Government Expenditure

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (14:29): My question is to the Premier. Why are there funds available for government advertising and the Premier's travel habits but not for public sector pay increases?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Point of order, sir: that question was argumentative at least and was disorderly.

The SPEAKER: 'Why do funds exist for something but not something else?' If I uphold that—

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Assuming that the first something, sir—

The SPEAKER: Yes. If I do uphold that point of order for, say, having opinion or argument, I also disallow the respective minister an opportunity to rebut the claim. I have the point of order. It is one of merit. I will allow an answer. Can we have the question again, please.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Why are there funds available for government advertising and the Premier's travel habits but not for public sector pay increases?

The SPEAKER: I will allow that question.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL (Dunstan—Premier) (14:29): Government advertising is much reduced under the new administration. I am extraordinarily happy to provide that level of detail.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: It's publicly available.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It is publicly available, as the Deputy Premier points out, but I'm happy to provide that. We have been extraordinarily prudent with the dollars we have spent on advertising. It doesn't mean that we will never spend money on advertising, because we think it is important to promote the state, but what we won't be doing is spending taxpayer dollars on overt political advertising, as we saw was the common practice under the previous government.

With regard to travel, I am very happy to put my travel costs and our government's travel costs up against those opposite. It's very easy to do that comparison, and now that the member for Lee has suggested it to the house I am happy to ask the department to have a look at the travel expenses, for example, for the member for Lee in the past and perhaps his friend the member for West Torrens, who seemed to go on an extraordinarily expensive trip.

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: It was $74,500.

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Innovation is called to order.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It was $74,500, I am informed by the excellent Minister for Innovation and Skills in South Australia, which was taken just a few weeks before the election—

Mr Brown: Mr Beverly Hills Hilton himself.

The SPEAKER: The member for Playford is warned for a second and final time.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —so I'm happy to do that. But the question really talked about whether or not there should be any expenses and, of course, the issue regarding public sector leave loading increases. I'm happy to address that issue because I think it is an important issue.

We know that the Employment Tribunal applied a 3½ per cent loading to leave provisions for people in the public sector. We also know that this is significantly higher than the increases that have been accepted not only here in South Australia in recent times and under the previous government but nationwide. The Treasurer has seen fit to query that. That is a decision that is currently—

Mr Szakacs interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Cheltenham is warned.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —before the Supreme Court, and we will abide by the decision. The way that it's being characterised, that we are wanting to knock out the $31 increase, is completely incorrect. All we are doing is querying whether the 3½ per cent increase is in order. We have made that—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —query and we will abide by the decision that is forthcoming.