one of 47 in this place should be curtailed to within less than one sitting week on this bill while those in another place, who I assume are tucked up in bed by now, are afforded the full benefit of—

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: No, they're over at the Adelaide Club.

Mr MULLIGHAN: Well, that is probably true as well—they probably have sleepers over there as well. I wonder why we are curtailed to less than one sitting week to consider this bill, the approval of more than $6.5 billion worth of money, the purposes for which, other than the broad continuation of government operations, we have not yet been fully apprised but, of course, perhaps that will be forthcoming in the committee stages of the bill.

Why the constraints on the consideration in this house? Why less than a quarter of the opportunity than will be provided to the members in the other place, who are less than half our number? I find that strange. One of the other questions that we perhaps need to ask in the committee stage is: is there a hurry? Is there a hurry with this bill? Is there not just some need to get this through before the end of June to continue government operations for the new financial year but something else we need to be aware of?

I assume not. In fact, I hope not, but the question has to be asked. I do not mean this in a way that is having a dig, but maybe it is just because, from a government perspective, the government would like this one out of the way so that they can get on with some of the other things that have been introduced into the house. If that is the case, well, they are the government, they have the numbers on the floor and that is their prerogative.

That is absolutely fine and I can understand that, but I have to say that the late notice, the late-night sitting—and if you want to know why I was pretty much forced into the situation where I had to speak for more than two hours straight last night, it was that we knew that we were not going to finish the Address in Reply contributions before last night's dinner break. I think it was a reasonable assumption by most members for most of yesterday that we would probably pull stumps afterwards, but then we were advised that we were sitting late.

For people like the member for Hammond, for people like the member for Unley, for people like the member for Port Adelaide and other members who are confident and able to stand up and make riveting yet impromptu contributions about bills like the Supply Bill, that is not such a big deal, but I think we have almost a record number of new members at the moment. When pressure is placed on this chamber very late for the consideration of a bill to commence only a little bit before 10pm and to continue for at least—

Dr Close: They have risen.

Mr MULLIGHAN: —they are probably testing the buzzers—to continue on for two hours, fair go for us to be given notice at sometime between 4pm and 5pm that we will be sitting and that we will need to have, at least on one side of the chamber, at least two hours of Supply Bill contributions to get us up until midnight. It is not a criticism of either whip at all. Let me make that absolutely clear, particularly to the member for Hammond. It is not a criticism.

I know that the whips' job is to make what happens on the floor work for their respective party's interests, whether it is the government side or the opposition side. It is not a criticism of the member for Hammond any more than it is a criticism of the member for Playford. I think it is a genuine and legitimate question about whether there is some other urgency about this bill. If there is, that might be absolutely fine, but just tell us. The last point I want to make in that vein is this, and this does not have to be inappropriately interjected upon across the chamber: is it the expectation that this bill will go through all its stages in this sitting week?

For the benefit of Hansard and those unfortunate enough to be tuning into this parliamentary debate, I am sorry that I am trying to work out my diary commitments live, but I am trying to ascertain whether the opposition need a briefing on this bill before the conclusion of this sitting week. Are we going to go into committee and try to see this bill through all three stages, or can we be afforded some modicum of recognition of our equal standing with those who sit on the same plane as us, notwithstanding that they consider themselves to be higher than us in the other place?

I place those comments on the record. Perhaps the Treasurer or the Treasurer's office, or the government via the whip or otherwise, can come back to me or to the Opposition Whip to provide us with some further advice about what is going on with this bill. As I said, the combination of the last-minute hurrying to get through this bill, to engage in late-night sittings and to expect new MPs—some of whom have only made one contribution to this chamber, and that is their maiden speech—to be in a position between the hours of 7.30pm and midnight to make some sort of cogent contribution on this bill and/or on the state budget, and/or on financial matters or matters relating to government expenditure I think is unfair.

Regardless of which side of the chamber they sit on, it is an unreasonable burden for many of us in this age, and for many new MPs, particularly those who like to publicise their parliamentary speeches, to be expected to come up with somewhere up to 20 minutes of contributions on the bill. I will leave it there for the government and the other powers that be to contemplate and perhaps come back to the opposition with some further advice.

I summarise by saying that we look forward to hearing more about what sits behind this bill and what the purpose of the expenditure will be for the $6.6-odd billion. We look forward to seeing how the state budget is going to meet all the challenges I outlined last night, in terms of balancing the competing demands from agencies ever hungry for more appropriation, as well as some of the external pressures that continue to be placed on state governments, like wrangles over commonwealth funding arrangements in health and education infrastructure and other areas of service delivery. With that, I conclude my introductory remarks.

Mr MURRAY (Davenport) (17:22): I rise to indicate my support for the Supply Bill presently before the parliament, which seeks approval of the appropriation of $6.631 billion for the Public Service of this state. I commend the member for Lee—I think it was somewhere in hour 3—for his indication of his support for the same.

Before I move to further detail my support, I am attracted to several points made by the member for Lee. He did seek to provide some indications of the sizeable nature of a potential loss of the GST of some $500 million. I noted with some interest that one indicator he did not use was that that sum is about one half of the annual interest bill left to the people of South Australia by 16 years of Labor government.

I am further attracted to point out that there were several references to the Marshall 'Passover'. I am attracted to pointing out the fact that the Passover was actually a celebration of the Israelites finding the Promised Land after wandering in the desert and being delivered from their subservience. The analogies with the South Australian people are similarly quite strong in that regard as well. However, I move on.

In indicating my support, I note that the bill will enable delivery of a number of commitments enshrined in the government's first 100-days election commitments whilst the 2018-19 budget is being finalised. The 2018-19 budget will be a landmark document in that it will have as its focus not just the implementation of our election commitments but also the development of a sustainable budget position for the future. To be clear, a sustainable budget position for South Australia will be based on the application of prudent, honest and realistic measures and processes as opposed to and distinct from the smoke and mirrors and back-of-the-envelope efforts South Australia has been subjected to for the last 16 years.

For the first time in 16 years, South Australians will see a budget that will not be based on the Labor modus operandi of selling every state-owned asset possible and deeming the proceeds part of a surplus and, optionally, blowing up those that are either unsaleable or deemed ideologically unsound. In late-breaking news we can now add the motor vehicle registry to the list of state-owned assets flogged by Labor, as details emerge of the secret deal done in August last year by Labor's former treasurer. I invite members to consider the details and data contained on the average driver's licence and dwell for a moment on the prospect of the former treasurer doing a deal to sell that data.

I take this opportunity to highlight some of those first 100-days commitments that will be delivered as a consequence of the passage of this bill, with particular reference to my seat of Davenport. The closure of the Repat hospital by Labor resulted in a net loss of 160 beds in the southern suburbs of Adelaide. I repeat that this is a net loss.

Those opposite have been fond of confusing people in my electorate, or seeking to, by referring to money spent at Flinders Medical Centre with a statement, concurrent statement or implication that this somehow obviates or mitigates the closure of the Repat. It does, or it did, no such thing. The closure of the Repat, in fact, placed enormous additional strain on the facility and especially on the staff at Flinders. In evidence to committee in July last year, Professor William Heddle and Associate Professor Michael Shanahan, who hold positions at both Flinders Medical Centre and Flinders University, stated that Flinders had the second busiest emergency department in the country, which was routinely already overcapacity prior to the closure of the Repat.

During the course of the election campaign, I spoke on doorsteps and at functions to countless numbers of staff who worked at Flinders or who had been retrenched from the Repat once it had been closed back in November last year. The Flinders staff all told of the enormous stress placed on them, as well as on ambulance personnel, arising from the increased workloads at Flinders, caused by the closure of the Repat.

The staff all spoke about the pressure they were under to move patients out of the hospital prematurely because of the increased pressure on bed availability and the resulting high rates of patients subsequently representing for readmission. They told me about the enormous number of beds being purchased by Flinders from Flinders Private, merely in order to cope with the volume of patients. They talked about their fears of being identified as having disclosed this information because of the threats made in order to keep secret the real impact of the closure of the Repat as part of Labor's Transforming Health fiasco—the usual Labor standover stuff.

The government's first 100 days marks the reopening of the Repat as a genuine health precinct, providing hospital and other health services to the south. The vandalism of Transforming Health has been stopped, lies about its impact have also stopped and the south, including residents of Davenport, will once more avail themselves of the treatment and the employment provided by the Repat.

A further feature of the first 100 days is the delivery of a reduction of the ESL bills of South Australians to the tune of some $90 million a year. The people of Davenport universally indicated to me their support for the government's measure to reinstate the emergency services general remission, which, on average, provides a reduction on the ESL bill of around $150 per annum for an average household. It is worth reiterating that the remission was removed and South Australians were, as a result, effectively taxed that extra amount of $150-odd each year, as a direct result of measures adopted by the previous government in 2015.

It is difficult to distinguish which is the more amusing: the tortured logic at the time from Labor as to the rationale for this increase, or their response when the Liberal Party made a commitment to reinstate the remission and in so doing reduce the cost of living for thousands of South Australians. It is worth remembering that the emergency services levy impacts not just households but also sporting clubs, community groups, churches and independent schools.

As a result of the increase levied by Labor, a total of over $90 million extra ESL was gouged by Labor from South Australians every year. Evidence was given in committee last year that in excess of 20,000 South Australians had difficulty in paying their ESL, in part as a consequence of that increase. In November last year, The Advertiser reported that SES and CFS volunteer numbers dropped by about 640, leaving volunteer numbers at a five-year low, as a direct result of their dissatisfaction with the ESL increase.

I noted with great interest the question yesterday to the Premier by the member for Lee when he asked for confirmation from the Premier about whether he stood by the commitment listed on his (the Premier's) website to restore the full general remission, which the Premier duly affirmed. By way of reciprocation, I note with more than just an element of amusement the assertion by the member for Lee on his own website, still available in April 2015, that 'it is a lie that ESL contributions will be used for purposes other than funding our state's emergency services'. I rhetorically ask the member for Lee if he would still have us believe that the extra $90 million in ESL levied by Labor was all exclusively spent on an increase in ESL funding to an equivalent amount?

I note, too, the Leader of the Opposition running a line of questioning in the other place prior to the election with a similar implication, namely, that the Liberals' reinstatement of the general remission would necessarily and directly result in a reduction of spending on emergency services of the $90 million in question. I am pleased to inform the house that, in discussions with a number of emergency services personnel in my electorate during the course of the last election, none of them believed this assertion because they could clearly see the $90 million had effectively been pocketed by the then government; it certainly was not spent on any extra emergency services.

The removal of the general remission by Labor was a cynical increase in the tax imposed on South Australians, with consequent additional hardship. The money was pocketed; it was not spent on increased provision of emergency services. I very much look forward to the first tranche of ESL reductions being made available to the residents of Davenport by this government.

A further measure taken under the first 100 days commitments is the establishment of the Glenthorne national park. Glenthorne national park has particular resonance in the electorate of Davenport, given that a centrepiece of it is the Happy Valley Reservoir. I can advise the house that there is enormous support within the Davenport community for the whole concept, in particular but not limited to the ability to use the reservoir precinct for light recreational activities, including bushwalking.

Of particular note is that the establishment by this government of Glenthorne national park will not just address the long-term future of Glenthorne Farm but, in particular, the surrounding CSIRO land, with a strong suspicion that, had the other side prevailed at the election, a large amount of that land would have been flogged off by a cash hungry Labor government. The implementation of the Glenthorne national park will ensure the retention for public recreation of some 1,500 hectares and will result in a bigger park than Belair National Park. I very much look forward to the continued establishment of Glenthorne national park as yet another first 100 days priority, with the consequent increase in amenity that will attach itself to the residents of Davenport.

The first 100 days series of commitments will also engender energy strategies that will increase the affordability and reliability of energy whilst also reducing the hubris that was so often a feature of Labor's own energy policy. By far and away one of my favourite measures is the appointment of a special investigator to examine the acquisition of the diesel generators and related aspects of the former government's energy plan.

Delivered under Labor, the world's biggest battery will provide power for 30,000 homes for roughly one hour. Its use as a baseload solution was effectively underwritten by the little-mentioned diesel power plant, and evidence was provided that that would consume 80,000 litres of diesel an hour. I await with great interest the outcome of the details regarding the purchase by Labor of easily the least green, most expensive, most secretive solution in Australian base load history, with the possible exception of our earlier historical use of whale oil as an energy source.

Our plan will also help deliver an interconnector to New South Wales not merely in order to enable the use of power sourced from interstate but also enable the sale and export of renewable-sourced power which cannot otherwise be used or stored here in South Australia. We will begin the introduction of other home-based storage, demand management and grid integration initiatives. This is a means whereby pre-existing solar panels used by a home owner can be complemented by means-tested government support for the implementation of battery storage for the homeowner. This power can then be utilised by the home owner or be supplied to the grid. It enhances the pre-existing assets of the homeowner and increases the capacity of the broader grid.

The final first 100 days commitment I will cover that this Supply Bill will enable is one that the residents of Davenport strongly support, namely, the capping of council rates. Most Davenport residents—not all, but most—are in the Onkaparinga council area, with Onkaparinga having well-publicised issues with expenditure control and governance. Consequently, many residents see rate capping as a means to effect some increased accountability.

It was bitterly ironic to see the Local Government Association attack the Liberal Party during the last election campaign via its use of ratepayers' money to fund a campaign to oppose a measure to reduce the prolific spending of ratepayers' money. My constituents, including local government employees, all fully supported the efficacy of a rates cap set at LGPI, above which it is necessary for the council in question to seek approval for a bigger rate increase from the independent body charged with that responsibility.

I note, too, that some senior council staff privately expressed their support to me for what amounts to be a rudimentary 'NAPLAN for councils' as part of these measures. That is, they were keen not just to have the accountability afforded by the rate capping measure but also the ability to detail how their spending is devoted to the best value categories on behalf of residents, councils being accountable and subsequently competing with each other to be seen to be providing the best value for their ratepayers. This could only occur as a result of the implementation of the Marshall Liberal government measures, particularly those implemented in these first 100 days.

I very much look forward to taking every opportunity I can to help implement this measure so that not only are rates capped to equitable increases but also that the consequent reporting will enable ratepayers to rate and compare their council against others based on what they actually spend their money on. The 2018-19 budget will be the first step on the long road back for South Australia's financial state of affairs with the restoration of the accountability and numeracy promised by this government. With that, I endorse the passage of this Supply Bill.

Mr DULUK (Waite) (17:39): I am very glad to speak to this Supply Bill, which is of course seeking to appropriate approximately $6.631 billion from the Consolidated Account for payments of very important services for the people of South Australia by Her Majesty's government.

The focus of the 2018-19 state budget, which of course is going to be handed down in September, will be the implementation of this new Marshall government's commitments as well as developing into the longer run a sustainable budget position. We have just—obviously last week—had the federal budget, and I must commend Treasurer Morrison and the federal Liberal government for their return to surplus, predicted in the coming years, and to that sustainable budget position by then.

It is Liberal governments that deliver sensible budgets, and it is Liberal governments that always fix up Labor's mess. It was the Brown-Olsen-Kerin governments that fixed up South Australia's mess after the State Bank, it was of course the Howard-Costello duo that got Australia's finances back on track after the Hawke-Keating fiasco, and it is going to be this Marshall Liberal government that over time does its bit to repair this state's fortunes. Over the last 16 years of Labor, we have seen nothing but debt and deficit, debt and deficit.

The member for Torrens is shaking her head. When the government did show a budget surplus, it was on the back of privatisation. The most recent one was on the back of the lands titles privatisation and the motor accident division privatisation. Reading today's press, I note a little catch for the people of South Australia, courtesy of a parting gift of the former Labor government: another $100 million blow to the state budget. There are a number of election commitments that are aligned with the government's first 100 days, and the passing of this Supply Bill is essential for the timely delivery of these commitments while the 2018-19 budget is being finalised.

Some of the election commitments that the Marshall Liberal government will be prioritising include, of course, creating a more competitive place to do business in South Australia through a range of initiatives such as scrapping payroll tax for small businesses, deregulating shop trading hours to allow businesses to remain open and cutting land tax. There is the slashing of ESL bills, as the member for Davenport so rightly alluded to in his speech.

Cost of living is a huge issue for South Australians; it really is. Whether it is in the member for Davenport's electorate or in mine, or in the member for Heysen's or in the member for Hammond's or in the member for Unley's electorate, we know that when we are talking to our constituents, the number one grizzle is how expensive it is to live in South Australia. The biggest imposts that have increased year on year are state government rates, fees and charges. It is our desire and it will be our aim to do our bit to ensure that South Australians can have an enjoyable standard of living in this state, because that is the right thing to do.

Policies that we are implementing include increased public transport, and that has already happened. I commend the transport minister for improving train times on the Belair line through my community and the bus services as well. Another policy, over the term of this Marshall government, is to develop our vision for the old Royal Adelaide Hospital site, including an innovation incubator; start-up and growth hub; an international centre for tourism, hospitality and food services; and a national gallery.

Investing in defence is so important. We will be creating new apprenticeships and traineeships. It is fantastic that the member for Unley is the new minister in relation to apprenticeships and traineeships because this is how he started his working life. It is really commendable on this side of the house that we have ministers in portfolios where they have a bit of an idea of what is going on because they have been there themselves and done the hard yards.

Capping council rates, participating in affordable and reliable energy strategies, reopening the Repat as a genuine health precinct—which is so important to my community—and a comprehensive program to improve literacy and numeracy outcomes for all students are just some of the election agenda items that will be pursued in the 2018-19 state budget. As I said, I am very happy to be supporting this bill. The budget is just one way in which we will meet our election commitments. I look forward to the coming months, especially in September to see the vision of our Treasurer (the Hon. Rob Lucas in the other place) for the people of South Australia.

Before I go on, I just want touch on a few comments made by the member for Lee. I believe the member for Lee started his contribution at about 10 to 10 last night. I would be really keen to see the viewing audience on the live stream at midnight. Clerk, that would be something to talk about with the new Speaker. If we can somehow track that in the future, we can see how many people were listening because I doubt there were very many at all. If they were insomniacs, I think they would have been cured of insomnia. For two hours last night and for almost another hour today, the member for Lee reminded us so eloquently why Labor is no longer in government. It was two hours of platitudes, motherhood statements and, quite frankly, delusion. One of the first statements the member for Lee made yesterday is, and I quote:

The Premier was very quick to tell us in that answer that the Liberal Party had made some 300 commitments in the lead-up to the last state election and each and every one of them would be delivered.

He then went on to criticise us, saying we would not be meeting those commitments. In our 100-day plan we have quite a lot of commitments that we are rolling out and meeting—and we will meet those commitments. Not all the 300 commitments that we took to the election will be delivered in the first 100 days, and nor should they be. Quite a lot of our commitments require genuine community consultation, something which those opposite never did during their time and government.

I always think it is quite ironic when those opposite lecture us about election commitments. There are two really big election commitments. I had the pledge card from former premier Rann, co-signed by then ALP state secretary, the Hon. Ian Hunter from the other place, upon which they made two big election commitments, especially in the lead-up to the 2010 election. One was to never, ever sell the Repat. Lo and behold, Labor tried its absolute very best to sell the Repat.

The other big Labor lie was the commitment to create 100,000 new jobs in six years, from 2010. The member for Davenport would be keen to note that, as it stands now, eight years down the track, the Labor Party probably created about 80,000 jobs in South Australia. To give credit where credit is due, quite a lot of that jobs growth has come in the last 12 to 18 months, which is fantastic for the state. They are two glaring Labor lies and election promises that were never met. The other big Labor lie, which I always love, is that Labor left the government in surplus. Once again, the member for Lee in this contribution last night said, and I quote:

I am pleased to say that the groundwork has been laid out in what the former Labor government have left this new government. They inherit a budget in surplus.

Of course, it would seem to be in his political interest to confect a budget deficit outcome for the 2017-18 financial year, to be painted as the last financial year of the former Labor administration before swiftly moving into a budget surplus position for the financial year 2018-19 onwards.

The reality is that if you look at last year's state budget, and the year before and the year before that, and then go through the forward estimates and then back to look at contributions from the privatisation of state government assets, the state budget had an underlying deficit in each and every year. The paper surplus, which was printed in the budget documents, was there on the back of Labor's privatisation agenda. It was not there through a revenue and expense position. The reality is that every household and business in Australia knows that it is a phantom surplus to have one on the back of asset sales. The Treasurer, the Hon. Rob Lucas from the other place, recently told ABC radio:

It will be impossible for the 2017-18 budget to be in surplus given the problems that we are uncovering, and in particular the health issues, the hospital issues and those sort of budget pressures.

Once again, the Treasurer was quoted on the ABC, saying:

Further blowouts in health, along with Labor's pre-election spending spree and softer than anticipated revenues are certainly going to more than wipe out a $12 million projected surplus.

Once again, the Treasurer was on the record, saying:

The general problems in health remained unresolved as we arrived in March, and you add to that the continuing challenge of child protection and an additional challenge in relation to TAFE, because of a catastrophe that befell TAFE in the last 12 to 18 months, plus significant revenue improvements which were advertised are highly unlikely to be met this year.

The member for Lee would have us believe that the Treasurer was telling porky pies when he made those statements to the press in previous weeks, but this is what we inherited. We inherited a multitude of Labor sins that are going to take time to rectify. It is only prudent that we are up-front with the people of South Australia because that is what they expect from good government. They expect to be told when the news is not good and they expect to not have the wool pulled over their eyes.

There are quite a lot of issues. Once again, the member for Lee in his contribution last night, and again today, talked about Labor's fantastic record in the Investment Attraction agency. The reality is that corporate South Australia has been used to a former government that has been hellbent on picking winners in the way that it produces corporate welfare. We all know this is not best practice. What we need to do, and as we have said as a government that we will continue to do, is to improve business conditions in South Australia and, of course, create a level playing field.

Since the March state election, Deloitte Access Economics has released its first quarter business outlook for the nation and has found that South Australia may soon take over the other states and may soon be given the title of 'fastest growth in the nation'. This is actually a very good thing. It is good to see South Australia trending in the right direction. Of course, we are coming off a very, very low base, and that is why our state policy suites that we brought to the people in the last state election around cuts to business transaction costs—whether it be stamp duties, payroll tax or land tax—coupled with the very sensible tax reform agenda that Treasurer Morrison handed down and his desire to see more low to middle income Australians (and in particular South Australians) benefit from cuts in personal income tax, I think are going to create the right setting for a better South Australia.

I am optimistic that the future for South Australia is always going to be better when we are blue—when the Liberal Party is on the Treasury benches, both in Canberra and in South Australia, because we understand the importance of supporting small business and the importance of supporting families. In the lead-up to the last election, we said we would not match Labor's huge spending promises. In the lead-up to the last election, the ALP went to the people of South Australia with a $2 billion spending commitment. Quite a lot of them were very worthy commitments. Spending $1.3 billion on level crossings was a very worthy commitment. Investing $150 million into the Housing Trust and the ports authority was very important.

I am not sure if I agreed with their $279 million plan to extend the tram to Norwood and North Adelaide. Whilst some elements of the package for the Port Adelaide Football Club was welcome in what it was focused on, I do not think we should be favouring one football club over another in this state, especially when we have a footy club that is the team for all South Australians. However, there were one or two election promises around capital infrastructure that were worthy, but quite a lot of Labor's election promises were nothing more than uncosted figures on the fly to try to save a 16-year-old government.

On our side of the fence, I believe that we took some very sensible components of spending policies and modest costings to the election, including striving to achieve operating surpluses over the forward estimates; an efficiency dividend similar to Labor's and in line with the former government's efficiency dividends; a $75 million cut over three years in consultants and contractors for government; a $15 million cut over three years in government advertising and communications; and abolition of certain boards that really have not driven investment in South Australia.

In terms of some local election commitments and policies that I briefly want to touch on—and I do most of the time—I know that the infrastructure minister will be happy when we finalise the Blackwood roundabout because then I will not be talking about that commitment every single week, as I have over the last three years in the house. The member for Unley is certainly sick of it. We are investing in local roads, which is actually really important. It is not just local roads in my community, which we have understood, but also local roads in the member for Heysen's electorate, Flagstaff Road in the member for Davenport's electorate, roads in the member for Narungga's electorate and also in country South Australia, where they know the importance of road investment as well.

Over previous years, we have spoken a lot—and the Minister for Primary Industries talked about it today as well—about investment in the regions, which is so important, and about the economic benefits that South Australia needs to really push in terms of exports and our export agenda because it is an export agenda that actually creates wealth. So often, on this side of the house, we have been looking over the Tasman at an example of a Liberal government—the Key National Party coalition government in New Zealand—that, in its term of government, was really focused on exports. New Zealand is a nation that does not manufacture a single motor vehicle and never has. It is a nation that imports fossil fuels for its industry, but it is a nation that has supported and looked after its agricultural sectors to drive economic growth.

At the beginning of my address, I touched on the Repat, and in my electorate it is one of the biggest single issues that people talk to me about, as it is in the member for Elder's electorate and in the member for Davenport's electorate. I am very proud that the Liberal government is continuing with its reform, renewing and revitalisation of the Repat as a health precinct. I find it quite incredible, and in a way a little bit disappointing, that not more has been made of this.

The Labor Party, after saying that they would never sell the Repat, were prepared to flog it for only $20 million. At least if they were going to go the whole hog and privatise it, you would have thought they would put in the DPA themselves and got a developer. They could have got Lang Walker or someone down at Gillman to look at the whole redevelopment, but to flog that parcel of land for a $20 million consideration is absolutely offensive. It just goes to show that the former government, if they were not reckless, were certainly stupid in their decisions. I am very proud that this government, the Premier and the minister in the other place are working to ensure that the Repat is opened as a health precinct, which is so important.

Rate capping was another really big issue that we took to the election. The former minister for local government, the member for Unley, really kickstarted the conversation five or six years ago about the need for us to reform rate capping as part of a cost-of-living suite of policies that we took to the election. Of course, the LGA decided to spend $177,000 of your money and the taxpayers' money fighting us and that policy, and to date there is still no retraction from the LGA. We on this side recognise that cost of living is a really big issue.

Another sleeper issue which we have inherited from the previous government, but which is something we need to be mindful about as well on this side of the house, is youth unemployment. The scourge of unemployment is the biggest scourge that faces society and individuals. More than a third of the total of unemployed people in Australia are aged between 15 and 24 years of age, so it is really important that we deal with this issue of youth unemployment. It does not matter if it is in the north, west or south of Adelaide, unemployment is a really big issue.

In the time that I have left, I will say that jobs and apprenticeships are a really big and important part of our commitment, our pledge to invest almost $100 million in matched funding with the federal government. I would also like to briefly touch on our plan to scrap payroll tax. Payroll tax is one of the most insidious taxes there is. It is pleasing to see that the opposition have agreed to meet us some of the way in our payroll tax reform, and we will certainly be seeking to push that.

Sitting suspended from 18:00 to 19:29.

Dr CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (19:29): I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak to the Supply Bill. I wish to because I want to get clearly on the record the expectations I have of this government in how it spends funds through this bill. I turn first to the portfolio of education. As I have said before in this chamber, there are many important issues government grapples with, but none surpasses the importance of a quality education for our children. They as individuals, and we collectively, rely on their preparedness for the future they will inherit. What is most important in education is quite simply that each child receives the education they personally need to fulfil their potential and to equip them for the future labour market and life more broadly.

In Australia, we have a challenge because we do not live in a particularly economic or educationally homogenous society. While our cultural diversity is one of our very great strengths, the disparity between people's incomes, earning capacity, access to resources and educational attainment is more widely dispersed than is healthy for social cohesion, and our education system is internationally known for being more unequal in outcome than the OECD average.

This means that young people from lower socio-economic families will be disproportionately represented in the lower end of education results and, conversely that students from higher income families are disproportionately represented at the higher end. This should be of no surprise to us, given that the last 10 years of NAPLAN results have ordered schools by SES status broadly, and similarly states and territories.

It is no accident that the ACT is the leader in NAPLAN results and that the NT has the lowest results. This is not because the teachers in the NT are not as competent as those in the ACT. This is not because the curriculum is different. Indeed, for the last several years the foundation to year 10 curriculum has been a single Australian curriculum. It is because students from lower SES backgrounds do not do as well in our schools as those from more advantaged backgrounds.

We must take this seriously. I worry that many just assume that this is somehow immutable, that it is a natural state of affairs in which a child who is born in a lower income house will do worse on average than one born to wealth. But there is nothing innately superior in the child born to well-off parents, nothing that should reasonably dictate that the child will lead a life of lower achievement, yet the weight of evidence is that they will.

This is not the story we tell ourselves of our country: the story of the fair go, the country of opportunity and the classless society. It is what most threatens that most Australian value of reward being earned, not inherited. We must respond to this state of affairs. We have to do it in the education system, which is the last and best chance to deal with inherited inequality, and we have to do it with the parents and not to the parents.

This was the basis of the funding mechanism that was called Gonski, and it was quite simply that need required response. If one school (and I am quoting last year's figures) had each year $28,000 to spend on each student, and another had $16,000 (and I have chosen a school in my electorate, contrasted with one of the elite private schools in Adelaide), then this was bound to lead to a differential in the results for those students, above all for the students of greater disadvantage who would not have the specialised support and teaching required to assist them to achieve what they ought to be fully entitled to: a quality education responsive to their needs and their talents.

The great insight from the Gonski funding proposal is that we should recognise what all students require and make sure they have it. But the federal government and the now state government, then opposition, agreed between them that this was too expensive, that we could not afford to properly and speedily fund our students, that the money was not there, as I recall being shouted at me across the chamber when I urged the then opposition in this place to join us in fighting for our schools and for our students.

I think they were referring to the fact that the original commitment ran past the then forward estimates—something they should keep in mind with these illusory promises from the recent federal budget to fund our infrastructure sometime in the future, just a bit past the forward estimates. I have learnt what they think of money that is more than four years out.

When I fought to the last, not signing up to an anodyne, mediocre statement of principles to replace our six-year detailed bilateral agreement to fund schools properly, again the then opposition were slightly hysterical about the threat my opposition posed to the schools, a threat entirely caused by the federal government seriously stating that they would not fund a single dollar to a single South Australian school if I did not bend the knee. Yet the government in waiting in Canberra, the Labor opposition, stand firmly committed to the original deal—the deal that would make sure that we had money in our schools for our students.

But the then opposition, now government here in South Australia, could not and would not see past blind party loyalty to agree that maybe they have more to offer students than the penny-pinching Liberal federal government. Instead, they endorsed a federal government act that hardwires private schools receiving 80 per cent of the student resourcing standard from the commonwealth coffers and the government schools receiving 20 per cent.

It is an act that will require state governments to comply with an as yet unspecified set of requirements to even get that funding flowing. They had a chance to stand with the schools and fight, and they gave in. This augers very badly for the future of our schools in South Australia. A state government that does not know how to fight for their state, who believes the federal government pleading that the coffers are bare while it is trying to give huge tax relief to the government's biggest companies, may not have the ticker or the stamina to be responsible for our school system.

But we had a partial victory, a victory that has a number attached to it: $125 million in two years. That is the difference between what was being threatened by the Abbott-Hockey-Pyne budget: a loss of $335 million in the school years of 2018 and 2019, this year and next year, compared to a loss of only $210 million under the revised Turnbull-Morrison-Birmingham budget. Imagine if we had had as allies the Liberal Party of South Australia. Perhaps we could have closed that gap still further.

What of state funding? That soared this year and next as was always planned in the six-year agreement, and so this government inherits that funding. This Supply Bill allows them to spend it. How will they spend it? What will be their priorities? Much of the new government's election commitments mirrored existing policies: literacy and numeracy, addressing attendance in legislation and resourcing, languages, parent engagement, entrepreneurialism, which is embedded in the STEM curriculum already, and apprenticeships in schools while completing the SACE.

It is all work started and, importantly, funded by the previous government, as were additional speech therapists and behaviour coaches; as was money to primary schools based on student results to allow additional intervention; as was an academy of leadership and teaching excellence to drive up the quality and usefulness of professional development; as was funding for music education, starting with a strategy being developed by the conservatorium and the ASO; as was lifting the income level for school card recipients; as was establishing a panel of experts to advise an evidence base for improvements in our education system; as was increasing the number of special options places for students with disabilities; and as was an increased focus on Aboriginal education generally and Aboriginal school offering in particular.

I ask that this government not act in a partisan way and abandon any of these policies that were funded last year to wisely spend the money going into our schools as a result of South Australia increasing our funding commitment through the six-year Gonski deal. They may not have supported the money coming in, but I urge them to support it going out to our schools.

What was also funded by the previous government on top of our commitment through that bilateral agreement, which became effectively unilateral, was our injection of infrastructure money. Much-needed upgrades of high schools were at the top of the priority list, although many growing primary schools also received money under the Building Better Schools program. Teaching practice has changed over the last 30 years, but the design of our existing high schools largely has not.

Increasing education is about the guide on the side, not the sage on the stage. Students benefit from learning in a way that suits their abilities and understanding, and engages each of them in what they are learning and why. We no longer have rows of desks with students taking dictation and learning reams of information by rote. We need students who understand what they are learning and why, who can apply it in new circumstances and who can solve previously unseen problems.

While good teaching can and does happen anywhere and in any kind of room, best learning happens where students can work in a single class, alone or in a small group, depending on the task, and can incorporate technology and creativity as required. Flexible learning areas that have technology incorporated and that allow different configurations of seating and working are now the most desirable for our schools. New high schools built by the previous government and the substantial upgrades of five large metropolitan high schools reflect these new teaching approaches, and many high schools benefitted from the new STEM facility funding, but we wanted to go further.

Building Better Schools offered 91 schools the opportunity to upgrade and renew, to plan for growth and to modernise. While the minister recently seemed surprised that the whole project had not been delivered before the election, in fact, from the announcement in October, the department worked very hard with schools on their allocations to determine what need was best met by the finances available. The government and department also sat down with the construction industry—engineers, architects and builders—to talk about how to achieve the projects both speedily and in a manner that would maximise local jobs.

The initial result is now on the website of the department and I check it constantly to see if it has yet changed. It shows schools building performing arts centres, science and technology facilities, trade training facilities, upgrading sports facilities, clearing away old demountables, improving access and learning spaces for students with disabilities, and generally making their schools modern and fit for today's needs.

I am deeply concerned at the news I keep hearing from the school communities about the anxieties they have, that they have been told not to keep planning on the upgrades they want but to wait for instructions from this government about what they will get. There are deep suspicions that high schools will be required to use the funding to build year 7 classrooms instead of new science, sporting, trade training or performing arts facilities. I will be watching this carefully.

The government is now entrusted with the fate of our young people. It has been given the gift of an excellent and strong education system that is in the process of becoming even better and even stronger. It has been bequeathed if not sufficient funding for need—thanks to the commonwealth's priority of multinational tax cuts over our children—substantially more than the previous government inherited from the last state Liberal government. It has a department that is prepared for major modernisation, that knows that quality is at the centre of what we expect from our schools and that this means a quality of outcome for all students, not only those advantaged by background.

The department has a program of expenditure that is shaped to respond to the major priorities of investing in the early years, with a focus on literacy and numeracy first, educating for the jobs of the future, every child achieving their best and teaching of the highest quality. I urge the government to stay the course and allow our schools to do the job they want to do to prepare our children for their future, for all our sakes.

On the subject of a healthy future, I now turn to the portfolio of environment and water. In the election, the now minister (then opposition spokesperson) issued a flurry of policy, and I will be watching with great interest his progress in implementing it. Thus far, all I have seen is the dispatching of one of our few female chief executives, a woman with an excellent reputation in South Australia and outside, who is no longer of service to the environment of this state. I will be interested to see who the minister and the Premier consider better placed to lead the environment department.

Promises have been made that we will only be able to test once we see the budget, such as 20 new park rangers. We will see if this will be a newly funded commitment or if other vital areas of work will be cut to accommodate it. Promises have been made that are deeply troubling, such as proposals to open up our reservoirs of drinking water for recreation activities, repealing the Natural Resources Management Act and revising sanctuary zones in marine parks.

These proposals are deeply significant because they reveal a casual approach to environmental protection and a fundamental lack of understanding the challenges facing our natural resources and our natural environment. They are an amateurish attempt to satisfy everyone, while in fact they will please no-one, and will risk real and actual harm to the base of most of our economic activity: clean water, healthy fisheries, sustainable natural resources and an overall preparedness for climate change.

I note the government has allocated some $12 million over the next two years to assist with the loss of the Chinese market for recycling materials. This is not sufficient to cover the costs local government has estimated that sector will be facing immediately. The threat and opportunity represented by the loss of China as a destination requires serious consideration and response.

We must not let local government down with a black hole to fill financially. We must not allow products that can be recycled to be added to the waste stream. We must facilitate an industry solution and, given all of Australia has the same issue, we should get the early-mover advantage and be ready to process other states' materials here. Waste to resources will be increasingly essential as we transition more deeply into a carbon-constrained global economy, and penny pinching now will cost us in the long run, and our councils and their ratepayers right now.

This Supply Bill is the first stage of the important process of deciding how money will be spent by this government. We on this side of the house will be watching carefully to see what choices the government makes.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (19:46): I rise to make some brief remarks this evening in support of the bill. I say 'brief' because, unlike the member for Lee, it is immediately apparent to me and members on this side why we need to get on with it. I note that I admire the member for Lee's stamina, although apparently driven by just that, and I presume the fact that he is not here indicates that he has gone to take some well-earned rest. However, it is worth making and emphasising the point that, after 16 years of incompetent government in this state, it is high time that we got on with it, and that is very much what this Supply Bill is all about.

As the member for Lee indicated, it is an unexceptional and unusual appropriation of $6.631 billion before a budget anticipated in September, and I note that the member for Lee indicated that the opposition will support the bill. So one might ask: why are we not done and dusted? Well, I will briefly take this opportunity to emphasise what we have in mind. It is all about delivery, and that is very good news.

The change of government that occurred on 17 March came with the clearest of electoral mandates, and I made some remarks in my Address in Reply yesterday about the fact that this is a true electoral mandate. It is the first that we have seen in quite some time in this state. Not only can we say as a new government that we have a clear electoral mandate but the government also went very clearly to the people in the course of this campaign with a very detailed and extensive program of more than 300 policies that we committed to deliver on should we be successful in winning government.

More than that, the government and the Premier went to the people well ahead of polling day and said, 'Not only do we have a whole lot of commitments to offer that we've thought through and set out and you can make your choice against but we will publish a 100-day delivery program.' So, in the context of this Supply Bill, we are very much focused on that 100-day plan that we published well ahead of the election.

As to the first 100 days, I refer to the Premier's statement published on 18 February, a month out from the election. The Premier indicated in very clear terms that the government would be hitting the ground running and doing so with a suite of policy and legislative initiatives over the first 100 days with the objective of kickstarting South Australia's renewal. And here we are. The Premier indicated the promise to deliver more jobs, to lower costs and to deliver better services. That is what is going to frame the agenda of the new government.

We have heard it over and over, but the conduct and disposition of the new government have been very much about steadily and surely delivering on what we have now set out in great detail: on the job, from day one, delivering on half a billion dollars in tax cuts to South Australian households and businesses to grow jobs and ease cost-of-living pressures. Number one on that list, from my point of view as the member for Heysen, is the restoration of the general remission on the ESL. That will deliver $90 million a year over the forward estimates—a $360 million reduction in the cost to households and businesses throughout this state.

It is a policy that we announced in an orderly way well ahead of the election, and it is a policy that we are now going to deliver on—similarly, our innovative and rational policy in relation to energy of $100 million on a home battery subsidy scheme. That is going to be critical to restarting and reigniting our moribund economy, as well as delivering reliability on the renewables side. We have been clear and up-front well ahead of the election not only on the policy side but also on the timing of delivery. So when the member for Lee said, late into the evening last night and again before dinner this evening, 'What's the rush?', from our point of view it could not be more apparent.

We want to get on with it, we have a mandate for getting on with it, and that is what the Supply Bill is all about. I am glad to hear that it will be supported by the other side. I would only urge that we do so without delay. I will come back to the ESL reduction in a moment. Capping the burden of council rate rises is another key policy commitment, a key and important policy commitment that we have made. It is key to reducing the burden on households and one that, in our community campaign at the door, was an absolute priority for people throughout Heysen, and so we want to get on with delivering on that.

As a result of the range of commitments which we made and the way in which we went about it, people knew very clearly what they would be voting for. I cannot emphasise enough that, in making this change after 16 years, people now expect that the Marshall Liberal government will go about delivering on the change that has been long awaited in a steady, predictable and humble way. There is no hubris on this side. There is no sense of exaltation. There is a sense of having an obligation to deliver on our priorities and restore good government to this state. That is about slashing taxes and cutting costs, it is about creating jobs through the funding of 20,800 additional apprenticeship places and it is about restoring a rational approach to policy, and energy policy is key among them.

I reflect briefly on the history of opportunity in this state. When I was completing my studies, it was unremarkable and unsurprising that people might leave this state to find job opportunities elsewhere. At that time, it was regarded as a given that well-educated people growing up in South Australia could take an opportunity in the job market elsewhere but that they would have no trouble coming back to South Australia if ever and whenever they were ready to do so.

What has changed, particularly over the last decade and a half, is that we see the continual exodus of our top students, our top young people, our top performers, and that they are going not just for the opportunity to broaden their horizons but they are going because they simply cannot find work in this state and so there is no guarantee that they will come back at all. That is key to the change that we need to make. With the tremendous new federal defence spending coming down the pipeline, we need to make sure that we invest in skills training for people so that we will have local people equipped to take the opportunities coming down the line. That is all part of restoring an enterprise culture to this state—too far lost and one that we need to turn around and turn around without delay.

I talked about the ESL reduction as being a substantial priority. It goes again to the difference in the way that we have approached this election campaign and this transition to government compared with similar circumstances four years ago. We went to the electors of this state saying very clearly to them, a long time out, 'If you elect us, we will slash the ESL. We will reintroduce the general remission.' They knew that, they expect that and they expect that the $90 million a year is going to be delivered. That is the direct opposite of the way in which the electorate was treated by the previous government.

The previous government went to the last election and we did not hear anything about the ESL. We had had a system of the general remission being in place throughout the time that the ESL had been in place and, all of a sudden after the last election, without warning the previous government decided, 'No more general remission. You can all have your ESL bills doubled. Just deal with it.' Not only is it going to be a welcome change for the electors of Heysen to have a substantial reduction in their day-to-day living costs but they are going to know that that is being delivered because that is what they voted for, that is the change they have called for and that is what we are going to be delivering.

I take the opportunity also to make very clear and to amplify my remarks earlier today in support of the motion recognising International Firefighters' Day. Going door to door throughout Heysen in the course of the last year, there was some discussion about, 'You are going to slash ESL bills. That's fantastic, but we all know and rely on the tremendous work that our volunteers do through our CFS brigades throughout the Hills.' It needs to be made clear that the ESL take has been paid into general revenue and always has been paid into general revenue. The increase that has resulted from the removal of the general remission has no consequence on the facility provided to the CFS. So, by reintroducing the general remission, we make no change whatsoever to the support that is provided to our CFS brigades.

On the contrary, we have a policy that makes sure that CFS infrastructure is boosted, and we have a $5 million commitment to making sure that CFS infrastructure is boosted. That is in addition to what is being provided in the ordinary course. So there should be no doubt about it: we are committed to the very important volunteer work that is provided by our CFS. In the remarks I made earlier today—

An honourable member interjecting:

The SPEAKER Order!

Mr TEAGUE: —the commitment of those volunteers is something that ought be recognised and supported at every turn. It was a constant for me throughout the course of the campaign that we recognise people who had put in 30, 40 and even 50 years of volunteer service. The CFS brigades rely substantially on local community fundraising in order to fund what they do and in my local area of Bridgewater we fortunately have the most successful op shop, for example, that provides my local brigade with the sorts of facilities they would not otherwise have. It is true that the CFS relies upon substantial state funding and so I completely support and will always stand up for securing funding for the CFS, and the important work that it does.

I do not want to let this opportunity go by, as I may not have the chance next week, to recognise in particular the commitment of three people who have been recognised in the course of the last year. I had the honour, along with the member for Finniss, of attending last July at the CFS awards at Mount Compass. Rob White was recognised with a fifth clasp for his decades of volunteer service. The week prior at the Echunga awards Malcolm Hale was recognised with his third clasp for 40 years of voluntary service and Commander Christopher Martin was recognised with a fourth clasp for 50 years of service. I might add that they were among many tens of people of all ages who were being recognised for what is essentially a lifetime commitment of volunteer service to their local brigades.

That is just to emphasise, when we reflect on the importance of producing the general costs of living such as the reintroduction of the general remission of the ESL, in no way do we for a moment look to reduce the funding and support for our CFS brigades. They do excellent work and they will continue to be supported by this new government, and long may that continue. With those remarks, I commend the bill.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (20:03): I thank the government for bringing this bill to the house. Can I just point out that I think it is the greatest act of hypocrisy of any government to try to procure $6.6 billion on one sheet of paper. There is no budget attached, no spending, no provision for health or education—$6.6 billion in the hope that we should trust you; $6.6 billion and you cannot tell us why you are procuring the money, borrowings that South Australians will have to pay back.

There have been people in the past who have spoken from this bench who have talked about and lamented the idea of governments procuring money after elections without a budget. Here we are, four years later, and what is the government doing? Exactly that. There is a word for that, a Greek word. It is called hypocrisy—the idea that a government can come into this house and suspend standing orders, because it is disorderly to introduce a Supply Bill while the Address in Reply is being considered, and have us agree to borrow $6.6 billion.

Make no mistake, they are borrowing it because they do not have it in reserves, but they are not going to tell us how they are going to spend it until September. 'Trust us, we are from the Liberal Party.' That is the motto. I see members opposite shaking their heads in disagreement. I just say that I will look forward to the budget because I hope that each and every dollar of this $6.6 billion is justified.

I heard my friend the honourable member for Heysen talking about being clear and up-front about this $6.6 billion, clear and up-front. Well, I have read the Appropriation Bill, all three clauses of it, and clause 3, subsections (1), (2) and (3). Yes, we know that they want to borrow money, but they are not going to tell us when they are going to pay it back, they are not going to tell us what the time frame is, they are not telling us what percentage of debt it is costing us. Most importantly they are not telling us what they are going to spend it on—but they are open and they are transparent.

Ms Luethen: Yes.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: That is right; the member for King says that yes, that is right. I also heard with interest that the people have clearly spoken and have given this government a mandate. Let us be honest about this. The Labor Party received 32 per cent of the vote, not a mandate to govern, and the Liberal Party received 38 per cent of the vote. Over 60 per cent of South Australians voted for someone else other than the Liberal Party, yet members are getting up in this house and saying, 'We have a mandate.' A mandate for what? What does 38 per cent get you? I will tell you what 38 per cent gets you: nothing.

In the Westminster system, I accept that the Liberal Party has won a majority of seats in the election and they are the government—it is our system of government—but do not come in here and try to tell us that you have a mandate for anything else other than sitting on that side of the house. A majority of South Australians did not vote for your policies, a majority of South Australians did not endorse what you are attempting to do in the budget. In fact, a majority of South Australians voted exactly opposite what the government is intending to do, a majority of South Australians voted against many of the measures that members are up there today saying they have a mandate for.

Then again, I like the idea of the government saying that 62 per cent of South Australians are wrong. I think that is a great message from the government, and I hope it continues. I love it when the government tells South Australians that they have got it wrong and that they do not really understand how this works, rather than having a little bit of humility, rather than walking in here and saying, 'Look, at the last election the two-party system in this state was shaken to its core, to its foundation. The Liberal Party received not only a two-party preferred swing against it but a massive 6.5 per cent primary vote against it.' Instead, members are arrogantly walking in here and saying that they have some massive mandate to govern, like it is some landslide, like it is Dean Brown in 1993. That was a mandate, that was a landslide, but how did you treat him? We all know what happened; it is history.

I think the member for Kavel—who I have a lot of time for because I think he is going to go far in this place and seems like someone who is going to do exceptionally well—may have inadvertently told the house something that is not true. The government is not restoring the general remission. The general remission in 2014 was $90 million. For members opposite who do not understand how the ESL works, it is a lot like a council rate. The government calculates the value of what it wants to spend on our emergency services—our police force, our MFS, our SES, our CFS—and works out what the budget is. It looks at property values and it works out a taxation rate.

To restore the general remission as was applied in 2014 the remission would have to be over $110 million per year. What the government is doing is restoring a 2014 remission on 2018-19 prices. Householders in Kavel, in Heysen and throughout the entire Adelaide Hills rely on these volunteer services, and members opposite are unhappy about contributing to their emergency services through the tax that members opposite introduced through former premier Olsen. It is a reform that he told this house was important because of underinsurance. It is a reform that former premier Mike Baird and Gladys Berejiklian introduced in New South Wales and what some economists would call good economic reform.

When they introduced it, they said that people were underinsuring, especially in the Adelaide Hills, in the wake of bushfire disasters and that what we needed was to fully fund our volunteer services to provide these services. If I was a voter in Heysen, after seeing my party get a very low vote but seeing a massive swing against the incumbent to make it one of the most marginal Liberal seats, you would have to ask yourself: are voters in the seat of Heysen saying to themselves are they really going to introduce the general remission or are they just going to introduce a remission based on property values from four years ago, on expenditure from four years ago?

In the interests of being open and transparent, why does the government not say, 'We are introducing remissions at the same rate and level as 2014,' and introduce $110 million-plus remission for the people of South Australia? Why perpetrate this con? Which one is it? Is it $90 million a year you are returning or the general remission? The member for Heysen was adamant in his remarks: the Liberal Party is returning the general remission.

I know that is not true, the Treasury knows it is not true, the Treasurer knows it is not true, the Premier knows it is not true. Why are members opposite telling their constituents they are getting the general remission back when they know they are not? But I will not move a privileges motion on the member because I think he has a bright future and I think he will do exceptionally well. Given the performance of two of his ministers over the last two weeks, I think his prospects are doing exceptionally well.

I will just add that the Liberal Party campaigned quite heavily on returning people home to South Australia, people who have fled abroad. They have brought one back: Georgina Downer, it is very impressive that you have brought her back, but what a price! I have heard the government say they are not going to pick winners, but they brought Georgina Downer back—quite an omen. I find it fascinating that the best the Adelaide Hills has to offer the people of Mayo through the Liberal Party sub-branch is someone who has not lived in the Adelaide Hills for 20 years. She failed at preselection once in Victoria. I think she gained preselection in another seat but was rejected by the people. I think the slogan should be perhaps: Georgina Downer, the best Victoria has to offer.

The SPEAKER: Member for West Torrens, that might be your view, but you will bring it back to the Supply Bill, I am sure.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: The wisdom of Solomon from that chair, sir. I will return to the bill. I am fascinated by this idea of bringing them home because I heard it from John Olsen when he was premier. He was going to bring them home; 'action man' was going to bring them home. But when we asked the Premier in this house, 'What is the target for net migration into South Australia?' there was no answer. Just the power of his personality alone, just the power of the effort of telling people he was going to bring them home was enough. What policies will bring them home? Apparently the ESL general remission, slightly less what it actually is, will do it. Perhaps payroll tax reductions will do it. Perhaps it will be some other great policy like rate capping that will bring them home from Victoria and New South Wales, or perhaps it is just sloganism.

Perhaps the government does not know what it is going to do. Perhaps the reason they are procuring $6.6 billion of taxpayers' money without telling us how they can spend it is that they have landed in government and they have no plan. They have no new ideas. They have no new bold vision. They do not actually know how they are going to bring them home. They do not know how they are going to get sniffer dogs into schools. They do not know how they are going to extend operating hours at police stations. They do not know how they are going to create jobs and grow investment. Apparently trade offices are all the difference. Apparently that is the difference.

There once was a time when the Liberal Party believed in the ingenuity and the entrepreneurship of businesses, but apparently the only way businesses will export now is through a government program. Congratulations to members opposite. What a great vision for small business in South Australia. Perhaps the way they are going to bring them home and grow the economy is to attack 30 per cent of the retail sector by saying that they have to compete with multinationals and companies that make most of their money at a headquarters interstate rather than businesses based in South Australia.

There was once a time in this state when Tom Playford created a party for small business and for people who wanted to break free of the shackles of having a boss telling them what to do, who wanted to unlock their entrepreneurship, get some capital, go out and start a business, take a risk and get a return for that risk. They had a Liberal Party to back them, the people like Roger Drake and the Romeos, people who have gone out and taken on Woolworths and Coles, as have the small newsagents who operate in tourist precincts like Jetty Road, Glenelg, and like Millicent, who want to open where they do not have to compete with the large companies that can use their profits from interstate and overseas to subsidise losses in areas simply to get market share.

There was once a time when the Liberal Party stood up for those small businesses, but today the machine rolls on. It is all about multinationals. It is all about big business. It is not about the little guy, the little woman, the people who are out there alone with no-one to help them in a business, in a deli, in a chicken shop, in a newsagent, in a small retail outlet trying to get by. Where is the Liberal Party for them? It is missing. Instead, they tell them, from one double-sided page, that they are going to borrow $6.6 billion and not tell them how they are going to spend it.

I would wager that members opposite who are going to speak on this bill have no line of sight on what the cabinet is going to deliberate on the budget. I would wager that members opposite are going to be speaking about things they know nothing about. It is not their fault—they are government backbenchers, and it is a terrible job. I have been there; I served my time as a government backbencher and I watched, and it was terrible. There is nothing worse than the curse of a government backbencher, nothing worse. I can see my wife now via FaceTime and say goodnight to the kids; I can go away and have a phone call with my kids afterwards. I have had a bit of fun here today.

Government backbenchers will read out their prepared notes about what a great job it is to borrow $6.6 billion on a double-sided A4 page that does not even tell us how much of that $6.6 billion will be spent on health. How much? Silence. How much will be spent on education? How much on infrastructure? How much will be used to match commonwealth funding for infrastructure? How much will be used to make our police officers safe? They cannot tell us, and do you know why? Because they do not know.

Powerless government backbenchers, they go to their communities, they have been elected and they have been disenfranchised by the people who sit on that front bench. They have seen how they have behaved over the last two weeks. Imagine the caucus! Imagine the police minister getting up and telling Liberal backbenchers to be disciplined, telling them to make the right speeches and follow the notes, while he gets up and plays ad lib about whether there were notes, who turned up, who did not turn up and whether he is going to direct the police commissioner or not direct the police commissioner.

Imagine sitting on that backbench, watching that unfold in front of you and thinking, 'I could do that, and not only could I do that but I would not make the rookie mistakes that the current police minister is making.' You are being forced to make speeches about things you are not being told about. What a sentence! The worst part about it is that there are four more years. In four years' time, these backbenchers, these brave few—and trust me, you will get close—all of you will get close and you will bond. You will all start little groups, talking to each other about how terrible it is, how you are being treated by the ministry, how they are not answering your letters. Maybe you will meet at night, maybe you will meet during the day, maybe someone will bring tea and scones—who knows?

An honourable member: Doughnuts.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Don't bring doughnuts! And you will talk. You will talk about these ministers you have to go out and defend. I know what is going on right now because members are getting phone calls in their electorate offices about this idiot who will not let a member of parliament take doughnuts to a fire station because he wants to thank them for International Firefighters' Day.

I know that every member in this chamber—all 46 of us bar one—knows that that was a stupid email to send. The political smarts in my little finger could have told you that that is an email that you should not send. Members opposite have to sit there and watch while this person holds a ministry, and I feel for you. I share your pain—and I am here to help. I am not from the government, but I am here to help.

I also want to remark on a few other things. The government promised us a productivity commission and Infrastructure SA. I note the Premier made a ministerial statement about the delay. In terms of openness and accountability, the government said that within the first 30 days we would have a list of the people who would sit on these two organisations. They have not been able to do that. I can surmise from that that there are two reasons why they have not released those names: one, they cannot find anyone to sit on these bodies, or two, they have not got around to it.

You have to ask yourself: if the economy is the focus of the Liberal Party, and the solution that the Liberal Party has to the economic malaise members opposite claim is occurring in South Australia (which I disagree with) is a productivity commission and Infrastructure South Australia, why is it not a priority? Why were people not scoped out before the election? Why were people not sounded out? Where are these names?

The Liberal Party will go to Business SA, they will go to the Property Council, they will go to the usual suspects and say, 'Who have you got?' but we are not seeing that and it really concerns me. I have gone from thinking that this government is taking a different approach to caution and consideration to thinking they are just not doing anything.

What I want to finish on is the surprise I had. I mean this in a polite way, and I hope the member, who is in the chamber, does not take offence to it. I feel for the member for Unley. The member for Unley was one of those opposition shadow ministers who got up every morning at 5 o'clock, listened to the radio and at 6 o'clock was there, waking ministers up and annoying them. He was getting on radio and making our lives difficult, talking to journalists.

If there was a train station or an issue at any piece of public infrastructure, if there was a delay, he was there. Whether it was cold, whether it was hot, whether it was annoying or an inconvenience, he was there. As much as I hate to say it, I respected him for it. In terms of warriors for the Liberal Party, there are few who worked as hard or as diligently or were as committed to our destruction as the member for Unley.

An honourable member: Hear, hear!

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, hear, hear! The question then comes, why was he taken away from his portfolio?

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: I've got the dream job now, Tom—the dream job.

The SPEAKER Order!

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: The thing that you didn't think was important: jobs and trade.

The SPEAKER Order!

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: That's why you kept having junior members in that role.

The SPEAKER: The member for Unley will not interject, although he is being provoked. The member for West Torrens.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: See, I was trying to be charitable and what do you get? You get abuse from the warrior. Why demote him? What really happened? Why was he not given his portfolios?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER Order!

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: The opposition will find out.

The SPEAKER: The member's time has elapsed. The member for Narungga.

Mr ELLIS (Narungga) (20:23): I stand in support of the Supply Bill. Not only that, I stand in support of implementing the mandate that was endorsed by the people of South Australia at the March election when they voted a majority of Liberals into the different seats. I stand in support of the Supply Bill, for the release of in excess of $6.5 billion worth of funds this evening, as without its passage public services cannot continue to be provided and our hardworking public servants cannot be paid. Thus, I am pleased to play my part in ensuring that such vital services can continue between now and the September budget, and the passage of the appropriation bill can proceed.

I proudly stand in support of the Supply Bill as the vital mechanism it is, because its passage will ensure that the new Liberal government can begin to fund its pre-election commitments designed to deliver change and improve the lives of South Australians and the prosperity of our state. Despite the member for Lee's best efforts, we are keen to get this bill through so we can get on with the job, and I myself am exceedingly keen to get on with the task ahead and understand that whilst it is easy to spend money, it is harder to effectively manage the finite resource that it is—the bottomless pit it is not—to ensure the budget is balanced and available funds are allocated to best meet need.

In the few weeks that I have been in office—the very few—it has become very clear that there are many needs and many conflicts for decision-makers to consider in sorting priorities, but we in the Marshall Liberal government have a vision and a plan, and there is an urgent need to get on with it, methodically and responsibly spending the money we have to address identified issues. I am mindful of the trust the people of South Australia have placed in us here in this place to spend the allotted revenue we have as money that belongs not to this parliament nor its members but to the South Australian people, provided by the South Australian taxpayers out of their hard earned.

The passage of the Supply Bill will ensure we can make good on pledges made so we can get on with creating a more competitive place to do business by cutting red tape; lowering the cost of living and doing business; slashing the ESL and cutting council rates; creating 20,000 new apprenticeships; putting back services removed by the damaging Transforming Health agenda, such as reopening the Repat; as well as getting on with our reinvigorating regional tourism plan and opening up development opportunities in Stenhouse Bay, inside Innes National Park.

Tourism to Innes National Park is up 50 per cent on last year's numbers, but we believe more can be done to encourage a more diverse range of tourists to visit. Not everyone is willing to camp in a tent or swag out in the wilderness in the beautiful national park; some want alternate forms of accommodation. That is what this opportunity will provide. It will open up alternate forms of accommodation to the people who would not ordinarily be willing to stay in the area. Having more people staying more nights can only be a good thing for tourism on the peninsula and for all the local businesses in the region.

I am excited about instituting the change that will benefit business across the state, including those businesses in Yorketown that will reap the reward from the increased tourism we will bring to the region. We have one of the most uncompetitive payroll tax regimes in the country, and it continues to hinder business and business growth. It does not encourage a growing business to hire employees, nor does it make that bottom line any easier for those businesses that have grown and now currently exist beyond the threshold.

Similarly, I look to ease the burden on small to medium-sized businesses by making the land tax regime more palatable for people who own more than one property. The current tax regime, unsurprisingly, is also one of the most uncompetitive in the nation and is contributing to the stifling of business and investment. Too many are looking to invest elsewhere in places with far more sensible tax programs than we have here in South Australia. We need to arrest that and encourage more business to invest here. If we can get this right, in addition to lowering the utility costs, which have skyrocketed over the past 16 years, all business will want to invest in South Australia, not just a few lucky winners that the previous government had picked.

I support this Supply Bill so we can start work on the Port Wakefield Road overpass to ease the notorious heavy congestion that plagues the intersection of the Copper Coast Highway and the Augusta Highway, one of regional South Australia's busiest road intersections. The issue of traffic congestion rears its ugly head each and every long weekend, as the masses attempt to escape gridlocked metropolitan Adelaide for the beautiful country areas South Australia has to offer.

This can be far north South Australia, the Far West Coast or my favourite place, the beautiful Yorke Peninsula. We on this side of the room encourage everyone who may be considering getting away for a long weekend to consider our own backyard first and to visit regional South Australia. But all those destinations place stress on the Port Wakefield intersection and contribute to the delays that have been frustrating motorists for years. Those opposite have had 16 years to remedy the situation and have not shown the slightest inclination, so we will. It is essential that we ease that traffic congestion so that those who do visit the regions both enjoy their journey and get there in reasonable time. I look forward to delivering the overpass at crash corner as part of the solution to the traffic congestion.

As part of that solution, this Liberal government will provide funding for increasing investment in regional roads so that people who are travelling out can enjoy their journey and so that locals who are travelling to different parts of the electorate in Narungga can do so safely. In terms of those all-important pictures on social media, I can see one beautiful shot right now, looking down over Cape Spencer in Innes National Park, one of a nice road that looks beautiful on social media and attracts more people to visit our wonderful area.

There is another important function in building the overpass at crash corner and improving the quality of our roads. They need to be drastically safer roads. A number of lives have been lost at the crash corner intersection, and it is bleedingly apparent to all who traverse that intersection that the solution currently imposed on the people is just not the right solution at all. People have been calling for an overpass, and we in the Liberal Party will provide one.

We are sincerely lucky that the number of lives lost on regional roads is as low as it is currently. Certainly, every life lost on our roads is great tragedy. It is a testament to the drivers who reside in regional South Australia and the skills that they have accrued that more have not occurred. The roads are too undulating, not wide enough and filled with potholes. Indeed, the opposition acknowledged this when they decided to lower the speed limit across the state in order to justify having their dangerous roads. More needs to be done to bring these roads up to standard, so we can return the speed limits to where they were previously.

Yorke Peninsula and the wider regions are also some of our state's most productive areas for agriculture, and farmers deserve efficient infrastructure to support the important contribution they make to our economy. We need to get on with supporting the Mobile Black Spot Program to ensure that regional SA gets the mobile towers it desperately needs, not just for convenience but for the vital need in times of an emergency. Again, this is an issue of safety, an issue of not being able to reach vital emergency services, next of kin or first point of contact when the situation calls for it.

After having been in office for only a matter of weeks, I can safely say that one of the most common questions posed to the Narungga electorate office is about phone reception. Infrastructure and technology are certainly lacking in regional South Australia, and I can confirm to the people in this place that they are sorely missed. Only yesterday, I was talking to a constituent whose daughter had called from Darwin whilst he was within 10 kilometres of the town of Port Broughton. Their phone call dropped out within a minute of picking up. It is just not good enough to be living that close to a regional centre and not get phone reception.

We can get on with reforming natural resources management and changing it to landscape SA and making it far more democratic and efficient, investing in rural roads, like I said, and starting the work of reviewing reduced speed limits on them. Vitally, support of this bill will: allow improvements to be made in our health services; reduce outpatient waiting lists; make inroads into addressing the $150 million maintenance backlog at neglected country hospitals around the state; and, closest to home, upgrade surgical facilities at Yorketown Hospital and support the accident and emergency services at Ardrossan Hospital.

Access to health care was a forgotten consideration of the previous government. It gives me great pleasure to note the importance that the Marshall Liberal government has placed on providing health care to everyone. Ardrossan is a great regional hospital, a community-owned hospital, that services a fluctuating and ageing population. The palliative care division of the hospital is a wonderful testament to health professionals and the care they show their patients. It is a wonderfully run local hospital, but it does run an A&E department and, as with all their patients in palliative care, they do not turn away patients but provide a high standard of care to everyone, even if they do not have private health cover.

The Ardrossan community used to receive a government contribution so that they could run their A&E without incurring a loss. That government contribution was removed during the 16-year term of the previous government. I was pleased to see that that funding contribution will be reinstated by this government because, while the Ardrossan Community Hospital has continued to operate on the generosity of local donors, it is incumbent on government to provide health care. Similarly, it was terrific to see a commitment to the famous Yorketown Hospital—or the infamous Yorketown Hospital, as it has come to be known, I suspect, over its many funding issues. During the election campaign, I looked forward to delivering that commitment in good time.

Health care is a vital service for any community, but particularly so for communities so far out of reach that the next closest facility is unattainable. Yorketown and anywhere south of that, which includes quite a few townships, rely on the hospital to care for them as their closest hospital. Ensuring that it has the proper facilities and equipment that it requires to treat people should be a primary concern to any government. The concerns of the people of Yorketown extend to ensuring that they have a doctor in their area and that they do not rely on a locum service for their health care. People want to have a family doctor who can relate to them, who is familiar with them and who actually cares for them.

For all the aforementioned reasons, I stand to support the 2018 Supply Bill and the Liberal Party agenda that needs to be implemented following the mandate of the people at the election, and I encourage all members in this house to do so.

Ms COOK (Hurtle Vale) (20:36): I rise today as a member of the house to make some remarks on the Supply Bill currently before us in this place, totalling some $6.6 billion. In particular, I would like to reflect on some of the great achievements made in recent times by our previous Labor government in the human services portfolio and, of course, in my own electorate of Hurtle Vale. In addition, I will reflect on some of the essential services we on this side of the house expect the government to deliver—supports that many of our state's most vulnerable people rely on every day.

There should be no question, no doubt in anyone's mind, that we still stand with the people in our community who need our support the most. There should be no question, no doubt in anyone's mind that, in this 54^th parliament, it is the opposition that will stand up for the community sector and organisations that deliver essential services to those in the community most vulnerable and most in need.

I come to this place to advocate for the many essential components of the human services portfolio, which I am lucky enough to hold now as a shadow minister, in good faith and with a strong sense of bipartisanship. In doing so, the community can be confident that I and other members of the opposition will hold the government to account to ensure they deliver the services that our community need to ensure no-one falls through the cracks, that no-one is left behind.

It is a privilege to be given the honour of representing the opposition as shadow minister for human services. Labor has a strong track record in this area, a record we are very proud of.

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: You're joking!

Ms COOK: Settle, member for Unley—I have only just started. When in government, Labor delivered significantly improved services for South Australians living with disabilities. As members would be aware, under the Labor government South Australia was the first state to sign up to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the biggest social reform since the introduction of Medicare. This is something our state and all in this place can be immensely proud of. Through signing up to the NDIS, we were able to double the funding of the disability sector in this state, with total funding to the sector rising to around $1.5 billion per year.

Under the Labor government, we were able to commit some $723 million to the disability sector, and this is a financial commitment that we on this side of the house expect the government to maintain, at the very least, to ensure essential disability services are delivered to those most in need across our state. It is expected that through the previous government's commitment to the NDIS, we have almost doubled the number of South Australians living with a disability that will receive support, increasing the number to about 32,000 receiving support once the NDIS is fully rolled out.

That said, we recognise that a lot is changing in the NDIS area, and there will certainly be challenges. It was only a week ago that South Australians with a disability learned that there was to be a delay in the NDIS rollout in this state. It is when we learn about delays like this that make it so important that the government commits to advocating for the sector in the strongest possible way. I know those opposite maybe have a bit of a record when it comes to picking up the phone and lobbying their federal colleagues—and not a good record at that. However, the NDIS is too important for some of those most in need in our community for those opposite to be afraid to do so.

The Minister for Human Services must work with the federal government and the NDIA to ensure that this time line does not blow out further leaving those requiring essential disability services to wait for an even longer period for support, which would be a shame. The NDIS will mean better care, choice, control and participation in everyday life for people living with a disability. It is focused on ensuring that every community member can participate in every aspect of community life and in our economy. The current government must ensure the resources are available to deliver this significant social reform on time for the benefit of South Australians living with a disability.

The NDIS will also deliver more jobs for South Australia. We know that one in five new jobs created in this country is created in the disability sector and that two in five new jobs are created broadly in health care and wellbeing, and that is nationally, not just South Australia. Around 6,000 new full-time equivalent jobs are expected here in SA through the rollout of the NDIS, which will mean the disability sector will double in size to about 12,000 full-time equivalent positions across our state.

The types of jobs being created are diverse. There are great opportunities in personal care and allied health and in areas like speech pathology, physiotherapy and occupational therapy. There are jobs in transport, IT and, of course, management and administration. We have spoken and spruiked a lot about the STEM opportunities moving forward in our state, but there are also enormous opportunities in caring roles. I understand that we are currently travelling slowly in attracting the employees required to service the needs of the sector.

The government must ensure that South Australians are given every opportunity and every support to take advantage of the careers offered in the disability sector moving forward. I am working now with South Australia's not-for-profit organisations. I am in discussions with many of them to ensure that we work together to build this capacity to fill the jobs that will come online in the sector. After all, it is really one of the most significant job growth opportunities for our state in recent times.

I am not yet convinced that disability and, more broadly speaking, human services, is a key priority for this government. I am sceptical as to the policies and vision that those opposite have when it comes to that sector in our state. I am more than happy to be proven wrong on that. I do hope, for the sake of those in our community who need the services, that I am wrong. I would like to reiterate that, as a first step, the government must demand their federal Liberal colleagues deliver on all promises regarding the NDIS.

On this side of the house, we are committed to listening and to standing up for organisations delivering the essential disability services in South Australia and, of course, the people who need them. The government must ensure that the federal government keep to their promises, ensure that no-one in our community falls through the cracks and that no-one is left behind. They must not let the federal government renege on their commitment or let the NDIA hold back on the funding commitment made for the benefit of South Australians living with a disability.

This government must commit to delivering a more accessible and inclusive South Australia. Over the coming years, I expect this government to commit to supporting local groups in our community delivering programs and services that promote access and inclusion. I look forward to working with the minister in the other place on the Disability Inclusion Bill that is now in front of us. The government must use this as an opportunity. We have to see support to local groups and investment in upgrades, equipment, programs and infrastructure, like accessible playgrounds, beaches, pools and walking trails. This all must be a priority for the government in targeting inclusiveness and safe communities.

The community needs the provision of inclusive sport, art and recreation programs and, of course, the community facilities need to be delivered that meet the needs of all in our community. I am proud of our track record in terms of women's facilities for sport. The previous Labor government invested in much-needed facilities like Changing Places. It provides a service that is a significant change for people with a disability who had to previously change their clothes or attend to bathroom needs in the most inappropriate and undignified places. It was either that or just avoid participating in community life at all. I have heard terrible stories, and I have participated in this myself as a nurse over the years, where grown adults have had to have their clothes changed on the floor of public toilets. It is simply not good enough.

Changing Places toilets provide a range of features not available in standard access toilet facilities, features like height-adjustable, adult-size change tables, a tracking hoist system, non-slip flooring and more space to accommodate a person using a wheelchair and up to two carers. These facilities are much needed, and it is no surprise that they are expensive, but in order to provide dignity in our community we need to invest the money.

If the government is serious about providing the infrastructure for people living with a disability, the infrastructure that they need, they must commit to continuing to expand facilities like the Changing Places accessible toilets across this state. I will help advocate for this. This will ensure that South Australia is a more accessible and inclusive state for everybody. There can be no question, no doubt in anyone's mind, that we will stand with the people in our community who need our support the most.

There should be no question, no doubt, that we will stand with the community sector organisations that deliver the essential services to those in the community who need them most. The community should be confident that I and other members of this Labor opposition will work with and hold the government to account over the next four years to ensure that these services are provided for our community, that nobody falls through the cracks and that nobody is left behind. The government did make some commitments in the lead-up to the last election, which, over the course of this parliament, I will be watching and scrutinising intently.

The first commitment I am watching is the audit of Housing SA properties. I understand from answers to questions in the other place that the purpose of this audit is to provide a condition assessment report on the Housing Trust stock. Make no mistake, we will always advocate for a well-resourced public housing system that provides quality affordable housing for those in our community who require it. We will hold the government to account as it undertakes the audit process and deliberates on the recommendations that may come from it. I look forward to hearing more detail on this audit process, particularly who is actually undertaking it.

The second point I would like to make is in relation to the government's commitments to amalgamate the functions of Housing SA and Renewal SA. Again, in answers that have been provided from the minister in the other place, she has indicated that work is underway with a project team that consists of members of Renewal SA and Housing SA to determine what the new housing authority should look like.

I understand from remarks that the team is currently considering a range of options, which it is expected will require machinery of government changes and, potentially, legislative changes. I look forward to a robust discussion around this to ensure that we get the best result for the community. The government will need to convince the community on how the competing objectives of these two very different authorities will develop the essential housing and support services required by some of the most vulnerable people in our state.

I would like to close my contribution to the debate by speaking about some of the commitments and investment for the wonderful people living in my electorate of Hurtle Vale and some of the services and investments they require. As I have said previously, it is an honour to have been given the privilege—as it is for all members in this place—to represent our community, and my community is the good people of Hurtle Vale.

Let me start by commending the government for its commitment before the election to install surface lights at the intersection of Main South Road and the Southern Expressway, Kenihans Road and Panalatinga Road. I look forward to receiving information from the minister in the very near future regarding the time line for the implementation of this upgrade. This will give people in the area, particularly those visiting the area, some confidence using an intersection that takes some getting used to.

During my term as a member of parliament for the seat of Fisher, our government, the Labor government, invested a lot of money in road upgrades in the area. Just to touch on the areas, there was Kenihans Road with an intersection of Regency Road and Bishops Hill Road, which had been a big problem since I was a learner driver—so a couple of years ago. It took a lot of planning and a lot of consultation with the community, but it seems now that an upgrade to this area has led to reduced fear and worry for use of the intersection. I have had good reports from locals, so I am very happy with that advocacy.

Blacks Road was given a full upgrade of surface. It was an undulating surface prior to that and now is a much smoother ride, and the locals are very happy with that. Chandlers Hill Road had large potholes and was a very rough journey along the stretch between Kenihans Road and Happy Valley Drive. With a few little hiccups along the way, that surface has certainly smoothed out, and people are happy with that also. The surface on Happy Valley Drive was also redone earlier in the piece.

In the last year of government I was able to achieve other investments in programs and projects in the local community of Hurtle Vale. A $30,000 investment in essential upgrades is coming to the Hurtle John Potter Reserve in Woodcroft, which hopefully will make that area a much safer and more comfortable place for young people to gather and use the skate park. There was no shade and no water supply, so I am very happy about that upgrade.

There is $10,000 to repair the Lisa King mural at Base 10 youth centre, which was vandalised in the early part of the year. That will be repainted soon and bring a great sense of pride to the people who use that youth centre. At Morphett Vale basketball Stadium, the home of the Tigers and the home of many other social and competitive clubs, a $290,000 investment is being made to repair the roof which had been leaking on and off for 10 years and causing surface damage and injuries. As that area is a new part of my electorate, I am very happy to see that that is now getting repaired.

I am pleased also that during the course of the election complain—campaign; was that a Freudian slip, using the word complain instead of campaign, Mr Speaker? It could be; I'm not sure. During that campaign I secured a commitment for a $1.3 million investment towards a nature play upgrade and other facilities at the Wilfred Taylor Reserve, which the Liberal Party matched. That will not only benefit Hurtle Vale; that will benefit the seats of Black, Garner, Reynell, Davenport, Mawson, potentially Heysen as well because that is not far away, and Gibson. It will really benefit a lot of people and attract people to the area and hopefully stimulate some local economy as well, creating jobs. I am very happy about that investment.

I am committed to continuing to impress upon the government the need to continuously improve the services and infrastructure in the electorate of Hurtle Vale for the benefit of all of my constituents. I look forward to putting on the table investments in areas like the female change facilities and upgrade of clubrooms in some of the sporting clubs like the Morphett Vale football club. I am also looking forward to talking to the Minister for Road Safety regarding the traffic issues around the Woodcroft Primary School, a rather large primary school, which has significant traffic issues before and after school.

I will finish my contribution by committing to the people living in the electorate of Hurtle Vale and across South Australia this: the Labor opposition will listen to your concerns and act in your interests. When it comes to vulnerable people in our community, we are the party that represents you and we are the party that will stand with you to ensure that no South Australian slips through the cracks, no South Australian is left behind. To ensure that every South Australian has the opportunity to live a fulfilling, safe and prosperous life here in the beautiful state of South Australia we need a cooperative and sensible approach, and I look forward to working with all members in the house as we deliver on this Supply Bill.

Mr BASHAM (Finniss) (20:54): I rise to speak in support of the Supply Bill. There are several issues that I would like to raise, particularly in the area of Finniss, that I have concern about how they have been managed over the past years. One issue was raised with me only last week, which was to do with the Mount Compass Area School.

The Mount Compass Area School has been expecting some significant development to fix some problems that have been there for many years. About 20 years ago, in a very quick rush they decided that they needed a temporary building, which was meant to last four to five years. That building is still there. They still have to use that building. They still have buckets sitting permanently in the spots where the roof leaks. The roof has leaked basically the whole time that building has been there.

I had a phone call from the chairman of the governing council last week and he said that he is so hopeful that eventually the commitment of funds will actually turn up to address this problem. In speaking to the education minister, I am pleased that that funding is on its way. Their bigger concern was that they had also received some other funding. They received some STEM funding for some development there, and the chairman's comments to me were, 'It's a bit like giving the kids a PlayStation when they don't own a television.' They just do not have the basics. They are getting the specials, but they do not have the basics. To me, this is because of the mismanagement that has occurred throughout the region.

Turning to health, there has certainly been a problem with health services in Finniss. This was highlighted to me on the night of 2 May, the night before we first sat here in this place. Unfortunately, I had to spend some time in the emergency department at Flinders Medical Centre as one of my family members was unwell. We spoke to my father-in-law, who is a retired GP, and he was concerned about the symptoms of my family member. He said that there was no point in going to the South Coast District Hospital because it no longer has the required doctors and local GPs operating in that hospital. He said that the services there were probably not adequate and that we would need to go to Flinders.

I guess the big positive of the night was that, as we walked into Flinders and were lining up to see the triage nurse, I overheard the conversation in front of me. The triage nurse said to the patient in front of me, 'It's really great, the department is now being helpful; we have had a change of government.' I was quite amazed. I wondered who told them a member of the government had just walked in, but I do not think they knew. So we are starting to see things flow through and we are seeing the effects. The level of confidence is changing, which is so important. It is not just about what we spend and where we spend it; it is actually about shifting confidence as well.

I am so pleased to be part of this government. I am pleased that we can deliver these measures for the communities of Finniss. One concern I have is that we have also lost the community spirit to help itself, and we need to bring that back. One of the commitments that the Liberal Marshall government made in the election was to fund a playground at Mount Compass. I think that is fantastic, but I think it is a little bit sad that every other playground that has ever been built in Mount Compass has been funded by its own community fundraising, and the community does not think that is even something they should be doing any more. They think that a grant is just going to be given to them. I would love to bring the community back to the point of thinking that those who help themselves are the ones we want to help.

I want to keep my speech really short because I think it is so important that we get this Supply Bill through, so I am going to sit down at this point.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (20:59): I rise to speak on the debate of the Supply Bill 2018, which is obviously the first bill that this government is seeking to have debated and passed through this house. As far as the number of dollars per words go, it would have to be right up there in terms of the percentage. Essentially, on this one piece of paper the government is asking for $6.6 billion from the Consolidated Account. This is what they are asking for up to 30 June 2019.

We have no detail as to what the government wants to spend this money on. We have no detail. In fact, ministers basically cannot answer the simplest questions in question time as to how they are going to outline what their commitments are or how they are going to implement them, yet they come to this house and rush through this bill, basically, to give them $6.6 billion to spend. No briefing was offered to the shadow minister outlining this. They have delayed the budget until September. We know that the shadow treasurer is working on what cuts he is going to implement across the budget and across the government, and this is obviously a significant concern in my new portfolio in the health sector.

Of course, we have no detail, but one presumes that roughly one-third of this $6.6 billion is going to go to the health system. Hence, it is a pretty significant liability, in terms of the amount of money coming out of this bill, for the health system. I am very proud to take on the health portfolio. It would have to be one of the most significant and important roles to have in parliament, and in government.

In South Australia, we have a health system that, on the whole, provides good outcomes for patients. On the whole, if you compare it internationally with health systems around the world, it performs very well. Sadly, over the past 16 years we have heard the trashing by members opposite of our doctors and nurses who work in our health sector, which is very disappointing—trashing of the work they are doing day in and day out to provide excellent services for South Australians.

We know that we have amazing, dedicated staff in our health sector—doctors, nurses and allied health professionals—who work very hard to deliver results. We know that we now have excellent facilities across our state. We have upgraded every major hospital across Adelaide, and a very large number of our major regional hospitals as well, to give those doctors and nurses the upgraded facilities they need to provide excellent services for the people of South Australia.

We know that we have strong public health laws in South Australia. We know that we have a well-funded system. We know that over the past 16 years the health budget has increased dramatically—it has roughly tripled over that period of time—to ensure that our doctors and nurses have the resources that we need to meet the ever-increasing demands on our health system across South Australia.

Personally, I am proud to have worked in health policy areas before, being involved both at a state and national level in health reform. I know it is complex work, I know it is difficult work, but it is very important work. The people of South Australia look to this parliament to make good decisions and to ensure that we are looking after their best interests in the health sector, and to make sure that we continue to provide high quality services on a universal basis, on an affordable basis, to ensure that when and where they need services they will be available.

We do have a number of significant challenges facing our health services, namely, the ageing population. That is something that has been widely noted, and this state is facing that curve faster than other states. It is increasing the demand that we are seeing upon emergency departments, increasing the demand that we are seeing across the primary and aged-care sectors as well, and that is placing additional strain upon emergency departments, elective surgery and the like.

We are seeing increasing costs in our health services, and that is another challenge as well. We are also having to adapt to new technology use across health services. All of those are challenges to confront in the future, but I am very confident that we have excellent doctors and nurses. We just need to make sure there is leadership and that there is actually some planning in place.

When you look at what those opposite proposed when they went to the election, essentially it was, 'Well, we will fix the health system.' But when you look at the next level of detail of what they are proposing—when you lift the hood and look at their policies—it is very bare indeed: back to the future in terms of going back to health boards, creating a range of governance challenges with their proposals to do that, creating the ability for our health services to be competing with each other and to be duplicating services rather than working together, for things to be fragmented and for there to be no clear lines of accountability. If a health service is accountable to the board, the minister, the department and the parliament, the lines are very blurred and it creates all sorts of problems.

Those are the problems we saw in South Australia when we had these health boards, both in the city and in the country, where we had three levels, essentially, of governance in our Country Health services: local, regional and central. This is essentially what the Liberal Party proposed with splitting the country into six regional health boards, keeping the local health advisory councils and presumably keeping some sort of central oversight as well. We are going to have three levels of oversight. That is clearly not going to be a recipe for fixing issues in the health sector.

They have also said that they are going to introduce a whole range of very populist policies that we know have a range of risks attached to them. There is no doubt that putting more services into hospitals can be very popular, but the government needs to advise what the risks of that are and how they are going to address those risks. For instance, with the Modbury high dependency unit, the government has not provided details of how they are going to address the risks of that. We have heard the health minister say that he has received advice from the health department that there are clinical patient risks to this. What are those risks? Will he release advice about what the risks are? Are lives going to be put at risk?

These are things where the government needs to provide transparency, particularly when we are talking about patient safety. Clearly, he has received this advice. How are they going to address that in the future? There is no detail there. They have had letters from very senior clinicians in South Australia, outlining the risks associated with their policies. They have gone ahead with it because it is clearly populist policy, but if you read the advice we are getting from clinicians and the advice the minister said he got from the department, there are very serious questions they need to answer about what they are going to put in place.

We also understand there has been some advice that basically says that putting elective surgery into the Repatriation General Hospital is going to be very difficult, very expensive and very risky. The minister has not outlined how he is going to do that, when he is going to do that and what services are going to go in there. Essentially, this was a thought bubble, a populist announcement during an election campaign. But they are now the government. They have to outline how they are going to do this. We know the department is telling them that it is a bad idea and it is going to be very expensive as well.

These are the sorts of election policies that they announced, none of which constitutes a comprehensive plan for fixing the health system. They have said that they are going to fix the health system, but when you look at the details of their policies there is no detail as to how that is going to happen. I think there are some very significant risks that we are going see over the next four years. Risk number one, essentially, is the detail that hides behind this one page and this $6.6 billion request for funding from the parliament, namely, what is the Treasurer, the Hon. Rob Lucas in the other place, going to cut from the health system? What cuts is he working on right now with his Department of Treasury and Finance that are going to affect Health?

We know the track record of this Treasurer when it comes to the health system. We know it is about closing beds. We know it is about—

An honourable member: Privatising Modbury.

Mr PICTON: —yes, that is right—privatising hospitals, as we have seen in the past with the Modbury Hospital. We have asked a number of questions of the health minister in recent days and he has been unable to rule out privatising a whole range of different services in our health system.

Clinical services provided by clinicians, that are provided by publicly run services at the moment, are potentially at risk from privatisation in the future. This is a very serious threat to our health system. If the government is not considering this in the future, they should rule this out, but they refused to do so. It is causing concern amongst clinicians, amongst doctors, nurses and allied health professionals in our health workforce, and it will be causing significant concerns amongst patients.

We know what they did with Modbury and we know what they wanted to do with The QEH. What is that going to mean for SA Pathology? What is that going to mean for out-of-hospital services across the state? What is that going to mean for X-ray services? There is a whole range of different clinical services. What is going to be privatised? Those questions have not been answered.

Look at what the government has done in the health sector since they came into government. There have been some very significant failings. I think first and foremost was their complete acquiescence to the federal government in terms of rushing to sign up to the federal funding agreement, locking in Malcolm Turnbull's cuts to the health system, cruel cuts that Tony Abbott brought in and that Malcolm Turnbull has continued as Prime Minister.

This government was fighting fiercely, absolutely fiercely, to defend South Australia's interests, to defend what we had originally, which was a signed deal between the commonwealth and the state where the commonwealth would commit 50 per cent of growth funding in our hospital system. That is not important just from the perspective of providing that 50 per cent of funding, it is also very important for making sure that the commonwealth has the incentive to invest in primary health care and to invest in aged-care services.

We know that the hospital system is not an island, that it relies upon those connections to services outside of hospital to ensure that we can keep people out of hospital, or if they go to hospital that they have somewhere to go afterwards. If the commonwealth government has no incentive in terms of reducing expenditure on hospitals, then they have no incentive to invest more in primary health care and aged care.

We have seen this federal government's cuts to those sectors already. We have seen what they have been doing to the Medicare system in terms of capping NBS indexation and we have seen some of the cuts they have made to the aged-care sector around the country, particularly when you look at some of the dementia nurses who were cut in the first Hockey-Abbott budget. These are not just esoteric debating points. These have real effects on the ground, not just for those services but for the people who come through our hospital doors.

The new Marshall government has come in and said, 'We are just going to sign up. Show us the dotted line and we will sign up.' They have signed up to a deal that gives us less funding, that does not give the federal government a fifty-fifty share in new services. They have signed up for a deal where there is a cap on the growth that they will pay into the future.

We know that we have an ageing population. We know that we have increasing health demands and we know that that will mean that our health costs will increase rapidly in the future, but we have signed up to a deal now, through this government, where we are just going to set an arbitrary cap and the commonwealth is off the hook after that. If the commonwealth gets off the hook, what incentive do they have to invest in those other services? That is a very significant problem. I think that it is going to play out not only in the short term but over the long term.

We saw what a difference federal funding can make only recently with Mr Shorten's budget reply speech, where he announced that he would restore another $2.8 billion to hospitals over the coming years to reverse those cuts. If that is the case, why has this government not picked up the phone to Malcolm Turnbull and asked for the same deal? Why has this government not done that? Why has this government not stood up for South Australia and done that?

It is because we know that they just want to have a happy snap with the federal government, sign on the dotted line and not cause any problems for their Liberal masters in Canberra. I think that is going to be very disappointing in the long term for South Australia because we know that getting those funding arrangements right between the state and the commonwealth is going to be so important.

We have seen already a lot of the delays that have happened in relation to vaccinations. We came out and called for the government to introduce flu shots for children under the age of five. It took them a little while, but they came out and agreed to do that. That is excellent. It is something that was vitally important. It is something that we think the now government should have committed to during the election campaign as well.

However, they still have not moved on what is another vital area of vaccination policy, and that is to ensure that our kids in South Australia can get access to meningococcal B vaccines. We put our money on the table and said that we would ensure that we would cover the cost of kids getting access to meningococcal B vaccinations. Anybody who has gone through this process in terms of talking to their doctor about it would know that the costs are massive. Because it is not covered by the PBS yet and because, sadly, it is predominantly an issue in South Australia and not in other states, what we see is that families are having to shell out at least $500 to get these vaccinations done.

Parents are very worried about this, but parents cannot afford that cost. This is an area where the government needs to step in and step in quickly. After we called upon the government to match our promise, we released all our costing documents that we had on this, documented from the Parliamentary Budget Office. Of course, we know that the now government refused to use it and hence a lot of their costings are going to be way off.

We gave them those documents. Did they say, 'We are going to do this'? No, they said, 'We're going to have a committee to look at it.' It has been weeks and weeks now and we still have not heard if they are actually going to do this. I hope that they take swift action on this because I know that families in South Australia are desperately wanting to make sure that their kids are vaccinated. I do not want to see more kids in South Australia contract this very dangerous, very deadly disease.

We have seen the minister refuse to rule out privatisation. We have seen the minister and the Premier sack the chief executive of the hospital system. In fact, I think the minister was quite keen to keep her, given how effective she had been in running the hospital system and the health system over the past year. He seemed to be quite keen, but the Premier stepped in and said, 'You're out.' They sacked her and brought in somebody new. I hope he goes very well, but I worry that it is an unnecessary change, in that the previous chief executive was performing quite well in addressing a number of the challenges that our system faced and it is going to be an unnecessary disruption to our system.

Importantly, we have not yet seen from the government their winter management plan. We are not that long away from entering winter. Anecdotally, lots of people are getting the flu already and we have seen the official statistics show that our flu cases are already higher than last year, and yet we have seen no plan from the government. It is almost unprecedented for the government not to have a winter bed management plan, particularly due to the fact that we have seen what happened last year.

We saw a record number of flu cases last year, and it is very important that we ensure that the government has a plan in place for what extra resources are going to go in, what extra beds are going to open, what extra ambulance services need to happen, what extra out of hospital services they are going to employ, and how they are going to spend some of this $6.6 billion that they are asking the parliament for to ensure that, during the winter period, our hospitals are going to be looked after.

For weeks, we have been calling upon the government to release this plan. They have refused to do so either because it is secret or because they do not have a plan. I suspect it is the latter. That makes me very fearful about what is going to happen over this winter if there is no plan in place to do that.

All of this, of course, leads into the risk of cuts happening. I say this: if we see cuts happening in our health system in South Australia, we in the Labor Party will fight that every inch of the way. This is a government that came in promising not to cut the health system. They promised to fix the health system.

If they breach that promise, if they implement cuts, if we see beds closing, if we see doctors and nurses losing their jobs, if we see important programs closing across South Australia, then we will be there fighting every inch of the way, fighting for health services in South Australia to ensure that we look after the patients and we do not see what happened under Mr Lucas's previous term as treasurer.

Ms LUETHEN (King) (21:19): I rise to support the Supply Bill. We are being asked to allow the government to spend $6.631 billion of taxpayers' money, and I support that principle. I support that principle because, although we inherited a forward trajectory when it comes to expenditure growth and debt, I am confident that our new government will plan and control expenditure better than any other previous government.

We have long-term sustainable plans. If the Supply Bill is not passed, it will not allow the continued payment of our public servants until the Appropriation Bill is passed by parliament later this year. The focus of the 2018-19 budget will be the implementation of our election commitments as well as developing a sustainable budget position. The passing of the Supply Bill is essential for the timely delivery of these commitments. Our election commitments cover key areas, including:

creating a more competitive place to do business through initiatives such as scrapping payroll tax for small businesses, deregulating shop trading hours to allow businesses to remain open, and cutting land tax;

slashing ESL bills by $90 million per annum; and

a range of major transport, health and education projects, which will include our $110 million investment in Modbury Hospital.

More specific King election commitments cover key projects including the upgrade of Golden Grove Road. I have been pushing for this upgrade on behalf of my community for nearly four years now. The importance of this upgrade was raised to me by residents in 2014 when I first doorknocked for the Tea Tree Gully council elections.

I subsequently raised the desire of residents for this upgrade with council's elected members and gained unanimous support at the Tea Tree Gully council to advocate to the previous state government for the upgrade of Golden Grove Road. However, because the state government would not commit to the upgrade of the road, I made the Golden Grove Road upgrade an election issue in 2017, and was thrilled by the support of residents and local businesses for my petition.

Golden Grove Road is an essential road used by thousands of north-eastern suburbs locals each day. The Labor government failed to provide sufficient investment as the population grew, leading to many issues including:

the road is too narrow to cater for existing traffic flows, with turning cars and stopping buses creating chaos;

the poor condition of the road surface and the lack of overtaking lanes create safety risks;

locals have no safe place to walk, and a lack of footpaths near bus stops forces people to walk on uneven and often muddy tracks;

insufficient stormwater drainage causes the road to flood after rains, creating dangerous situations for pedestrians and cars; and

the busy intersection of Hancock Road and Golden Grove Road is unsafe for local traffic.

Local residents and businesses are heavily dependent on this stretch of road, so we must have a solution and funding to fix the problem. There are over 1,200 signatures on the petition, and below are samples of some of the comments sent to me from residents:

Turning right from John Road is increasingly more difficult, especially at peak times, with more and more traffic from both directions due to housing developments and shops.

Lots of work needs to be done to improve Hancock Road, better lighting all the way, kerbing, footpaths, this road is no longer a country road. It is never been upgraded and ought to have been.

The businesses on Greenwith Road and Einstein Drive suffer because of time delays and this would make the area more accessible and give growth to those that would be happier to travel a bit further out if the path was more free-flowing. The Hancock Road/Golden Grove Road intersection drastically needs a change, lights or roundabout.

The road surface is uneven and causing more damage to our cars. The intersection of Hancock Road and Golden Grove Road is dangerous and so is the intersection of John Road and Golden Grove Road. These both need traffic lights and I'm amazed no-one has been seriously injured or killed there.

I have nearly been killed there myself with my nine-year-old in the car turning right from Hancock onto Golden Grove Road.

The intersection of Golden Grove Road and Hancock Road is a death trap. I travel this road every day and am constantly furious over its condition and lack of proper maintenance.

When campaigning to have this road fixed, on the side of the road I was nervous when I saw joggers, pedestrians and cyclists struggling to use this narrow, poorly maintained road with no footpaths at the same time as negotiating trucks, buses, cars. I saw people getting off buses on uneven rubble paths in the dust on hot days and stepping into puddles on wet days.

People who signed the petition who regularly use this road do not just live in King but all the way out to Gawler. Furthermore, my neighbours in Golden Grove and Surrey Downs, who live alongside Golden Grove Road, raised the issue of noise and dust problems from trucks bumping up and down the old country road, which they have been putting up with for too many years. Funding of this upgrade means real change for the residents of King.

Similarly when I doorknocked in the area of Hillbank where people must enter their estate through Skyline Drive, I was repeatedly told about people's concern turning from Blacktop Road into Skyline Drive. Moreover, the trucks and commuters travelling up Blacktop Road support the addition of a new slip lane into Skyline Drive as this turn-off is sharp and sudden and is in a location where drivers are accelerating up a hill. The issue for all drivers is one of safety. Our election promise is to deliver a slip lane to make this turn-off safer for all drivers.

We are committed to fixing the South Australian Districts Netball Association (SADNA) car parking situation, which will benefit so many people who visit the SADNA courts at Golden Grove and the residents. Finally, we will deliver more car parks at the Golden Grove park-and-ride, so more people can easily use public transport. With this funding support we will deliver for the people of King. I support the Supply Bill. I have confidence in our new government to carefully allocate South Australian taxpayers' money.

While we are going through a transition, we are looking to the future. We are focused and disciplined, committed to real change and, most importantly, to leadership and accountability to the people of South Australia. Our plan is for a stronger economy, more jobs and to ensure that all of the essential services provided by our government are fully funded. I encourage all members to support the Supply Bill.

Ms BETTISON (Ramsay) (21:26): We are here in this house to talk about the Supply Bill, and what is this bill for? This bill is about us continuing to pay to keep the state going, to provide our services in education, health, transport and justice. But, of course, we do not have that detail before us today. My particular area of interest is tourism, trade and investment. We know that in A Strong Plan for South Australia the Marshall government has identified key areas in the tourism portfolio to continue to increase the numbers of tourists to South Australia and to continue Labor's great legacy of building our tourism sector. Far be it from being Adelaide centric, it has an impact on the whole state.

The details we have are that the proposed event bid fund has an increase of money of $40 million over four years. That funding is going to be equally spent between the major event fund and the convention bid fund. The support of Adelaide Convention Bureau's Billion Dollar Benefit plan aims to better target conventions and encourage delegates to linger longer. The expected cost for this is $5 million. There are smaller areas in our regional perspectives; for example, extending the Cape Jervis breakwater by 100 metres to maximise the KI ferry at a cost of $2 million. Of course, there is the desire to increase ecotourism accommodation in national parks.

A bipartisan supported project from both sides was the Chinatown redevelopment alongside the Central Market upgrade, supporting our economic and cultural ties with China. The proposed Great Southern Bike Trail will be a world-class cycling trail, working alongside the federal and Victorian governments to have it linked with other existing bike trails, all the way from Adelaide to Melbourne over 1,000 kilometres.

The purpose of that is quite positive: to leverage off the Tour Down Under (TDU). Just yesterday we heard how successful this event is now in its 20^th year. We had 43,000 interstate and overseas visitors to our state which generated $63.7 million. In its time here, it has created 774 jobs. We know that there are opportunities here with the economic benefits of cycling tourism, and we know that this proposal would look towards that.

We all know that tourism is a massive economic growth area for our state, and every elected member is equally committed to seeing South Australian tourism continue to grow and to flourish. Therefore, one would think that tourism would be an area in which we could look forward to working in a bipartisan manner with the government. However, my concern—and we are talking about money in the outlined proposal—is how much it will cost.

We have some propositions. We have some proposals. Where will this money be sourced from and how will these commitments be delivered? These are some of my concerns. Following the recent awarding of a major tourism advertising contract by the government to an interstate firm and their clearly political appointment to the SATC Board, this will be a space to watch with some interest. I look forward to seeing continued growth in this sector, and we have an ambitious plan of more than $8 billion in this tourism sector. I think we can get there, but I will be watching how we are going to do that.

Let me pivot towards trade and investment. We had a very clear statement in the election proposals that we needed a trade way of transforming. Trade is the opportunity to transform the South Australian economy. One of the areas of focus, of course, is to create brand-new trade offices in Japan, Malaysia, Dubai, the USA, Shanghai and an additional embedded office in Guangzhou for an export-led recovery for South Australia through deeper, long-term engagement. Yet, again we have no costings for this proposal.

There are other areas we see some focus on: increasing the funding to StudyAdelaide to $2.5 million to support them in promoting Adelaide as a centre of educational excellence and encouraging more students to live and spend time here and to have Adelaide, South Australia, as a destination of choice for international students. We have had some growth in this area, and I am very proud of this growth—once again, another Labor legacy. We are on the same page here; we want to grow this sector of our economy.

We know that there is opportunity to continue to export our goods and also our services while at the same time building investment locally. We hear that the government's objective is to double the international student ambassador campaign and strengthen our interaction with overseas education agents. In other areas, the government has asked Food SA to focus on growing markets, on growing the capabilities of individual businesses and linking industry with export support through a liaison officer. This is an excellent part of our economy.

In 2016-17, the food and wine industry generated almost $20 billion in revenue and contributed almost half of South Australia's total merchandise exports. It is a natural growth area, identified by both the former and current governments capitalising on our clean, green image. I am particularly interested in and remain focused on what we see in the northern Adelaide region, with the development with additional water available, and to see that become the food bowl of South Australia.

Defence has also been recognised by the new government as an area of focus. Again, there are many areas of common ground between the vision of the Marshall Liberal government and that of the former government in terms of our commitment to export and investment growth. However, there are also many unanswered questions in regard to the continuation of successful programs, such as Investment Attraction South Australia, the International Education Office, the Industry Capability Network and planned business missions. We will welcome the clarification. I will be listening and I will be watching to see where the new government will land on these areas.

Let me go back briefly to the issue of trade offices and unpack the status quo and the plans by the Marshall government in more detail. The South Australian government currently has commercial representation in key targets in the form of trade offices or being embedded in Austrade. Our overseas staff members provide export assistance to South Australian businesses and help attract business investment and migration to the state. We currently have trade offices stand alone in China—in Jinan—and of course in the United Kingdom, servicing Europe. In the others, we are embedded in Austrade: Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand.

The Marshall government is proposing to create new trade offices in Japan, Malaysia, Dubai, the US and Shanghai and an additional embedded office in Guangzhou, for an export-led recovery for South Australia. Yet again, we have no costings, so the financial impact of the budget is unknown. The question is how much of this Supply Bill will go to these trade offices?

We know that our Jinan trade office in China has an estimated budget of $326,000 for 2018-19. Based on this, the establishment of five new stand-alone trade offices is likely to have a minimum budget of more than $6 million over the next four years, but it could be significantly more. The key question here is what business case shows return of investment of new stand-alone offices versus being embedded with Austrade. What are the facts? What is the business case? Will this get us to where we jointly want to be?

Other state governments have also taken different approaches to this question. Victoria currently has 20 stand-alone trade offices, while New South Wales has 11, with roughly half of those embedded with Austrade and half stand alone. Western Australia has eight stand-alone offices. The total operation costs of the WA offices, including property, employees and others, is just shy of $7 million. However, Western Australian trade offices employ locally engaged staff on a contract basis on local salary scales. They do not receive additional allowances or accommodation, and therefore this is a more economical alternative to employing Australian staff to work overseas.

Obviously, stand-alone offices are more expensive options than their embedded Austrade counterparts. Even more obviously, employing Australians for overseas trade office posts is more expensive than employing local staff. The merit of independent trade offices will largely be assessed by the cost of the policy and by the return of investment that can be evidenced, but it will be expensive. What kind of trade offices are we going to have? Are we going to have the Rolls-Royce of trade offices? If we do, will we see the benefit? Those are my questions.

There was a Labor review of South Australian export trade in 2012—the Hartley review—which proposed a shift in priority from trade facilitation to inward investment. To achieve this, it was determined to continue to embed our overseas trade offices with Austrade, increase the frequency of our trade missions and pursue a clear export trade strategy with measurable targets. It also paved the way for the closure of our stand-alone trade offices at that time.

There is evidence that increased and direct trade missions by local business has increased exports for South Australian businesses. In 2017, more than 300 businesses, featuring 423 delegates, participated in outbound missions to 21 countries. This resulted in 60 South Australian businesses becoming exporters over that time period, an additional 60, and 10 more than the South Australian government target. My concern is that the money we are talking today about the supply, some of which I assume—because we do not have this in writing; we do not have this detail—will be needed to establish and operate the five new trade offices. Will this come at the expense of direct funding to South Australian businesses that want to start exporting or diversify, but more importantly, grow?

It is still unclear whether the planned trade missions for 2018 will now continue under a Marshall Liberal government. I have them noted, and I will be watching. I look forward to monitoring the progress in these vital areas of tourism, trade and investment. Let me be clear about the outstanding questions. Will the Marshall government deliver on the previously scheduled business delegations, advertised in advance, to give businesses in South Australia certainty, continuity and commitment?

The one thing I heard when I went on the trade missions is: 'We want to continue to develop our relationship, and this will take time. We need certainty, and we need a commitment that these will continue.' Has the government done any costings for the new trade offices? It is an ambitious plan, but I think it will be costly. And will the Marshall Liberal government honour the $60 million committed to Investment Attraction South Australia for supporting new businesses to invest here, for job creation and for growth?

I now have the opportunity to mention a few of the key areas in my own electorate. Once again we are being asked to support the Supply Bill, which involves a significant amount of money. At the heart is our Building Better Schools initiative. Settlers Farm Campus R-7, Paralowie R-12 School and Salisbury High School were all successful in receiving support to upgrade their facilities. All three of these schools in my electorate are large, but they are beacons of support, growth and positivity as we support our children to complete their schooling to support their future endeavours.

Recently, the proposal was to have our second synthetic athletics track in the state at Brahma Lodge, previously in my electorate and now snugly next door to it. We have a commitment through sport and rec, but we want to make sure that that athletics track is delivered. Further to that, we are keen to have the linkages supported—to support liveability in the City of Salisbury—from the Salisbury Interchange to the Bridgestone athletics redevelopment.

There is the electrification. Electrification to Salisbury is already underway, and we understand there are commitments for that to continue to Gawler. Of course, along with that we need a new interchange, and I will be speaking to the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government over and over again about that commitment for Salisbury. That brings me to the issue of the railway crossing.

I had much support in the electorate—and I continue to do so—on our commitment to support congestion issues throughout South Australia and more importantly in relation to the Park Terrace railway crossing. For someone who is dropping their child off on occasion to school, it could take one minute, or eight, to go through that crossing, and for people who do that several times a day, whether for domestic purposes or business purposes, it is something that holds up many things in the electorate. We have some costs out there in terms of going under or over, and as local member I will continue to pursue that opportunity to unlock and lessen the congestion within my electorate.

Today, we are supporting this Supply Bill, but it is a concern—without details and information. Although we have plans and we have some proposals and some figures of what it might cost, there are no details here. We are on the same page in relation to tourism because we want to grow the tourism economy in South Australia. We are very proud of being a livable and attractive place to be. We want to increase investment in our state—we agree with that—and we want to increase exporting to the world. We agree on all these issues. Our path to get there may be different and the cost may be different—and I will be watching.