Motions

State Budget

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (11:31): I move:

That this house—

(a) condemns the 2018-19 Marshall government budget of cuts, closures and privatisations;

(b) acknowledges the substantial increase in state debt under the Marshall government, despite increased revenues and the budget’s cuts, closures and privatisations;

(c) recognises the fall in South Australia’s employment growth rate since the election of the Marshall government; and

(d) recognises that six months after the election of the Marshall government, fewer people are employed in South Australia.

It is worth considering at the outset what we were promised by the Liberals at the last state election.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The costings that were provided by the then shadow treasurer, the Hon. Mr Lucas of the other place, essentially said that the Liberal's election commitments would be funded from existing government resources, existing capacity within the state budget and the implementation of a 0.7 per cent efficiency dividend on the health operations in SA Health and a 1.7 per cent efficiency dividend across other agencies, particularly exempting impacts on front-line services. Indeed, he was at pains to explain that the number of people who would be separated from the public sector in pursuing these budget savings would be no more than was already factored into the forward estimates through previously announced savings.

That is far from what the 2018-19 state budget, the first of the Marshall Liberal government, delivered. It was broken election commitment after broken election commitment. We were promised more jobs, lower costs and better services, and we have seen this government fail on all three counts. In the Liberal Party's costings before the election, we were promised:

Front line services such as doctors, teachers, nurses, police etc will be quarantined from the efficiency dividend in a similar way to that announced by the Weatherill Government in the Mid-Year Budget Review (MYBR).

What did we see in last year's budget papers for this current financial year for the Central Adelaide Local Health Network? We saw that 880 full-time equivalent staff were to be separated from that organisation, that is, front-line workers. That includes doctors, nurses and other ancillary health staff who are providing those front-line health services.

We were promised a $75 million cut over three years in consultants and contractors. What do we see? A contract for up to $37 million for KordaMentha. We have also seen an increase in the number of consultancies and contracts that have been provided across portfolios, some of which have not been let yet, of course. I spoke at some length about the ethereal GlobeLink project, which seems to exist only in cached Google documents; nothing in existence at the moment. In fact, the only other place it is in existence, apparently, is in the federal member for Boothby's mind. However, there is apparently a $20 million consultancy for that project.

We were also promised a cut of $15 million in government advertising and communications, but what did we see in March of this year but a payroll tax advertising campaign for cuts that had already commenced, cuts that small businesses did not even need to apply for. When it came to the budget settings, we were also promised there would be no impact on net debt estimates outlined in the 2017-18 Mid-Year Budget Review. Well, all those promises made by the Liberals at the last state election have not been delivered.

We also heard from the Premier himself, in the week leading up to the last state election, that there was 'no privatisation agenda', but what have we seen under this government but privatisation after privatisation. On that promise of more jobs, lower costs and better services, as I said jobs growth has slowed to a near stop, costs are now set to massively increase with the news two weeks ago of a very large increase in fees and charges and services are being slashed.

Let us look at some of the individual cuts. There is $46 million from bus and train services in the state budget—$46 million. The $3 million that has already been rolled out, the ghost buses carrying no patrons—no patrons, of course, defined by the member for Schubert as up to 27 passengers—are bus cuts that are impacting people already, and we have had only $3 million out of the $46 million that needs to be delivered.

I have already mentioned the 880 FTEs being cut from the Central Adelaide Local Health Network. Of course, those FTEs are being cut while interstate corporate liquidators are being flown in on a weekly basis at a cost of up to $6,500 a day to administer our health system.

An honourable member interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I think the member for Chaffey said that he would not get out of bed and travel for under $6,500 given his sojourn off to Texas. Well, that would not surprise us at all, would it? It seems that ministerial travel has escalated through the roof as well.

Speaking of regional matters, we have had a $26 million cut to regional road funding, we have had a cut to the Overland train service subsidy and we have also had the dishonouring of a $1 million funding program for Crime Stoppers. We have had a $70 million laptop program for high school students scrapped by the government, and the female facilities program has been scrapped. We have had 29 job creation and job support programs cut, and it is no coincidence at all that with that cut to those job creation and job support programs we have seen a huge double foot on the brake of jobs growth here in South Australia.

Then you look at the closures. We have three Service SA centres allegedly closing, although we have a minister who does not quite know yet how they will be closed and how the services are going to be alternatively provided. We have seven TAFE campuses to close, and we have two sexual health clinics to close. Of course, we do not yet know how many SA Pathology branches are going to close under the $110 million of savings that organisation has to deliver, let alone if it is going to lose any of those sites if, indeed, it becomes privatised.

We have that privatisation plan for SA Pathology, and we have the privatisation of the Adelaide Remand Centre, which one would have thought would be going a bit more swimmingly than it is at the moment—after all, it is being superintended by Mr Lucas, the master of privatisation. One would have thought that after privatising the state's electricity assets 20 years ago this year he would understand the basic legal requirement that a government would have to consult with its workforce. Unfortunately, according to the Employment Tribunal he failed to meet that legal requirement, yet we hear him on radio celebrating that fact, such is his contempt for public sector workers.

We also have the privatisation of Modbury health patient transfers, which will impact those patients requiring transport and receiving treatment at Modbury Hospital. We also have the privatisation of the regional road maintenance effort currently being undertaken by the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, finishing the job of privatisation that was commenced by Diana Laidlaw and Rob Lucas in the 1990s.

It is a real shame that those arrangements for road maintenance in metropolitan areas were privatised back then. I remember, on my first site visit as minister in early April 2014, heading out to one of the DPTI depots, that the workers told me how much those cuts and privatisations in the 1990s had decimated the capacity of the state to maintain the regional road networks. They said that they would go out all day every day surveying the state of the roads. They had the equipment and the capacity to patch up those sections of road which needed to be done upon inspection. That will no longer happen under a privatised model for those regions.

The Treasurer has announced that a privatisation task force is going to be established in the Department of Treasury and Finance. That department, of course, is suffering from more than $80 million worth of cuts over the next four years. He is 'actively encouraging' Department of Treasury and Finance officers to identify ways to further privatise and outsource operations and assets of the South Australian government.

I have to wonder what it must feel like to be a backbencher on the government benches, particularly one elected in their first term of parliament, one who perhaps came to the election in 2018 thinking that they could make a positive difference for their community. They would have thought they were going to be different from the divisive and apposite-type politics that we see so much in today's media, that they could just be connected to their community and focus on their local community because they want to deliver for their community. Someone perhaps like the member for King or someone perhaps like the member for Newland, what have they been able to deliver in the first 13 or 14 months?

We see the Modbury Service SA centre slated to be closed, although as I have just mentioned we have a minister who does not quite know how to do that, let alone provide alternatives for the services at that location. We have the funded expansion of the Tea Tree Plaza park-and-ride cancelled. We have the Golden Grove park-and-ride delayed. We have the Tea Tree Gully TAFE closed. We have bus routes in those electorates axed. We have the privatisation of Modbury patient transfers and we have cuts to SA Pathology services. I agree, I would not want to hear it either, if that was my record of delivery. I would not want to hear it either.

I would want to turn and get away from that awful abject tale of woe about how those two north-eastern suburbs members of the Liberal Party have let down their constituencies. Cuts, closures and privatisations, when they go to their constituents in 2022, that is what they will be asking for a second term on the back of. 'Look at what I have delivered—fewer bus services, no Service SA centre, delayed park-and-ride upgrades.' It is extraordinary.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Members on my right will have a chance to rebut.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: What action have they taken? None. They have done nothing to try to stem the overwhelming tide of cuts and closures and privatisations to their community. It is absolutely extraordinary.

Then, of course, we turn our minds to the extraordinary increase in state debt under this government. The budget experienced a windfall in GST revenues—$991 million over four years. They raided South Australian government businesses, with $128 million extra from SA Water, $81 million extra from the South Australian Government Financing Authority. But, despite these windfalls, they have massively ramped up debt. The Premier promised no impact on the debt estimates in the Mid-Year Budget Review (MYBR).

So what were the debt estimates in the Mid-Year Budget Review? Let's have a look. We have had an explosion in debt from the 2017-18 MYBR figure for that year of $4.9 billion of net general government sector debt or a net debt to revenue ratio of 25.6. Well, that debt is now forecast to reach $8.98 billion by the end of the forward estimates. That is an extra $4 billion, or an extra 82 per cent, increase in net debt. Not increasing net debt? Not by much—it nearly doubles it!

What is all that being spent on? There are some things to spend it on, of course. There are all those infrastructure projects the former Labor government funded in the forward estimates, which are to be rolled out and which the laughing member for Schubert continues to take credit for, such as opening up new interchanges on the Northern Connector, for example. He boasts about how much money is locked into the forward estimates for infrastructure expenditure on schools. These are all proud Labor projects. They are investments in infrastructure, transport and education. That does not explain the $4 billion of extra debt being ramped up by this government.

To the last point, we were promised employment growth. What did we see? After the first six months of this government, jobs actually decreased in the South Australian economy. In the last year of the Labor government, trend employment growth sat at 2.4 per cent, with over 20,000 jobs created. Under the Marshall government, the annual trend employment growth rate sits at 0.8 per cent, one-third of what Labor had achieved, with only one-third of the jobs created.

It is a shameful record. This was a disgraceful budget that withdrew support from the South Australian community and withdrew support from the South Australian economy. I bet that, at the next election, the South Australian community will withdraw its support for this dreadful government.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL (Schubert—Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government, Minister for Planning) (11:46): I move to amend the motion as follows:

Delete all the words after 'That' and insert the following words in lieu thereof:

That this house—

(a) congratulates the Marshall government for delivering a 2018-19 budget that meets its election commitments, introduces a modest range of responsible savings while maintaining per annum growth in average operating expenditure across the forward estimates;

(b) acknowledges the substantial operating surpluses delivered, and that the projected increase in state debt reflects the significant boost to infrastructure spending;

(c) recognises the growth in South Australia's employment since the election of the Marshall government; and

(d) recognises that, 12 months after the election of the Marshall government, there are 14,900 more people employed in South Australia.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Lee, do you have a point of order?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I do. I was hoping to see a copy of the amendment because, as it was read to the house, the member for Schubert said, 'Delete all words after "that".' I presume the next words were the amendment, which commenced with the word 'that'. Does the motion now read, 'That that this house'?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I take your point of order. Very perceptive of you, member for Lee.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Lee, you have had your turn.

The Hon. T.J. Whetstone interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister for Primary Industries!

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hold your fire, everyone, please, just for a moment. I have a copy of the amended motion. As far as I can see, the word 'that' does not appear twice. The motion has been seconded. The Minister for Transport and Infrastructure can now speak to his amended motion.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I am glad to see that members opposite are really dealing with the big issues when it comes to the state of the budget here in South Australia as we saw it and as we were left with in the lead-up to the 2018 election. What our first budget did was reverse some of the very cruel decisions that the former government had put in place. At the outset, can I say that the tirade from the member for Lee was fundamentally flawed in minor parts and dishonest and misleading in major parts.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is a point of order. Minister, could you take your seat for a moment. Member for Lee.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The remedy for an allegation of misleading the parliament is to move for a matter of privilege to be established. If that is what the member for Schubert indeed implies, I ask him to either withdraw what he just said or move to establish a matter of privilege.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, we are just a bit unsure of exactly what you said then. What I am going to suggest to appease the member for Lee—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, could you listen to me, please? What I am going to ask you to do to appease the member for Lee is be very careful about the words you use in this chamber. Thank you.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Certainly, sir. In doing so, I say that it is not the house that is being impeded in this regard, but essentially what is being represented by the member for Lee is a very selective version of the truth, which, if taken in its entirety, could suggest something different from what the reality is to the South Australian people, especially with regard to this government's ability to deliver on its election commitments.

Before we come to that, can I say that what we were left with was a budget mess. We were left with a budget that was in structural deficit, that without the flogging off of significant assets would have looked far worse than what was presented during budget time, a budget that also had a savings task that was a significant burden on the agencies that were required to deliver on it.

What is more interesting about the member for Lee's speech is really that he could not decide on which side of the fence he sat. He basically was making the broad assumption that anything we do is bad and anything they did was really, really good. That manifested itself in a speech that attacked us for making savings on spending and also then attacked us for spending too much money. What I find most interesting about the member for Lee's speech is that he could not decide from which angle he wanted to attack us to maintain a level of internal logical consistency, except using a very basic argument that Liberal is bad and Labor is good.

It is in that light that we heard a tirade that bore very little resemblance to the truth. This budget delivered on the promises that the Marshall Liberal government made at the 2018 election. It delivered payroll tax relief for 3,200 businesses right across South Australia to stimulate growth in jobs in our economy. It delivered $360 million worth of relief in the emergency services levy that we promised to the people back in 2015.

If we want to take a contrast on that point alone, the hike in the emergency services levy was not something that the Labor Party took to the 2014 election. It is something they inflicted on the people of South Australia after the fact. We were up-front about what our election commitments were and we delivered on them. We delivered land tax reduction. More than that, we also forgave some of the cruel savings tasks that the former government had in place.

When the member for Lee talks about what we are seeking to do to turn around the health budget, he conveniently forgets the $800 million worth of health savings that we forgave in last year's budget. If in this alternate universe the Labor Party would have been re-elected, there was $800 million more worth of cuts that they had in their forward estimates planned to be delivered within the health budget. To stand up and suggest otherwise is disgusting and disingenuous.

The same can be said about TAFE. This government forgave $100 million worth of savings and revenue targets given to that organisation, an organisation that the former government could not manage. I know that the Minister for Education and the Minister for Innovation and Skills are doing a whole lot of work to turn it around so that it can deliver the education outcomes that we need to support jobs growth in our state.

We also saw a $30 million forgiving of savings in the child protection department. I do not necessarily need to go down that path; I think the South Australian public are very well aware of the former government's record on child protection. This budget also delivered on the central tenet that we took to the last election, and that was to deliver a budget that is in surplus. This year's budget—a $48 million surplus in the 2018-19 budget—was the delivery of that commitment. It is something that, again, we took to the South Australian people.

What is also interesting is that we did tell people that we needed to achieve a savings task to deliver that budget surplus. By contrast, there was another major political party that simply did not release election costings before the last election. They told you about everything that they were going to spend, but they did not tell you how they were going to pay for it. Again, to suggest anything other than our having been up-front with the South Australian people is disingenuous at best.

This budget delivered on our election commitments. It delivered $200 million into the Skilling Australians Fund so that we can reverse the decline of some two-thirds in the number of apprenticeship and traineeship starts in South Australia. It delivered a record $11.3 billion worth of infrastructure spending over the forward estimates to deliver a project pipeline that gives certainty to that sector. In that $11.3 billion are the electorate commitments that we made to the South Australian people, all of which—with one exception, which is the right-hand turn on North Terrace—are on track to be delivered. When the member for Lee tried to suggest anything other than our commitment to delivering park-and-rides in the north-east, he was being disingenuous.

There is more. We delivered on our commitment to turn Lot Fourteen into an innovation and research hub that is going to drive jobs growth in South Australia. We also delivered a record $515 million more into the education budget. That is $515 million into the education budget. So we have been able to balance the books. We have been able to cut taxes. We have been able to deliver on our election commitments, and we have been able to forgive the awful savings task in areas central to delivering good services in South Australia.

It is a budget that we are proud to stand behind and stand up for. It is one that we will continue to build on in this year's budget. I think it starts to reverse some of the very damaging work that the former government had been dealing with. I can also say that it has actually delivered jobs growth for the people of South Australia: there are 14,900 more people employed under the Marshall Liberal government than under the previous government.

We have also seen some real green shoots in our economy in relation to the level of commercial construction growth and investment into plant and equipment. These lead indicators show that we are moving forward as a state and that there are positive signs for further employment growth into the future. We are very proud to stand behind this budget. It delivered exactly what, at time of the election, we said it would. We have kept faith with the people of South Australia and we will continue to do so. We will continue to point out that the budget has driven jobs growth within our economy, which is providing a brighter future for all South Australians.

Ms COOK (Hurtle Vale) (11:57): I rise to support the original motion by the member for Lee that condemns the 2018 Marshall government budget, which is a series of cuts, closures and privatisations where the debt for the state has increased and unemployment is actually worse.

As the shadow minister for human services, I want to ensure that South Australians who are vulnerable, those who have a disability and those who are facing homelessness receive the support, advice, funding and all the help that they need. Under the cruel Marshall Liberal government, it is becoming increasingly hard for these members of our community to make ends meet. It is becoming increasingly hard for people to travel, either on a bus or in a taxi, to necessary appointments, to go to study or to go to work. It is becoming even harder for them to pay their rent.

Thousands of South Australians have had enough, and so have I. This cruel and cold-hearted government has no financial excuses for its cruel cuts, closures and privatisations. The cruel government has received a nice, healthy increase in GST revenue. Last Friday, I attended a rally organised by a community group called 'Keep the South Australian taxi subsidy scheme'.

This is a group of people with a disability and their supporters who hold grave fears about isolation and skyrocketing transport costs when their taxi vouchers are removed in the second half of this year. Add to this the cutting of transport routes and the recent announcement of allegedly improving the public transport journey by further cutting low-patronage routes and facilitating people to hop on and hop off other forms of transport by using connector-type services. You have the perfect storm of disadvantage appearing over the horizon for people in our community living with a disability.

Prior to the NDIS being introduced, the South Australian Transport Subsidy Scheme was available to those eligible to attend medical appointments, work, study or job interviews. They also were provided with a transport supplement payment from Centrelink. Of course, under the agreement with NDIS, things were changing. Sadly, however, the flexibility and the agility within NDIS seems to be absent, so these people who used to receive that amount of support will see change.

A lack of action by the Marshall government and the federal Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison regime means that after 30 June this year, some time in the second part of this year, 5,500 people who are on the NDIS or transitioning to the NDIS will be left out of pocket for between $2,000 and $5,000 at least.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Point of order: the motion is quite clearly in respect of the 2018-19 Marshall government budget. The issues being enunciated by the member for Hurtle Vale actually have no relevance to the 2018-19 Marshall government budget.

Ms COOK: What a bogus point of order.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Hurtle Vale, please take your seat. Minister, I take your point of order. I think the motion itself, even though it mentions 2018-19 specifically, is broad-ranging in its scope. I will listen carefully, but I am happy enough with the member for Hurtle Vale at the moment. I ask you to continue on and for the interjections to cease between the Minister for Transport and the member for Badcoe.

Ms COOK: Thank you, sir; I was ignoring them. I will reiterate: prior to the NDIS being introduced, the South Australian Transport Subsidy Scheme was available to those eligible to attend medical appointments, work, study or job interviews. As well as that, they were provided with a transport supplement payment from Centrelink. A lack of action by the Marshall government, which includes the Minister for Transport in this place, means that during the second part of this year, in partnership with the federal Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison regime and their history, these people will be worse off.

Around 5,500 people who have transitioned or are transitioning to the NDIS will be left out of pocket for between $2,000 and $5,000 a year. Those opposite may snicker and may believe what the Minister for Transport wants to say about this, but those people started their own group because they know that under this state government and the federal Liberal government they are between $2,000 and $5,000 worse off and they cannot afford it.

It is cruel and unjust. People with a disability need that support and they need people to listen. The system, if it is not agile enough, needs to be changed. Under the federal government, which trickles down, similar to the right-wing trickle-down economic rubbish that we have to put up with from this state government, these people will suffer.

Members interjecting:

Ms COOK: I appreciate that the Minister for Transport in this place, who continues to interject, has been the person who has taken some accountability for this and announced one voucher book of 80 vouchers for these people as a stopgap measure into the second part of the year, and the group is appreciative of that. However, I would welcome the minister clarifying just how many people will get that book out of the 5,500 people transitioning to the NDIS. Just how proactive is this government going to be in marketing it to all those people who are eligible to make sure that they get that book?

A lot of people who are eligible for that book are contacting us, saying that they know nothing about it and that they have just heard on the street. On this side of the house, I am sure I am not the only person who would be happy to talk to all our constituents, do a mail-out and support that information going into the community. I would urge the Minister for Transport to do the same. The provision of the book is a stopgap measure. It only kicks the can filled with pain down the road to Christmas and it says, 'Merry Christmas. You're all on your own. You're unfunded, isolated, unable to participate and engage in our community. It's a good job that Santa home delivers.'

The Minister for Human Services did not turn up to the rally when invited, but I understand that because it is a lot harder to cut the hell out of people if you know them and if you have had to look them in the eye and meet them. The agenda of not meeting with anyone works if it is going to be too painful to cut their budgets.

There are also a whole range of other cuts in the state budget that hurt vulnerable people, including increasing Housing Trust rents on people with fixed incomes. The federal Liberals have no agenda to review Newstart, no agenda to provide a higher proportion of increase to pensions, people on welfare benefits, people who cannot afford to keep up with the rising cost of living. They have cut $46 million from public transport routes used by people who, by their own admission, the federal Liberals said 'cannot afford cars and do not drive'.

We have the abolishment of the Mental Health Commission. People who are vulnerable need those voices. We have cuts in hospital beds and SA Pathology closures. Minutes save lives when you are talking about emergencies. These people are vulnerable. In addition, seven TAFE campuses are being cut in areas of need, such as the north-east, Port Adelaide, Wudinna, Roxby Downs, Coober Pedy, Urrbrae and Parafield. CCTV programs are being cut—community safety measures. Young people are disproportionately affected by crime. Vulnerable people are disproportionately affected by crime.

I have always been an advocate for social justice, and I strongly believe it is a requirement to allow people to live as normal a life as possible with access to as many vital services as possible. All these cuts disproportionately affect vulnerable people. These groups are represented in every one of our electorates, and we will not stop talking about them and we will not stop listening when those groups come to us.

Respect and human dignity should not be options for political parties to make decisions about. Labor's priorities could not be any more different from those of Premier Marshall and his penny-pinching Treasurer in the other place. Every day I listen to the grave concerns of the community and I am frightened by what I hear. This government is decimating the most vital services in South Australia. It is appalling. The cruel and punishing cuts must immediately be reversed.

I will briefly address the amended motion that the member for Schubert, the Minister for Transport, has brought into this place and talk about paragraphs (c) and (d), in which they puff up their chests and say how wonderfully they have done in employing South Australians. I can tell you that that is not young people because since you came into power in March 2018 the youth unemployment rate has gone up from 11.5 per cent to 15 per cent. This is not giving jobs to young people.

You cried crocodile tears about the brain drain, about youth leaving this state, and then you cut employment programs and you cut the programs supporting young people. You talk about green shoots. Well, shoots need water and food; everyone is starving. And you could not give a damn about the River Murray.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Innovation has the call.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI (Unley—Minister for Innovation and Skills) (12:08): I stand to support the transport minister's amendment to this motion. While I am doing that, I would like to correct the record on some of the claims about employment figures over the last 12 months. There have been exciting things happening in employment in the last 12 months here in South Australia. I will start with my first point, which is the last point made by the member for Hurtle Vale. When people are not aware of how the system works, they get it wrong.

The correct way to measure youth unemployment is to look at the annual average unemployment rate. That is a more detailed and reliable figure than the monthly rate, which bounces around. It is a very small statistic. Any statistician will tell you that small statistics are unreliable, whereas bringing that out to an annual figure—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister for Innovation, could you just take a seat for a moment. Minister, I am going to congratulate you; you are one of the few members who actually addresses your comments through the Chair, and I appreciate that. I am going to ask the member for Lee and the Minister for Transport to desist their conversation across the chamber while the minister is speaking. Minister.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: May I say how attentive you are, sir, when you are in the chair. The average unemployment rate for young people over the past 12 months (to March 2019) was 13 per cent. In the first year of the Marshall Liberal government, the average was 13 per cent, compared with the last year of the Weatherill Labor government, when it was 15.4 per cent. That is a reliable figure. That is a figure that we can rely on because that gives us a much bigger picture as to how things are trending and where things are going. Guess what? Things are trending in a better direction under this government because of the levers—the change in direction—that we have put in place since coming to office.

It is always very important to read all the information the ABS releases every month because it gives us a much bigger picture of what is happening within the South Australian economy. After doing so month after month, as the minister responsible for employment in South Australia I can tell you that things are getting better. There is greater confidence in the business community, which means that employers are prepared to invest in their staff, and that is exactly what they have been doing. Over the past 12 months, more than 7,700 additional people were employed full-time.

It is a big commitment by an employer to go from employing part-time or casual staff, which is what happened under the previous government when we saw a boom in part-time employment at the expense of full-time employment. Employers are saying, 'We can see more than a light at the end of the tunnel. We can actually see that the economy is improving in South Australia.' They are investing in their existing staff and giving them the opportunity to transfer from part-time or casual work to full-time work.

That is great for employees because that means they can start planning their lives. They can go to the bank and say, ' I have a full-time job. This is what I'm earning. I would like a loan to buy a house; I would like to actually start planning for the future.' Not only are employers and businesses planning for the future by investing in full-time staff but staff who are joining those businesses in a full-time capacity are much more confident with their consumer spending and saving for the future.

This is great news for the longer term outcomes and the shift in policy levers that the Marshall Liberal government has put in place. There are now 552,000 full-time workers in South Australia. That is an all-time record—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Lee, do you have a point of order?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No; I draw attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: As I was saying, there are 552,000 full-time employees in South Australia. That is a significant improvement in full-time jobs and an all-time record in the number of South Australians working. In trend terms, that is 848,300 South Australians in jobs. We have never had that many people working in South Australia. On top of that, in the month of March we actually saw the participation rate increase by nearly 1 per cent. What does that tell us? It tells us that the optimism within the business community is now filtering down to the general community. They are now saying, 'I'm going to go back into the workforce applying for a job because I can see that jobs are being created because of the confidence in the business community.'

We are seeing more participation in the job sector and we are seeing more hours worked by South Australians. As a matter of fact, if you look at the last 12 months, there were 2.7 million additional hours worked in South Australia from March 2018 to March 2019. There were 116 million hours worked by South Australians—an all-time record—and that has generated an extra $865 million in salaries being paid to workers in South Australia since Steven Marshall became the Premier of this state. That is a tremendous achievement in such a short time.

The opposition is not happy about that. Their whole focus is about destroying any good news and any confidence in this economy because they know that business confidence is a key driver of business growth in South Australia, and business growth is a driver of more jobs and more salaries for workers. The member for Lee could not have designed a motion that was more wrong about the situation we are in today, and that is why I support the transport minister's amendment to his original motion.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON (Ramsay) (12:17): I rise today to support the original motion from the member for Lee. In its first year in government, the Marshall Liberal government cut the budget for the Tourism Commission by $11 million and this has sent the industry backwards. This cut represents a reduction in activity that has serious ramifications for our local economy. The results of this cut led to the closure of the commission's representation in India.

This cut meant a reduction in international marketing and direct flight attraction. This cut meant a reduction in sector development activity—projects that help small business. It is important to remind ourselves that 40 per cent of expenditure in the visitor economy is in the regions. It was a short-sighted decision. I think, at the time, the Treasurer thought it was an easy decision: 'I'm going to cut $11 million out. No-one will really notice.' It was clearly driven for quick cash savings but without thinking about the long-term benefits that the industry provides. The numbers speak for themselves.

Recent figures from Tourism Research Australia show that the cuts to our international presence are already impacting. International visitors are down 3.2 per cent, international visitor spend is down 3.5 per cent and international visitor nights are down 9 per cent. The raw fact is that 96 per cent of international tourists coming to Australia do not visit South Australia. That means that we have to get out there and market ourselves. We know that we are one of the most livable cities, and we know that we have beautiful ecotourism opportunities and that we have great food and wine. But it is a competitive world and people have choices on where they spend their money. We must make sure that we are in market, selling ourselves to the world.

If we look closer to home, this has also impacted on our regional day trips. In the last 12 months, South Australian regional day trips are down $70 million. That impacts McLaren Vale, it impacts the Barossa, it impacts the Limestone Coast and it impacts Port Lincoln. This is real money that is not coming into the economy. What we have to understand is that tourism equals jobs. The Labor government got this, but for some reason the Treasurer in the last budget thought, 'This isn't going to have an impact; I'll just take this money out.' Do you know what we are hearing? That he has another $5 million on the chopping block to come out again!

There are 36,000 South Australians employed in tourism. If you put in more money, more people are employed very quickly. We knew that, and that is why we supported tourism. It is a labour-intensive industry; it brings economic benefits to Adelaide and our regions. Tourism is a super growth industry. Industry experts have calculated that the current value of economic contribution to the South Australian visitor economy is $6.8 billion. This is a decrease. It is down $100 million from earlier valuations. An $11 million cut has led to a $100 million economic impact—a negative impact.

We can talk about unemployment rates, but how about we talk about how we turn them around. We know that tourism is a fantastic employer. Tourism employs people at entry levels, university education, trade qualifications. We hear this government talk about Lot Fourteen: fantastic, we are going to have a tourism/hospitality school. That is great, but if we do not put more money into the tourism budget there simply will not be growth there.

Let's talk about tourism in Australia. We know that we are down on international visitors, and I have talked about those figures. What is happening in every other state? Victoria had an increase of 13 per cent in international visitor spend; Queensland had an increase of 13 per cent in international visitor spend. Everyone else is going great guns. Let's talk about overnight trips in South Australia. We have seen some increases here, a 7 per cent increase in spend, I will acknowledge that, but what is happening in every other state? Queensland had a 16 per cent increase in overnight visitor spend, New South Wales is up 13 per cent, Tassie is up 16 per cent and WA is up 14 per cent—double the spend increase for every other state.

The tourism pie is great and it is increasing and growing, but our share of the tourism pie is shrinking. The Treasurer, in the lead-up to this state budget, must not forget tourism. If we are concerned about unemployment and concerned about the regions, let me tell you that we know they are suffering with the drought. I was in Clare only a few weeks ago—it takes your breath away; it is dusty and it is dry. But tourism diversifies the regional economy. Clare is a beautiful place, with the Riesling Trail, wonderful B & Bs—

Mr Cowdrey: Great wine—

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: The wine is okay, and the people are fabulous, but, most importantly, it is about the diversity of the economy. If you take $11 million out of the tourism budget at a time when the regions need it most, as the Minister for Primary Industries has eloquently spoken about in the house many times, diversity of the economy is great. Only a few weeks ago we were at the opening of the Barossa Valley Chocolate Company, a recipient of a regional development grant under the Labor government, because we know that tourism equals jobs, and diversity of tourism product and diversity into regional economies are the goals we all share.

If the government are serious about backing the industry and the economy, they need to think about how we can further South Australia's branding and marketing efforts. Subsiding a new hotel at Adelaide Oval is not a tourism policy. While the government has watched on the sidelines, we have seen the Kangaroo Island Visitor Centre close. People get off the ferry in Penneshaw and there is a big sign that says that the Kangaroo Island Visitor Centre is closed. Every bit of tourism marketing contains Kangaroo Island: a seal at Seal Bay and, for those of us who like gin, fantastic Kangaroo Island gin and beautiful honey. What message are we giving people who arrive in Penneshaw and see that the visitor centre is closed?

I think this government have their priorities wrong when it comes to tourism. They think that this new hotel is more important. South Australia needs to get its fair share of the national tourism market. It is a competitive field and other jurisdictions across the country are turbocharging their tourism efforts. Federal Labor understands this. Hopefully, we will see a Shorten federal government, intent on delivering $95 million in grants to improve infrastructure around existing tourism attractions.

Across the country, we see different states add to their tourism budget. Western Australia has recently announced an additional $9 million towards international marketing. Queensland has a $36 million commitment to growing tourism infrastructure. On this side of the floor, we say that you got it wrong. You thought you could make this cut and that no-one would notice. We cannot afford any more cuts to tourism in South Australia.

Ms STINSON (Badcoe) (12:27): I rise to support the motion of the member for Lee. The last budget had a significant and real impact on the people in my electorate of Badcoe. I have heard from my colleagues here this morning about the cuts to Service SA. The Mitcham Service SA closure will definitely affect the people in Badcoe. The TAFE cuts, particularly Urrbrae TAFE, which is one that people in my area go to, will have a real impact on the people in Badcoe and certainly that is something they have been raising with me.

The bus cuts are constantly raised with me. On the weekend, while I was doing street-corner meetings with Mark Butler, people were raising the fact that they are going to find it so much harder to get to where they need to go with bus services being cut right across metropolitan Adelaide.

The subject of female facilities comes up quite a lot. At the last election, the area of Badcoe was quite fortunate to receive quite a lot of investment from the previous Labor government into sporting facilities, with some benefiting from the previous government's female facilities fund and others being able to provide, through the support of the previous Labor government, female facilities, which are in the process of being built and which includes the major project about to get underway at Goodwood Oval.

Cuts to school zones have been raised with me, and I have been quite surprised by the level of feedback I have received from parents, home owners and the wider community. We know those cuts have only happened because this government failed to budget its own election promise of putting year 7 into high school.

It is not necessarily a policy that people in my electorate are opposed to; it is just that it was not made clear what the impact of that would be for them. While they may agree with year 7 going into high school, it would mean that it would come at the cost of their children, and their children would not be able to go to Adelaide High or Adelaide Botanic High when they had been told for five years that they would be able to. That is incredibly disappointing and yet another impact of the previous budget and the inability to actually budget for the things that were promised.

Another area that I want to particularly draw to the attention of the house is the portfolio area of child protection. We have seen a range of cuts across the child protection portfolio; however, a particularly cruel cut has been to the financial counsellor service, which has existed for quite some time within the department. There are 59 full-time equivalent positions—59 is a lot of staff doing a lot of work helping people who need financial assistance.

They operate on three different levels. For those who are not aware of the what the financial counsellors do in the Department for Child Protection, their role is threefold: firstly, preventing families who are at risk of entering the child protection system and, indeed, the wider government welfare system. If a red flag is raised and someone needs financial assistance, needs help budgeting or needs help understanding how to set up accounts, how to manage their bills and how to pay for food for their children, they can use these financial counsellors to assist them in getting those things under control and give them a chance to stay out of the child protection system, care for their children themselves and create a bright future for their families and their children. They will not be doing that anymore.

Another role is to assist those who have come into the child protection system; either child protection workers are keeping an eye on them or, indeed, their children have been taken from them and are now wards of the state. Work is done with those families, and should be done increasingly, to ensure that, if their children are on three-month, 12-month or longer orders, these families might get themselves into shape and might be in a position to take their children back into their care and provide them with a loving home and a home where they are given all the necessities of life.

However, the area that financial counsellors look after that is dear to my heart is where they help young people who have been in care and who are leaving care to get a financial education. They help them to learn how finances work, how they should manage their own budget, how they should manage the rent and the bills that will come in and how to be financially independent. Of course, one of the greatest gifts we can give young people, whether they are in care or not, is the ability to be able to look after themselves, go out into the adult world, start up a great life, be able to do well and not be dependent on the state for their entire lives. That is an important part of what the financial counsellors do.

Those 59 full-time equivalent positions have already started to dwindle, as I understand it, but they will all be gone on 30 June. What is replacing this service? That is a big question. We certainly tried to get some answers from the Minister for Child Protection in estimates last year but, quite frankly, the responses either made no sense or were completely confused. At one point, under questioning about whether a tender would be put out, there was an indication that there would be a tender, yet all these months later we have seen no tender for financial counselling services. In fact, I understand that there will not be a tender at all. That is a bit of a problem because what was promised was that a $1 million tender would be put out to provide financial services and that it would be provided by the non-government sector.

Then we were told that actually $1 million had already been provided and items were listed off, including an app for young people leaving care as some sort of replacement for these financial counsellors. Everyone knows that an app cannot replace face-to-face advice from a financial counsellor. In fact, that response in estimates was left wanting because the list of things that was produced was actually something that the previous Labor government put in place in response to the Nyland royal commission, so it was no replacement at all for the financial counselling service that is being removed.

The sector is still a bit baffled as to what this government is going to put in place to replace the financial counselling services that previously cost somewhere in the vicinity of $4.9 million and supplied 59 specialist staff who were skilled in the area of providing financial and budgeting advice to people from a range of backgrounds. That is just non-existent now.

I do not think it is the government's argument that people in need, people coming into the child protection system or indeed exiting the child protection system, do not need assistance when it comes to financial matters. I do not think that is the argument at all, yet they have provided absolutely nothing to replace the financial counselling service that they have just completely axed.

Certainly, the not-for-profit sector is not going to pick up the slack there. They are not going to hire 60-odd new financial counsellors and provide that service without government assistance and certainly not with the $1 million or so dollars that has been spoken of to replace the $5 million-odd that was previously spent on providing these services, although no detail was given about it. It is incredibly disappointing when you look at the fact that the rate of children coming into state care under this government has risen more than 9 per cent.

There has been an increase of more than 9 per cent in children coming into state care and we are heading for about 4,000 children in state care under this Liberal government. That definitely flies in the face of the rhetoric that we were hearing for years before the last election that this government was going to reduce the number of children in care and that they had some grand plan for how they were going to get the number of children coming into care under control and, in fact, decrease the number of children in state care.

What we have actually seen from this government is pretty much nothing. They have been missing in action on child protection. We have seen cuts—absolutely. We have seen cuts like the financial counselling service, but we have seen no plan whatsoever and that is an absolutely abhorrent situation. It is a terrible situation for the almost 4,000 children who are currently in state care who expected more of this government. I think the community expected more of this government, listening to the rhetoric that they were so freely putting out there in the years before the last state election.

I call on the state government to look at the cuts they have made in child protection and not only restore the money that they have cut, particularly from the financial counselling service, but actually look at some proper investments and do something—anything would be a good idea in child protection—because so far absolutely nothing has been delivered. No change has been delivered in child protection at all. In fact, the terrible shame is that it has actually got worse under this government. We have seen an almost 10 per cent increase in the number of children coming into state care.

Now that you guys are the ones who are in government, you are the ones who have to deliver on those promises. There were some pretty big promises made in child protection. What we have seen are cuts and an increase in children coming into state care and relying on the state for assistance, and that is simply not good enough. I support the motion from the member for Lee.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (12:37): I will address some of my remarks towards the amendment that was put by the member for Schubert. Of course, he tried to continue the charade that the Liberal government has met all its election commitments. I made it perfectly clear in my earlier remarks on this motion that they have not met their election commitments. They have not met them at all.

They have not met them specifically with regard to breaking their commitment to the people of South Australia around privatisation, they have not met their commitments with regard to budget management, they have not met their commitments about delivering better services to South Australians and they have not delivered their commitment to creating more jobs in our economy. I will use that as a convenient segue to talk about jobs and employment growth because in both the amendment that we have here from the member for Schubert and the contribution from the member for Unley we see this continued vacillation—flip-flopping—between the use of seasonally adjusted employment figures and trend employment figures.

The member for Unley is very clear about this. Quoting him from Hansard, he says that trend figures are the ones to be relied on. That is what he has previously told us, yet the figures used by the member for Schubert quite sneakily try to use seasonally adjusted figures. The member for Unley's contributions move between trend and seasonally adjusted and back to trend and back to seasonally adjusted. Here are the figures. Let's have the facts.

In March 2018, on trend terms there were 841,200 people employed in South Australia, an increase over the previous 12 months to that date of 20,400 people. In the 12 months since that time, we have had 848,000, an increase of only 7,100. We have had an employment growth rate drop in annual terms from 2.4 per cent per annum to 0.8 per cent per annum. They are the facts. As the member for Unley says, 'Don't ask me: ask the ABS.' That is what the ABS is telling us. The brakes have been applied to jobs growth in South Australia.

Of course, the member for Unley also says, 'But we are delivering an extra $200 million towards industry and skills.' No, he is not. Half of that money is coming from the commonwealth. Yes, it is being filtered through the state government, but we do not quite know how, because when we have asked the member for Unley how many more training places that is going to provide there has been no answer. When we have asked him how many are going to be provided in this financial year, there is no answer. It seems that this money is all dressed up with no place to go.

To go back to the member for Schubert's comments that the $4 billion increase in debt is for the additional infrastructure investment, let's put that to bed as well. If you look at page 23, from Budget Paper 3, you see the sum of the new investing initiatives from the 2018-19 budget and what is the total? It is $900 million. It is not $4 billion. It is $900 million. Where is the rest? Well, as the member for Schubert said, 'We were trying to repair a structural deficit.'

Has the structural deficit been repaired? Not according to Rob Lucas. Rob Lucas's measure of a structural deficit was making sure that the state's own revenues were able to cover the state's own expenses and that a budget receiving commonwealth infrastructure grants as operating revenue to plump up the net operating balance, while spending that money on investing initiatives, is a budget that is in structural net operating deficit.

So to what extent is the 2018-19 financial year in structural deficit? The member for Schubert says we have a surplus of $48 million, yet there is $750 million coming in in infrastructure grants from the commonwealth. I make that a structural deficit, on the Liberals' terms, of $700 million in this budget. They really need to think through their arguments a little better.

It is unfortunate, I think, that the government has put this amendment to this place, congratulating themselves on their budget. What they are congratulating themselves on are the cuts to the Service SA centres, the cuts to the bus and train services, the privatisation of SA Pathology, the privatisation of Modbury patient transfers, the privatisation of the Adelaide Remand Centre and the privatisation of regional road maintenance.

These are all the things that the member for Schubert's amendment congratulates this government on. Is that worthy of congratulation? Absolutely not—not in the face of those other broken election commitments. The GlobeLink project, which according to Mr Ridgway will definitely happen, is not happening. This is an appalling budget and it should be condemned.