Bills

Appropriation Bill 2018

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (15:38): It would probably be wrong to say that it is with pleasure that I rise to speak to the Appropriation Bill, given that this is the first Liberal budget in many years and it is certainly back to the future. I am old enough to remember being around during the last period of Liberal government in South Australia, and indeed I lived in a regional community at that time. In that regional community and in others, one of the strong memories is the level of cutbacks to services in regional South Australia; it was very disturbing.

That is not to say there were not good people in that government. Indeed, some of those people I respect and still respect today. They are still out there in different roles making a contribution to South Australia. It was certainly a very hard period. It was especially hard in a community like Whyalla, which was already experiencing significant job losses, to have a whole range of other cuts imposed on the community. It is in contrast to what happened with the Labor government: when we went through a hard time, they were there to provide the support that was necessary.

We often hear from the Liberal government that regions matter, with hashtags all over it. Premier Marshall and his Treasurer, Rob Lucas, delivered a budget that could not be further from the truth when it comes to support for regional South Australia. Certainly, the delivery was not commensurate with the rhetoric in the lead-up to the budget.

The Hon. T.J. Whetstone interjecting:

Mr HUGHES: I will get on to that. I am always willing to acknowledge those good things. We might as well just get the high school out of the way because that was a very positive thing. It was not so much an initiative, because we announced our commitment to that in the half-year budget review, but a solid commitment that we would deliver on.

The Hon. T.J. Whetstone interjecting:

Mr HUGHES: It was there in the half-year budget review as a commitment. I will concede that there is something that I quite liked about the commitment in the budget, that is, that it would be funded as a traditional Labor government funded project rather than as a PPP. PPPs can be useful, but I am a bit of an agnostic when it comes to them.

In the lead-up to the budget, we had a Liberal government that ignored some of the state's farmers, who are currently experiencing extremely dry conditions and dire weather conditions in some parts of our state. We had the minister offer counselling, and there are additional counselling services. We were writing letters to the federal government because we missed out with the last round of funding when it came to assistance for communities impacted by serious adverse weather conditions. Whereas councils and communities in Queensland and New South Wales received a significant amount of money from the federal government, we missed out.

I was expecting some tangible support for farmers in this budget, but I cannot find it. It was a bit of a surprise and a great let down to our primary producers, those living in regional South Australia and across the board, not just in relation to agriculture. It looks like quite a significant cut to regional road funding in the order of $26 million. There is the slashing of key initiatives in PIRSA and not funding female change rooms in the regions. Indeed, when you look at the funding for sport and rec, one of the things that stands out is just how much is going to the metropolitan areas; hardly anything is going to regional South Australia.

The government has turned its back on the state's 277,000 recreational fishers. It is closing TAFE facilities in Roxby Downs and Coober Pedy. Instead of looking at ways of rebuilding and rejuvenating TAFE, which I think is necessary in those communities, no, we close them down. When you look at TAFE in Roxby Downs—and Roxby Downs is going to be expanding—and the contrast with when we were in government, and the amount of money we put into educational resources in Roxby Downs, with the government we now have, it is disturbing.

Once again, we have put back on the agenda the threat to privatise Pathology SA and the undermining of the important work that service provides to regional communities. When it comes to Pathology SA, some of the exchanges yesterday were interesting when it was said, 'We were going to do exactly the same thing.' Well, no, we were not, because I was very heavily involved in the discussion about Pathology SA earlier on in the term of the last government, and a consultant's report about Pathology SA had a line about reviewing that service with a view to looking at privatisation, and I knew that would have a very negative impact on regional South Australia especially.

The minister at the time was the Hon. Jack Snelling. I went to see Jack and I said, 'Let's not have this review, this privatisation. Even looking at it is a waste of time. It’s the wrong thing to do.' It was cut off at the knees, and we went on the public record, we went on the media, to indicate that we would not be pursuing that particular agenda that was recommended by that consultant at the time.

There is a range of cuts. There are changes at the South Australian Research Development Institute (SARDI), with more than $5 million to be pulled out of that organisation, or for it to find additional cost recovery, and this comes at a time when parts of our farming sector are struggling. A lot of the stuff in the budget is a bit of pea-and-fumble, and I will try to get on to some of that stuff in a minute.

A number of people approached me expressing concern about the potential in the budget to impose those cuts on SARDI. As we know, SARDI undertakes vital research to help make South Australia's primary industries and regions internationally competitive, and this is done through a range of programs to help increase primary producers' productivity and sustainability while creating opportunities for market growth. It is integral to the primary industries sector, so it is something that should be looked after.

It is worth reflecting, given all the negativity that was often pointed Labor's way, that when it came to our primary industries—and Labor should not take the responsibility for this; this was a massive collective effort, but especially an effort amongst our primary producers—we did reach a record of $19.97 billion in the state's food and wine production. That was very good news, and I do hope that you are going to build on that and that we will see more good news in the future.

There is a degree of uncertainty now given that SARDI has faced these additional pressures. I will just quote directly what the Treasurer had to say in his budget speech. In the budget, Treasurer Lucas says that 'savings would be made through improved cost recovery for support services provided by PIRSA towards the delivery of SARDI research and development activities'. I do not think there is any excuse to put additional pressure on SARDI. The Liberals have inherited a budget in surplus, a growing economy and a fall in the unemployment rate.

Indeed, there have been 40 consecutive months now of employment growth, and the Liberals are set to receive an extra $1 billion in GST cash over the forward estimates. It is very disappointing to see what is going to happen to SARDI. Primary Industries in regional South Australia is also facing cuts. More than—

The Hon. T.J. Whetstone: There's no cuts in SARDI.

Mr HUGHES: There is additional cost recovery.

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. T.J. Whetstone interjecting:

Mr HUGHES: They have been asked to find $5 million of additional cost recovery. More than $36 million has been stripped from PIRSA and the changes mean:

the cessation of the SA Premium Food and Wine Credentials Grant Program, which is $6.6 million;

the cessation of the economic sustainability grant program, $10.6 million;

cutting the Food Innovation Taskforce and Advanced Food Manufacturing grants program, as well as a variety of other grant programs, $8.8 million; and

abolishing the Food Park Tenant Attraction program at $5.5 million.

So there are some significant cuts to PIRSA.

Despite constantly talking about the regions—and I am looking to address some of the challenges that these organisations face—we just see more pressure. We have also seen the Local Government Association's Regional Youth Traineeship Program entirely eliminated as well. I am sure we will find lots of hidden cuts in the budget that will have an ongoing negative impact on regional South Australia.

I have mentioned that we have had cuts to regional roads. Once again, it was one of those things that, when in opposition, the Liberals talked a lot about. It is a very legitimate thing to talk about. There is always going to be an unmet demand; resources can only go so far. I was expecting an incredibly significant increase in funding for regional roads, but that is not the case. Instead, there is $26 million in cuts, leaving country South Australians worse off.

The Royalties for Regions program will raise an estimated $315 million over four years for a regional road and infrastructure fund, based on taking 30 per cent from mining royalties. The thing about mining royalties is that they can go up and down depending on the commodity cycle and a range of other factors. This represents a $26 million cut, compared with the $341 million over four years that was being invested in country road maintenance and safety projects under the former Labor government.

To make matters worse, to fund the Liberals' promised Port Wakefield overpass and road widening project, the Marshall government is pilfering $17.7 million from the regional roads and infrastructure fund from 2019-20 to 2021-22. This will whittle down the amount left to spend on the rest of the regional road networks to $297 million.

The former Labor government understood the importance of investing in country roads, spending almost two-thirds of South Australia's road maintenance and safety budget in country SA. The Royalties for Regions is a cut dressed up with a pretty name. Regional communities have every right to be disappointed with the Marshall Liberal government. Liberal MPs promised the world to country South Australians, but now they are in the driver's seat they have turned their backs on the regions and chosen to cut regional road funding.

The Liberals' Regional Growth Fund is another pretty name—well, it is a rather bland name, but never mind. We will not know the substance of that program until we start seeing how that money is going to be allocated. We are talking about $150 million, which mirrors the commitment given to a similar fund by the Labor government. I am willing to be corrected here, but the Labor commitment was going to be CPI adjusted over the 10-year term of that particular fund. I have not heard any mention of CPI adjustment in relation to this particular fund.

The Labor fund has received some criticism from those opposite because it was often directed at particular companies, but it had a fairly hard measure when it came to jobs. Not all those funding proposals that got the guernsey delivered, but an incredibly significant number of those projects did. Our fund was tied directly to job creation.

With the Liberals' Regional Growth Fund, those often-used words are there: it is 'strategic' and it is 'collaborative', which essentially means it can be anything. You could argue positively that it gives you flexibility. Well, it certainly gives you flexibility, but let's see how it actually measures up. I am not going to bag it, though, because the first round, I think, closed on 31 August with 80-plus applicants. Let's just see the measure of that.

We have funded some projects through various mechanisms. Becker Helicopters did not come through our regional air program: it came through an Investment Attraction program, but it was a company-specific thing. We have been told, in a sense, that that is not what we are going to do. I bet you will end up doing that. In the case of Becker Helicopters, that company is going to grow to 80 jobs with the potential for more. I know the amount that was used as the carrot to get that company to come from Queensland. I would spend that carrot every day if I could get 80 jobs out of it.

It was interesting what that company, which was set up interstate, had to say about our state government and also the Whyalla city council. It said that the state government did more in the period of one year than the Queensland government did in 15 years. Hence, it was fairly easy to pluck them from Queensland, but it was not guaranteed. Sometimes a little bit of company-specific funding does help to secure companies for South Australia and, in this case, a new company that did not compete with anybody else.

I am not going to go through the figures for Labor's original development fund because I will run out of time. In 2016-17, it generated 3,000 original jobs, over a billion dollars of investment and it was independently assessed by Ernst and Young. If you come from the regions, when you get the budget you always turn to Invested in the Regions. I found it very interesting that a whole range of these initiatives are Labor-funded initiatives. I will take the example of the health field, which is really important.

Health and education are clearly priorities. There is some stuff that the new Liberal government are doing in the health field, some additional cancer centres in regional South Australia—that is great. That builds on the good work that the Labor government did. We talk about the $140 million over 10 years for investment in country health facilities. Once again, that was allocated in the last Mid-Year Budget Review. As a regional member—

The Hon. T.J. Whetstone interjecting:

Mr HUGHES: It certainly was. As a regional member, I remember having a conversation with Jack Snelling when it was not in the full budget. It was not in the full budget. The independent consultant's report, I think, recommended an amount a little bit less than that, but we committed $140 million. It is great to see you carry out that commitment as well. I think it should have been done sooner, especially when it comes to some of the smaller hospitals. That backlog could have been addressed sooner, but it is good to see it addressed. If we had been returned to government, we would have addressed it as well.

We talk about education, and I think I mentioned at the start that a big slice of that, when it comes to the regions, is in my electorate and my community of Whyalla. I went on the radio when that was announced by—

Time expired.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (15:58): I will pay due respect to probably the only real regional member in the Labor Party, the member for Giles. In saying that, I thought he was not going to acknowledge the $100 million we are putting into a new Whyalla high school.

Mr Hughes interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: You have had your 20 minutes.

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Giles!

Mr PEDERICK: What I would like to say is that the Marshall Liberal government has delivered a strong budget to deliver on our election commitments and to secure South Australia's future. We made around 300 individual election commitments and we will deliver all of them. We are delivering on our election commitment to create more jobs, lower costs and provide better services for South Australians. The Marshall Liberal government is taking our state forward through a budget that is fair, responsible and lays a strong foundation for the future. The budget achieves a real return to surplus and projects surpluses across each year of the forward estimates.

Families and businesses will benefit from major tax reforms, including the $360 million reduction in the emergency services levy and the abolition of payroll tax for small businesses from 1 January 2019. Over 20,000 new apprenticeships and traineeships will be created to ensure South Australians are job ready and able to capitalise on future industries, such as defence and the $90 billion naval shipbuilding program.

Regarding defence jobs and veterans, the Marshall government is investing to drive defence jobs, capitalising on the federal government's $90 billion investment in naval shipbuilding. The 2018-19 state budget will deliver on election commitments to establish a defence export program and veterans' employment initiative. New funding will be provided for three key initiatives:

$300,000 per year to fund grave leases on an ongoing basis for war veterans, as opposed to families having to repurchase leases every 25 years;

$45,000 in 2018-19 to commence the rememorialisation of Anzac Highway by shifting the memorials, which are currently located on median strips, to road verges and making them more visible and accessible; and

$10,000 per annum for three years to provide headstones for unmarked graves of World War I veterans who served our nation 100 years ago.

In the Attorney-General's portfolio, we are putting up $14.5 million in the budget for additional resources to support the operations of the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption and to enable the ICAC to hold public hearings. We are providing $1.8 million to Forensic Science SA for forensic coronial services to support an increase in the number and complexity of post-mortems and pathology reviews requested by the Coroner. We are providing $146.4 million to support South Australia's participation in the National Redress Scheme for survivors of institutional child sexual abuse.

In regard to policies related to the environment and water, which are dear to my heart being at the lower reaches of the River Murray, funding of $1 million in 2018-19 has been allocated for the establishment and operation of an independent inquiry into water pricing in South Australia. This will inform the government if the methodology used to determine SA Water's bills is reasonable. The independent inquiry into water pricing will commence in early September and be finalised around 30 June 2019. This initiative delivers on the government's election commitment. This budget includes $27.7 million of new funding to key environmental programs that will see real lasting benefits for our state's environment and deliver lasting impacts across our state.

In regard to education, we see record funding, and it is a hallmark of the Marshall Liberal government's first state budget. More than $1 billion is being invested in capital projects, including two brand-new birth to year 12 schools, to be built under a public-private partnership model, and a new $100 million school in Whyalla funded by the state government.

The Marshall Liberal government is delivering on its election commitments by delivering a literacy guarantee package of measures, which includes 13 new literacy coaches, phonics screening checks for all year 1 students and literacy and numeracy professional learning programs for teachers. A package of measures will address bullying, truancy and substance abuse in our schools. The government is providing for an expansion of the languages in schools program, increasing the focus on South Australian children learning a second language, and is building a new technical college in Adelaide's western suburbs that specialises in preparing for South Australia's future defence industry needs.

In regard to tourism, we are committed to growing event tourism in South Australia. The government is investing an extra $21.5 million over four years in the event bid fund to secure more lucrative major events. In addition to the increased funding for the major event fund, $4.9 million has been provided to support the hosting of major events in South Australia, including the NRL State of Origin in 2020 and five national swimming events through Swimming Australia. We are investing an additional $10 million in 2019-20 to invest in marketing South Australia as a tourism destination in key international and domestic markets.

In relation to trade and investment, which is vitally important to this state, we are helping South Australian exporters to grow by investing $12.7 million over four years for new trade offices. The government also launched the South Australia Export Accelerator program in August, matching exporters dollar for dollar to help support exporters throughout their export journey. In the emerging exporter category, up to $5,000 is available for South Australian businesses that are exporting for the first time; in the export accelerator category, up to $30,000 is available to help fund business expansion that will create multiple direct ongoing jobs; and, in the new market entry category, up to $15,000 is available to help fund business expansion per each new international market. Exporters can continue to access these grants as long as they are seeking sales in brand-new markets.

In regard to human services and social housing, the Marshall Liberal government is committed to helping the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in our community. Abolishing volunteer screening check fees for South Australians recognises the huge contribution that volunteers make to the community. Funding of $11.9 million over the next four years has been allocated to a suite of domestic violence measures to ensure that women living in violent or abusive relationships are better able to access immediate support.

These measures include $4 million to establish 40 new crisis accommodation beds for people fleeing abuse and $5 million in interest-free loans to non-government organisations to fund new domestic violence support housing. There is an extra $1.66 million over four years to extend the Women's Safety Services SA Domestic Violence Crisis Line to 24 hours a day, and there is $150,000 for the development of a personal protection app linking at-risk women directly to police and DV services.

The measures also include $510,000 to support a statewide trial of a domestic violence disclosure scheme to enable women to request information on their partners' criminal history, as well as $624,000 over four years for the SA Coalition of Women's Domestic Violence Services to enhance its community work and activities. There is $3 million to support the administration and implementation of the energy discount offer for concession holders and $200,000 in 2018-19 to streamline ConcessionsSA administration and service delivery processes.

Reducing homelessness and increasing access to appropriate housing is a key focus for the Marshall Liberal government. The recently signed National Housing and Homelessness Agreement will see $118 million per year directed towards improving access to affordable, safe and sustainable housing across the housing spectrum. The Liberal government has inherited a broken housing system. Sixteen years of mismanagement under Labor has meant that many of the 34,000 homes in the system are run down and in chronic condition. There is a backlog of maintenance into the hundreds of millions of dollars. The public housing system will not be fixed overnight but with the establishment of the new SA Housing Authority the Marshall Liberal government is working to clean up Labor's mess in social housing.

In regard to health and wellbeing, the Marshall Liberal government's budget is focused on delivering better health services, repairing the damage that was done to our public hospitals under Labor and ensuring health services are sustainable. The Marshall Liberal government committed to tackling the massive blowout in South Australia's overdue elective surgery waiting list—a tenfold increase in overdue cases. This budget invests $40 million over the next two years to reduce elective surgery waiting lists in South Australia's public hospitals.

The budget also includes $5 million over the next four years to improve bowel cancer prevention and detection in South Australia by reducing the waiting lists for colonoscopies. This delivers on one of our election commitments. The budget is repairing the damage done to our hospitals through $20 million to stop Labor's sale of the Repat, something they said would never happen. They said, 'Never ever,' but never believe them. It will allow the site to be reactivated as a genuine health precinct.

We have $23 million to support the establishment and operation of a four-bed high dependency unit at Modbury Hospital; $14.5 million to establish a 12-bed acute medical unit at Noarlunga Hospital; $9.9 million to strengthen cardiac services at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital; $52 million over four years to improve the level of patient care being offered at the new Royal Adelaide Hospital; $5.3 million to enable the planning and design of a new Women's and Children's Hospital.

Regional health is a matter dear to my heart. Health funding initiatives for regional South Australia contained in this year's state budget include $140 million over 10 years for country health capital works to significantly improve our regional hospital and health infrastructure that has degraded following 16 years of Labor Party neglect. I must say that over time, probably close to 30 years ago, I was protesting out on the steps of this place for the survival of the Tailem Bend Hospital. Thankfully, it is going strong. We have some aged care in there and we have just had some new doctors sign up to provide services there, linked in with Murray Bridge after hours to supply after hours emergency care. All Labor thought about doing was closing country hospitals.

There is also $20 million in regional health over four years to develop and implement a rural workforce strategy to address the shortage of health practitioners in regional areas. That is much needed money going into the regions. We have $7 million over three years to upgrade the emergency department at the Murray Bridge Soldiers' Memorial Hospital, something I have done a lot of work on over the last four years, or even longer than that, to get this project funded. I am so pleased that we will deliver this project and give the upgrade because it has been 40 years since any substantial work has been done in the emergency department at Murray Bridge. It has long been needed and with the rapidly growing region, the second fastest in the state behind Mount Barker, it is much needed due to the growth of the community.

There is $6.9 million over four years to deliver additional chemotherapy services in regional areas, allowing patients to receive lifesaving treatment closer to home. These are much-needed services. A further $5 million has been provided for the implementation of a single statewide chemotherapy prescribing system to reduce the risk of underdosing fiascos as we saw under the former Labor government. Furthermore, there is:

$2.1 million to deliver on the Marshall Liberal government's election promise to expand and upgrade the renal dialysis unit at the Mount Gambier hospital. Two renal dialysis chairs will be added, enabling a further eight patients to receive treatment in Mount Gambier each week;

$1 million over four years for the South Australian Healthy Towns Challenge to enable rural and regional communities to apply for a grant of up to $50,000 to help improve the health and wellbeing of their community.

$1 million this year to upgrade the fire protection system at the Lighthouse aged-care home in Kingston;

$720,000 for the Ardrossan hospital to fund the Marshall Liberal government's election promise to enhance services such as accident and emergency, palliative care and subacute care at this community-owned facility;

$600,000 over four years to upgrade surgical facilities at the Yorketown Hospital and employ additional nurses, who certainly do vital work right across the state;

$500,000 this year for the McLaren Vale District War Memorial Hospital to fund the installation of solar panels to significantly reduce the energy cost of the hospital and upgrade hospital infrastructure, delivering on another Marshall Liberal government election promise;

$337,000 over the forward estimates to increase paediatric services at the Mount Barker hospital;

$160,000 over two years for a pilot program for an intensive outpatient rehabilitation program in the Riverland to reduce the harm associated with the use of crystal methamphetamine in regional and remote communities;

$100,000 this year to fund the development of a business case to assess the need for a new Barossa hospital, as per the Marshall Liberal government election promise once again; and

$50,000 to support the establishment of a permanent renal dialysis unit in the APY lands, run by Western Desert Dialysis.

Importantly, the state budget also provides $3.6 million in annual funding for governing boards, including six boards in country South Australia. These are the new health boards we have announced and are starting to put in place. This will put decision-making closer to people who actually deliver and receive health care, helping to break down what happens at the moment with seven layers of bureaucracy in health, where decisions are made a long way from where they need to be made.

In regard to energy and mining, the state budget provides $184 million in expenditure and a $10 million underwriting guarantee to ensure more clean, reliable and affordable power for South Australians, something the former government did not think about once. The budget also delivers on our election commitments for $100 million for the home battery scheme, $50 million for grid scale storage and $30 million to better manage demand.

The budget also accelerates delivery of an interconnector to New South Wales by supporting early works, which Electranet's modelling suggests would reduce bills by $30 per account per annum when operational. The $200 million for the interconnector fund is a contingent project in the budget. Of this, $4 million is being provided as a grant in the budget and $10 million as underwriting to support early works. This is vital spending needed to support energy use.

As a large energy user, the resources sector needs lower energy bills, which is a focus of our budget. This budget is also focused on delivering improved customer service for resource companies as they deal with government, and the government is advancing the review of the Mining Act to improve outcomes for both resource companies and landholders. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will have to continue my remarks in the grievance section, but I commend the Appropriation Bill.

Mr ODENWALDER (Elizabeth) (16:19): I rise to make a contribution to the Appropriation Bill. First, I would like to acknowledge all previous speakers, particularly the Leader of the Opposition for his address in reply to the budget today. It was well received on our side, and clearly was well received by the gallery. We saw a large group of our fine custodial—

Mr Pederick: Was there anyone at work?

Mr ODENWALDER: They were on their lunch break, mate; it is union rules. They had a lunch break, then they came down here and supported the Leader of the Opposition in opposing certain aspects of the bill we are discussing today. I want to focus on my portfolio areas rather than on my electorate. I think I will focus on that in the grievance debate if time allows, but I do want to focus on my portfolio areas, and particularly the threat that some aspects of this bill present to public safety.

I want to preface all of this by saying how proud I am to have been part of the Labor government which was in power for 16 years and which instituted some very good public policy around community safety. Many members here contributed directly, including many former police ministers. The member for Enfield and the former member for Croydon made very strong contributions as attorneys-general, as did others such as the member for Playford, who worked in the background to ensure that our law and order policies were always responsive to the needs and concerns of ordinary South Australians and of our communities.

I was particularly proud of our serious and organised crime laws, which had a tortuous passage through the houses and the legal system. I will not go into detail as there are people here who are far more familiar with that process than I am. However, through all the court challenges and subsequent legislative changes, I think we ended up with a very good, very workable model. Every police officer I speak to is extremely happy with this legislation in terms of its effectiveness.

It is not always effective in terms of disrupting the businesses of organised criminal gangs, as that is a very complex and demand-driven problem, particularly when you are talking about drugs. As SA Police Assistant Commissioner Duval recently noted, it is a very difficult demand-driven problem. While I do support many of the government's measures in relation to drugs, I have some scepticism about how successful their particular war on drugs will be.

Public safety has been a great result of these reforms. As I said, police at all levels attest to this. The reforms have been absolutely crucial in disrupting the activities of not just outlaw motorcycle gangs but also criminal gangs in general. It has been effective, as I said, not so much in relation to their primary business concerns but in terms of the intimidation and the violence that accompanies those business practices. We have seen a marked change. Police tell me time and time again that, with our legislation, they have disrupted criminal gangs to such an extent that they simply will not be seen contravening the very tough laws that now govern things such as their association.

I am very proud of that suite of legislation and of all the other changes we made throughout the Rann and Weatherill governments. That is why it is alarming to see certain cuts in this budget which directly and negatively impact public safety. I was incredibly proud to have been appointed the shadow minister for police, corrections and emergency services by the leader earlier this year. I made a decision at that time, inspired by the leader's public statements, that I would support any sensible measure this government or the crossbench brought forward in terms of public safety, and the record bears that out.

Over the past few months, I am reasonably certain I have supported every law and order policy that the government has brought into this place. The opposition have supported every law and order and public safety policy, with the one exception of the custodial sentences for the simple possession of cannabis, which the Attorney-General wisely, albeit belatedly, amended out of her own legislation.

On occasion, the opposition have gone further. We have introduced amendments and bills in private members' time squarely aimed at community safety and at giving police the powers they have told us they need in order to do their job more effectively—whether it is greater capacity to punish drug possession offences around prisons, or the removal of automatic parole for serious drug offenders, or giving police the capacity to search vehicles for drugs when the operator of that vehicle indicates a positive result in a roadside drug test. The government have opposed all these measures outright. The third one is still under question but I expect they will oppose it; they have certainly indicated they will oppose it.

Now they have given us a budget that contains measures which seem inexplicably aimed at reducing community safety. Crime Stoppers has been topical and, as was widely expected and widely feared, $960,000 of funding to Crime Stoppers has been cut in this budget, putting this valuable crime-fighting resource at risk. Crime Stoppers, as we all know or should know, is an important link between the public and the police. It provides our law enforcement officers with invaluable information about all sorts of serious crime, and this cut makes no sense.

In January this year, the then Labor government committed $960,000 from the Attorney-General's Department to ensure that Crime Stoppers continued to provide their valuable service to South Australians. Inexplicably, the Liberals have chosen not to honour this commitment. This cut means that South Australia is now the only state not to provide government funding for Crime Stoppers.

By way of history, Crime Stoppers was funded quite generously, as I understand, by their major sponsor, Bank SA, up until 2012. They also receive a $40,000 ongoing recurrent grant from the federal government. Since 2012, they have been operating with less and less cash in reserve and it is now reaching an emergency point for them. I hasten to add that they came to the government and the opposition last year seeking ongoing funding to continue their operations and to continue their community education campaigns. Clearly, the then government got the message and, in January, made that decision. However, we were not the only people getting the message about the need for this funding.

The Minister for Transport, who was then the shadow minister for police, and a good shadow minister for police by the then opposition standards, said in this place, and I quote:

The fact that Crime Stoppers is in the position that it's in is absolutely disgusting, and after having gone to the government a number of times the government still hasn't come to the party.

That is the then Labor government that decided to fund Crime Stoppers to the tune of $960,000. He continued:

This obviously shows that the government isn't serious about fighting crime in South Australia when they're unwilling to fund even the basic amount of money to help Crime Stoppers keep up and running.

Times have changed, obviously, and this cut is indicative of the flavour of this cuts budget.

Over the past two decades, Crime Stoppers has helped solve almost 30,000 crimes, including some of South Australia's most heinous cases. This cut will put everyday South Australians at risk and it leaves Crime Stoppers' continued existence on very shaky ground. This funding was crucial for Crime Stoppers to continue to serve our community. Crime Stoppers themselves are confused and appalled at this decision. They point out that this decision by government to not support the Crime Stoppers program in South Australia makes it the only place in the country not to receive any state or territory funding. Crime Stoppers say, and I quote:

The lack of budget allocation comes despite a public commitment by the previous government and a number of subsequent briefings with the Minister for Police and his advisers, who have acknowledged the efforts of the highly effective crime-fighting program but do not follow up accolades with action.

…Crime Stoppers SA has achieved significant results on a shoe-string budget, but a number of earmarked crime prevention initiatives across regional and metropolitan communities are now in jeopardy.

These are the words of Crime Stoppers on budget day. They go on:

Despite solving an average of 25 crimes every week and directly contributing to a safer South Australia, the program has never received financial support from State Government for its day-to-day operations and rewards scheme.

That lack of support now forces crime Stoppers SA to consider cost-cutting measures.

Crime Stoppers has been unquestionably successful in keeping our community safe. Since the program first began in South Australia in 1996, I believe, more than $220,000 in rewards have been paid to members of the community; more than 32,127 crimes have been solved; over 21,000 persons have been apprehended; and about $9.4 million worth of property has been recovered.

Just last year there were 19,439 calls from people wanting to share information about criminals and their illegal activities; 4,222 online hits and reports using the app or website; 911 arrests, including wanted fugitives, arsonists and suspects wanted for robberies, theft and assault; 1,901 charges laid for drug dealing, firearms, robbery, serious assaults and child pornography offences; and 79 firearms seized, including ammunition and a range of illegal accessories.

It is important to note these last two points: over 1,200 plants and 240 kilograms of cannabis which equates, I am advised, to over 86,000 street deals; and the shutdown of 12 clandestine labs and 1.3 kilograms of amphetamines seized, which equates, again I am advised, to nearly 17,000 street deals. This government continually claims and made a big deal at the election of prosecuting a war on drugs, yet it is cutting funding for a program which demonstrably and self-evidently does so much towards detecting drugs in our community.

In the Attorney-General's portfolio area, we have also seen two quite simple—and, in the scheme of things, relatively inexpensive in terms of the total budget—public safety grants being cut. The first of those is the crime prevention grants, which many of us will know of in our own communities. This is a saving of nearly $4 million over four years, but these grants have historically provided communities, councils and community groups with things like CCTV and other initiatives in their own communities to enhance public safety and to keep their residents safe.

Importantly, there is also the cut from 2020-21 in the Safe City grant, which grants the Adelaide city council money to maintain its CCTV network, which of course is particularly important in places like Hindley Street and Hutt Street, where complaints need to be verified often by the use of CCTV and often used by police, of course, to catch offenders, and particularly I am thinking of Hindley Street. Not a day goes by, I am sure, when some perusal of the CCTV on Hindley Street assists in some sort of police investigation. Again, these are inexplicable cuts to very successful and very public safety programs.

On top of all this the police commissioner, of course, needs to find $7 million in 2018-19, rising to $11 million in 2021-22, in so-called efficiencies to back-office activities in SAPOL. The Treasurer assures us that front-line police services are not directly impacted. As the leader stated, I just do not see how this can be so. When you take that much money out of the police budget, something in the police operational sphere has to give. In the minister's contribution to this debate, which I hope is soon, I very much hope he will outline what discussions he has had with the commissioner and what discussions will be taking place in the near future or have already taken place with SAPOL about where these cuts will happen.

Another aspect of the budget is the long-awaited decision on police station opening hours. Of course, we all know that the government went to the election promising to reopen or re-extend hours in several suburban police stations, which the commissioner in a review in 2016 had deemed unnecessary or less necessary than having patrols on the road. I wish I was privy to the negotiations between the minister and/or the Attorney and the commissioner in order to reach this conclusion, but it will allow the creation of a counterterrorism rapid response group.

I will reserve my judgement on this. The opposition will reserve its judgement on that. We do not know the details, of course. I trust the commissioner. I trust the police management that their intention is always to create the most responsive police force they can whatever politicians say or try to direct them to do, and so of course we will reserve our judgement on that. That, I think, is a win for the police commissioner, despite the fact that decisions he made just two years ago have clearly been rejected by this government.

The government did promise to enhance access to police. That was the basis of the promise to reopen the stations. The fear was, when the announcement was first made several weeks ago, that the extended opening hours would be attended entirely by civilian staff, who I am sure are very competent public servants but who are not sworn police officers. The government were quick to reassure us that there would always be a police officer present, which again begs the question: why is that police officer not ultimately more valuable on the road, as the police commissioner has always state?

Nevertheless, I am sure that the commissioner, having reached this agreement with the government, will work this out. His preference was always to have police on the beat and on the road, rather than stuck behind a desk. Perhaps even limiting it to one police officer per station for all of those extended hours is a risk. Again, it remains to be seen how the commissioner will staff these police stations, but you would have to conclude that it would be unsafe to have a bare minimum of sworn police officers close by the station, if not in the station, at all times. The danger is that not only are the public not protected in certain situations but the civilians themselves, who staff the police stations, are put at risk.

In the time I have available to me, I will just go over a couple of the other interesting aspects of this budget from a public safety point of view. There are a couple of small cuts to academy processes. There is a $1.1 million saving over two years simply by delaying a cadet intake by about six months. I guess that is an accounting trick, and I do not really have much to comment about that, but more interesting is the $3 million saved over three years by shortening cadet courses from 12 months to 11 months.

Of course, this begs the question: where are these cuts being made? Presumably, someone has gone through the academy curriculum and given advice to the minister and to the government about what training police are receiving now that is considered surplus to requirements. I would like to see that advice and I hope, again, that the minister addresses this in his contribution to this debate or at least in answers to questions in estimates.

It is important: where will these cuts come from? Presumably, police cadets are not wasting a month at the academy. They are doing something there, so where are the changes being made? Is it in their defensive options, in their firearms training, in their baton training, in their taser training, in their training in investigations, in their criminal law training, in their driver training? We need answers to reassure us that the police cadets coming out under this new regime are receiving all the training that police cadets receive now. This is in the context of what I think we all agree is a much more complicated policing environment. Our community has changed over the years; there are many diverse groups in our communities that have particular needs.

There is a focus on domestic violence, which the commissioner himself has made paramount. For better or worse, the workload of police in relation to domestic violence is much heavier, and the necessary training for police officers, in terms of empathy and understanding the broader issues around domestic violence, forms part of that. Against that backdrop of a much more complicated and much more demanding policing environment, we are seeing slightly less training per cadet. There may be a very good reason for that; there may be a study out there that shows that a month of the training was not particularly useful. I do not know, but it would be interesting to see what the result is there.

Another interesting aspect is that there was no funding for the RAA Street Smart Primary program. The RAA run a very successful driver training program, as most of us would know. Schools in our communities have this driver training, and there are six in my electorate. The RAA were asking for an extra $400,000, a small amount in terms of the total budget, to extend this program to all primary schools every year. That is all it would have taken. I am a bit perplexed as to why that was not taken up, so I will be talking more to the RAA about that. I will continue my remarks during the grievance debate.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Minister for Education) (16:39): I have great pleasure in rising to speak on the Appropriation Bill for the first time as Minister for Education in this Marshall Liberal government. It is an honour to serve in this way and one that I take very seriously indeed. The children of South Australia, the young people of South Australia and the students of South Australia are at the fore of our minds. We have a grand ambition, a bold ambition, to deliver great things in our schools, our early childhood settings, our training institutions and of course our universities in South Australia. We would like to see every child in every classroom in every school in South Australia supported to grow to their full potential and achieve their potential in life and in their education.

Significant bodies of work are being done in literacy, in languages, in a range of fields and vocational education as a result of the government's election policies, and I am so proud to see so many of them in the budget. This is a government that is delivering for the people of South Australia on those election commitments that we took to the election, and we are so proud that this is a government that is delivering on its promises of more jobs, lower costs and better services. Better services is a range of fields that I have responsibility for, and I am looking forward to continuing to do that work in the years ahead as we seek to achieve what we can for the people of South Australia to be their best.

The education portfolio benefits in this budget from increased support. This Liberal government will see schools funding and education funding increase to the point of $515 million more in the budget for the 2021-22 year, compared with the last Labor year of 2017-18. This is a significant investment in education because education is the foundation of our social wellbeing and, of course, our future economic prosperity. That includes a range of programs that I identified before in support for schools.

We are also identifying a significant capital works program, a range of programs for the first time appearing in the forward estimates: schools in Whyalla and in the north and the south of Adelaide, a significant investment because those communities need that investment; new schools in the north and the south; and a school in Whyalla to replace the current outdated junior high and senior high construct in facilities that are not what they once were.

That capital build is backed up by programs announced before the election by the previous government, and the dollars that were committed to by the Liberal Party in opposition will now be delivered to that range of schools through capital works programs across South Australia and, indeed, to the tail end of the STEM Works program, also announced by the previous government, supported by the then opposition. I am very pleased that members on either side of the house have been in the process of unveiling those projects in recent months, and that work will continue. There are a number of other specific projects that have capital in the education space.

I am sure that we will spend a lot of time talking about education during estimates, and there is some terrific work being done. I will not go through all the election promises, as we have spoken about some of them before, and I am hoping at some stage to get my third question from the shadow minister for education for the year, where she might raise some other issues that we might talk about. I note that 172 days into the new government I am yet to get my first question from the shadow minister on TAFE. Given that the opposition has shown no interest in the TAFE SA institution at all in the parliament this year—I note that they have raised some issues in the media in recent days—this seems like a good time to put some of that work into context.

It is worth doing so in the context of the Appropriation Bill because, of course, this Appropriation Bill identifies a $109.8 million rescue package for TAFE. That is money that is in the budget produced by the Liberal government that was not in the budget produced by the Labor government. In fact, in their last Mid-Year Budget Review, a fact that the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the former treasurer, who sits alongside them, has yet to identify is that there were $70 million worth of cuts to TAFE SA.

At the same time that they were presiding over the ASQA audit fiasco, which I absolutely assure the house happened on the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's watch as the then minister for education, they then imposed $70 million worth of accumulated cuts and efficiency dividends on TAFE SA—revenue expectations that were completely unrealistic; cuts with no road map of how they were to be achieved.

This morning, the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister were at Port Adelaide TAFE bemoaning the decision made by this government to change the service delivery model for the Port Adelaide TAFE offerings. They are the same people who sat in the cabinet and last December announced $70 million in cuts over the forward estimates to TAFE SA. There was no ownership of this, no decisions about how those cuts were to be achieved. No, they just imposed the cuts and left TAFE to do its business. They left TAFE alone, as they had for 16 years; 16 years in which they ran down this once proud institution, which will be proud again. It is on the way.

I want to take this opportunity to once again commend the interim board that has been working so hard, to commend the interim CE, who has been doing an extraordinary body of work over the time since she was appointed, I think in December. In December, the shadow minister claimed credit for having taken bold action. She said that the reports that were tabled on Tuesday take aim at the leadership in TAFE, the senior executives.

She said that she fired them. Well, she fired them after significant prompting from the opposition and the media. She fired the chair of the TAFE board, and that was actually it. The CE of the TAFE institution last year resigned and the minister, who should have resigned at the time, did not, and she still sits as the Labor Party's spokesperson for TAFE SA, which potentially gives some clue as to why the Labor Party has not asked a single question in this chamber of this institution that they now claim to care so much about. This is the basis upon which, of course, this $109.8 million rescue package was so necessary.

Let's talk about the context of why this $109.8 million rescue package is so important. The Labor Party, between November 2012 and the end of its period in office, oversaw a reduction in TAFE SA staff, full-time equivalent, from 2,825 in November 2012, to the end of the financial year just past, 2,201—624 TAFE SA staff fired under the Labor administration within the last six years. That was when Susan Close was the minister for education and those who immediately preceded her—the Leader of the Opposition was in the cabinet, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for education—were in the cabinet. The shadow minister for mining, who was the treasurer, and the shadow treasurer were in the cabinet. They oversaw 600 job losses at TAFE SA.

In a completely unstrategic way, as identified by the Strategic Capability Review—and I am going to tell you a little bit more about what some of those reviewers found over Labor's oversight of the TAFE SA organisation—there were 600 job losses owned by Labor. They have no credibility when they talk about job losses or efficiencies. Indeed, those efficiencies in this budget are by an order of magnitude less than the unstrategic havoc that was wreaked on the organisation when Susan Close was the minister for education and those opposite were in government. Let's talk about campus closures and the Labor Party—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, if I could just interrupt, can I remind you, please, not to refer to members by their names.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Yes, sir. The member for Port Adelaide.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The member for Port Adelaide or Campus Close as I am starting to think of her. The Labor Party, after 172 days in opposition, are yet to ask a question in this house about TAFE SA. Potentially, they have been talking about these campus closures. Seven campuses are in the situation where they have low numbers.

On a number of occasions, the numbers have been run down significantly in recent years. They have underutilised facilities, sometimes inappropriate and outdated facilities, bearing in mind that much training these days is best delivered in a worksite, on a farm or in blended delivery models. They are potentially able to use facilities that are not necessarily owned by TAFE SA; they can be delivered in a hall. A short course on safety can be delivered as well in a hall as it can in an old demountable TAFE SA facility—that was one example that was put to me—or indeed online. This is the direction that training has been heading for some time.

There are also campus consolidations and I point out, particularly in relation to Port Adelaide where a significant majority of the training being delivered is in the range of nursing, that there are excellent facilities at Regency TAFE where those courses are going to be moved to. There are outstanding facilities where those courses are able to be moved to, and the course delivery is capable of being delivered in a greater way because, of course, if we are not spending money on outdated, underutilised or unnecessary infrastructure, that means we can invest more money in training young South Australians or work seekers. We know this is capable of being done because it has been done before.

The Labor Party was responsible for TAFE SA during a period of an extraordinary number of campus closures. The 'shadow minister for education campus closures', as I have started to think of her—the member for Port Adelaide—was in fact the minister in 2016 and 2017 when the Gawler TAFE campus was transitioned to the city of Gawler, Renmark TAFE campus was relinquished to the Department for Industry and Skills, the Waikerie TAFE campus was transferred to Waikerie High School, Morphettville and Kimba leases were terminated, and the Clare TAFE campus was closed and transferred to the Department for Environment and Water. This was all in 2016, by the way, so not that long ago.

The lease at Cleve was terminated in December 2016, Kangaroo Island was transferred to the school in January 2017, Millicent was transferred to the school in February 2017, and Bordertown and Naracoorte were moved to the Department for Industry and Skills in March 2017. On these campuses, as on the campuses that are identified in this year's budget, there were low levels of training activity—training activity that was capable of being delivered in other settings and training activity that was capable of being moved to other TAFE campuses. It is noteworthy that the Labor Party did not raise any concerns because, of course, it was them doing it.

Those opposite closed 11 campuses in that two years. Prior to 2010, they closed Peterborough and Jamestown as well. In 2013, Yorketown TAFE was closed. In 2013, the Marleston, O'Halloran Hill and Panorama TAFEs were closed and in 2011-13, the Croydon TAFE was closed. In 2011-13, the Roseworthy TAFE was closed, and in 2015 English language services at the Rundle Mall TAFE campus were closed.

How many TAFE campuses do those opposite want to have brought to their attention that they in fact closed? Did you hear the outrage in the parliament yesterday? Did you see the outrage in Port Adelaide this morning when the members for Lee, Port Adelaide and the Leader of the Opposition fronted up to the TV cameras and bemoaned the idea that a TAFE campus was able to have its courses offered in a more modern way or in better facilities or more appropriate facilities or in a way that is able to deliver better value to TAFE SA, the students and those businesses and industries who we are seeking to find a skilled workforce for?

The outrage was extraordinary and completely unmatched by even an acknowledgement that they had closed well in excess of a dozen TAFE campuses during their term in office and extraordinarily about a dozen when the member for Port Adelaide was the minister for education. Did they care then? No, they thought that TAFE is offering a way that more training can be delivered in that sense.

The fact that we have this rank utterly pathetic hypocrisy from the Labor Party is very disturbing. The fact that they are unwilling to ask a question in the House of Assembly can only be put down to the fact that they know they are the guilty party when it comes to devastating TAFE SA. They know that the member for Port Adelaide, as minister for education and child development and higher education and skills, had responsibility for TAFE when they were closing campuses.

The thing is that those campus closures were capable of being delivered in a way that those students were able to be supported, but what else happened when the member for Port Adelaide was the minister responsible for TAFE SA? We saw extraordinary devastation not only for TAFE SA but for the entire training market across South Australia.

This is again amongst the purposes for which we have this $109 million rescue package and a $200 million Skilling South Australia package that this government is delivering to support more than 20,000 new trainees and apprentices across South Australia. Why is that so necessary? Because between 31 March 2013 and 31 March 2018 there was a 58 per cent decrease in the number of apprentices and trainees training in South Australia—a drop from 36,000 to 15,000. There was a 58 per cent decrease in the last five years of the former rotten, hopeless Labor government. The number of commencements for the same period decreased by even more—by 63.8 per cent, from 22,990 to 8,325 apprentices and trainees. That is what the South Australian Labor Party did to the training and apprenticeship market in South Australia.

What did they do to TAFE in that same time? What was the student headcount, I wonder, in 2013. In semester 1 of 2013 there was a 51,314 student headcount in accredited courses, 59,372 students at TAFE in their total TAFE SA activity. That was semester 1, 2013. Five years later, the Liberal Party comes to government after seeing the member for Port Adelaide, the shadow minister for education, as the minister responsible for TAFE. What had happened to TAFE in the meantime? Well, when I arrived, semester 1, 2018, as at the end of March—bearing in mind that we had 51,300 students enrolled in accredited courses in 2013—it had gone from 51,000 to 23,612 as at 2 April, so the week after I got in as Minister for Education.

I found that such devastation had been wrought on TAFE SA by those opposite that we were down to 23,000 students. So much work is going on at TAFE SA by the CE, by the board, by the educators at TAFE SA, by the people working at TAFE SA, that that is turning around, that is getting fixed. There have been steps taken, with the support of this government, to improve the support for TAFE SA. It is not just this $109 million rescue package, by the way: there are a series of other measures that are addressing some of the extraordinary challenges that TAFE SA has faced.

Already TAFE SA has recruited an Executive Director of Quality Teaching and Learning. They have improved their internal audit quality processes and ramped them up, and they are, indeed, introducing a new academic board, as per the Liberal Party's election promise and the recommendations of the Strategic Capability Review.

This $70 million cut, that turned around to a $109 million rescue package, comes on the back of the work that needed to be done. I remind all members of some of the challenges facing TAFE SA, as identified by the Nous review, and as identified by the Strategic Capability Review that went into TAFE SA. The Strategic Capability Review opens with the words:

The reviewers are dismayed by the depth of the problems at TAFE SA. The significant challenge now facing TAFE SA stems from an absence of strategy, poor leadership, and the centralisation of decision-making and resources. The last four years have been a lost opportunity for TAFE SA specifically and for South Australia as a whole.

That is on Labor; that is on the shadow minister for education, the Leader of the Opposition and everybody who was in that Labor cabinet. The Nous Group, that looked into what happened that led to the ASQA debacle last year, reported:

Despite the fact that it is clear that, as a public corporation, TAFE SA is subject to control and direction by the minister—

that is, it's your guys' fault, on the Labor Party, for what happened—they identified:

Cabinet-approved time-limited funding to assist TAFE SA meet its transition costs (primarily funding TVSPs) on the basis that investment TAFE SA's downsizing would significantly ease budget pressure over the medium to long term. However, the focus on cost cutting became an obsession one, meaning that leaders and managers paid much more attention to cost inputs rather than the quantity or quality of outputs.

The Labor Party in government did not care about quantity or quality of outputs of traineeships, apprenticeships or other vocational education at TAFE SA. That is what the review, commissioned by the member for Port Adelaide, found. They found that it was unsophisticated cost cutting, with no strategic purpose at all. Greg Black, a former head of DFEEST, defined it during the election as basically that they cared so little about who went that a lot of the best people, the people who could get other jobs, were the first to offer their hands for a TVSP.

We have some terrific educators at TAFE, and the Strategic Capability Review and the Nous review said that that was the case: lots of good educators, but ageing infrastructure, obsolete equipment, unreliable technology and inflexible online platforms severely limited organisational capacity and information. That is the Strategic Capability Review. The Labor Party is responsible for this problem; the Liberal Party is fixing it.

Ms HILDYARD (Reynell) (16:59): In rising to speak on this bill, I must articulate that I am incredibly disappointed by this bill, I am incredibly disappointed by this government and I am incredibly disappointed about the impact that this government is having on South Australians in every corner of our state. This government has handed down a cruel budget, a budget that the Treasurer has admitted is best delivered by someone with ice in their veins. This budget could indeed only be delivered by someone lacking the warmth that comes with compassion, care and a commitment to fairness and inclusion.

If you are committed to fairness, equality of opportunity and inclusion, you make sure that those who need your support and your care the most get that support and care. It is the role of every one of us in this place to make sure that the more vulnerable members of our community are treated with compassion and respect, with access to quality services and supports. It is also the role of every one of us in this place to ensure that all South Australians have access to decent jobs, quality services when they need them, good public education and health facilities, and transport and infrastructure.

I am here to stand up for the people of Reynell and across South Australia to ensure that our community members have that access and that they are treated with compassion, care and respect. I know that everyone on this side of the house is similarly committed to doing so because Labor values all South Australians. We will fight for South Australians and against the devastating effect this budget will have on their lives. In contrast, those opposite are not fighting for South Australians so they can make ends meet and can access decent services, facilities and support when they need it. They have prioritised some of the wealthiest people in our community to the detriment of Housing SA tenants and South Australians across our community who deserve and want a fair go.

With so many cuts and so many misdirected and offensive revenue raisers, it is difficult to know where to begin, but I will start by focusing on one of the most basic rights that we want for South Australians: the right to a roof over their head. This budget includes a rent increase for people in Housing SA homes. Our Housing SA tenants need support, not higher rents. I have constituents come to my office, often on bus services that I understand will now also be cruelly cut, who are Housing SA tenants and struggling. Together with my staff, I help connect them with services in the community so that they are able to get the support they need.

It is disgraceful that the Marshall Liberal government is attempting to claw money in this budget from members of our community who need it most. I assure the many community members and friends residing in Housing SA homes that I will fight against this terrible announcement and that I am here for you. To the many Housing SA tenants in Christie Downs, Hackham West, Morphett Vale and elsewhere, I will do everything I can to fight the impact of this cruel grab for cash. I know what you do to meet the cost of living, to put food on your table and to pay your rent. I respect it. I will fight to ensure that things do not get harder for you and that your ability to access basic necessities is not compromised.

One outstanding organisation that I connect people with in the south is Heart and Soul in Hackham West. Heart and Soul provides food assistance for people in our community, a number of whom are Housing SA tenants, giving them a hand with their weekly grocery shopping. It is an incredible organisation made possible by its founder, Eman, all the volunteers and all the people who donate food. Their generous hearts make a real difference to many. I was deeply proud that our former Labor government was able to support Heart and Soul through the Fund My Neighbourhood program.

Heart and Soul was successful in winning a grant, which they will use to purchase a new refrigerated truck to collect food donations from across our beautiful southern community. It is incredibly disappointing that the Fund My Neighbourhood program has been cruelly cut by the government in this budget. As well as supporting organisations like Heart and Soul Food Assistance, it also supported Foodbank and community members to secure a grant to work with our community to set up a food hub in the south. It supported the Port Noarlunga Primary School to build a canteen in a shed for school sport, and it supported many other organisations.

Whilst taking more money from Housing SA tenants with one hand, this government is taking away grants programs from community organisations with the other. There is no doubt that this budget will make life tougher for people. More than ever, we are going to need our community to come together to support one another and also, importantly, to fight against this government's cruel, blatant disregard for ordinary South Australians. The Fund My Neighbourhood program was a fantastic way for local communities and people to decide how to improve their local neighbourhood. But this government is not in any way interested in listening to what our people and communities want or need.

They are not interested in making their lives just a little easier. In fact, they are intent on making things harder. This government, with ice in their veins, are making cuts left, right and centre without having any plan whatsoever for the future of our communities and of our state as a whole. It is astonishing that there is literally no narrative in this budget about what this government's vision is for our state. This is because there is not one. Their vision is simply to cut, to claw money away from those who need it most and to privatise. Well, the people of South Australia have seen this and will continue to see it.

Many prison officers flocked here today because they know what privatising prisons will mean for community safety, for jobs and for rehabilitation. They are rightly angry and they, together with so many others, will stand up against these cuts, against their money grabbing from the most vulnerable people and against privatisation. They are astonished, as am I, as are we on this side of the house, that rehabilitation programs are being cut at the same time that prisons are being privatised, an initiative that makes no sense and that speaks this government's utter, utter lack of vision.

Sport is a powerful tool for social change and for bringing people together in the community families created by so many clubs across our state. It adds the power to include all and to support all to do their best and to belong. Like so many other South Australians, my own experience as a child showed me that they do just that. In my previous roles and currently, I see so many clubs and their generous volunteers working day in and day out to make sure that their facilities and programs are appropriate and can welcome all.

Women are taking to traditionally male-dominated sport in droves. For them to have the opportunity to equally and actively participate in the sport they love, we must provide them with the facilities they need to do so. We want to end the days of girls and women getting changed in cars or in the male change rooms. Recently, in one circumstance, a parent from a particular club told me that these were connected to the male toilets and that during an under-18 girls' footy match men inadvertently came in to use the toilets whilst the girls were changing.

Clubs across our state know that if we genuinely back women in sport, then we must provide them with appropriate facilities. These clubs, their athletes and supporters, and everyone on this side of the house knows that if you are genuine about equality in sport, about equality everywhere, then you stand up and you speak out for facilities for men and women, boys and girls, that are equal. We also know that if you are allocating grants to clubs for facilities, then you make sure that you consider the influx of women playing sport and that you back them in.

When we see girls and women play sport, when we see them play at the highest level, we see them differently. It is transformative in terms of how the roles of girls and women are perceived, and it gives us the opportunity to challenge many other issues that our community confronts about gender inequality. This government has utterly failed South Australian girls and women. It has again showed its complete lack of regard for equality. It has shown that they want to take our quest for equality in this state backwards. Shame on them. South Australian girls and women deserve so much better, and I will stand up to make sure that they are treated better than those opposite intend to treat them.

In contrast, the Female Facilities Program was initiated by our former Labor government to fund the development of new, or the upgrading of current, female-friendly change facilities for participants and officials. I say well done to the member for Mawson for his part in this work. This did not mean that boys or men would not benefit from these change rooms. It was about building change rooms that were appropriate for girls and women.

The objectives of the Female Facilities Program were to support the increase in female participation in sport in South Australia, to ensure that girls and women have the facilities they need to equally and actively participate in the sport they love and to support the South Australian Strategic Plan's sport and recreation target to increase the proportion of South Australians participating in sport or physical recreation at least once per week to 50 per cent by 2020.

Labor invested a total $24 million towards this program, which was incredibly popular across our state. Forty-one clubs across South Australia were given funding via the first three rounds, which thankfully cannot be clawed back as contracts have been signed. The last $10 million round, round 4, which was fully funded and costed, has now been clawed back by this cruel Marshall Liberal government. Clubs were able to apply for a maximum $500,000 grant, meaning that at least another 20 clubs could have had a grant to upgrade or build new facilities from round 4. Numerous clubs had applied for this round, which closed in April 2018 and was expected to be announced just after 31 July 2018.

I have received numerous communications from clubs and state sporting organisations confirming that they have received a call from the Office for Recreation, Sport and Racing, not the minister, to tell them that round 4 of the Female Facilities Program will not be honoured, expressing their anger at the government's new announcement not containing any new funding for sport whatsoever—in fact, a reduction in funding and the exclusion of particular sports—and expressing their anger that volunteers who put grant applications together and then waited for months and months to hear an answer have been told that their work does not matter, that their volunteering does not matter, that their athletes and their clubs do not matter to this government.

As well as this last fully funded round being abandoned, it is clear that the Female Facilities Program will not continue into the future. It is clear that this government will not support girls and women in sport, that it does not support grassroots clubs, given it has reduced funding overall. It is clear that it will provide minimal support for just some codes, with others being locked out of grants altogether.

The Liberals have also clawed back $10 million from the synthetic surfaces program and have pretended that funding for the State Sports Park and the Women's Memorial Playing Fields is all of their making. Like the Female Facilities Program, the clubs that had applied for synthetic surfaces grants have now been told that their applications are also not proceeding. Under the synthetic surfaces program, clubs could have applied for up to $1 million in grants, meaning at least another 10 clubs have missed out.

Curiously, this budget speaks of our South Australian Women in Sport Taskforce, led by some extraordinary South Australians—leaders in sport and elsewhere—delivering on its strategies to achieve gender equality in sport. Despite this, the task force appears to have been abandoned—not surprising given this government's lack of support for women in sport, for women in general, for the clubs that support them and for the athletes who participate. This cruel Liberal government has invested no new money whatsoever in recreation, sport and racing grants, not one new dollar. In fact, even the $5 million for next financial year has a strong caveat attached of needing to see how this year goes.

Sport is so important to our communities. It has an incredible ability to bring people together, and I was proud to be part of a government that recognised this and had record investment in sport. Just a couple of weeks ago, as both shadow minister for sport, recreation and racing and shadow minister for multicultural affairs, I was so pleased to assist the Southern Football League in holding its first multicultural round to celebrate diversity and to encourage understanding between diverse cultural communities.

Morphett Vale Football Club hosted the event, with support from our local league, the Ahmadiyya Muslim community and SANFL. The Ahmadiyya Muslim community had a stall at the grounds and ran its very successful Coffee and Islam program. A pre-game discussion occurred on the field, involving multicultural leaders, league and club officials and players from the participating teams. I could not be prouder of our local league, the Southern Football League, Morphett Vale Football Club and the Ahmadiyya Muslim community for coming together and establishing this initiative. Sport is indeed a powerful way to include people and celebrate diversity, and this initiative and the ties that were strengthened through it have done just that.

South Australia is richer, stronger and better for its rich cultural diversity, and this sporting event harnessed what brings us all together. Those opposite should support our clubs so that they are able to do more of these events, not rip the guts out of funding and put more pressure on them and their volunteers. We on this side of the house will keep backing women, backing grassroots clubs and backing diversity in participation, and I say shame on every one of those opposite for not doing the same.

It is also deeply disappointing to see nothing, nothing whatsoever, in this budget for racing. The racing industry in South Australia hires thousands of South Australians, brings tourists to our state and is an integral part of our community. Labor invested in the industry and delivered $6 million over two years in racing prize money. The racing industry has been let down by this government, with no commitment in these budget papers to continue with that commitment.

In recreation, our rec fishers are being used and tossed around again. RecFish SA is the peak body for recreational fishing in South Australia, and they have been a strong advocate for the 277,000 rec fishers in our state. It is run on a small budget and it is run well, but the Marshall Liberal government is wasting money by exploring a new advisory body for recreational fishers. It is unnecessary and it is demeaning.

I am honoured to be the shadow minister for the status of women. In the area of domestic violence, I am pleased to see a focus. As many people in this chamber know, it is always a positive thing for us to work together to address the terrible scourge of domestic violence, but unfortunately this government has not got it right. The prevalence of domestic violence in our community is shocking and unacceptable. We are deeply committed to preventing and eradicating domestic violence. It is terrible that there is absolutely no funding, not one single dollar, for preventative programs in this budget. Whilst we must always fund programs and support services that keep women safe when in crisis, we must also fund those programs that mean violence is not perpetrated in the first place.

We all agree that violence against women is completely unacceptable and never an option. If we truly believe this and want to make the cessation of violence a reality, we must fund prevention. Whilst an increase in crisis accommodation beds is welcomed, the sector has been very clear that funding for staffing resources must also increase in order to be able to provide appropriate support to women in crisis who may utilise these beds. It is disappointing that there is no funding for this in this budget. The domestic violence app has not been well received by domestic violence services. It is potentially dangerous for those experiencing domestic violence in terms of having it loaded onto a mobile telephone, and it is not a priority for the sector.

It is deeply shocking that this government cuts 4,000 public sector jobs and that this government wants to privatise our prisons and our health system. Where they are not privatising they are cutting, with local sporting grants, TAFEs, Service SA centres and local bus routes on the chopping block. It is clear that Labor cares about our community and that the Liberals have once again demonstrated, through this budget, that they do not. Labor will fight for our community; the Liberals will not.

Time expired.

Mr DULUK (Waite) (17:19): It gives me great pleasure to make a small contribution on this, the first Liberal budget in quite a long time. I have to say that I am glad Rob Lucas from the other place is our Treasurer, a man who is sensible, calm and collected and who provides a contrast to the shrill noise of those opposite.

I actually have a lot of respect for the member for Reynell—and, in fact, quite a few of those opposite, who I know come to this place with good intentions. Yet they seem to forget that for the last 16 years they were in charge of the Treasury bench, and in speech after speech, starting with the Leader of the Opposition at 12 o'clock today, all I hear is whinge and complain, whinge and complain. There is no acknowledgement of their sins and no acknowledgement of their budget failures, just whingeing and complaining.

Ms Hildyard interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Reynell, you have had your opportunity to speak. The member for Waite can now be heard in silence.

Mr DULUK: When you return a $397 million budget deficit to the people of South Australia, when you work backwards and look at all the so-called budget surpluses that the member for West Torrens handed down in previous years, they were only supported through the privatisation of fantastic state assets such as the Lands Title Office, the Motor Accident Commission and the forests in the South-East. I know that the member for Mawson is from the South-East, and he would have been appalled at the decision to sell the rotation for the forests for less than the rotation is making right now. That is the vandalism of those opposite.

They give the people of South Australia a gift of a deficit of $397 million, but then we are going to see, when debate continues over the coming weeks, the hypocrisy of those opposite regarding their actions. If one looks at what they did, at what they tried to do—and the Leader of the Opposition this morning on radio had to come out and say that, yes, he actually looked at not the outsourcing of services at prisons but the privatisation of prison services when he was corrections minister, albeit briefly—it knows no bounds. That is the problem with those opposite.

Treasurer Lucas and all of us on this side of the house will not be lectured by the Labor Party on how to run the state's finances. That can be seen in the budget papers, the key indicator of a loss last year, 2017-18, of $397 million. If you accept the premise that Labor made a loss of $397 million of state finances, if the government were a business and you were the CFO and you looked at those figures of an organisation with revenues of $19 billion making losses year on year on year, you would have to ask what you were going to do differently in order to get your budget and your company back on track.

That is exactly what this Marshall Liberal government is doing. It is getting the company, the company of South Australia, the shareholders of which are our wonderful people, back on track—and we are getting us back on track through three simple key points: more jobs, lower costs and better services. We know that if we keep to that theme of more jobs, lower costs and better services for the people of South Australia we will have done the right thing in this budget.

Budgets are not easy. Setting your own family budget is never easy because there are always competing priorities, and setting a company budget is never easy because there are always competing priorities. Of course, setting the budget for the state is never easy because there are always competing priorities there. I will not give this speech today, I might save it for my budget grieve, but I think there is an immorality in having long-term budget deficits. There is an immorality in making reckless budget decisions because ultimately, at some point, somebody has to make the right tough decisions, which inevitably lead to a conflict in priorities.

There has to be reallocation of services and expectations, and it takes away from the ability for us to be able to do what we want, how we want, and provide the services to the people of South Australia. We are talking about the fantastic initiatives that were in the budget for my electorate. My electorate of Waite is pretty excited, first and foremost, about the $16½ million investment in local roads. When I was elected to parliament in 2015, we promised that a Liberal government would spend money on fixing local roads in our community because for 16 long years in the wilderness not a single dollar of local road investment was put into my electorate.

In fact, the last bit of funding that was spent by the Olsen-Kerin government in 2002, when my predecessor, Iain Evans, was the local member, was at the Blythewood roundabout at the bottom of Old Belair Road. A series of works was laid out in the 2001 budget to spend on infrastructure throughout the Mitcham Hills. There was a change of government, and for 16 years not a cent was spent.

Even when the former member for Waite, the Hon. Martin Hamilton-Smith, switched sides and joined the Labor Party, he did not deliver a single cent for the electorate either. The former government failed to listen to my community, and I am very proud that a Liberal government is listening to my community and funding the very important road upgrades that are required throughout the Mitcham Hills road corridor. We are also going to look at the intersections of Main Road and Russell Street, and of Brighton Parade, Shepherd's Hill Road and Waite Street, other blackspots in my community that will finally be getting those upgrades.

There is also money in the budget for the upgrade of Flagstaff Road, which is something that is very important to my broader community. I must put on the record my thanks to the new member for Davenport as well for continuing with the advocacy in that area. Of course, there is also money in the budget—$20 million—for the GlobeLink master plan, which is going to look at freight throughout South Australia, in particular road freight and rail freight throughout the Mitcham Hills, to see how we can create efficiencies in the delivery of freight.

We know that exports are key to our longevity and our economic stability as a state. We need to export our goods and services. We need to give our fantastic manufacturers and primary producers the ability to get their product to market, whether it be interstate or overseas, as quickly as possible in the most timely and efficient manner. Looking holistically at that is so important.

Another really big issue in my electorate is obviously the provision of healthcare services. It is fantastic to see an additional $43 million being spent to cut elective surgery waiting times. I know that the major hospital in my community, the Flinders Medical Centre, and SALHN are going to greatly benefit from that additional investment in elective surgery.

Those opposite, most recently in the contribution by the member for Reynell, say that we do not care about people and we are not investing in the community. What the former Labor government did in health, in Transforming Health, in the decimation of rural and country health (as the member for Narungga knows, with issues in his electorate), in the closure of the Repat—which I think, given where it sat, has probably saved, over the course of two or three years, about $6 million if you look at the budget paper—shows everything you need to know about those members opposite.

Collectively, the Labor Party has no heart and it has no brains. If it had heart and if it had brains, it would never have implemented Transforming Health, which has done nothing but wreck healthcare services across metropolitan Adelaide and throughout the whole state. It is our task and the health minister's task to reverse those terrible decisions.

In my community in particular, of course, it is centred around the Repat and our policy to reactivate the Repat. It has been a real pleasure to work closely with the member for Elder, the member for Davenport, the federal member for Boothby and the health minister in ensuring that the Repat becomes an important health precinct again and provides a suite of services that the people of my community expect and most certainly need.

In terms of some other local projects that were announced as part of the election campaign and delivered in this year's budget, there is investment in the Wirraparinga Trail Loop at Brownhill Creek. That continues the great investment that this conservative government is applying in a practical way to the environment. No more slogans, no more outrageous targets, no more love affairs with slogans saying, 'We're going to be clean and green by 2030, 2040 or 2050,' or whenever the member for Cheltenham had in his dreams. This is practical, on-the-ground, sensible conservation of our environment, which is so important.

We are delivering more park rangers to places such as the Belair National Park in my community, which goes towards helping our natural environment. We are reforming NRM to give local groups and organisations a say in land care management, which is so important. There is no more need for lefties talking about the environment, as they like to do, without any practical outcomes—just practical, conservative measures to fix and ensure we have a wonderful community and a green environment that is going to be there for generations to come. This includes the Glenthorne precinct, the new national park and the development of the whole of the southern suburbs into an open recreation space that also looks at recreation and the desire for that—and also the environment.

I was at a Polish community function on Saturday, where we were celebrating 100 years of Polish independence from 1918. A lady from the Polish community in Flagstaff Hill came up to me and asked, 'When are we going to get the boats in the Happy Valley Reservoir?' It is something that they do in Europe. You are allowed to fish and partake in water sports in reservoirs and dams throughout Europe. It also happens in Brisbane, but the former environment minister (Hon. Ian Hunter in the other place) said you could never do it. We are going to do it. We are going to open up our reservoirs for recreational use, and we are going to open up our environment for the people of South Australia to enjoy, which is so important.

More broadly, we have a platform to grow our economy and to grow South Australia, and that is so important. This budget looks to address the lack of consistent investment throughout the state. As Treasurer Lucas outlined in his budget speech, it is about reforming the way we think. No more corporate handouts, no more picking winners. That is a thing of the past because it is inefficient and it picks favourites. By picking winners, you are by default picking losers. We are not here to pick losers in this state budget; we are here to create a level playing field, especially in the economic space and the business space, that allows all South Australian businesses to compete.

How are we doing that? First and foremost, we are reforming payroll tax. Every year, year after year, the former Labor government did very little to tackle payroll tax. It is one of the most insidious taxes there is because it taxes employment. From 1 January, the threshold for payroll tax will be $1.5 million, one of the best in the nation. That is going to create a level playing field. It is going to send a message to businesses to say that we can invest and we can employ without the penalty of increased payroll tax, which is so important.

We are spending $157.2 million to abolish payroll tax and a further $95.9 million for land tax relief as well. We are seeing a lowering of the land tax threshold as well. The message to the people of South Australia, and indeed to the people of Australia, is that once again South Australia is open to business on a level playing field. You do not have to be Jay's best friend and you do not have to be Tom's mate; all you have to do in order to succeed in this state is to be a friend of South Australia, because we are not going to penalise you for having your chance to have a go.

We are supporting lower costs. The cost of doing business is going to change in this state, and the costs to South Australians is going to change. For too long, we know that the cost-of-living pressures have been a huge burden for so many South Australians, and we have listened to the people of South Australia. That is why we are cutting ESL bills, putting $360 million back into the pockets of South Australians so they can spend their money how they see fit, which is so important. We are also capping NRM levies from 1 July 2019.

When we talk about supporting communities, a really big issue is volunteer checks, which I am very proud that we took to the election and which we are implementing. I know people come into my office all the time to get their DCSI clearances signed. Even if they just want to volunteer at Meals on Wheels, as they do, or in a school group or Scouts, they have to pay a volunteer fee. Fancy charging someone a fee so that they can volunteer. It is actually quite ridiculous.

These are the types of fees and charges that have crept in under the former regime because they had to try—not that they ever did—to balance the budget year after year. They just kept on bringing more charges and taxes for people who just went about their ordinary lives in our beautiful suburbs and towns around the state, doing what they do best. We are saying that you can be a volunteer without paying a fee. Isn't that fantastic? That is what the community needs.

We are investing $100 per primary school-aged children, at a cost of $29.7 million. That is another project that Labor actually did not fund. The former minister, when he was the minister, did not fund school vouchers for kids in sport in the Mid-Year Budget Review. We have, to the tune of $100 million, invested in schoolkids so they can participate in sport, which is actually vitally important. I always talk about the arts as well, as people know, and expanding that to support kids' participation in music and arts, which is actually somewhere we should be going as well.

In terms of better services, we are spending over $1.2 billion in health. We are spending $692 million to upgrade and modernise school infrastructure, and there is a further $515 million increase in education spending. That includes helping the independent and the Catholic sector as well. No matter where you send your kid to school, whether is in my electorate at Blackwood Primary, Mitcham Girls High, or St John's Grammar, or wherever you are, it is important that your children, and you as a parent and a taxpayer, will be looked after by this government.

We have allocated an extra $22 million to extend police station opening hours, which is important because law and order in the community is vitally important. We are looking after people's safety, which is so important. In terms of funding at a human services level more broadly, an extra $11 million over the next four years has been allocated for a suite of anti domestic violence measures to ensure that women living in violent or abusive relationships are better able to access immediate support. That includes 40 new crisis accommodation beds, and $5 million in interest-free loans to non-government organisations to fund new domestic violence support services.

We have allocated an extra $1.6 million over four years to extend Women's Safety Services at SA domestic violence, as well as $510,000 to support the statewide trial of the domestic violence disclosure scheme, and $624,000 over four years for the South Australian Coalition of Women's Domestic Violence Services to enhance community working activities. This public policy spending is so important and should be bipartisan, but, in listening to the contributions so far today, the opposition are attacking the government for investing in important social services, which is obviously disappointing to hear from those opposite.

In the area of trade, tourism and investment, it is very important for South Australia because that is what generates real growth. Tourism is so important across the board. We are investing in tourism, which is fantastic. We have allocated $12.7 million over four years for new trade offices. The former government did do some good work in the trade space and they were pretty parochial. The member for Mawson was pretty parochial in his support for South Australia on the world stage, and I certainly know he did his bit to spruik us on the world stage. I am glad that we are continuing to do that as well.

Mr Ellis: Is there going to be an office in Poland?

Mr DULUK: No, he never went to Poland, unfortunately, but that is something a future Liberal government can look at. New trade offices are actually important to support our businesses getting their product to market. We are also introducing the new programs, including the SA Emerging Exporter, the Export Accelerator and New Market Entry programs. It is so important to go there. One area in which we are lacking and behind is international education. There is a big investment from this government in international education.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL (Mawson) (17:39): It is interesting that not a day goes by without a Liberal woman, be it a Senator or an MP, coming out and talking about the bullying culture in the Liberal Party. The member for Reynell made her contribution in this place, and the first thing the member for Waite did was get up and attack her in quite a nasty way and call her 'shrill'. This government has a problem with women. This government—

Mr DULUK: Point of order, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Mawson, take a seat. Point of order, member for Waite.

Mr DULUK: I believe the member for Mawson is misrepresenting me in quite a defamatory manner. At no point did I refer to the member for Reynell as 'shrill'. I said that the contribution from Labor members was a 'shrill contribution'. If the member for Mawson wants to continue to go down this vein, the way he writes to his constituents—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Waite, this is not truly a point of order.

Mr DULUK: I ask the member for Mawson—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you feel like you have been misrepresented, you may make a personal explanation, but you are not to interrupt the member's speech. So, at some point you can do that. I suggest, member for Waite—

Mr DULUK: I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I am informed that you cannot do that now. You will need to wait until the member for Mawson has finished. I will return to the member for Mawson, who will be listened to uninterrupted. Member for Mawson.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. This government has a problem with women. One of the great things that our government did was to look after women in sport.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Mawson, if I can interrupt, this is an appropriation bill.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: And I am talking about the slashing in the budget by this government of a fantastic program that we had for women's sports facilities. It is an absolute disgrace. It is an area that is absolutely booming. We have women of all ages getting out and participating in sport in record numbers.

We saw that trend start four or five years ago, and we put money into the budget: $24 million over the first three rounds of this grant. Forty-one clubs received funding of up to $500,000, including the Dudley United Netball Club in Penneshaw, the McLaren Vale Netball Club and the Willunga Netball Club. Clubs right around our state have really benefited from it, and what did this government do? The first thing they did was slash the program, including the $10 million that was already allocated by our government to fund up to 40 projects. Those clubs have now missed out. We will be talking to all those clubs, and more, because we know that this is already resonating with people right around South Australia.

We cannot continue to be a decent society if we expect girls and women to get changed behind bushes, in their cars or in offices, or have men coming into places where they are getting changed. That is not a fair society. That says nothing about equality. It is a great shame that the funding for women in sport and their change rooms has been jettisoned by this government. The people of South Australia have taken note.

We put an extra $146 million of additional money into recreation and sport over our final two years, including money that was to be spent this year that is no longer in the budget. On our estimate, around $100 million has been ripped out of this recreation and sport budget by this new government. That is a real shame because amazing programs and facilities were going to be built for people right throughout South Australia. The ones that have been left in, such as the Women's Memorial Playing Field and the soccer complex at Gepps Cross, they are trying to claim as their new idea and their money in this new budget. That money was already there. It was locked and loaded in our budget that was brought down last year by the member for West Torrens and the member for Cheltenham—the former treasurer and premier.

It is pretty rude to steal someone else's IP and claim it as your own. They have not just done it there; they have also done it with the Aldinga B-12 school. That was one of the centrepieces of their education policy in the budget. They were telling all the journalists that they were going to build this fantastic B-12 school. I heard David Bevan talking about it, saying this new school was in the budget. I read it in The Advertiser; Celeste writing a great story saying this new school was going to be built by the Liberal government.

Let me just set the record straight. We announced that in our budget in June 2017. On 22 June, I wrote a letter to Aldinga Beach residents to tell them about the new school that we were building. Then we announced $2 million for Willunga High and $5 million for Aldinga Beach primary school. That is additional money for the people of Aldinga. We had a Facebook post and voting forms that we put out in November so that people could have a choice on where the school went.

We had two education forums attended by not only the minister for education, the member for Port Adelaide, but also senior members of the Department for Education as well. We handed out flyers at that forum. We talked to the local community. We did more Facebook polling. We sent a flyer to the whole community on 26 February, committing to a new school. On 2 March, we did another flyer, telling everyone we were building a new school in Aldinga. On 9 March, we sent a letter to all Aldinga Beach residents committing to the school.

Again, on 14 March, just a few days before the election, we handed out flyers about the new B-12 school we were building in Aldinga. Since the election, I have twice written to the Minister for Education to come up with some ideas, and we have had a good exchange about what this new B-12 school will look like, where it should be, and it allowed me to feed in the concerns of the community. I have a good relationship with the Minister for Education. It just does not seem right that the Premier and the Treasurer would be out there trying to claim a Labor initiative as their own—and not just as their own but as the centrepiece of education in their budget.

There have been a lot of cruel cuts in this budget, but I think the cruellest cut of all in my area has been to the Aldinga Soccer Club. We do not have a soccer pitch in Aldinga. It is one of the biggest suburbs in the state. It is a growing area and we do not have a soccer pitch. I listened to the local community. They wanted $2 million to build a soccer pitch, so we committed $2 million. The money was there. It was in the Mid-Year Budget Review last year.

What does this government do? They take that $2 million and they give it to a man who has been convicted of murder. They give that money to Henry Keogh and take it off the people of Aldinga. That is an absolute shame, to take that money that had been committed to the people of Aldinga to build a soccer pitch and give it to a man who has been convicted of murder—a man who did not ask for the $2.5 million this government gave him. It was one of their priorities. They had to get that money out the door before 30 June.

I can tell you that the people of Aldinga are pretty angry about this. They want their sporting facilities and they expect their sporting facilities. Do you know what they are saying about this new Liberal government? They are saying they are just like the old Liberal government that they chucked out 16 years ago. Do you know what they used to say about the south of Adelaide 16, 20 or 24 years ago when the Liberals were last in power? The people in the south used to call our part of the world the 'forgotten south' because the Liberal Party did not care about anything in southern Adelaide. We can tell by this first Marshall budget that they still do not care about the south.

The South Road duplication is another really important project for southern Adelaide. We committed money, $435 million, to duplicate Main South Road from Seaford all the way to Sellicks. We pick up the budget this week and there is not $435 million there. There is $305 million and the duplication goes from Seaford to Aldinga, not all the way through to Sellicks. I can tell you that Craig Curtis and the South Road Action Group are coming after this government because they are not happy with that. This was a major issue for the people in Mawson in the lead-up to the election. People have been calling for this road to be duplicated, we committed the money to do it, and now this Marshall government has ripped that money off those people.

I do not think the present government actually cared too much about the seat of Mawson in the lead-up to the election. I think they just expected that they would win it. There is something that points to that, and that is the commitment of $2 million to extend the breakwater at Cape Jervis, where the SeaLink ferries come in and go out. It was a rushed decision. The then opposition leader, Marshall, raced down there with Andy Gilfillan, the Liberal candidate for Mawson, and they made this rushed announcement on the Tuesday before the election, when they had seen the polls show that Mawson was on a knife's edge and that it was not going to be simply a seat that they would pick up.

Speaking to the local council in Yankalilla after the election, they said that the $2 million for that project was not probably the best use of that $2 million. I spoke to the transport minister—I have a good relationship with him—and I said that I was not going to make a big deal about it, and if the $2 million could be better spent on something else that the council thinks it should be spent on, as long as it stays in that precinct, it did not have to be for extending the breakwater.

However, I see in the budget that the $2 million is still going into the breakwater. We welcome that investment into our community, but perhaps the discussion with our local community about what would work best is what the new government should have done. I say again that they are out of touch with the people in Mawson.

The Kangaroo Island commissioner has been cut to save $1 million a year. I have to say that this position has been a great thing for Kangaroo Island, for bringing people together. We knew in government that it was always hard to get people to work collaboratively on Kangaroo Island, not because they do not want to but just because everyone is so busy. It is 4½ thousand people spread across 4½ thousand square kilometres, and you really needed someone to come in and bring it all together.

I think Wendy Campana and her team should be congratulated on the wonderful work they have done in making sure that things do get done on Kangaroo Island. She has brought all the industry groups together. People would have noticed that groups like KI Wool, KI wines, KI food, KI seafood, the tourism sector and all those groups are doing a lot better, and they all have a greater presence off-island. That is largely due to the hard work of all the people in the businesses who are out there at the coalface day in, day out, and the people who sit above them in the industry associations, but also the Commissioner for Kangaroo Island and her team.

A lot of people are very angry that the commissioner's role has been scrapped. There is also a vacuum there because the new government will not explain what they are going to replace it with. If you are going to take away something that is that important to the island, what are you going to replace it with? I know there is some envy from people in other regions that other regions do not have a commissioner like Kangaroo Island does. Just because one part of our state has running water, you do not turn off the water to them because other areas do not have it; you give the other areas running water as well.

I think this will really damage the government, and I urge them to come up with something whereby Kangaroo Island does not miss out, because it is at a disadvantage in terms of having to catch a ferry or fly to the island. There are cost implications with that. Quite often, ferries are cancelled on really rough weather days, so we need to have some sort of plan that can assist the people and businesses of Kangaroo Island.

I look forward to continuing to work with the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government. As I said, we have been getting on quite well so far. That is something that I want to do: actually work with the new government, but it makes it hard when we see a budget that is so mean-spirited to the people in my local area.

Fund My Neighbourhood was a great exercise in bringing communities together and getting them to work on grant applications so they did not have to stick to the usual grants that came up. These were voted on by local people in the area. I know that there were three of these grants handed out in Willunga, one in McLaren Vale and one on Kangaroo Island. They were really important, and to see local communities working together so strongly was absolutely terrific.

In the area of agriculture, two programs were scrapped; one was the South Australian Premium Food and Wine Credentials Grant Program. It did not cost a lot each year, but what it did was allow people who were doing wonderful things here in South Australia—whether in the seafood sector, the wine sector or across the grain sectors—who needed some sort of commendation and accreditation from government, to receive that. We would sign certificates that they could then take overseas and say, 'We are backed by our government.'

It also helped them get certification from international certifiers, whether that be the Marine Stewardship Council, which has given the highest accreditation to the wonderful people over on Spencer Gulf who do the Spencer Gulf prawns, or whether it is our farmers who are non-GMO. It gave them that certification, so I think it is a real loss.

The Advanced Food Manufacturing grants were also terrific, and I know the Goolwa Pipi Co was one recipient of those grants. They needed to upscale what they were doing, but they needed longer shelf life on the pipis that they were producing. We helped them with a grant that allowed them to get in and test this technology. Once that had been proven, they then made their own investment and it was worth a lot of money to them. The money they are now recouping with their packaged pipis that they are selling all around Australia to chefs and to stores is terrific.

I know that other companies around South Australia really appreciated those grants. I know that the government keeps saying that they do not want to pick winners, but sometimes you have to give individual companies a helping hand. I have given this example before: the Cube at d'Arenberg is a $15 million investment, of which $13 million was put up by the Osborn family, who own d'Arenberg winery, a 105-year-old company.

They put up $13 million of their own money. We put in $2 million, which will probably pay the wages bill of the extra 70 people they have employed for the first year—it would not even pay that. We will get that money back in terms of the people who are drawn to McLaren Vale and the people who are drawn to South Australia by this wonderful building, the d'Arenberg Cube. It is not just d'Arenberg that benefits from that; it is every tourism operator, it is every accommodation provider, it is every cellar door in the McLaren Vale region and further afield across the Fleurieu. I think that this slogan that they have of 'we are not here to pick winners' is absolutely not a winning way to go.

In terms of tourism, the government keeps saying they are putting extra money in, but that is not what the South Australian Tourism Commission has been told. As someone who was the minister for tourism for five years, I talk to a lot of people in the tourism sector who say that the feedback they are getting from the South Australian Tourism Commission is that the new government has absolutely taken its hands off the wheel.

They have also reduced funding into the vital areas of marketing South Australia. There is no point in having the best facilities, the best natural attractions or the best major events if you do not tell people that they are on. In our time in government, we built the $535 million Adelaide Oval, the $400 million new Convention Centre and so much more. We built critical infrastructure but also put money in to make sure that we sold these wonderful assets in terms of bringing people in and making sure that our visitor numbers increased each year.

I was proud of the fact that in the five years that I was the minister, we grew the visitor economy in South Australia, from $4.9 billion a year to $6.7 billion a year. That was a huge increase, and one of the great things about the visitor economy is that people spend money right around South Australia and not just in the CBD. More than 40 per cent of the tourism spend is actually in regional South Australia.

I know that the member for Hammond is extremely excited about The Bend Motorsport Park complex. He spoke about it yesterday. Again, they are the things that we did. Is that picking a winner? We did give $7½ million to that project to help get it off the ground. I commissioned CAMS, the Australian motorsport governing body, to do the report and to come up with The Bend as the best option out of five options for where to build this motorsport complex. I think we should have governments that pick winners, that do work with the private sector. I really think this first budget is a mean and nasty budget.

Time expired.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Cowdrey.