Bills

Appropriation Bill 2018

Appropriation Grievances

Adjourned debate on motion to note grievances.

(Continued from 18 September 2018.)

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (15:49): As I said in my remarks earlier, I believe this budget is unfair. It is cruel. It is full of cuts, closures and privatisations. I indicate I am not the lead speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for that.

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner: Everyone gets 10 minutes. Your time starts now.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, my time does start now. It is a cruel budget. There is often debate in the public about the intentions of members of parliament when they come here. I genuinely believe that we all come here with good intentions but, as the old saying goes, the path to hell is paved with good intentions. I do not understand how the Liberal Party can claim that they are good fiscal managers when they make cuts to services they say they regret on the basis that they are doing so to improve the finances of the state when, in fact, they are increasing debt levels each and every year across the forward estimates.

I will relay to you a very famous advertisement that was made in the UK, where there were two juxtapositions between a nurse and a property investor. The nurse talked about having to make savings every year through measures that the government put in place because of concern about the fiscal situation on the books. The other position was of a young investment banker who had been afforded the ability to buy an extra investment property and could now fly business class on holiday rather than economy. It showed how good it was to have a government that understood the interests of business.

Every year, the nurse's child would get older and older. They talked about cuts to the community and the services they used, and the increase in rent and housing and affordability. The juxtaposition showed the investment banker buying more and more investment properties, with more tax cuts to their business. At the end, the young nurse said, 'Well, at least debt must be going down after all these years of austerity.' The interviewer then said, 'You realise of course that debt has gone up?' It is the same story here.

After 16 years out of office, the first budget of this government—their first economic statement in 16 years, their first economic statement since the turn of the century—shows debt increase in each and every year across those forward estimates. In exchange for that increased debt, what do we get? We get 4,000 job cuts in the public sector, seven TAFE campuses closed, $38 million in cuts to police, Service SA centres cuts in Mitcham, Modbury and Prospect. What are Service SA centres? They are centres where people are compelled to go by the government to renew licensing—regulatory licensing that the government compels them to pay for and provide information on, and the government is cutting them. These are not consumer choices. These are choices that South Australians are being forced to make, and they are being cut.

Neighbourhood road safety programs, Aboriginal road safety programs and cycle paths are being cut. They are scrapping plans to build new residential care facilities. They are cutting 200 people who have non-teaching positions in our schools and 115 positions from the Department for Environment and Water. The mining sector, which is the third pillar of our economic diversification—that is an area that creates jobs and grows prosperity—is seeing cuts to the agency and tax increases; and there are cuts to crime prevention grants that pay for CCTV cameras.

As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have two young daughters. As the treasurer, along with the attorney-general, I was very keen to see the rollout of CCTV cameras along Adelaide's entertainment strips. Why? Because young people going out are subject to all forms of violence and intimidation, which is why the former government had a program of lockout laws, limitations on alcohol and, of course, CCTV cameras so we can catch out and eliminate bad behaviour from our streets. I am not sure why you would cut CCTV cameras at a time when the world is getting more dangerous, not safer. It is beyond me.

I also think it is important to note that they are cutting services and infrastructure rolling out in our schools. I was very proud to invest very heavily as treasurer into giving our students laptops. Members in the parliament are given laptops for free as part of our job. Why not our students? Do we really believe that students are not going to be using laptops and mobile devices in the workforce? Why would we cut that?

I think it is counterproductive because investing in education is the one silver bullet we have. It is the one weapon we have to really turbocharge prosperity. The better trained our young people are and the longer they are in school, the better results we get in terms of social dislocation, work, crime prevention and health outcomes. You can go on and on. Education is the great equaliser. Why you would make a cut to that is, quite frankly, very concerning.

There have been cuts to regional road funding. The government says it is an increase, but it is a freeze. It is actually less money in our regions. Last time I checked, there were more regional members in the Liberal Party than there were in the Labor Party. How can it possibly be that we spent more in the regions than the Liberal Party? The Liberal Party regional members have been waiting 16 years to tell their constituents—and they have been telling their constituents over the last 16 years—how hard done by they have been. Where is the opportunity now to sell the success of finally being in office?

I have grave concerns about what the government is doing to public transport. Public transport is being sold as some sort of luxury. It is not a luxury. Public transport is a necessity. As the parent of two young children, I can tell you that mornings are hectic, as most people know. Mornings are hectic, no matter how old your children are. Mornings are hectic, no matter who you are. Getting to and from work and getting to work on time is very difficult, whether you live in the outer suburbs or in the inner suburbs.

Car parking is an issue and it is expensive. Not making cuts to bus routes and building car park facilities at bus interchanges (1) gets cars off our roads, which eases infrastructure costs on us because there are fewer cars on the road, less traffic, fewer grade separations and less maintenance; (2) means more people on public transport and the more efficient our network is to allow freight and couriers to be on our road getting the economy moving; and (3) means the people on those buses actually save money by not operating vehicles, in terms of their insurance costs and car parking costs. Petrol is at an all-time high. They can pay their mortgages off faster.

For a government that claim they are somehow trying to ease the cost of living, by cutting bus routes they have done the exact opposite. The way to attract people to public transport is to have better amenity on those buses. What is one of the first things they did? They cancelled the contract to buy new buses.

After former treasurer Hockey and former prime minister Abbott dared Holden to leave, we set about attempting to try to diversify our manufacturing industry into manufacturing buses that we could purchase here. Local companies were looking at bidding for this $100 million program to build new buses and the government have just cancelled it. They privatised the routes last time they were in office, but we still own the buses. We had a plan to invest $100 million into new buses to improve amenity and get more people on our buses to decongest our roads to allow for better improvements in our economy and the network, and the government have cancelled it.

I want to finish, with the time I have left, by reminding members that one of the most important things we do here is to leave the place better off than we found it. I do not understand how the government can claim to be good fiscal managers when, if they lose the election in 2022, without any further budgets they are increasing debt by $3.3 billion at a time when interest rates are going up and they are making cuts. I have to say that I have grave concerns about a Treasurer who is not facing an election again and spending that kind of money.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:00): It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak to the Appropriation Bill grieve process. I want to talk about financial management and the mismanagement of the previous Labor government. We have just had the former treasurer, the member for West Torrens, trying to lecture us about financial management and making good decisions. He led us to believe that there was going to be a $12 million surplus in the budget, when actually there was a $397 million deficit.

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner: Missed it by that much.

Mr PEDERICK: Missed it by that much. Seriously, to be lectured by the member for West Torrens is absolutely outrageous. One thing we are doing, which the former government forgot about, is investing in our regions. We are pouring $773 million of funding into our regions for those vital services that so many of us represent because over this side of the house, the government, we are the party for the regions and the whole of South Australia.

Part of this funding package is the Regional Roads and Infrastructure Fund, with $350 million coming out of mining royalties, and almost all mining happens in the regions. There is a lot of mining in the Far North, but I am associated with three mines in or near my electorate and they employ a lot of people. I did some calculations the other day. In the time that I have been in this place, those small mines at Mindarie, Strathalbyn and Callington-Kanmantoo would have contributed over $1 billion to the state's economy in infrastructure and wages.

That is a huge investment, giving people the chance to work from home. I was talking to a miner from the Hillgrove mine at Callington-Kanmantoo the other day. He said, 'I work seven days a week, 12 hours a day. I sleep at home, and then I'm home for a week off.' How good is that? The beauty of regional mining is that we can put around $76 million a year, 36 per cent of those mining royalties, straight back into our road network. The Regional Growth fund is $150 million over 10 years so that we can get the appropriate infrastructure built into our regions to make those regions grow. We are supporting those wealth areas, where agriculture, mining, industry and so much of our trade come out of our regions.

We have $192 million going into Country Health. Previously, and over many decades, I have seen that when the Labor Party has been in power they have always had an agenda: let's close some hospitals. I have talked about it in this place before, and about three decades ago I campaigned on the front steps to save Tailem Bend hospital. It is still there and we have just had some new doctors come in and run that service, and it is just fantastic. All that time ago, the Labor Party wanted to close the hospital, and a long time since then there have been proposals to shut down Country Health.

We are putting $140 million into health infrastructure, and that maintenance spend is so sorely needed to get it up to speed. It is absolutely fantastic that it is finally getting the attention it deserves. To prove that we are not just partisan to Liberal electorates, $100 million has been allocated for a secondary school in Whyalla. That just shows that we are here to govern for the whole state.

There is mobile blackspot funding. We had members on the other side saying, when they were in government, that it was a federal issue, but that is not how it works. Every other state put their money in the pot, and guess what? They got hundreds of phone towers, whereas we got only a few. There is probably somewhere in the realm of up to 400 blackspots in South Australia, and they are going to take a lot of filling in.

However, we are making a firm commitment, putting in a base of $10 million to working with a co-contribution from the federal government as well as the phone company providers, to make sure that we get those spots filled so that people can run their businesses and do their work in the regions. We do not muck around with Regional Development Australia; we have funded them with $12 million so they can do their fine work.

There are a couple of local initiatives that I have fought hard for. I am very proud to say that the government fell in behind me and funded a $7 million complete emergency department rebuild at Murray Bridge. The services this hospital already offers the region with an outdated and unsafe facility will be so much more enhanced over the next three years with this build going on. There is also $150,000 to investigate Metroticketing services up to Murray Bridge. We are the fastest growing region outside Mount Barker, and we need that connectivity into the city so that we can keep our people—they can live at home and study or commute for health or shopping needs and the like.

I want to go over a few more items in the budget overview. There is $738 million going into more jobs across the state. There is $157.2 million in payroll tax relief, $95.9 million in land tax relief, $40 million for the events bid fund and $10 million in tourism marketing. There is $100 million going into the economic and business growth fund and $27.9 million going into the research commercialisation and start-up fund. As I have indicated before, $150 million is going into the Regional Growth Fund.

In the innovation and commercialisation precinct, we have $43.9 million; local finance management scholarships, $1 million; we have a new visa for budding entrepreneurs, $400,000; $9.3 million for trade offices around the world; and the Shanghai business and investment hub, $3.5 million, to make sure that those vital goods produced or grown or mined in our regions get marketed to their full potential overseas.

With regard to Skilling South Australia, something that has been so badly let down by the former government in the past, there is $202.6 million for almost 21,000 apprentices and trainees. How good will that be when they all come online? It is difficult at times to find someone in a trade because they are so flat out. There has not been the appropriate investment and appropriate training of the workforce, especially when we have a $90 million build happening here with air warfare destroyers and the submarine contracts.

We have $109.8 million in additional support for TAFE; defence export opportunities, $1.5 million; putting more money into skilled careers, another $3.9 million; and something that really helps apprentices, because they are not on a huge wage, is assisting them with driver's licence fees, $274,000.

We see a massive investment in education, with $692 million for modernising facilities, especially with our move from year 7 into secondary; new schools, $261 million. I have already talked about the $100 million in Whyalla; $5 million for a new technical college; and the breakfast program, $800,000; and $250,000 for a school bus review so that we get the right outcomes for students around the state. I wish I had another 20 minutes to talk about how good this budget is because it is a great budget.

Members interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, it is a great budget for South Australia. The other side hates it because we are actually doing something for the whole state, not just the city but for the regions, so that we can grow our wealth and make this state great again.

Ms COOK (Hurtle Vale) (16:10): I have already spoken at length regarding the cruel costs that the budget is going to have on some of our most vulnerable members in the community living in Housing Trust properties. There are two key hits in this term of government on this vulnerable section of our community. The one that we have been speaking about most affects those living in single-bedroom cottages and bedsits. There are about 3,000 of those around South Australia, and I will talk more about some of the people who have spoken to me regarding that. Then there is another hit in a couple of years on people who have been identified as having a moderate income.

The one thing I want to say about that is that we do not know what this moderate income is. Is this a moderate income as judged by academics regarding our community? Is this based on identifying what is low versus high, therefore finding the moderate income in our entire community? Or is this looking at the Housing Trust cohort and saying, 'Who living in Housing Trust can we deem to be having a moderate income?' Where is this being taken from. Where is the maths in this? Where is the evidence in this that these people can actually afford to pay more on their rent, and how much is this going to cost?

With both these groups of people we are talking about with Housing Trust, let's be very clear. Some of them will not be paying what is the maximum amount possible that they can pay—that is, several thousands of dollars extra per year. But nearly all of them will be paying over the next couple of years over $1,000 per year. Over $1,000 per year in a climate where their incomes are fixed and we do not see rises coming out of the federal government for people's benefits. All we are seeing is stagnation and cost of living rises going up, and this is a problem across the country. This is not just about South Australia. This is a global thing as well. Cost-of-living rises are upon us. We need to control them. I have no issue with that.

But one of the key things is that you cannot slug people who are earning only $20,000 to $30,000 per year additional costs of over $1,000 and not expect it to hurt, because it will hurt. I have been informed that earlier today the minister in the other place has made some bizarre declarations regarding public housing, defending the massive rent hikes to thousands of public tenants, appearing to defend the idea that people in one-bedroom units should pay the same as people in two-bedroom units. What we have to understand is that those units are completely different and, when there is one person living in there, they still have the baseline utility costs that a couple has. In relative terms, they are paying a lot more for their cost of living.

I hope that the minister has a chance to speak with some of the tenants and concerned community members who have come into Parliament House today to talk to us, the Labor MPs, about their concerns. That was the reason for inviting them. We need to get the word out to the community that this is going to hurt them a lot. The tenants and the community members hurt, we hurt when we understand what is going on, we listen to their pain. But I am sorry, all they have seen today is that the leadership cohort of the government, in particular, really does not give a damn. These people are not millionaires that the Liberal Party is handing out millions of dollars worth of tax cuts to. These are battlers, and they work bloody hard to make ends meet, and it is not good enough.

I challenge the minister, the Treasurer, the Premier or anyone else from the heartless cabinet to come with me to Housing Trust properties, particularly to those in my own electorate in Morphett Vale where I have been visiting and talking with them, and have a talk with them and tell them face to face that the rent is being jacked up and that that is just what should happen. Ten dollars a week might not sound like much to a Treasurer who eats at the Adelaide Club, but I can tell you that it means a lot to the people living in Housing Trust properties.

I know there are good people on the other side of the house who know this. I know there are people who doorknock as well and meet the Housing Trust tenants, and they know that this hurts. It is the difference between buying essential medication or going without it. It is the difference between preparing breakfast and lunch for them or their kids, having a friend over for a meal or just hoping that emergency food providers have enough in stock to help them out for the week.

It is pretty gutless to reach your hand into the pockets of these people who do not have a voice. I do not understand why the Premier is targeting Housing Trust tenants to save a few small dollars in relative terms in the budget. I am sure that these small amounts of money can be found from elsewhere, because you are not going to raise millions and millions of dollars, let me tell you, from these people. It is heartless and cruel.

There was no warning prior to the election regarding these rent hikes. It was not a matter of, 'Hey, everyone, we'll give you some money back on your ESL, but what we are going to have to do is jack up your rent on your grandma's Housing Trust house.' It was not a matter of, 'Oh, you're going to get a bit of a benefit from your reduction in land tax, but don't worry about Uncle Fred living in the units down in Kensington-Norwood. He's not going to be able to run his car anymore to get to the hospital.' There was not this choice given to the people of South Australia. There was not a choice given to the people living in Housing Trust tenancies. No, they did not bother telling them that. They just slipped it into the budget and hoped they did not notice.

I doubt that many people and their Housing Trust tenancies would have voted Liberal, but in some of the marginal seats, some of the very tight ones—perhaps in the seat of Adelaide—there is a whole range of single-room tenancies in Walkerville. I have a friend Christina who lives in one of them, who has come today. She is really concerned about her rent having to go up. What did the member for Adelaide win her seat by? Was it a few hundred votes? I am pretty confident that my friend Christina will be out there before the next election telling the people of Adelaide what her member has done to her to cause her pain. I am very confident.

In question time, I asked many questions about Housing Trust tenants who have contacted me. We did not get any real answers. I asked about Felicity and her one-bedroom cottage at Noarlunga Downs. I know that the members for Kaurna, Reynell and I have had lots of conversations with our Housing Trust tenants about these rent hikes over the last few weeks. People know that this is a choice between hot food, medications, transport, friendship and starving.

I just do not know how the government can justify jacking up these rents on the vulnerable people of South Australia, putting their hands into their pockets and taking them out and giving them to the rich property owners—middle and upper class South Australians who do not actually need those rebates in their ESL. Why does the government not look at the ESL? Perhaps those people who are earning very, very high incomes could have a disproportionately sized rebate on their ESL. They will fund the deficit. That will stop the people in Housing Trust having to pay more on their rent.

I know Christina wants to know that because she has contacted us and asked us. Why is she being told that she is going to pay thousands of dollars per year in additional rent? She raised a good point with me, too. What is the point of raising those single-room rents? What is the point of making them the same as a double-bedroom unit? What is the incentive then for someone to move out of a larger property into a single-room tenancy if their rent is going to be the same? What is the point? Surely we want to incentivise that and make those properties available for couples, available for families.

It is incredibly frustrating. The answers we are getting from the government are not good enough. They currently do not explain it to the people living in Housing Trust. They do not care whether there is fiscal responsibility and whether or not you are cleaning up some alleged mess. It is not cutting through, and it is not cutting through to the good people of South Australia who are commenting to us and sending us messages to stand up and make sure the Housing Trust tenants of South Australia get a voice, and we will not stop doing that.

Mr COWDREY (Colton) (16:20): It is my pleasure to rise today to speak on behalf of the Colton community in support of the Appropriation Bill 2018. This budget is what the people of Colton expected: a strong budget which will deliver on our election commitments and which will work towards securing South Australia's future. It is not an easy task to balance the multiple competing interests of multiple competing portfolios, but I feel that the Treasurer has struck an appropriate balance and delivered what our government had set out to achieve: a budget that will create more jobs, lower costs and provide better services for all South Australians.

Whilst I am a new member in this place, I was on the campaign trail for over a year prior to the election, speaking to people in my community and getting a sense of what changes they wanted to see here in South Australia. Ultimately, the majority of conversations always came down to the same theme: people wanted us to fix the financial mess that 16 years of Labor government had left our state in. It is safe to say that one budget cannot entirely fix the financial debacle that was left to us by the previous government, but this budget has certainly turned the ship back in the right direction and will return this state to a more sustainable position moving forward.

This budget has delivered much-needed financial relief for many families and small businesses in the community as well as across the state. Families will benefit from major tax reforms, including a $360 million reduction in the emergency services levy (ESL), with an average household set to receive a saving of more than 50 per cent on their total ESL bill. Small businesses across South Australia are set for a major economic boost with the abolition of payroll tax for small businesses. This means that the state's 3,200 family and small businesses with taxable payrolls of up to $1.5 million will be exempt from paying any payroll tax, which will be a saving of up to $44,500 a year.

This budget is also focused on reducing the cost of energy for households and businesses and delivering the government's energy solution. We have delivered on our election commitment 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 annum when operational.

I am certain that I am not alone when I say that, prior to this change in government, our local communities were searching for financial relief, with the burden of unnecessary taxes heavily resting on their shoulders courtesy of the previous government's financial mismanagement. This budget tells South Australians that we have heard what they were saying, and we have delivered a range of cost-of-living benefits that will help put money back in their pockets. As well as reducing the cost of living, I know that many people, especially in my community, were also pleased to hear about the work we were doing to create jobs and strengthen our economy.

We know that we as a state need to capitalise on future industries, such as defence and the $90 million naval shipbuilding program. That is why this budget increases funding to create over 20,000 new apprenticeships and traineeships to ensure that South Australians are job ready in the growing industries of tomorrow. The government is committed to ensuring that our skills and investment are in line with the jobs and demands of tomorrow.

For too long, we have watched people leave our state in search of work, and this government is going to do something to stop that, to make a change for the better and to entice workers to stay here in South Australia. As well as creating jobs, we are also investing in our state's future. We have collaboratively worked with the federal Coalition government and secured additional funding for infrastructure—close to $11.3 billion—on important projects to drive economic growth here in South Australia. This will deliver a record level of general government infrastructure spending during the 2018-19 period and is building a strong pipeline of productive infrastructure projects that will grow our economy and create more local jobs.

On a local level, I am very pleased to see that our election commitments in Colton, made by this government prior to the election, have been delivered in this well thought-out budget. I know that my community wanted change, and that is exactly what has been delivered in our local area. On the campaign trail, I got the sense that the community of Colton felt like the area had been somewhat forgotten, that things had slowed down and that there was a real lack of advocacy in the area.

Residents of Colton no longer wanted to sit back and say nothing as the previous government continued to cut and reduce vital services in the community. Under the previous government, operating hours at the Henley Beach Police Station were severely reduced. This caused immense angst for the residents in the local area and surrounding suburbs, and it is something that the Marshall Liberal government simply would not accept.

Henley Beach is a premier destination over the summer months for tourists and our local community. Businesses are open late, and many relied on the security of the local police station operating late with them. It offered a sense of security for all who flocked to the area. What increased my community's level of disappointment was that the change to nine to five Monday to Friday operations occurred almost directly after the brand-new development of the police station was finished. Not only was this poor timing but it was made without public consultation and, as I mentioned, was met with significant opposition.

I listened to the community. In the lead-up to the election, I advocated to have the operating hours reinstated to the previous arrangement, which was 8am to 11pm seven days a week, and that is what our government has delivered in this budget. These changes have coincided with our policy to put more police back on the beat while maintaining valuable customer service in police stations. Colton deserves a strong police presence, and that is exactly what our government will be delivering.

As part of making my community safer, I am also pleased to see funds allocated to a project to protect patrons at Henley Square with the installation of safety bollards. Henley Square attracts large crowds of people, especially over the summer months, but at the moment it is exposed and the risk of accidents involving vehicles using Seaview Road is a concern to many who visit and live in the area. Many locals shared stories with me about hoon driving behaviour observed along Seaview Road and even shared stories about vehicles entering the square. Whilst not at speed and often due to confusion, these events put young and old at risk. The installation of safety bollards will go a long way to eliminating that risk and better protecting patrons at the square.

Another area of concern for many in my community is our precious coastline. We have over 5,000 kilometres of coastline, much of which is under unique pressure, none more so than in my electorate and, more specifically, at West Beach. This budget increases significantly and provides $5.2 million to deliver on our coastal protection policy that the Liberal Party released in the lead-up to the 2018 state election. This policy included five key platforms. I certainly thank the Minister for Environment and Water for giving me an in-depth description in question time recently of what the policy includes.

One of the platforms was on increasing the investment in replenishment of sand deposits on Adelaide beaches. In particular, a lot of this will be focused on West Beach, a key area of concern for many in my community. Our government knows that this is a particular weak point in our metropolitan coastline and that there is a need to dramatically increase the amount of sand on that beach. The government is also very keen to set up a research and development fund, when it comes to coastal protection, specifically looking at opportunities to protect our beaches against storm events and increasing erosion and looking at ways that we can better retain sand on our beaches. Our policy also includes looking at seagrass restoration, as we know that seagrasses provide critical habitat for marine life but also protect our coastline from storm events and erosion.

Some other local commitments in this budget include $100,000 to address traffic issues at Kibby Avenue in Glenelg North. I know that this stretch of road has been of concern to many residents in the area for a long time. We have also provided the Henley Sharks Football Club with a $500,000 grant to go towards the construction of new female change rooms.

As part of this budget, our government is doing their part to repair the damage that has been done to our public health system by returning cardiac services at The QEH. We will be investing $2.4 million per annum to maintain The QEH as a key cardiac centre with a focus on common acute and chronic cardiac conditions. This is a strong budget, a budget that projects surpluses across the forward estimates and a budget that will take our state forward.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (16:30): I rise to talk further about this 2018-19 state budget and the impact it is going to have on the community, specifically in relation to the impact on the southern suburbs, where my electorate is, albeit that my electorate is not being impacted the hardest in this budget. That is being reserved for the electorates of King and Newland. They are being attacked the hardest. They are facing the full brunt of the Premier and Deputy Premier's cuts in this budget.

An honourable member: It's a vendetta.

Mr PICTON: It is a vendetta on the members for King and Newland, sadly. But that does not mean that other electorates are being spared, and my electorate is going to face some significant consequences due to the harsh Liberal cuts being imposed by this year's budget. We have been talking in particular today about the impacts of the very significant increase in rents that our Housing Trust tenants are going to face, and a number of those tenants who are going to face these significant increases in rents live in my electorate. I have been contacted by many of them.

Today, we discussed one of those tenants, Felicity from Noarlunga Downs, who shared her story about how she does not use cooling or heating, she does not take trips and she does not have frivolous expenses of any kind. How she will be able to afford potentially over $1,000 a year in her rents by the end of this program of increases is very hard for her to understand. She has posed the question for the government: should she give up food? Should she give up turning on the lights? What should she have to do to afford this increase in rent that is being imposed by the Liberal Party?

What we have heard today from the government in response to this has been startling. We have heard the Deputy Premier come out and say that Housing Trust tenants want this increase to be imposed upon them; they want it to happen. Well, I have to say that that is not the experience I have had in talking to tenants in my electorate. They are absolutely opposed to this, and they are going to fight it all the way, as are we on this side of the house. We have also heard the Premier say that we should move on to more pressing matters. There is no more pressing matter than if you are a Housing Trust resident being faced with these very steep increases in rents, very steep increases in your cost of living.

When you are on a fixed income and you cannot go and get a job because you are a pensioner, and you cannot go and lay bricks because you are 75 years old, these are very significant increases with no ability for people to have any disposable income that they could divert to pay them. It is some $48 million over the course of four years that the government is clawing out of the hip pockets largely of pensioners to go to this very sad state of affairs in this state budget. That is going to be one of the things that is going to hit hardest in this budget.

Another thing that has been a very significant concern for people in the south has been bus routes. There is a large cut to bus routes in this budget. We do not know exactly what bus routes are going to be targeted yet, but I am willing to guess that the outer suburbs are going to be hit hard. They are going to be hit hard because of course in the outer suburbs you have less density, so you have fewer people on the buses a large percentage of the time. That does not mean, however, that you should not have buses.

If you get rid of these bus services, you are going to stop many people from being able to get to their doctor's appointment, from being able to see their families, from being able to get to work. So many people rely on these bus services; otherwise, they will be socially isolated. It might be very easy for the Liberal Party, particularly with a number of the leadership in their inner-city seats, to say, 'Let's cut outer suburban bus services,' but that is going to have a very huge impact upon so many people. We will fight that all the way. Already there have been some reports that a number of bus services in my electorate between Noarlunga and Seaford are going to be hit, as well as further north from my electorate, between Noarlunga and Reynella.

The Advertiser has been speculating that these might be some of the first to go in the round of cuts under the Marshall government. They are essential services, and so many people rely on them to get from their residence to appointments or to train services to get into town. We will have to fight them. We will stand with residents, and I will be fighting hard in my community. Already the response has been huge from members of the community who have been coming out to say what a devastating impact this would have.

As already discussed, we have also seen huge cuts across the arts community. We know how important that industry is for us as a state. In the southern suburbs in particular, we have been privileged for a very long time to have the excellent Hopgood Theatre at Noarlunga. It is a wonderful theatre with great facilities. It is used by so many different schools and community groups, but it is now facing being closed or being cut under this Liberal administration. Previously, TAFE, which owned the site, would give a very small subsidy in terms of Country Arts to allow for electricity and other maintenance of the site. That has been clawed back under this Liberal government.

They do not care about the southern suburbs at all; we are going back to being the forgotten south. We will see the closure of this theatre, which is going to impact particularly on so many kids, as it is a theatre that is predominantly used by school groups, calisthenics groups and dance groups. So many people I talk to remember very fondly performing in that theatre when they were a kid themselves. The impact of this cut is not going to be on some fancy-dancy arty-farty type. It is going to be on the kids of the southern suburbs who will not have access to that theatre for their wonderful performances.

We have also seen in this budget a whole raft of cuts in terms of preventing crime. When we were in government, we spent a huge amount of money and resources on our police, investing in updating police facilities and equipment and getting more police on the beat. We also invested in crime prevention because the best thing we can do is try to prevent crime from happening in the first place, rather than solving it afterwards. What we have seen in this budget is crime prevention grants abolished entirely. That is a very cruel blow from the Attorney-General. It is a very short-sighted approach to trying to keep our community safe. We should be investing more in crime prevention, rather than less.

That will impact upon areas like the south, where unfortunately residents sometimes face crime in their communities. Instead of investing in prevention, we will eventually have to deal with more cure. Unfortunately, at the same time they are getting rid of the prevention they are also getting rid of $38 million out of the police budget. The police will have fewer resources to be able to fight crime as well. They will be hit from both ends in terms of crime, and it is unfortunate that we will see the impact upon that in terms of residents, the numbers of crimes that will no doubt occur because we will have less prevention and less law enforcement on the beat.

We have also seen impacts in terms of our schools. Abolishing the laptop program is a very short-sighted budget cut which has happened here and which is going to impact upon our kids. We know that we want our kids to get the best possible training they can in our schools to get the best results. We know that using computers is going to be part of their daily life for almost every kid who graduates high school.

Giving them a laptop, giving them the ability to learn the ins and outs of whatever it is that they are learning on that laptop, is invaluable. It is going to help them be better prepared for the work and jobs of tomorrow. To cut that is essentially a cut that is going to impact upon their future careers and our future economy as a state. We should be investing in more technology in our schools and not cutting it as this government is doing.

We have also seen a cut in terms of a program I have a fondness for, that is, the Female Facilities Program. Of course, we have many sports that have developed over time that have been focused on male sport, such as football, soccer, hockey, and the list goes on. The clubrooms that have developed around them have been focused on male facilities. We now have so many more women playing those sports and we need female facilities to attach to those clubrooms to enable women to play so they do not have to get changed at home, in the car park or in the toilets. This is an excellent initiative and it has been abolished in this budget.

Clubs like mine in the southern suburbs were eager to be part of this program to upgrade their facilities. Those that spring to mind in particular are the Hackham Football Club, the Noarlunga Football Club and the Port Noarlunga Football Club, all of which are looking for upgrades to their facilities. They would have liked to be part of this program to see upgrades. Unfortunately, that has been abolished.

We also have not seen any commitment from this government in terms of the coast path. Previously, we made commitments to finish the coast path between Sellicks and Outer Harbor. There are a number of areas in my electorate that are unfinished, but I will continue to fight to make sure that we get that path completed because it could be great for not only recreation but also tourism and business in the south.

Dr HARVEY (Newland) (16:40): I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak today in the grievance debate on the Appropriation Bill. This week marks six months since the Marshall Liberal team was elected to government and, for me, six months as the member for Newland, which is a great honour and privilege.

Certainly, like so many others in this place, I spent many, many months on the campaign trail knocking on doors, visiting supermarkets and going to local transport hubs to talk to residents about the issues concerning them and listening to and finding out any ideas that they had about how we might be able to improve their lives. There is no doubt that in my electorate there was a mood for change—a change from a tired, stale old government that had forgotten what it believed in and had forgotten that, first and foremost, the role of a government is to serve the interests of the people who elect them.

My community's concerns were wide and varied, as one would expect; however, a number of very consistent themes came up time and time again. Firstly, there was the issue of services, in particular local health services around Modbury Hospital, where services had been smashed and stripped out under Labor's Transforming Health cuts. There is no doubt that local residents were furious and still are at Labor's abject betrayal of our community in the area of health. On top of that, not only did it affect Modbury Hospital but it had a knock-on effect to other hospitals.

Services were taken out of The QEH and the Repat was closed, even though that was never going to happen. The design flaws in the new RAH caused issues as well. What I am curious and fascinated by is that the political geniuses in the Labor Party want to talk about patient transfers. The one thing I would say is that they are certainly right to raise it as an issue and a concern. I was out doorknocking only last Friday and the fact that there are so many patient transfers was raised time and time again.

In fact, I recall that under the previous government, because of the damage that Transforming Health had done to our part of Adelaide, there had to be a dedicated transfer service from Modbury to the Lyell McEwin. I believe that Leon Byner on radio called it the MoHo Express. This was an incredible shame and something that a lot of my residents are still very concerned about. The impact it has on the ambulance system as a whole is quite disastrous, when ambulances are tied up ferrying people from one hospital to another, whether it is Modbury to Lyell McEwin or Lyell McEwin down to the RAH. They then sit and wait on the ramp for an extended period of time. These are the things that a lot of people were concerned about.

Cost of living was another big issue, along with Labor's failures in energy policy, in particular delivering the highest power prices in Australia and, using certain measures, amongst the highest power prices in the world. They were also concerned about the fees, charges and levies that surged under the Labor government, including the emergency services levy, and about other fees and charges around council rates and the cost of other utilities.

Then there is the issue of jobs, and the concerns that so many of my residents had around the lack of opportunities that they saw for their children and their grandchildren in South Australia, and the fear that if they did need to or even chose to move interstate or overseas, there would be limited opportunities for them to ever return.

Lastly, there was the issue of the perception of arrogance around a previous government that failed dismally to take responsibility for the failures that occurred on its watch, whether it was the failure to protect the most vulnerable in our community, whether children or elderly, or the failure in vocational education and TAFE. Many young people, in good faith, did exactly what we wanted them to do. They set out to better themselves, learn more skills, only to find, in some cases, that those qualifications were not up to standard. It is a disgraceful dereliction of duty by the former Labor government and the reputational damage that that has done to an important institution like TAFE is just an absolute disgrace.

Of course, there is the issue that the previous government frequently broke its promises. I find it fascinating that those on the other side want to talk about park-and-rides. They made various promises before this election—as they did with the election before that, by the way, in the case of the Paradise interchange—but after the election they came up with a whole string of excuses and it just disappeared. Of course, there has been a change of government and South Australians voted for a change of government, and we are delivering the change that they wanted and voted for and we are addressing all the issues that they have raised.

There is actually a lot of very good news for my community in this budget. There is $114 million for Modbury Hospital to undo damage done by Labor's Transforming Health. We will be establishing a four-bed high dependency unit to enable more complex cases to be taken at Modbury Hospital, an acute medical ward, an acute surgical ward, an extended care unit, a purpose-built palliative care ward and, of course, an infrastructure spend because, as many would know, there are pieces falling off the facade of the hospital at the moment.

There will be funding to fix Golden Grove Road, and I want to especially commend the member for King for her hard work in advocating and fighting for that over many months and getting the outcome that her community had been calling for for 20 years. There is $5 million in the budget to open up our reservoirs. Included in that are the Hope Valley and South Para reservoirs. I want to commend the Minister for Environment and Water for championing this very exciting proposal that will not only create wonderful opportunities for outdoor recreation for local families and people of all ages but also bring more people to that area and support our local businesses.

The government is increasing funding up to $33.5 million for park-and-rides to fund the expansion of parking at Golden Grove, Paradise, Tea Tree Plaza and Klemzig. There is $350,000 to upgrade the Tea Tree Gully sports hub and provide an additional six courts for netball and tennis that will greatly support the Tea Tree Gully tennis club, the Tea Tree Gully netball club, the Banksia Park netball club and other community groups.

There is $20,000 for the Tea Tree Gully Gymsports club to help support them with a new spring floor. This will help them train for international and national competitions and also reduce injuries. There is $320,000 to improve parking and access to the South Australian District Netball Association courts in Green Fields, which is used by thousands of netball players right across the year. There is $1.3 million to improve safety at the intersection of the South Para and North East roads in Chain of Ponds, an issue which had been raised in the past by the members for Morialta and Schubert and which is included in this budget.

There is $200,000 to upgrade the Kersbrook Primary School crossing to improve visibility of the crossing and $100,000 to provide greater certainty and security for the Tea Tree Gully toy library. Across the state, there is $5 million to upgrade CFS stations, which will include stations within my community. There is $10 million for mobile blackspots, an area completely neglected by the previous government. Then, of course there are the more broad measures around reducing the cost of living, tax relief and emergency service bill cuts. These are coming out right now, the bills are halving, which is a very large reduction in the impost on households and businesses.

There is also investment in storage, interconnectivity and other measures to address the cost of power, and getting rid of payroll tax for small businesses is an important jobs-creating measure. There is cutting land tax, and then, more broadly, $45 million to reduce waiting lists for elective surgery and colonoscopies. It was a disgrace that under the former Labor government 4,000 people were left waiting beyond the clinically recommended time to get a colonoscopy. That will be changing. There is also $16 million over four years to increase palliative care support.

There is a record investment in our schools, which is fantastic. There is $200 million in partnership with the federal government to create an additional 21,000 apprenticeships and traineeships and $110 million to get TAFE back on track. There are many, many more, and I am very pleased to say that the Marshall Liberal government is delivering on our strong plan for real change, which I support.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (16:50): I indicate that I am the lead speaker for the opposition on this grievance debate on the Appropriation Bill. I want to talk in slightly more detail about one of the matters I raised in my second reading contribution, and that is the skyrocketing amount of debt this state budget foreshadows over the next four years.

It is somewhat incongruous that the Premier, his Deputy Premier and the Treasurer tell us that the large range of horrific decisions they have taken in this budget to target some of the most vulnerable people in our society—including people in Housing Trust bedsit dwellings, in one-bedroom cottage flats, people who were relying on the Cheltenham Place service for support with their HIV affliction, public school students who, for the first time, were going to have state-funded laptops provided to them—were necessary because this new government is fixing a mess that, allegedly, was left to them.

How can you fix a mess when in four years' time the state budget position will be left considerably and demonstrably worse? Not only will state debt increase by $3.32 billion over the next four years but the ratio that was used as a fiscal target for the state budget, the net debt as a percentage of total revenue, has blown out. It will no longer be held within the 35 per cent range that had been maintained by the former Labor government; that fiscal target is removed completely and, by the end of that forward estimates, the ratio will increase to over 41 per cent.

That is significant for a number of reasons. Not only does debt increase, which places a higher operating burden on the state budget through higher levels of interest repayments, but in South Australia it also raises something a bit more fundamental: that is, through the superintendence of the state's finances over the last 15 years under the former Labor government there was an impressive record to rid the general government sector of any debt at all.

When Labor came into government in 2002 there was—and you can still find these numbers in Budget Paper 3—$1.3 billion of debt in the general government sector. That debt was eliminated in only four short years; the general government sector in South Australia was debt free. That meant, fast-forwarding a few more short years when the impact of the global financial crisis hit jurisdictions around the world, particularly here in Australia, that the South Australian government had the capacity to act.

We could make choices to continue lowering payroll tax in response to try to support business operations but we could also put the foot hard down on the accelerator when it came to infrastructure investment. Of course, in four years' time, we will be in a position where we have no such fiscal flexibility. So this budget is a gamble that the good times this new Liberal government has been blessed with, with more than $1.1 billion of unexpected revenue pouring in through the door, will continue for the next four years.

The Premier tells us that there has never been a better time for the state to borrow money. To be fair to the Premier, in some respects, yes. Historically speaking, money is reasonably cheap at the moment. The price of money, of course, is increasing. We are starting to see interest rates increase, we are starting to see lending tighten, more so for households and the commercial sector rather than for government borrowers, but certainly the price of money is going up. That means with these record debt levels, interest repayments will go up. This will place a burden on the operating position of government as more money needs to be found to meet the repayments on this escalating level of debt.

It comes at a time when this budget is brought down with surpluses estimated to be in this current financial year less than $50 million; next financial year, just over $100 million; the following financial year, a little bit over $150 million; and the following year, a little over $200 million. That might sound in isolation like a reasonable set of numbers, but you also have to align those projected surpluses with what is buried in the detail of this budget across the general government sector, across departments and agencies. In this financial year, where a projection of a surplus is less than $50 million, nearly three times that amount at $134 million is required to be delivered in unidentified savings.

Not only is debt forecast to ramp up over the forward estimates, but the surpluses that are estimated to hold debt at that increased level are reliant on nearly three times the quantum of unidentified savings across agencies than the size of the surplus to be delivered. In the following financial year, the story is the same. A $100 million surplus in isolation sounds fine but not when it is built on the back of $279 million worth of savings that have not been identified, and so it continues to the last of the forward years in the budget estimates, where the projected surplus is just over $200 million built on the back of approximately $480 million of savings yet to be identified.

There is not much room for slippage, not much room at all. It only requires agencies to get halfway there on meeting their unidentified savings task for the budget to slip into deficit, and those deficits will escalate that already very high level of debt that has been brought onto the books through the decisions taken in this budget. You might ask: what happened to the Liberal Party? We have been told by members of the Liberal Party and political operatives that they are meant to be the party of responsible financial management, yet their first crack in 16 years at managing the books is to rack up debt and do it on the basis of flimsy surpluses built on savings that have not even been identified yet.

We are nearly three months through this financial year, and I wager that a quarter of these $134 million of savings have not yet been identified or implemented and they certainly are not able to be booked by Treasury across these agencies, so this debt problem is likely to escalate. It is also important in the South Australian context because we hark back to a former period long ago well before all of us, even before the Deputy Premier, when the current Treasurer was the treasurer in the former Olsen government.

That was a long time ago. Remember the waterskiing premier? Remember Motorola? Remember EDS? Remember estimates? That was an interesting process. It cost us a premier, a deputy premier and a minister for tourism. Let's hope that they fare better this time around; in fact, let's not. Back at that time, much was made by the Hon. Mr Lucas of the other place of the need to privatise electricity assets. He said he needed to do that in order to pay down state debt. It is a matter of curiosity that at the end of this budget period over the next four years the level of general government sector debt will be higher than before ETSA was privatised.

What we are worried about is not just that there is an excuse of, 'Oh, we have been forced into privatisations,' despite the Premier repeatedly telling us before the election, 'There will be no privatisations. We don't have a privatisation agenda. We've already ruled out privatisations,' but that one of the first acts of this budget is to get back onto privatisations in the traditional Liberal way. But with this massive savings task, with this massive ramp-up in debt, with these estimates that remain in such peril because of having to identify over $1¼ billion of savings over the next four years, we can expect a lot more of that where that came from.

We also saw recently in the Sunday Mail the Chief Executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet singing the praises of outsourcing, saying that if it stacks up, that if the business case makes sense and you can execute it, then do it. I think that should send a chill down the spine of people who rely on public services, people who provide those public services, whether they are in the back office or they are providing front-line services, because it has already been demonstrated by this government that front-line services or back office services are up for grabs when it comes to privatising or outsourcing. That will be an area that we will be watching very closely.

But there is another matter that I want to speak about on a slightly different note and it relates to one particular line of revenue outlined in this budget. It is the revenue raised from a relatively new revenue measure, the betting operations tax regime, which was introduced only very recently. When it was introduced, it was forecast to raise approximately $10 million and then $11 million a year. It is imposed on a level of 15 per cent on the taxable operations of online betting companies that provide markets to South Australian punters. In this budget, those revenue estimates have again been re-estimated and estimated at a much higher level.

This might be a matter of curiosity for people who are unfortunately having to spend as much time poring over the budget as the 47 of us at this particular time of year, but I also put that it raises a far more serious concern; that is, clearly there is far more of this gambling activity in our community than anyone could have estimated. There is certainly far more than Treasury estimated initially when this measure was brought in. Certainly, despite reviewing the revenue forecasts, it is becoming evident that there is more and more and more of this occurring each year, and hence the revenue gleaned from this measure continues to increase.

It probably warms the cockles of the hearts of certain Treasury officials that there is more money coming in through the door. It certainly provides a little bit more breathing room for ministers in cabinet that there is more money at their disposal to operate the functions of government. However, more broadly in the community it raises very serious concerns. As the Deputy Premier would probably be aware, this is one area of gaming that is far more lightly regulated than other forms of gaming. We have had poker machines in South Australia for the best part of 30 years—well, I should probably say a little more than 25 years.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Frank Blevins, God rest his soul.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Well, we will blame the parliament of the day, won't we? We have had poker machines for approximately 25 to 30 years, and over that time—but to give the parliament credit over the last 15 years and members on both sides of the chamber—there has certainly been more significant regulation and, importantly, harm-minimisation measures that have been put in place for things like gaming on poker machines.

There have certainly been stringent regulations and requirements placed on table gaming in South Australia for many years, and rightly so. With both those examples of gambling, and also with the example of people betting on horseracing, whether it is down at the track or whether it is in—I was going to say the TAB but we cannot say that anymore; I think it is UBET—shop outlets, there is importantly across all those examples direct or indirect supervision of people's gambling behaviour.

That is in stark contrast to what occurs when people are engaging in online gambling. Whether it is at home on their personal computer, whether it is on a smart phone or on some other device, this is completely unsupervised gaming and very, very lightly regulated. The Deputy Premier would know this perhaps better than the rest of us, given that she is the minister responsible for this now, but there is an arrangement in South Australia not dissimilar to what happens in other jurisdictions where the minister of the day must approve the markets on which this form of gambling can take place.

These betting operators need to submit to the government an application for different markets to be approved, and for the most part it has only been national sports and all the markets relevant to them where markets have been approved for gaming to occur here in South Australia; if I put it more accurately, it is approved for South Australians to be able to bet on those markets. So if you want to have a bet on AFL games or NRL games or national soccer league games, and so on, markets are approved and they are available for people to bet on.

However, I would argue that there is an infelicity in the regulations such that markets can be offered on South Australian sports for people outside South Australia to bet on, but South Australians cannot bet on those markets. What we are seeing seen is, rather than markets being restricted to those national-type sports, markets are being offered by companies like Sportsbet, companies like bet365, companies like Ladbrokes, and so on, that are offering markets on sports well below the national level.

In fact, members predominantly on the other side of the house who have electorates in the Adelaide Hills might be aghast to know that, only in the last few weeks, markets have been offered on amateur netball games in the Adelaide Hills league, markets have been offered on underage local soccer games, markets have been offered on local state league basketball games and markets have been offered on women’s division teams in state league soccer club fixtures. This is well beyond the room that the regulations allow these sports betting companies to offer markets. This is legal; at least it is illegal for South Australians to be given the opportunity to bet on these markets.

Why is it a concern that we might be interested in whether Dusty Martin kicks the first and, hopefully, only goal in the final that is to be played on Friday night? Why is that not so much of a concern but it is a concern when netball teams playing in the Adelaide Hills league have markets offered on them? Well, Mr Martin gets paid pretty well to play football, and he is less susceptible to any inducements that might be offered by a wagering company than somebody who is playing amateur sport and does not get paid anything at all. In fact, probably for their sins, they have to get there early, they have to put the nets up, maybe turn on the barbecue, organise the referees or, if they do not turn up, do it themselves, and so on.

There is a clear opportunity for people to be induced into corruption in their sporting fixtures and match fixing because they are lowly paid and somebody wants to give them a couple of hundred bucks to give them some information about the game. This is a legitimate concern that has been made to me by the heads of local sporting associations representative for their codes. They are very worried about this. They do not want what is becoming an increasingly common sight on the sidelines of amateur sporting fixtures across South Australia—that is, a couple of shady looking characters standing over the far side of the boundary line with a laptop working up markets for people to bet on.

Such is the current design of the regulations that we can never know whether South Australians are being offered the opportunity to bet on these fixtures. If they are betting on these fixtures, then all those concerns around match fixing, corruption of results, and so on, become very real. The community and social fabric, in which we collectively place so much stock, that local sporting clubs bring to our community, is eroded very substantially by being exposed to this behaviour.

What do we do about it? I am not passing judgement on the Deputy Premier and the government of which she is a part by, in this budget, winding up the IGA in this regard because, of course, she is the minister and she remains the decision-maker on what markets can or cannot be provided under law. She and her successors will still have the opportunity to say no to requests from sports betting operators for markets if they are deemed not to be in the community interest. That is an important failsafe test for not just the government but the parliament. Appropriately, they are required to be laid in this house, gazetted, and so on, when those changes are made.

People will form their own opinions about whether or not getting rid of the IGA and replacing it with another panel of advisers and requiring more of the liquor and gaming commissioner in assessing these sorts of requests and providing advice in due course to the minister is a sufficient arrangement. We will know only as time goes by. However, it is important that this parliament turns its mind to how to deal with what is not just a risk to amateur sporting clubs but certainly also a growing scourge for people in our community.

You need to speak to only a few of the welfare agencies to understand how many people have had their financial livelihoods completely gutted through their engagement in sports betting and online gambling. As I said, it is not only an unsupervised form of gambling, but there are no limits in the same way that other forms of gambling can have limits applied to them through regulations. We see professional Aussie Rules footballers come out and put their hand up very publicly to make it clear they have got into terrible trouble financially through this. There are stories of AFL players who have effectively played a whole season of highly remunerated football in order to meet the debts they have racked up through online gaming and sports betting.

This is the risk that I would argue is now facing predominantly young men when they go to watch a sporting fixture. Those spring chickens in this place like the member for Heysen and like me and some of the other members are perhaps the last of those viewers of sport who watched sport for sport's sake. How many 18 to 30 year olds go to the pub to watch a game of footy or even go round to a mate's house to watch a game of footy and spend most of the time looking at their phone to see what markets are being offered on the game they are watching and how the odds are moving on those markets? The answer is: a very high proportion of them.

We have no understanding of how much on average people are gambling in this manner. We have no understanding of what the impact is on them directly. We have no understanding of what this means for their broader engagement within the community. Is this impacting their employment? Is this impacting their relationships? Is this impacting their family life? How many people are finding themselves in financial distress because they have been sucked into a largely unregulated form of gambling?

You may be pleased to know that there are some members of parliament who think strongly enough about this that we think the parliament needs to turn its attention to it. That is why I was very pleased with the support of the members for Wright and Ramsay in moving that the Economic and Finance Committee, the standing committee of the parliament, conducts an inquiry into this very problem.

From a cursory Google search, we see that Sportsbet committed more than $60 million in one six-month period of the last calendar year to advertising—advertising only—the sort of rubbish that bombards us as we watch perhaps a game of AFL on the TV. They are deliberately targeting young men. They are deliberately targeting young South Australians to engage in this form of very lightly regulated gambling, and it is having an impact. SACOSS has been one of the few and strident critics of the impact that these sports betting agencies are having on young people and on the community in general.

I should add that all these impacts are on top of all the much better understood and better articulated issues of problem gambling that we have with people who might engage in playing poker machines, in table gaming or in other forms of gambling. So we have this growing problem, perhaps this growing epidemic, that is impacting on the young people here in this state.

While it is pleasing that I can report to you, Deputy Speaker, that the Economic and Finance Committee has moved to inquire into this matter, it is less pleasing to know that the member for Waite, as Chair of that committee, and his colleagues on that committee continue to prioritise other inquiries before we get to this inquiry.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: The IGA has just done it.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I know it has been an inordinately long time in the eyes of the Deputy Premier since she has been speaking in this chamber, and I know that must flummox her, but she will have her opportunity shortly, I am sure. I know that this is a problem we are keen to deal with, but unfortunately the Liberal members are not.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The Deputy Premier said in her interjection that the IGA was already moving to inquire into this. It is a bit tough, isn't it? Because you just wound them up.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: You just wound them up, and they have not yet done it, and they will not get to because you are winding them up. Can we rely on the Deputy Premier? Well, as most of her caucus colleagues have found out over the last 16½ years, no, we cannot.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No, we cannot. It is up to that committee. My entreaty to the member for Waite and to his other colleagues on the Economic and Finance Committee is: let's just try once, for the benefit of affected young people in South Australia and for the community in general, just to put politics behind us on that committee, and let's turn our attention to what is a growing financial, economic and social problem that is going almost wholly unregulated at the moment.

There are sporting codes and sporting clubs that are increasingly worried by the prevalence of markets being offered on the fixtures that they are responsible for organising. We are increasingly seeing a number of prominent South Australians and Australians who are telling their stories about losing hundreds of thousands of dollars through the scourge of online gaming and sports betting. We know that there is a flaw and a hole in the gaming regulations, which is allowing these markets to be offered. There is also no information that anyone can offer—except for the sports betting agencies themselves—about whether the law is being broken and that South Australians are betting on these markets that are precluded in the regulations. So this is an area that needs addressing.

While we might look at Budget Paper 3, chapter 3, and look at the revenue and what has been a fourfold increase in the estimated revenue being brought into the budget through the betting operations tax, what underlies it is a level of activity that is targeting our young South Australians and punishing them, and I would urge the parliament to act collectively on this matter.

Mr McBRIDE (MacKillop) (17:20): It gives me great pleasure to speak through this grieve on the Appropriation Bill. I have already spoken to this Appropriation Bill, and it gave me great pleasure to do so. Hearing from the other side, it gives me a further opportunity to expand on what I have already said and highlight the troubles that the other side of the chamber are having with this budget.

There are a couple of positives that I have failed to acknowledge in my electorate of MacKillop, with a $5 million investment in the CFS brigade and institutions. We have two new fire sheds in my electorate: one at Woolumbool, north of Lucindale—they will have a new shed there—and one at Mount Burr. Ironically, Mount Burr was on the radar for a new shed because they were lucky enough to get a new fire truck, but it never fitted in the old shed. Then there was a problem with infrastructure, as normal.

There were no promises from the previous government. The government gave them the new truck but there was nowhere to store it. I am not sure where they have kept it since, but the locals have been managing. It is absolutely a great pleasure that we were able to fix this, and that it was recognised. Another one mentioned this afternoon was the female facilities sporting grant and the fact that the previous government had a $14 million program. It was a worthy one, in the sense that there are a lot more females playing a lot more different sports these days, such as AFL.

What is really alarming about this grant and the way it was used and spent is that a sporting club in my electorate applied three times through this process and failed. It did not get a single dollar, and it was very desperate for it. Not only that but in that time, over the whole process of the $14 million program, the Labor government spent less than $4 million of the $14 million. The sporting minister has told me he has now rolled the other $10 million into other sporting programs, and hopefully it will be distributed fairly and equitably around South Australia in general.

Another thing I want to touch on is that those on the other side keep highlighting King and Newland as missing out, and how disappointed those two members must be. Not everything about this budget was perfect—not everywhere do we have great wins—but I think it is very well balanced across the whole of the state. It was pointed out by the other side that these two electorates had TAFE sites closing down and Service SA centres closing down in the budget. Welcome to our world down in MacKillop.

They sold up all our TAFE sites, they sold up the TAFE facilities, and the forests were sold off as well to pave the way. I will come to that in a minute. The fact is that they have been closing down these facilities for 16 years and, suddenly, when the government says, 'We're going to pick up and rebuild TAFE, bring back an institution that used to train and skill South Australians,' that is a bad thing. I truly do not understand this from the other side.

I am trying to figure out what it is that the other side does not like about our budget the most and why there is nothing at all that they can find to bring themselves to say, 'Okay, this is their first budget; this is where they recognise where the debt level sits.' On my information, they gave us a $14½ billion dollar debt. The member for West Torrens was quoted yesterday as saying, 'It [was] the greatest [of] honours of my life; being entrusted with the state's finances is a very serious privilege.' He was entrusted with the state finances and he left us with a $14.5 billion debt.

This is where I think the other side really says, 'Holy hell, what have we got now?' If we are not going to fix up your mess, we may increase it, and I have no problem with the fact that we may increase it because we actually have to fix and build what you failed to do over 16 years. This is where I think the other side are saying, 'We are in opposition now for the first time in 16 years. We don't like it on this side anymore.' You might end up staying there for a whole lot longer if we are financially respectful of our situation and we look after the state and do not actually seem to be the repair doctors on the state budget that you destroyed. That is okay. I appreciate that.

But the fact is, if we had done what we did back in the nineties and repaired the budget like you left us as a Labor Party back in those days, we are seen as the villains and we lose the faith of the electorate. However, if we are seen as responsible and we know that we have to spend money wisely and build the economy and we know that we want a really strong state here in South Australia, we actually believe we can pay the debt back as well as be financially responsible, but we are not going to do it straight away, which means you may find yourselves in the opposition ranks for more than one term.

How much that must hurt you over there, particularly when some of you experienced 16 years in power. It is a new feeling, such as during question times when you have to ask a question that you cannot get right because you have not had enough practice at it yet. Let me tell you, after four years, you are going to become very good at it, but then when you see your second time around, you are going to become even better at it again.

The point about this debt level and how much responsibility you do not see here at the moment is the fact that you are very worried about what argument you are going to find to get back into power and undermine the government to give yourself credibility. I think you are using some emotional arguments right now and they are sensitive in regard to the Housing Trust and the people who are the most vulnerable. I do not think the government on this side has any intention of trying to make lives harder for anyone, but we have to have a balanced budget and we have to have a very fair budget.

As highlighted by the member for Lee, in the next four years we expect to see some surpluses, but we are also increasing debt. Again, I have no problem with this. It was highlighted to the government and the backbench that the ministry and the Treasurer have not done any sledgehammer slash and burn to the budget in health or education areas in any real focus. They have been fair and balanced because they did not want to take a wrecking ball to both of these portfolios to hang ourselves out to dry in the electorate and then try to fix up what you left behind for us.

I find that the budget is very responsible in the areas of the health and education portfolios. We recognise education from reception through to year 12 and tertiary education, like the TAFE system. We do want these systems to work. We want the NAPLAN results to come out on top so that South Australia is leading in these fields and not lagging and the worst state in Australia. If we have these aims, the budget just needs to be balanced and it just needs to be fair. I will say again that it certainly does not need to fix up the mess that you left behind on the other side of the chamber.

Mr Brown: But the debt is going up, Nick.

Mr McBRIDE: It is allowed to. Another thing I would like to say is that, in the mix of all that we have done in the budget and spent in a very fair way, we are striving for a stronger economy here in the state. We are striving for a state that has low unemployment. We are striving to employ 20,000 new apprentices, which brings in a new skills base.

We are going to strive to make sure that the new defence build in Port Adelaide absolutely fits into the economy of South Australia and not only that but builds South Australia without being complacent and relying entirely on a defence contract, as I think the other side were probably hoping that they were going to be in charge of, that might nullify, blind, hide or pull the wool over South Australia's eyes to see what a great job you are doing while you let everything else go to rack and ruin.

We want a state that is well balanced so that all the regions of South Australia have their fair share, so that the city of Adelaide has its fair share. Then we can come back and look after the seats that need looking after. Yes, they are city seats and, yes, they may need higher infrastructure, but we want great outcomes. It gives me great pleasure to speak to this Appropriation Bill during this grieve.

Ms STINSON (Badcoe) (17:29): For many years I have been in the budget lockup, having the chance to pore over the documents before reporting on them, and for a political nerd I have to say it is an exciting thing to do every year, to dissect the budget and to analyse the good, the bad and the ugly and then report it to our community so they can make up their minds about whether they are getting a fair deal.

My excitement this time was even greater than usual, receiving the budget papers while sitting right here in this glorious chamber, representing the people of Badcoe. I was, of course, eager to see what investments would be made in Badcoe. It is a marginal seat, after all, and surely it would be given some attention from this Liberal government. In my usual style, I pored over the pages, this time searching for the benefits to the people in my electorate. Would we see the removal of unsafe and time-consuming level crossings, would we see sporting and community infrastructure upgrades, investments in our ageing parks and reserves, further investment in our local schools or road infrastructure, maybe? Sadly, no.

I wrote to the Premier pointing out that the people in Badcoe voted strongly for Labor and the commitments that it made at the election. Those things included a new school hall for Richmond Primary School; a new children's centre at Plympton; the removal of three level crossings at Plympton, Goodwood and Westbourne Park; a $200,000 upgrade for the Kesmond Reserve at Keswick; a similar upgrade for the Dumbarton Avenue at Edwardstown; and new women's change rooms for the southern suburbs rugby club at Bailey Reserve. The Premier wrote back, and I thank him for his letter. Unfortunately, not all ministers in this government have replied to my letters, but, hopefully, they will get there.

The Premier told me that unfortunately, no, he would not be delivering any of the investments the people in Badcoe voted for. I have to say that is a real shame and I think a missed opportunity by those opposite. I really hope that the Premier and his ministers will find the time to reconsider those projects, because those projects were not plucked out of nowhere: they were the result of 14 months of doorknocking and talking with people in my community to find out what they want and what they really need.

The Premier, to give him his due, did say that he will be sticking to the Liberal promises and that is good, of course. But let's face it, they were not big investments in Badcoe. Not a lot of thought went into what the people in our area actually wanted and needed. Under $90,000 was committed to Badcoe during the election campaign, in a seat that the Liberals had hoped to win. Those promises included $45,000 for solar panels to the Edwardstown Oval redevelopment. I understand that was already budgeted for by the council and in the federal funds, so I am not even sure that was a necessary thing for the state to pay for.

Then there is the rememorialising of Anzac Highway. It is not a new memorial; it is just cleaning and moving the stones, and that is $42,000. The final promise was a new bike rack at Ascot Park Railway Station, a promise so small it is not even mentioned in the budget. That is really just good maintenance; that is not really an election promise. Nevertheless, I will be holding the government to each of those commitments on this very short and cheap list.

What else was in the budget to benefit the people of Badcoe? Was there money for women's sporting facilities, for new and renovated toilets and change rooms so women can stay fit and healthy and participate in sport? No. It was revealed that the Female Facilities Fund is axed—an absolute travesty. Was there any funding for the many growing sports in our area, sports like baseball, rugby union, basketball and tennis? No. Only footy, cricket and netball can apply for infrastructure funds under the new Liberal government's arrangements. Was there a community-led infrastructure fund, like Fund My Neighbourhood, where local residents can actually nominate the projects that they want, campaign in their own communities to get support for their ideas and then see it voted on and funded? No. Fund My Neighbourhood was axed.

That is a big one for Badcoe because my community was successful in campaigning for quite a few things: $150,000 for a new nature play playground at Bailey Reserve in Clarence Gardens; $65,000 for the video scoreboard at Goodwood Oval, and I look forward to seeing that put up soon as part of the redevelopment that Labor spearheaded last year; and more than $10,000 for a new barbecue and cricket sightscreens at Goodwood Oval, which are both in action and working really well and I look forward to the cricket training season starting again in a few weeks.

Two schools in my area, Edwardstown Primary and Ascot Park Primary, both got new nature play playgrounds, plus it was great to see the Capri Theatre—that is, of course, in the member for Unley's seat—receive disability access under the Fund My Neighbourhood scheme. Although that is in Unley, it is a local cinema that a lot of people in my area use and are very proud of, with its beautiful Art Deco design. Since then, I have had scores of constituents and local groups asking about Fund My Neighbourhood, but now we know that this very popular program has also been axed.

Did Badcoe get any of the school kiss and drop zones? No, though several would like and need further investment in their schools, like Richmond Primary, which really needs a new school hall for its growing enrolments. What about relieving cost-of-living expenses for our most vulnerable people in Badcoe? No, in fact, we saw more pressure put on people in Housing Trust residences, and we saw a demonstration of that today here in question time.

There are a great many people living in Housing Trust properties throughout Badcoe in a variety of accommodations—and I know that because I have knocked on the door of pretty much every single Housing Trust property in Badcoe. Those people, some of whom were here in the gallery today at question time and out on the steps beforehand, are looking at rent hikes themselves or are fearful of further rent hikes that might hit them. Those same people are also the most reliant on public transport, and this budget has cast a cloud on bus routes. Some of them will be axed, but we do not even know which ones they will be yet.

The other thing we have seen is a serious attack on the Public Service. Yesterday, I spoke about the impact on my portfolio areas of child protection and the arts and the more than a hundred jobs going in those areas. A lot of public servants live in Badcoe, and what this budget means for them is losing their jobs or being fearful that they could be the next in line for the sack with this Liberal government.

What the people of Badcoe have actually seen is the exact opposite of what the Liberals promised: fewer jobs, higher costs, worse services. Put simply, this is a terrible budget. It is not only a do-nothing budget, it is worse than that: it is a do-harm budget. It is a bad budget for this state and it is a bad budget for the people of Badcoe.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (17:37): I would like to take a few moments to reinforce one of the key messages that I think comes out of this budget, and I would then like to talk about a related issue, that is, what one of my schools is doing to deal with the issue of inequality in our community.

One of the biggest messages to come out of this budget, and the question to ask, is: to what extent does this budget make a contribution to reducing inequality in our community? That is inequality in terms of income, people's economic ability, not in terms of most vulnerable. We heard the Premier say today that dealing with Housing Trust rent increases is not a pressing issue, and I believe the member for MacKillop also voiced similar views yesterday in his budget reply speech. It was interesting that it was very quiet today when the member for Hurtle Vale was talking about a Naracoorte resident who will have Housing Trust rent increases; he was quite silent.

So there is economic inequality and there is also inequality in terms of access to services, when we start cutting out public transport services. There are people who have access to the community through public transport, and we have people who rely on a private car, and then we have another group of people who, because of cost or because they do not have a car, or for whatever reason, will not have access to the community. There is increased inequality there.

We then have inequality in terms of students who have access to resources and those who do not; in other words, young people who have a head start in life and those who do not. This government has made it very clear that as far as they are concerned students in the north are not important. They have wiped out the laptop program which means that they have wiped out—

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner interjecting:

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Mr Deputy Speaker, I didn't interrupt anyone else.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Light will be heard in silence. Continue.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: They wiped out the laptop program. This may not be of importance in the eastern suburbs, and perhaps Burnside, but certainly in the suburbs and areas that I represent it was a very popular program. In the schools I spoke to and the principals I spoke to, the program would be very welcome. I am also aware that the minister has not actually come to speak to those schools yet, so perhaps he does not understand the needs of those schools.

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Light will be heard in silence.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Again, we have those students who will have access to technology and those who will not, those who will get a head start in life, so there is an increase in inequality there. Then we also have growing inequality in the social sense—in other words, all those other factors which, put together, mean that some people are precluded from society. Certainly, this budget does nothing to address that.

In fact, while I appreciate that it is important to grow the cake so that everybody gets more, that is certainly the case, but when you look at the budget figures, there is no silver lining because growth is going to decrease over time. These are the budget figures. Jobs growth is going to decrease over time and the debt deficit of this budget is going to grow over time. So we have all the hallmarks of an economy and a society with growing inequality. This is the budget which the members opposite are very proud of. Sure, you can be proud of it, and we will see what the community says at the next election.

One of the things we also need to address is inequality between those people who were born and raised here and those people who have come here as refugees and migrants. I have some sympathy for them because I was a migrant myself, having come to Australia in 1963 with my family. We were from a poor background. My parents worked very hard. I will put aside for now, because I have much more positive comments to make, the comments that Mr Dutton has made in the past in the federal parliament about particular groups of migrants and English-speaking skills. They are rather nasty and unnecessary comments that he has made to denigrate our migrant community and our refugee community.

But there is a group of young people in my community, attending Mark Oliphant College, who put on an event which I attended last week. Mark Oliphant College is a very successful school and I am looking forward to when the minister opens the new school, not too far away from the existing Mark Oliphant College, for the Munno Para West and Munno Para community.

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner: Another school that I visited in opposition.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: One actually does not exist yet, so I am not sure how you visited it.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Light, don't be distracted. Continue.

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister for Education, thank you. Member for Light, continue. Do not be distracted.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I will expect a few extra seconds on my time as well. What I would like to talk about is a show which I attended at Mark Oliphant College last week which was held on 13 September run by the school's Australian Refugee Association representatives. The program was called Who We Are. It was a fashion show. These students, with the support of other students and teachers, put on a program for the day to help people to understand the life and experience of refugees in that community. That community has a number of refugees from Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, there is a South Sudanese community, there is a Hazara community. There are quite a number of people from a whole range of refugee communities in that school, and the school is very successfully helping to integrate these young people.

The purpose behind the fashion show was not only to showcase the diverse cultures in Australia and this community but also to educate the school community on refugee-related issues through storytelling, music, food, dance and cultural clothing. The particulars of the event included a runway where they had a fashion show where students showcased cultural attire from their homelands or places of birth. It was interesting to note the number of students who were refugees born in refugee camps, not in their country of origin but born in camps in between their country of origin and Australia, which is a really tough start to life.

Students described their personal journeys to Australia. Some of the stories were quite emotive in the sense of the experiences that they have undertaken. It was a school-wide involvement day. It was also a casual day for the occasion, which was used as a fundraiser to raise money with entertainment and food. It encouraged all students, not just refugees, to wear their cultural clothing for the day.

The show was used by students as part of their assessment tasks. For example, music students were required to set up and pack up musical instruments as part of their show. ARA youth ambassadors were part of the three challenges. In other words, they had to fundraise, volunteer and raise awareness. They were supported by the student representative council and also the governing council of the school. There were Burundian drummers, who were used to show Burundian culture. The students obviously were allowed not only to speak with them but also to use the musical instruments of different cultures and learn why they are important.

There was also a whole range of different foods available. I will probably get the pronunciations wrong, so I apologise ahead of time. There was key wat, which is an Ethiopian spicy beef stew; jollof rice, a popular West African dish; mandasi, a popular African doughnut; chapati, a type of Indian flatbread; and anjera, Somalian sourdough pancakes. I was fortunate enough to be able to try some of these as well.

There was also a presentation from an ARA community and youth engagement officer to explain refugee and asylum seeker statistics. One of the stories told by one refugee about her plight tried to correct some of the misinformation in the media and perhaps some of the misinformation we might hear from some of the shock jocks on radio stations about the rights of refugees and people who come to Australia.

This community, which is dealing with social and economic inequality, used its limited resources to put on this occasion. I commend those students. I would also like to particularly thank ARA student representatives Gloria Ndayikengurukiye, Atiu Kuot Madut and Claudette Niyera for putting on this program and also for inviting me along to participate in this day where these communities in our society, despite the hardship caused by government policies at both the state and federal level, are doing wonderful work to have a inclusive society and community.

Time expired.

Estimates Committees

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Minister for Education) (17:47): I move:

That the proposed expenditures for the departments and services contained in the Appropriation Bill be referred to Estimates Committee A and B for examination and report by Tuesday 16 October in accordance with the following timetables:

APPROPRIATION BILL 2018

TIMETABLE FOR ESTIMATES COMMITTEES

ESTIMATES COMMITTEE A

FRIDAY 21 SEPTEMBER AT 9.00 AM

Premier

Legislative Council

House of Assembly

Joint Parliamentary Services

Administered Items for Joint Parliamentary Services

State Governor's Establishment

Auditor-General's Department

Department of the Premier and Cabinet (part)

Administered Items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet (part)

Defence SA

MONDAY 24 SEPTEMBER AT 1.30 PM

Attorney-General

Courts Administration Authority

Attorney-General's Department

Administered Items for the Attorney-General's Department

Electoral Commission of South Australia

Administered Items for Electoral Commission of South Australia Independent Gambling Authority

TUESDAY 25 SEPTEMBER AT 9.00 AM

Minister for Human Services

Department of Human Services

Administered items for the Department of Human Services

Minister for Environment and Water

Department for Environment and Water

Administered items for the Department for Environment and Water Department for Energy and Mining (part)

WEDNESDAY 26 SEPTEMBER AT 9.00 AM

Minister for Industry and Skills

Department for Industry and Skills

Minister for Energy and Mining

Department of Energy and Mining (part)

THURSDAY 27 SEPTEMBER AT 9.00 AM

Minister for Planning

Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government

Administered Items for the Department of Treasury and Finance (part)

Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (part)

Administered Items for the Department of Planning, Transport and infrastructure (part)

ESTIMATES COMMITTEE B

FRIDAY 21 SEPTEMBER AT 9.00 AM

Treasurer

Department of Treasury and Finance

Administered Items for the Department of Treasury and Finance (part)

MONDAY 24 SEPTEMBER AT 1.30 PM

Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development Department of Primary Industries and Regions

Administered Items for the Department of Primary Industries and Regions

TUESDAY 25 SEPTEMBER AT 9.00 AM

Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment

Department for Trade, Tourism and Investment Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment South Australian Tourism Commission

Minister for Health and Wellbeing

Department for Health and Wellbeing South Australian Mental Health Commission

WEDNESDAY 26 SEPTEMBER AT 9.00 AM

Minister for Education

Department for Education

Administered Items for the Department for Education

Minister for Child Protection

Department for Child Protection

THURSDAY 27 SEPTEMBER AT 9.00 AM

Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services

Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing

Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (part)

Administered Items for the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (part) Administered Items for the Department of Treasury and Finance (part)

South Australia Police

Administered Items for South Australia Police

Department for Correctional Services

Department of the Premier and Cabinet (part)

Administered Items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet (part)

Motion carried.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Minister for Education) (17:47): I move:

That Estimates Committee A be appointed, consisting of Mr Brown, Mr Cowdrey, Mr Malinauskas, Mr Pederick, Mr Teague, Mr Treloar and Ms Wortley.

Motion carried.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Minister for Education) (17:48): I move:

That Estimates Committee B be appointed, consisting of Mr Boyer, Mr Duluk, Mr Gee, Dr Harvey, Hon. Mr Mullighan, Mr Murray and Mr Patterson.

Motion carried.