Bills

Appropriation Bill 2018

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 4 September 2018.)

Mr MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Leader of the Opposition) (11:59): I rise as the lead speaker for the budget in reply. Buried way in the national accounts that were released yesterday is a statistic that says a lot about our state and the people of South Australia, whom we are elected to represent. The statistic is not flashy, but it is uncompromising, and we know it to be true. Yesterday, we learned from the national accounts that state final demand for the last quarter of the 2017-18 financial year was up 1.3 per cent—the highest rate of any state in the commonwealth and well above the national average. It is an utterly positive and significant milestone for our nation and for our state, but particularly for our economy.

When reflecting on the period that number relates to, I could not get around the undeniable reality of who owns the credit for this good news. No matter which way you cut it, the Liberal Party does not own this good news, nor does the Labor Party. This achievement is owned by the people of this state: every last hardworking mum, dad, single, couple, student or volunteer, you name it, every South Aussie who decided not to be characterised by their fear of the future but rather by their resilience.

Putting aside who goaded the car industry out of the country, putting aside who orchestrated the naval shipbuilding valley of death, and putting aside who was the architect of federal policy paralysis on what is now a national energy crisis, when faced with the challenge of one of the most complex and substantial economic transitions in our nation's history South Australians collectively decided to stare down the threat of double-digit unemployment and got to work. Official figures show that, since December 2014, we have had over 40 consecutive months of jobs growth, so that by the end of the financial year we have the third lowest unemployment rate of any state.

The people of South Australia deserve the credit for their gritty determination and resilience, which makes our state an integral part of the commonwealth that always punches above its weight. It is true that we are not out of the woods yet. In today's world, no economic transition is ever complete, but we have turned the corner and are right to be optimistic. But for those of us who were in this place at 3pm on Tuesday, optimism and the future were not high on the agenda. Those of us who were here at 3pm on Tuesday would not have had the sense that an economy on the up was delivering huge windfalls in revenue.

The GST is up a billion dollars over the forward estimates. Payroll tax receipts are up $148 million over the four years to 2021. The state tax revenue total is up $40 million this year alone. Those who were here at 3pm on Tuesday certainly would not have got the impression that a political party that had spend 16 years in the wilderness had renewed its personnel or freshened its thinking. At 3pm on Tuesday, when Rob Lucas shuffled into this place and delivered the same style of budget he was cooking up 20 years ago, not only did we learn that in over two decades that the Liberal Party could not find anyone else capable of being Treasurer but we also learned that in 20 years the Liberal Party could not come up with any new ideas. It is back to the future indeed.

Election policies reflect the work of a political party that treats a period in opposition as an opportunity—an opportunity to listen, an opportunity to think, an opportunity to develop serious reform—but it is the budget where the rubber hits the road. The budget sets the central policy narrative and direction of any first term Premier and their government. It should reflect the values and the mission of the government and its leader.

On election night in March, the premier-elect triumphantly declared that South Australia could expect a new dawn, but as an unreconstructed Rob Lucas delivered an unreconstructed Rob Lucas budget that had no theme, no vision, no hope, and no ambition, South Australians saw a false dawn. They saw a missed opportunity. In our federation, the states are the tier of government responsible for service delivery. That is our core business. Those services are wide and varied but I think we all agree that community safety, health and education are all equally high priorities. For better or worse, every state budget impacts these core services.

Community safety: we are lucky to live in a state that has fine men and women in uniform, in police and prisons, who work hard to keep us safe, but what does this budget do to help them? SAPOL receives a $38 million cut for its efforts. What is Mr Wingard going to axe to cover this—10 million packets of chips? But seriously, 80 per cent of the SAPOL budget is made up of wages. You cannot cut $38 million without affecting front-line work. Something has to give and you can bet community safety will be worse for it. Crime Stoppers is an integral service to the community. The information collected and given to SAPOL helps solve crimes, catch criminals and make our community safer. For their efforts, Premier Marshall has given them a $960,000 cut.

Then there is Corrections, the unheralded arm of the community safety portfolio. All of us can sleep easier in the knowledge that the most dangerous criminals in our society are locked up at night. South Australians would also be shocked to learn that it can cost up to $100,000 a year to keep someone detained in a maximum security facility. Although South Australia can be proud to have a reoffending rate below the national average, having a reoffending rate of 45 per cent of released prisoners returning to custody within two years amounts to a revolving door.

That leaves governments with two options: either build more and more prison beds at huge capital and recurrent costs or stop the revolving door. This government made their choice when it decided to cut the funding of programs targeted to reduce reoffending by 10 per cent by 2020. Less rehabilitation means more crime and that means more victims. Then to cap it off, they are going to privatise a prison. Not just any prison, a maximum security prison—

There being a disturbance in the strangers' gallery.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: —now if the minister thinks that the running of a low security—

The SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, one moment please. I ask that members of the gallery please do not interject. Thank you.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: If the minister thinks the cost of running a low-security Mount Gambier prison, the one that the Liberals first privatised, can be compared with the cost and complexity of a maximum security prison, then clearly he has not read the brief. If the Premier believes there are savings to be made at the Remand Centre, then find them. If he believes there are efficiencies that can be found at the Remand Centre, then deliver them. But do not just give up only six months in and say, 'It's all too hard,' and hand the keys of a gaol over to a private for-profit corporation.

Cutting SAPOL, burning Crime Stoppers, reducing rehabilitation and privatising prisons is quite simply poor policy. As corrections minister, I had the courage to stand up for my convictions, denounce Kevin Foley's rack 'em, pack 'em and stack 'em policy and do something about it. This minister should have the courage to stand up to Rob Lucas and do what is right for community safety in our state by stopping the Americanisation of our prisons and instead investing in crime reduction.

The Liberal Party spent 16 years complaining about Health. They love pointing to every problem without having any solutions. They fought tooth and nail against giving patients access to a new Royal Adelaide Hospital. They gave South Australians the impression that they would address every funding shortfall and fix every waiting list. Now we see the reality of the Liberal's management of our health system: privatisation and cuts. At the first chance they got, the Liberal government broke their promise and restarted privatising our public hospital system.

SA Pathology, SA imaging and patient transfers are on the privatisation chopping block. Important clinical services in our hospitals, like blood tests and biopsies, will be contracted out to the lowest bidder. Profit will be the motive, not the best patient care. World-leading teaching and research will suffer, and patients will be forced to pay more as bulk billing suffers. We see in black and white the cuts that our public hospitals will now be facing. Across the health system, 880 staff will be cut and many of these will be key clinical staff.

There is no doubt that the impact of this will be felt at the front doors of our hospitals. Where ramping has been at crisis levels this year, it will now only get worse. This budget is so mean-spirited that it is even cutting health services to homeless people with HIV. We in Labor believe in the value of public health care, provided by publicly employed clinicians serving the public good, not chasing profits.

Education is one of the most important investments a government can make for the future of the state's economy, as well as for the individual benefit of young people. This budget does not show any imagination or interest in the future. The Marshall government claims credit for huge investments by the previous government in literacy, numeracy, STEM, languages, behaviour support, new schools and infrastructure upgrades. The only idea with a Liberal stamp on it is a largely unfunded move of year 7s from one school to another. This decision will take much-needed upgrade money from high schools and turn it into classrooms for children who are already in classrooms just down the road.

I would have no objection to this policy if the government had decided to actually fund their commitment. Instead, they are making schools wear it by using the Building Better Schools money to pay for an unfunded promise. The Premier remains, not surprisingly, silent in the debate with Canberra for money our schools are owed: $210 million this year and next year alone—transformational funding.

Tertiary education is another complex policy area, with shared responsibilities with the federal government. The Premier started on the wrong foot by calling South Australian universities hopeless, absolutely hopeless, in their recruitment of international students. I am sure that endeared him to the vice chancellors. Regarding TAFE, having touted full contestability with private trainers throughout the election, his first budget closes at least seven campuses, with no consultation and no analysis. On the same day, his minister tables a review report that recommends that campuses be run locally and opened up to shared use with employers, other trainers and the community. However, that is not consistent with the Marshall government's mantra to cut, close and sell.

Unfortunately, it is not just the core areas of community safety, health and education that will be subjected to Rob Lucas's 20-year-old blunt axe. When the budget papers are analysed, it quickly becomes clear that sport and recreation funding is being cut dramatically. The big losers are sports outside cricket, footy and netball. I love my footy, but the Premier may want to note that the mix of grassroots sports played in this state has moved beyond just those played when South Australia was still a colony.

Indeed, the sports that we play are as diverse as the people who play them, which happens to include women. The fact that this government has cut the Female Facilities Program shows how completely unconnected the Liberal Party is with women. Do you know what would have happened if, as treasurer, the member for West Torrens had tried to pull a stunt like this in the Labor Party? It would never happen because the member for West Torrens wants his young daughters to have the same access and the same opportunities in grassroots sport as the shadow treasurer's young sons.

And how about the regions? Has the funding followed the rhetoric? Remember hashtag #RegionsMatter? It turns out it is nothing more than a cheap throwaway line. Under this budget, country road funding gets a $26 million cut. Forget Royalties for Regions.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: How about the Liberal Party show some loyalty to the regions for the faith they put into you. I was surprised that not one dollar in this budget has been allocated to farmers who are suffering from the drought. The New South Wales government developed a $1 billion assistance package for drought-affected communities. Although South Australia has not been affected by the drought like New South Wales, there are some South Australian farmers who are hurting, particularly on Eyre Peninsula. I am not going to try to pretend to know the communities or the people who are being affected as much as those in the member for Flinders'—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members on my right!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am not going to pretend to understand those communities or those people like the member for Flinders does, who I believe genuinely cares about his electorate, but I did meet with some of his constituents while spending some time recently on Eyre Peninsula. I got the sense that some of those folk who are there doing it tough could actually do with some assistance right now. They do not need a working group. They need some help, help which is not unprecedented, help which you are capable of delivering. You are in charge now. Only you can make it happen. So get on with it, and on this one the Labor Party will stand with you. In this budget few things have been spared:

public transport services and routes are being cut;

Service SA centres are being closed;

in the disability sector a suite of work is being privatised;

the environment department is being slashed by more than $10 million per annum;

$48 million in grant payments and 125 FTE positions have been slashed from the South Australian Housing Trust;

in Aboriginal affairs, the Office of the Treaty Commissioner is gone;

staffing numbers in the Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation division have been almost halved, and $5 million of funding is gone;

the Marni Wodli Youth Accommodation Services for at-risk Aboriginal youth have been cut by almost $2 million;

even historic tall ships that engage young people have copped a hit;

managed taxi ranks have been axed;

Safe City grants are gone;

community legal services have been cut;

the economic driver of tourism, which has been delivering growth for our state, has been cut; and

the equally important mining sector—what do they get? They get slugged with higher taxes.

The list goes on and on, and it begs the question why. For what central reason? For what purpose are the members for Newland and King expected to go back to their electorates and explain the privatisation of hospital services to and from Modbury Hospital, the closure of Modbury's Service SA Centre, the cancellation of bus services, the cancellation of the Tea Tree Gully park-and-ride and the closure of the Tea Tree Gully TAFE?

What is the reason why they are being asked to undertake this work? Is it because the fiscal hawks are in charge and debt must come down? No. In this budget debt soars. It goes up $3.2 billion. The debt-to-revenue ratio goes from below 35 per cent—somewhere we always worked hard to keep—to over 41 per cent. Debt-to-revenue ratio up, debt up. So this is not about debt reduction. Is it because—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Is it because—

The Hon. S.K. Knoll interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, Minister for Transport!

The Hon. S.S. Marshall interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Premier, order!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Is the Premier asking the members for Newland and King to undertake this work because the government wants to see higher jobs growth delivered to our state? No. Treasury forecasts in this budget that jobs growth is going to decline, from 2.1 per cent in 2017 to 1 per cent in 2022, a halving of jobs growth rate over the course of this budget. So I am not sure what the explanation is. Maybe the true cost of key election commitments was not thought through. In any event, if there are questions or doubts about what the vision is behind this budget, those questions or doubts are of the Premier's and Treasurer's making.

The Hon. Mr Lucas said the word 'Labor' 39 times in his budget speech. He only mentioned jobs nine times. He did not mention prosperity once. What the Premier and Treasurer do not realise is that the people of South Australia do not care about the dark arts of budget tricks. Bringing substantial expenditures back from one year into the previous in order to create or exaggerate a deficit is a cheap headline but not a long-term strategy.

What South Australians care about is public health services being delivered in a way that is good for them rather than for profit. What workers care about is being able to catch the bus and make sure that they are still running to get to work. What teenagers care about is getting into their TAFE. What parents care about is whether their community is safe for their children. But most importantly, what South Australians care about is each other, which is why the fairness test matters. One of my favourite quotes is from Frank Delano Roosevelt (FDR). He said:

The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.

It is an eloquent set of words, a set of words which does not admonish inner quality but which recognises that too much inequality stifles our progress. I could not agree with FDR more, and when this basic test of fairness is applied to this state budget there are some glaring failures.

Tax reform can be a powerful tool to stimulate an economy and pursue fairness. That is why Labor in government, and in opposition, have supported the government's payroll tax reductions. It is also why we recently supported the ESL reductions. Both employers and households have earned a dividend on their determination and resilience.

Likewise, we support some land tax reform. Aspirational South Australians who have worked hard to acquire capital to own an investment property or a holiday shack should not be unfairly slugged. But there is a basic value judgement to be made about the fairness of a pensioner in a 1960s bedsit or a cottage flat being more than $500 a year worse off while an interstate landlord who owns $5 million of land gets a $30,000 a year tax break. It would take 60 pensioners dipping into their wallets and purses to pay for one landlord's tax break.

We all heard Trish's story on the radio yesterday. The idea that we could be making the most vulnerable people in our community, who cannot afford their own home, worse off, while people on the highest land tax threshold pay a lot less, does not pass the fairness test. On a day that national accounts placed South Australia as one of the best performing economies in the nation, on a day that multimillionaire landowners were learning about tens of thousands of dollars of tax cuts, it should not be the day that the most vulnerable in our community learn about a rent hike.

On this side of the house, we know what we stand for. We believe that the determined and resilient people of our state deserve better. When an economy is on the up, now is not the time to be revisionist about the past. Instead, we should be investing in the future, full of optimism and potential, but the government collaborated with the growth industries of tourism, mining, higher education, premium food and wine and agriculture. Our economy can continue to prosper without leaving swathes of people behind.

In health, our state now has world-class hospitals and an expert cohort of doctors and nurses. Instead of imposing savage cuts and instead of imposing privatisations, the Premier could be sitting down with our top clinicians to develop ways to improve efficiency without impacting patient care, properly consulting, just like he said he would. The Premier could also be investing in primary and preventative care—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The Premier could also be investing in primary and preventative care to keep people healthy and out of hospital, just like he said he would.

Education is a centrepiece of Labor values and progressive values. A party that believes in working towards a future and preparing the population to benefit from economic change will always prioritise education funding. Now is not the time to be closing TAFE campuses, particularly at Port Adelaide, where we will need more skilled jobs than ever before.

In community safety, rather than privatising prisons we can invest in long-term strategies and improved safety by tackling reoffending. We are capable of all these things and more. Sure, it is hard and we are not naive about the challenges, but if any of us are looking for a source of inspiration, we need only look at the people we represent.

The Treasurer may have ice in his veins, but this budget has proven the Premier to be cold-blooded. On this side of the house, we may have cool heads, but we are very much warm-blooded. For Labor, our work is just beginning. We will campaign for fairness right throughout this term of government. We will stand up for what is right. In a period of prosperity, we will work day and night to ensure that the gritty determination and the resilience of the South Australian people gets the reward it deserves.

There being a disturbance in the strangers' gallery:

The SPEAKER: Thank you, members of the gallery. The Deputy Premier has the call.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (12:26): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am very proud today to rise and support the state budget of 2018-19, the very first budget of the Marshall Liberal government. Elected after 16 years of Labor's financial mismanagement, our government must now act to clean up Labor's mess. South Australians understand the financial state of affairs that was left to us, and they know that together all of us must put our shoulders to the wheel and return the budget to a sustainable position.

With this budget, South Australia sees decisive action and determined economic political leadership. The Marshall Liberal government is committed to financial repair, and it begins in this budget. In addition to getting the state's finances in order, we said before the election that we would deliver our election commitments to create more jobs, lower costs and provide better services for South Australians.

As members know, we have already delivered many of our commitments, and this budget delivers more of them. I commend the Treasurer for his budget speech. I am so impressed that I asked the Premier to get it autographed by the Treasurer, because it will be an important document for the future.

The Hon. S.S. Marshall: Which I did.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Which indeed he did. What is also important to note is that it is clear that the deficit of some $397 million left in this last financial year, which was paraded by the former government as going to achieve a $12 million surplus, has cascaded into this massive deficit. Shamefully, the former government knew full well before they left office that it was heading towards at least a $200 million deficit and they said nothing.

That identifies the level of deceit that applied to the daily operations of a government that would never tell the truth to South Australians. That situation has been revealed, and the former government can bleat all they like about the position that they claim was going to occur, but their own advisers and their own documents reveal this shameful concealment.

I would also like to say that in a circumstance where you keep spinning lies, eventually the public wakes up—and they did in March 2018. That deceit and deception are now over and we are committed to a transparent administration. We have started straightaway with this budget. It is important to ensure that we no longer have fake news, that we do not have fake budgets and that we do not have made-up figures. We have a situation where the former administration, now led by one of its ministers in the opposition of today, continues to bleat out fake news. He makes Donald Trump look like a rank amateur. It is just appalling to think that they continue to fail to face up to what they have done and what legacy they have left to South Australians.

I want to highlight some of the important savings measures insofar as they relate to the area of the Attorney-General's responsibility. In contributing to this debate, it represents somewhat of a change from previous years, when attorneys-general did not rise to support their treasurer—in all the time I can remember being here—let alone their own cabinet collective decision-making. Let me start by providing confirmation of the significant additional funding to the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption and the Office of Public Integrity to support the performance of statutory functions, along with the delivery of education programs and investigation activities. This also delivers a key election commitment to enable ICAC to conduct public hearings.

The funding boost of $14.5 million includes $7 million over four years to support operations and a further $7.5 million of investing expenditure over four years for IT system upgrades, office accommodation fit-out and the establishment of a hearing facility, which will allow access to both media and the South Australian public. I did offer the Sturt Street courts that were renovated by the previous government, but they are not fit for purpose. They still sit in decay after a $10 million spend, which is just so symptomatic of the administration of the previous Labor government.

As I have said before, the previous government was addicted to secrecy and continually blocked attempts to legislate for open ICAC hearings, despite the ICAC commissioner, the Hon. Bruce Lander QC, calling for the ability to conduct maladministration and misconduct investigations and hearings in public. Our government has introduced legislation to enable those public hearings, and now we are backing that up and funding it in the budget. The ICAC has demonstrated a clear need for extra funding to do its job in recent years, funding which has not been provided by the former Labor government, notwithstanding submissions presented to them. We recognise the importance of an independent integrity body and we are proud to resource it properly.

Let me refer to Forensic Science SA, which will be aided with an extra $1.5 million over four years for coronial services. The FSSA provides independent, high-quality, expert scientific evidence, opinion and information to the justice system and to the South Australian community. It is an essential service, and I would like to acknowledge and thank Professor Chris Pearman and his team for the vital work that they do. The additional funding is to support an increase in the number and complexity of post mortems and pathology reviews requested by the Coroner.

There could not be a member in this house who does not hear the plaintive claims of their constituency about the delay of funerals, the delay of coronial inquiries, the delay in their laying to rest a loved one or at least an inquiry into their cause of death. Last year, in my response to Labor's appropriation bill, I said in relation to FSSA:

…the failure to deal with the performance indicators in respect of turnaround times was a direct reflection of the government's failure to provide adequate resources...

Under this government, FSSA receives a much-needed funding injection.

I am very pleased that the full-time community legal service will be reinstated in the Riverland as a result of our allocation of $600,000 over four years. This will provide people in the Riverland with access to legal services when they most need them. This is good news for the people of the Riverland, after the service closed in 2017. This demonstrates the Marshall Liberal government's commitment to the Riverland and to the regions, and I thank our Premier for understanding its significance. Again, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, who again falsely claims a reduction in relation to services, we are rebuilding regional services and reopening offices. This is an important part of access to justice for our regional South Australians.

The budget provides additional funding of $750,000 for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the prosecution of a number of complex criminal cases currently being conducted. These cases require the application of significant legal resources in a dedicated capacity for extended periods of time. High profile cases, such as the NCA bombing and the ongoing prosecution of Sturt police officers arising from an ICAC investigation, are the types of cases that obviously require additional resourcing. The government takes its responsibility seriously in this regard.

The budget provides $146.4 million in the financial year just concluded to support South Australia's participation in the National Redress Scheme for Survivors of Institutional Child Sexual Abuse. This is probably the thing I am most proud of in the new government: making that decision early, paying up the commitment early and now providing the legislation, which is on its way through the parliament. This figure is an estimate based on the actuarial assessment commissioned by the commonwealth, which estimated up to 1,690 eligible applicants may have been abused within South Australian government institutions.

As members know, the National Redress Scheme was a recommendation of the commonwealth's Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Our government believes that joining the scheme is the best means of providing a measure of justice to those victims. As I have previously said, the stories presented at the royal commission opened our eyes to the prevalence of institutional child sexual abuse, the failure of institutions to respond, and the lifelong impact it brings to bear. The commission's findings are powerful and far-reaching.

The scheme will be administered by the commonwealth Department of Social Services. The South Australian Government Financing Authority (SAFA) will manage the administration and payment of the redress claims assessed by the national scheme operator. Funding for the payments has been sourced from the Victims of Crime Fund and, at the completion of the scheme, any residual balance will be returned to the fund.

The consolidation of the Independent Gambling Authority is a budget measure that will reduce expenditure by $236,000 in 2018-19, with ongoing savings of $483,000 per annum from the 2019-20, producing a $1.7 million saving over four years for taxpayers. Savings will be realised through the consolidation of the IGA within Consumer and Business Services, which will perform the regulatory functions of the IGA. The Liquor and Gambling Commissioner will become the sole regulator and assume the operational and enforcement responsibilities previously under the IGA.

The consolidation of operations into a single gambling regulator is consistent with the recommendations of the Administrative Review of Gambling Regulations in South Australia by His Honour Tim Anderson QC, initiated by the former government, and will simplify the regulatory framework for the industry. Regrettably, this report was kept concealed for two years but is now before the parliament, and we are pleased to announce this initiative, consistent with their advice.

The Office of the Public Advocate has been allocated $1.2 million over two years to support clients living with disability to access the National Disability Insurance Scheme. This will help clients secure the best possible plans and funding for support services as they become participants in the scheme. Around 700 clients of the Public Advocate are expected to become NDIS participants, and significant work is required to assist and support them to access and remain in the scheme. This is much-needed funding. I was appalled to hear the Leader of the Opposition today treat the NDIS as something his federal counterparts proudly paraded as an idea that was initiated under their administration federally but now, suddenly, it is some shameful privatisation of a much-needed service for those in our disability community.

As a result of the financial mess we inherited from the former Labor government, the delivery of this budget has forced the government to make some hard decisions. These decisions have not been easy, but are necessary to ensure that the government delivers its election commitments. It commences the task of financial repair, while maintaining a budget discipline around the forward estimates. The priority for this government is to ensure that our state is respected again as an engine room in the Australian economy and not the recipient of dismissive scoffs from other states.

It is also a priority that our state deliver a future for our children and provide them with a secure, inspiring, exciting future, a place to work and play, and not a place from which to flee to try to secure employment elsewhere and, finally, that we ensure that our state is a sanctuary, a safe, protected and productive sanctuary, for those who are most vulnerable in our community and where they can have a future that gives them that opportunity.

It is certainly true to say that when we receive budgets I remember my father's words: 'It is very important to pay well those who work hard, to provide for those who can't and to starve those who can but won't'. Our priority must be to protect the vulnerable, to ensure that we give them a future and to work hard to ensure that those who are prepared to resurrect the status of our state, the economy and the future for our children, do have our priorities and do enjoy that support as we go forward.

One of the matters I feel rather sad to have announced is the discontinuance of the sentencing council. This will, of course, save $100,000 a year, but it is a council, in my short time as Attorney-General, whose advice I have valued. It was previously chaired by the Hon. Kevin Duggan AM QC, and the current chairperson is the Hon. John Sulan QC. Both have been very supportive in providing us with advice in relation to restorative justice, and I commend them for all their work during the time they have operated, since 2011.

Surely, we will have to rely on many internal people within the Attorney-General's Department, but I am assured that those who have served on this council will continue to make available their support and advice on an individual basis. I certainly will value that. I make the point that one of the greatest concerns I had when coming into office was that when the former government dealt with the sentencing law reform and rewrote the Sentencing Act the sentencing council was not asked to express a view or consulted in relation to the bill that came to the house. I found it absolutely stunning, and I felt sickened by the fact that they had been ignored when they are a body supposed to be there to provide advice to government.

I also make the point in relation to the sentencing review that this is an issue concerning to us as a government looking forward to future areas. Apart from the major indictable reform the former government brought in, which became effective in April, clearly there are some difficulties with that, but we are trying to work hard to make sure it works. In relation to sentencing law review, in 2011 and then in 2012, the former attorney-general introduced legislation to provide for sentence discounting. At the time, I made the point on behalf of the then opposition that this had been a practice which had been considered overseas, in the United Kingdom, and abandoned and which had been considered in other states and at the least reduced. But, no, the government wanted to press ahead with what has been colloquially called 'the supergrass amendments'.

We indicated at the time, and the Hansard is there for all to see, the concerns we had in moving to a 40 per cent discounting in relation to sentencing and whether that would have any actual impact, given the experience around the world, as to the encouragement for early guilty pleas. I made the point that plea bargaining is something that the public does not always understand in relation to having a full understanding of how it applies and why it can be important for there to be a negotiating option in dealing with the settlement of cases that are being prosecuted.

The government went ahead with it anyway, and I think it is fair to say that when the government appointed the Hon. Brian Martin to do its review of that legislation, to see whether it had been effective, both in the early guilty pleas and in the supergrass opportunities given to criminals to assist the prosecution in relation to successfully convicting others, there were some significant limitations identified in respect of this legislation.

It is fair to say that, although there had not been much opportunity in the time that that review had passed, there was certainly an indication that on balance there had not actually been a translation into a reduction in the median number of days to finalise major indictable matters and in relation to early guilty pleas. On the supergrass matter, the reviewer said that it was too early to tell at all. We are down the track a few more years and clearly we need to look at this data again.

This is a matter that I think a new government needs to take up because the former government's option was to introduce legislation, give criminals a much greater discounting than applied anywhere else, much to the concern of victims and general disquiet in the public and then not make any provision for what was still a burden with some provision of sentencing so that people were then shuffled off into the opportunities of home detention. You can see where I am going here.

The former government's way of doing this was to do an early deal, reduce the number of people going into prison, pretend to the public that they were strong on law and order and then, when it came to the crunch and they were not prepared to put any money into extra prison beds, give them home detention. That was the modus operandi of the former government. We do need to look at this issue again and we do need to identify whether there has been a direct benefit and whether there has been the important consultation with victims that was highlighted back in that report in 2015, which the former government either did not read or did not care about, but they certainly did not do anything about.

I look forward to continuing to seek advice from the judiciary, the legal associations and people who work in this field, both at a government level and in the private sector, to ensure that we do make provision for a fair system in respect of sentencing. In relation to the Legal Services Commission, there are some other initiatives that have been announced, and I look forward to making a further contribution in respect of a budget of which I am immensely proud.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON (Ramsay) (12:47): Let's be clear: this is a budget that delivers cruel cuts, closures and privatisations, cutting more than 4,000 public servants, punishing Housing Trust tenants and privatising prisons and vital health services, but today I will focus my remarks on my shadow portfolio of trade, tourism and investment.

The objectives of this portfolio should be a bipartisan one. We all want to see a growing tourism sector and a booming visitor economy. We all want to see growth in our goods and services exports, more international students and more investment in our state, and that is why I am astounded that this budget does the opposite.

Let me start with tourism. South Australia's picturesque scenery, diverse regions, amazing food and drinks, and a jam-packed calendar of festivals and events make South Australia a must-visit destination. The tourism sector alone contributes $6.7 billion to our economy. We have a transparent goal to achieve an $8 billion visitor economy by 2020. Deloitte has nominated tourism as a sector that offers significant global growth, a sector that employs 56,000 South Australians directly and indirectly, and it is a truly whole of state industry, with 60 per cent of tourism expenditure in the metro area and 40 per cent in the regions.

Labor knew that investing in tourism would pay dividends. Let me acknowledge the great work of the former minister for tourism. With a key focus on destination marketing, we delivered, and the results speak for themselves. Since 2013, we have experienced a 30 per cent increase in the economic impact of tourism. Over the last term, we achieved 54 major events and 73 conventions and added more than 1,100 additional hotel rooms, with 14 more hotels on their way. We attracted new direct flights from China Southern and Qatar Airways. We oversaw the development of a very strong cruise ships market, with 63 stopping in South Australia last year and an aim for more than 80 this year.

Labor was committed to continuing its support for tourism, as was clearly detailed in our election proposals. We were going to increase the budget for the South Australian Tourism Commission to $100 million by 2020-21. This was a true commitment for growth. The South Australian Tourism Commission does great work in supporting the sector. They provide support in marketing the state around the nation and to the world. They work to sponsor and support major international, national and regional events. They help provide support for developing our tourism industry.

The tourism industry is a very dynamic arena. We are competing for visitors not just in Australia but around the world. Why, then, will the Liberal government spend $11 million less this year than was spent last year? This government, in its very first outing, has reversed the growth in the tourism budget. For the first time in more than four years, the money for tourism has been cut. Let me review: in 2014-15, there was $52.3 million for SATC; in 2015-16, $71.2 million; in 2016-17, $89.8 million; last year, $99.1 million was spent; but this year, the budget is $87.9 million, a decrease of 11 percent from the spend of last year.

When the government wants to cut our tourism events, which one will they choose? The Adelaide 500? The Tour Down Under? The Christmas Pageant, which does not have a sponsor for next year? Do they want to stop supporting the post-race concerts at the Adelaide 500, which have not been announced yet after this year's sellout with Robbie Williams? What are we waiting for? The international marketing budget has also been cut.

The visitor economy in South Australia is a success story. In the last year alone, the economic contribution of international visitors increased by 10 per cent to $1.2 billion. Now the government is saying, 'Let's pare back our tourism marketing this year.' What kind of signal does this send to our tourism operators, to the international airlines and to our local retail and hospitality industry?

An important tourism industry representative body, the South Australian Tourism Industry Council, with more than 900 members, called on this government to maintain the tourism budget with at least the 2017-18 budget plus CPI. It was the South Australian Tourism Industry Council's number one priority, and the government failed at this first measure. We must continue the strong positive momentum of showcasing South Australia to the world. By increasing investments to attract more international and interstate visitors and more events, we will continue to drive our industry in tourism. It is a key driver for our economy and a job creator. Now is not the time to take a step back.

Let me now focus on trade and investment. The government says this is a more narrowed approach to trade and investment policy—and how narrow it is. In this budget, the Liberal government has outlined their four-year plan to cut 45 per cent from the new Department for Trade, Tourism and Investment. This will result in the number of people in this new department decreasing from 142 FTEs today to 78 FTEs by 2021. This government wants industry to grow exports with one hand tied behind their back. This is in complete opposition to the declaration—a very proud declaration during the election—that a Liberal government will drive an export-led transformation of the South Australian economy. It was a bold claim, but it is gone.

The Labor government had a very clear vision about how South Australia can attract leading companies around the world—companies like Boeing, VeroGuard and Technicolor. We want them to set up offices right here in South Australia. It was the work of dedicated experts such as Investment Attraction South Australia that made this happen. As of February 2018, the work of Investment Attraction SA brought in 34 projects and contributed $8.185 billion to the local economy, creating more than 8,000 jobs. Now the minister's signature policy is the creation of five new trade offices and a Shanghai business and investment hub, but there is going to be far fewer people to support them at home. I am greatly concerned that we are repeating past history.

The Liberal government was very critical of the 2012 Hartley report, which advised on transitioning from stand-alone trade offices to being more focused on the facilitation of inwards investment and to continue with trade missions. More importantly, he emphasised that trade offices need support from their home state. He said that adequate back office support was mandatory. I am concerned that we will not achieve the lift in exports, as is our shared goal.

On top of that, still to this day the government has given no forward calendar, no commitment to support trade missions for our local businesses. More than 300 businesses participated in the 2017 outbound business missions. Sixty of those businesses became new exporters. Without a 2018 calendar or indeed a 2019 calendar for the business missions, it is extremely difficult, indeed impossible, for businesses to plan, to participate and to express an interest in going on these missions.

Experts tell us that trade missions are important, but the government wants to cut business missions. The experts are telling us that trade offices need back office support, but the government wants to cut this support. What we really have here is a government with no follow-through. In its revised activity indicators for the department, the number of inbound and outbound missions will no longer be publicly reported, yet the government has made new targets. But with no detail about how they will achieve them, there is no transparency. The targets are 2,000 new export or investment related jobs in 2018-19 and $500 million in foreign direct investment in 2018-19.

These are admirable targets but, without the clear understanding and focus that we previously had, I am very concerned about these goals. The government need to explain how they think cutting programs in the tourism, trade and investment sectors will assist the economy. The budget raises more questions than answers. How does cutting the tourism budget by $11 million help achieve the target to create an $8 billion tourism visitor economy by 2020? How does cutting 45 per cent of the Department for Trade, Tourism and Investment—

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Duluk): Member for Ramsay, would you like to seek leave to continue your remarks?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Can I have just a moment?

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Duluk): You better be very quick.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Thank you. We cannot afford to lose this positive momentum. This is no time for complacency.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Boyer.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00.