Bills

Appropriation Bill 2019

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 18 June 2019.)

Mr MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Leader of the Opposition) (12:00): I indicate that I am the lead speaker on the Appropriation Bill 2019. About 14 months ago, after becoming leader of the South Australian Parliamentary Labor Party, I commenced a thorough, comprehensive and diverse community engagement exercise. Labor had lost government for the first time in 16 years and, as a new leader with a pretty new team, I took the opportunity to travel across our great state, visiting all 47 seats within the parliament. I met people anywhere and everywhere, from suburban street corner meetings to regional pubs to shopping centres, town halls, RSLs—you name it, Mr Speaker. There were some long days but it was a wholeheartedly enjoyable experience.

We are so lucky to live and share a diverse community, living in such a diverse land and an even more diverse economy. The experience was utterly inspiring to be able to enjoy the company of so many South Australians in such a diverse manner, which probably explains why no two conversations I had during the Labor Listens exercise were exactly the same. However, there were three consistent themes that were regularly raised with me. The first I would describe as the future of work. We live in uncertain times, but this is particularly true in a relatively high-wage economy when compared globally.

South Australians understand that capital is increasingly mobile in an ever more competitive international marketplace, which means that jobs are vulnerable to being moved from one jurisdiction to another—just ask a former Mitsubishi or Holden worker. More alarmingly, for a lot of businesses and their employees, it is the unrelenting pace of disruption through extraordinary advancements in job displacing technology that is so concerning. Even some white-collar professional services, careers once thought to be immune from disruption, are now facing technological substitution. These are global forces, but they should not be sources of panic for South Australian workers, but they are right to be concerned.

The second theme regularly raised during Labor Listens was the household budget. Whether you are employed, a pensioner or a student, whether you are single or have to manage a family, everyone strives to keep their head above water, provide for their family and ideally get ahead. For many, if not most, this is a genuine struggle. We are in a period of record low wages growth, while at the same time many non-discretionary household costs such as gas, electricity, petrol and groceries all continue to go up. Cost of living is not theoretical as an issue. It is a genuine, real, live issue.

The third key area of concern is government services. No matter how much the forces of conservatism wish for the day that people no longer rely upon the state, the truth is that real people do rely on government for some key services that (a) improve their standard of living and (b) without government, people would otherwise never be able to afford. Health and education are always top of mind in this category, but the value and utility of practical necessities like public transport should also never be underestimated.

I love every minute of engaging with as many members of the community as I can, hearing about their concerns, hearing about their aspirations. Although the themes I have just mentioned are hardly surprising, the exercise of listening and hearing them has been utterly invaluable. The truth is that, in comparison to government, opposition does afford front bench members more time to undertake a listening tour as comprehensive as I have undertaken. To be fair, I suspect the same was true for the Premier when he was the leader of the opposition.

No doubt, when the Premier and his colleagues were hearing people's concerns from opposition, they heard the same things I do. They hear the same things we hear. People care about jobs, they care about how to pay the bills, they care about important government services, so it was easy to see how the member for Dunstan came up with the promise of more jobs, lower costs and better services. It is also easy to see why the promise would be well received in the community, but there is one problem: this defining promise from the Marshall government; that is all it was: just a promise. 'More jobs, lower costs better services' now appears to be a slogan that is just another promise delivered by just another politician. It is a promise without a policy.

In this state budget, that disheartening reality is all laid bare. Take 'more jobs'. On the all-important subject of jobs, the news has at best been mixed for this government and the people of our state. Thankfully, the most recent numbers show that jobs were created in the month of May, but unemployment on trend terms is still higher than it was at the last state election. It is also true that we have seen jobs growth halve in a comparison of the last year of 16 years of Labor and the first year of this government. Meanwhile, there are more people who are currently unemployed, and the government's own budget projects that employment growth will diminish over the forward estimates.

Then we have 'lower costs'. When it comes to this government delivering lower costs, it is a categorical broken promise. The centrepiece of the government's lower costs promise was the reduction in the ESL along with other tax cuts that were featured in last year's state budget. Again, though, it now appears that the Liberals did not even really have a plan about how they were going to pay for these policies. They fudged it through last year's budget, with the GST right up, additional stamp duties and more in commonwealth grants, but as those revenues have dried up the state is now left with a very substantial fiscal problem.

So what has our Premier done? He has decided to hit every South Australian family by introducing huge tax hikes on almost everything the government does; there is the new police rent tax, the new late-night bar bill, the tradies' tax, new mining tax and a wildlife park tax. The aspirational mum-and-dad property investors have also been hit with huge increases in land tax, and that is before we start looking at the fees and charges, the ones that are almost impossible to avoid. I am advised that for over 20 years we have had a formula in this state that has helped successive governments of both persuasions calculate the increases to fees and charges. It is a formula that has resulted in increases in the past largely being in line with CPI and growth in public sector wages.

Well, this Premier has torn up that formula. They have thrown it out and now they are letting it rip. CPI in Adelaide is currently 1.3 per cent—remember that number, 1.3 per cent. What has been going on with fees and charges? Driver's licence renewal, up by 4.5 per cent; car registration for some vehicles, up over 5 per cent; public transport, up 2 per cent, but if you are lucky to be travelling only a small distance it is up 10 times that; trailer registration, up 5 per cent; and then there is the hit on every household, with the impending government-delivered spike in council rates.

The irony of the government once being for lower council rates, then in their second budget delivering an increase in council rates without any notice, will not be lost on South Australian families. Imagine if Labor had supported yet another ill thought-through promise on rate capping. First, ratepayers would have been hit by the state government-sanctioned hike of a 2.9 per cent increase in council rates, then the Premier would serve them up another 40 per cent hike on the rubbish tax. The worst part is the hit on families that are the most vulnerable.

I do not think any of us can imagine a more terrifying experience than watching a loved one be rushed off to hospital in the back of an ambulance. That is a family in pain, that is a family in need of support, but what the Premier sees is an opportunity to raise more revenue. They are doing it through an extra 5 per cent increase in ambulance fees, and that cost for one trip is now in excess of $1,000 for the first time. Then after paying more for the ambulance, the Premier is now also charging families an additional 20 per cent just to visit their loved one in hospital through additional car parking costs.

I met the Pollard family yesterday who live in the southern suburbs. Mr Pollard suffers chronic back pain. He is a regular attendee at Flinders Medical Centre and his son has type I diabetes. Spending time at Flinders Medical Centre is not a luxury but a necessity. It is something they have had the misfortune of not being able to avoid. Regular attendees, working people, are now faced with a massive tax hike. They work hard. He works in the community services sector trying to look after people. You would have thought the government might want to try to look after his household budget rather than see his misfortune as a source for additional revenue.

The ESL cuts have been utterly eclipsed by $350 million of new taxes. Rate capping has been turned into 'ratejacking', and the fuel watch exercise did not last as long as it took for the Attorney-General to hand over $2 million to Henry Keogh.

In relation to 'better services', let's start by remembering that the better services promise was broken well before this budget. That promise was broken when the Premier decided to shut Service SA centres, dramatically cut public transport and close down TAFE campuses. Unfortunately, this budget only makes the matter worse. The message from the community on services to us through Labor listeners was clear: health and education remain priorities. Let's start with health.

Ensuring a public health system is one of the fundamental responsibilities of the South Australian government. Public health services will always be fundamental to the social equity mission of the Labor Party. Every South Australian deserves the right to universal coverage on safe, high quality, timely hospital care when they need it. When it comes to health, yes, of course our state does face challenges ahead, with an ageing population, rising rates of chronic disease and inadequate primary and aged-care services fuelling further demands on our hospital system. This Liberal government was elected on saying they were going to fix the health system. Well, what we have seen ever since then is everything but that.

Where paramedics are calling for extra resources to deal with worsening response times to emergencies, the government only responds by jacking up ambulance fees. When we are facing the impact of massive numbers of flu cases this year, the government is cutting and potentially privatising SA Pathology who, of course, diagnose the flu. When ramping outside emergency departments is now more than twice as bad as it has ever been in the state's history, the government appoints corporate liquidators to run our hospitals and cuts $420 million over the next two years.

When, sadly, the impact of suicide has been far too devastating upon our state, the government is cutting non-government mental health services by 25 per cent and toying with abolishing the Mental Health Commissioner. When doctors, nurses and paramedics say that the pressure on them is far too great and more support is needed, the government's priority is on spending $15 million on director fees for new boards they are establishing. It does not help one patient.

This budget delivers nothing to improve our health system. There is a plan to cut 1,140 staff from health over the course of this year. There is a plan to freeze health expenditure over the next three years, despite the growing demand. There is a plan for nurses, cleaners, allied staff and more to pay $725 extra just for the privilege of parking their car at work to help save the lives of South Australians. There is a plan for loved ones visiting a family member in palliative care to pay triple the price at The QEH to park their car for 2½ hours.

But what is more worrying is that there is no plan to address the structural problems within the health system. There is no plan for ramping, which is in epidemic proportions at our hospitals right now, and there is no plan to improve mental health services that are overstretched. Patients who cannot afford private health care and rely on the public health services deserve better.

Let's look at the way education is being treated by this government. Apart from the sudden inexplicable exclusion of hundreds of families from the Adelaide High School zone, the only new policy the government has, the only one that is not appropriating the policies of the last government, is to move 12 year olds from one school to another. That was the only new money in last year's budget: the additional cost from 2022 of teaching 12 year olds in secondary schools. The bulk of the capital cost for moving year 7s is coming from the money the previous government allocated to new specialist facilities, such as performing arts centres, gymnasiums and science facilities all cancelled to build classrooms for the move of year 7s.

The government is so impoverished in its ideas about education that it keeps re-announcing the Labor initiative of high-speed internet for schools, started by the previous government, provisioned in the education budget by the previous government well before the election and inherited by this government, yet it has been described as a landmark initiative in Tuesday's speech because they have no ideas of their own. It is an important project and the government should get on with delivering it and stop trying to claim credit for it.

The real story of this year's budget is the massive cut to education, the massive cut to the education department and the skills department to the tune of $100 million. There are cuts to adult foundational education, termination of the Critical Skills Fund and cuts across the board in education and skills. It is worth knowing that the last time the Liberals were in government here the school completion rate was 50 per cent. The Labor government got it up to 75 per cent, but we cannot rest. It is still not good enough in an aspiring modern economy to have a quarter of all students not completing high school. This government has no plan and no investment in the budget to lift that rate.

Australia's rankings in the PISA, which compares 15 year olds in OECD countries on reading, maths and science performances, are not good enough for the emerging economy that requires all students to have higher literacy and numeracy, scientific and critical thinking skills. The most recent results, from 2015, show that nations like Vietnam and Slovenia are overtaking Australia and that we are experiencing an absolute decline in our performance. Disadvantaged students in Australia are far more likely to do badly in the PISA testing—the very students the Gonski funding model was designed to help, the students let down by their government and their federal allies as they tore up the Gonski funding deal.

Let's not forget that it was the Marshall government that signed up the new school funding deal that financially disadvantages our public schools and guarantees that we will never catch up to the funding we need, funding we would have had if Labor were in government at a federal and state level—funding for specialist teachers, for literacy, for numeracy intervention programs, for students with disabilities, for Aboriginal students, for regional students, for the highest quality facilities in the sciences, humanities, arts and technical specialist subjects. It is a substantial point of difference that will continue to be prosecuted.

Vocational training is essential, yet this government, for all its rhetoric, is seeing declining apprenticeship commencements, declining completions of government-funded certificate III and declining participation in government-funded VET courses. We need more investment, not less; more focus on what matters to students, parents and teachers, not just a preoccupation with moving students between schools. Cuts to skills and education are not going to get us anywhere near the future that South Australia needs and deserves.

The Marshall Liberal government's second budget lays waste to the idea that this government is serious about keeping its promises of lower costs and better services. In the immediate future, it is South Australians paying the price for this broken promise. But what about the long term? What about the structural financial settings in the budget that frame up the future of our state? The answer here lies in the debt.

In many ways, now would probably be an opportune time to relay the dozens upon dozens of quotes made by those opposite, retrieved from very recent history, when they demonised debt and espoused the virtues of debt-busting fiscal conservatism. Some of those quotes are fascinating, to say the least, but reading them out now would almost make light of what could be historically very significant.

The South Australian parliamentary Liberal Party has almost overnight changed their guiding economic philosophy. All those John Howard acolytes who were elected last year rushed into the parliamentary library and swapped their Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek texts for masterpieces by John Maynard Keynes. Watching these leopards change their spots is honestly a sight to behold. I thought that a Port supporter barracking for Norwood was something, but this is truly something else.

On this side of the chamber, though, we have been consistent, especially since the lessons of the State Bank. Put simply, South Australian Labor believes that when times are good growth in public debt should be constrained, while in economic headwinds expansionary fiscal policy is a powerful tool to stimulate the economy and keep people in work. However, the use of debt should be subject to monitoring and long-term planning. This has essentially been our long-held position. Throughout our 16 years in government, this approach was applied.

Remember, in 2006 state debt was eliminated by a Labor government. Post the GFC, during one of the most significant economic transitions in the history of our state, expansionary fiscal policy was deployed, but that occurred with a plan. We committed to keeping state government debt below 35 per cent of our total revenue, and we did, even when the most significant and largest infrastructure project in the history of our state, the NRAH, was placed on our books. At the end of 2017, in the MYBR that number was 25.6 per cent.

On Tuesday, the Premier announced that that number is now skyrocketing to 59 per cent. It is more than double. What is this government's new self-imposed debt-to-revenue target? What is their new target? They do not even have one. The total government debt is over $20 billion and the interest bill is now at record levels. The question that has to be asked is: why are they doing this?

Why have they chosen to take this unprecedented action that seems to be inconsistent with their own ideology?

For over 12 months, we have had both state and federal governments telling us that, because of their brilliant economic management, the economy is in good times. Are they now telling us that the economy is in bad times? For 12 months, the state government has been telling us that the state is experiencing a confidence boom. Are they now telling us that confidence has lulled? For decades, the state Liberal Party has been telling us that if government withdraws from the economy and taxes are lowered activity will increase and debt will be lowered. Yet, after 14 months, are they now telling us that that philosophy is dead, government intervention is required and massive unchecked increases in debt are now necessary?

The new Liberal Party would like us to believe that the reason for the debt is productive infrastructure. That is far from the whole truth. Firstly, not all the debt is accounted for by capital expenditure and changes to accounting standards, which means that debt is propping up the general activity of the government. Secondly, what happened to Infrastructure South Australia? This was the body that was set up to ensure that infrastructure investments were indeed going to be productive. Have any of the projects funded in the budget been given the tick of approval by this auspicious body? No. That is probably because many of the projects actually funded in the entirety of the forwards are nothing more than pork-barrelling exercises for James Stevens. Remember, #SturtMatters.

But the biggest problem with the debt is emblematic of this whole government: it is the fact that there is no plan. They had a plan for 100 days, and that is it. There is no debt target, no repayment plan and no metrics at all pointing to a plan for future debt discipline. The only debt plan is a decision to leave uncosted debt bombs lying around outside the forward estimates—that is, after the next election. The most glaring example of a post-election debt bomb is the new Women's and Children's Hospital. I would like to read something from the government's own 100-day plan, in which they say:

In our first 100 days, we will establish a high-level task force to drive the project and develop a fully-costed project plan…

That is in the first 100 days. Well, we still do not know the cost. That task force was said to be completed by the end of last year, yet here we are in June, over 450 days since the election, now fully committed to the hospital, with no costing. There is partial funding but nowhere near enough to cover the bill. It is utterly reckless to commit future taxpayers to expenditure when you cannot even tell them how much it will be. The art gallery is no different. My concern here is not about the projects themselves; it is the way the government is going about approaching the funding that is the problem.

Consigning future generations to debt is one thing, but to do it without even telling them what that debt will be is another thing altogether. The Premier is making all this someone else's problem, without any restraint or regard to what the size of that problem will be. Even I believe that many of you are better than this. The only explanation for this budget is the Premier himself.

In March last year, the people of South Australia elected a new premier. It turns out that he is a West Adelaide supporter, was elected to parliament when Malcolm Fraser was prime minister and loves American sports. Only a premier retiring in 2½ years' time could approve a budget like this one because, regardless of who wins the next election, the mess will not be his problem. As inspiring as premier Lucas's address was on Tuesday, my biggest concern is about what is not in this year's budget.

A budget should be a defining policy document that speaks to the government's values and its mission. A budget should help light the path to the future that our state's leadership aspires to. I honestly do not know what that is in this year's state budget, and I worry that it amounts to a wasted opportunity. However, within this budget there is a big lesson for the opposition and that is: do not make promises without policy.

I said earlier that opposition affords members more time than in government, but that does not mean that the time in opposition is any less precious. As we start to move from an absolute focus on community engagement towards policy development, we must allocate our time to ensure our vision for a prosperous, fairer society is underpinned by a robust, progressive policy that can be delivered for the long term.

We will continue to perform our duty to hold this government to account, but the real work of this opposition is only about to begin. We do enjoy a good standard of living in this state—indeed, one of the best in the world. It was best summed up to me by an older couple in Whyalla. An earthy gentleman, a retired steelworker, said: 'All-up, life has been pretty good to me and my kids. I just hope it is as good for my grandkids.' Then the gentleman's wife pointedly interrupted him and said, 'Life has been good to me, too, but he keeps whinging about his bloody knee, so get that replaced and we'll all be better off.'

That simple interaction sums up nicely the legitimate aspirations of our society. We have to work hard, lead a good healthy life but, critically, leave the joint in a better shape for our kids. This budget may not reconcile with that humble aspiration, but with hard work Labor can and will have a policy at the next election that does—a policy for the present focused on jobs and people's health, a policy for the future focused on education and health. It is an exciting proposition—let us begin.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL (Schubert—Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government, Minister for Planning) (12:31): Deputy Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity of being able to speak on the Appropriation Bill 2019. Obviously, the gallery is heading back to the second floor where they are erstwhile employed. It has been widely attributed to—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, I am going to interrupt you there. You should not be referring to people in the gallery, so I will ask you to withdraw.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I will withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, you have the call, continue.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: It has been attributed to Mark Twain that one should 'never let the truth get in the way of a good story'. Often in this chamber, we hear a lot of that, and I think that this morning that is precisely what we heard. We heard a great tale, a tale that speaks about some sort of budget or financial situation that exists, but it certainly does not exist in South Australia and it certainly is not a reflection of the budget that was handed down on Tuesday afternoon.

What we heard today, and just now from the Leader of the Opposition, was an eclectic mix of contradiction and hypocrisy. On the one hand, we are being told that it is irresponsible to put up fees and charges but, on the other hand, that debt is way too high. One the one hand, we are being told that there are services that are being destroyed but, on the other hand, that debt is increasing.

What we heard was not a coherent alternative plan for South Australia. What we heard was a grab bag of whinging from an opposition leader who does not have an idea. What he has is a kitbag of grievance. It is precisely the kind of grievance culture that those opposite have sought to perpetrate in our community. It did not work out so well for Bill Shorten and I do not think it is going to work out so well for the Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens is called to order. You will have your opportunity to contribute to this debate in due course.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Firstly, let's talk about jobs in South Australia. We took to the election a promise of delivering more jobs for South Australia and, 14 months on, that is a promise that we are keeping. The seasonal unemployment rate is down to 5.7, the trend unemployment rate is down to 5.8 and there are 16,300 new jobs since we came to office, 10,000 of which are part time. That is the definition of more jobs.

In relation to policies we have put in place to support more jobs, the biggest thing we can do to drive jobs growth in South Australia is support higher population growth, something those opposite did not want to countenance while in government but something this government has embraced wholeheartedly. It is why we see a reduction in the net interstate migration rate, even in the first few months of last year, under the Marshall Liberal government.

We have also seen us, as a government, use confidence in our economy and transition that to increase plant and equipment investment and capital investment, which is now at record levels. Through cooperation with the federal government and the Designated Area Migration Agreements, we are also going to support skilled migration growth that will grow jobs in the South Australian economy.

We did hear something from those opposite in relation to skills training that I could not come at. We are talking about a former government that butchered the private training industry and also presided over the debacle that was TAFE and the way they undertake training, with a 100 per cent failure rate of audited courses TAFE was undertaking. We saw a government that pulled all money from the private training sector to prop up TAFE, but they did not even get that right.

What we have seen is a massive reduction in the number of skills and apprenticeship starts under the former government. In fact, the baseline that the Minister for Innovation and Skills has had to work with is extremely low. What did we do? We put $100 million on the table in our first budget together with $100 million from the federal government, and we are meeting the targets to get to the 20,000 new trainee and apprenticeships starts as a result of that Skilling Australia program. We are on track to deliver on our promise to deliver more skills training in South Australia.

Something those opposite really do not want to talk about is that we have also put $130 million back into the budget of TAFE in South Australia, $130 million of extra money, so I do not want to hear any talk about the fact that we are not investing in skills: we are the skills government, and the Minister for Innovation and Skills is delivering on that front.

We have also heard those opposite talk about costs here in South Australia. Well, we took to the election a promise to deliver a reduction in the ESL of $90 million a year, delivered in our first budget. We took to the election a promise of delivering payroll tax deductions, delivered in our first budget. We also took a promise of delivering land tax cuts to the election, delivered in both the last and in this budget.

But there is more. The changes in relation to compulsory third-party insurance this year will deliver savings to South Australian households of $100 for a one-car household, $200 for two-car households and $300 for three-car households.

Mr Brown interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, minister. The member for Playford is called to order for continuing interjections.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: We have also made some positive statements in relation to the cost of water, which we will have more to say on in coming months as our pledge to help reduce water prices in South Australia comes to fruition, when Lew Owens hands down his report into how far over the odds the regulated asset base is costed at in order to get increased dividend revenue for the former Labor government.

We also took to the last election a comprehensive plan to lower electricity prices, money delivered in the first budget and continued in this budget, which is starting to pay dividends, especially when we talk about the discounts offered to over 100,000 South Australians to help reduce their electricity bill. This is a government that is serious about delivering on lower costs. We do not deny that there are fees and charges increases in this budget. We do not deny that. It is a difficult decision we take, but it is one that is prudent to deliver the overall fiscally responsible budget we were elected to deliver.

But wait: those opposite—and especially the Leader of the Opposition—talking about better services could not have been further from the truth. You need only look at Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, and public transport to understand that we have delivered a better service. Not only have we delivered an increase in the number of service kilometres from 52.8 million to 53.9 million—that is more, rather than less, so any talk about cuts to the overall level of service are not borne out by that figure—but, more than that, we saw a massive increase of 1.6 million passengers in the 2018-19  year using our public transport system. It is categorically a fact that South Australians are choosing to use services under this government.

Now, again, the Leader of the Opposition has the temerity to stand up and talk about the state of the health system that they left us. Think about the good grace they could exhibit. They could just be quiet while we go about fixing the awful mess that they left South Australians. But what have we done cumulatively in our first two budgets? We have put $1.6 billion back into the health budget—$1.6 billion to deliver better services for South Australia. We do know, especially in relation to the Central Adelaide Local Health Network, that there is a challenge ahead.

Minister Wade in the other place has made some very good steps forward with the plan that we have put on the table to deliver better health services and to make sure that our health systems are not wasting money that can otherwise be used to deliver better services. It could be simple things, for instance, like making sure that claims are logged properly so that the federal government pays us the money that is due and payable under the National Partnership Agreement—things like making sure that instead of using 10 per cent agency nursing staff that we now get that figure well down using internal staff to deliver the same service at lower cost.

These are prudent things that government should be doing. Why? Because there is an opportunity cost when you waste money, and this government is keen and able to clamp down on that so that we can deliver the better services that we promised at the last state election—$1.6 billion back in the health budget, and we will not be lectured to by those who left us the mess in the first place.

Now we move on to education. This budget delivers $611 million more in 2022-23 than it did in 2018-19—

Dr Close interjecting:

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: —$611 million more.

Mr DULUK: Point of order: I am thoroughly enjoying the minister's speech, but the member for Port Adelaide keeps interrupting—131, if you could call her to order, please, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. I uphold the point of order, member for Waite. A moment, please, minister. I have already called to order two members of the opposition, who have taken my point of order on board. The deputy leader will have her opportunity in due course, and I am sure she will be heard with deference as well. Minister.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I must admit that I do not need the member for Waite's protection, but we will move forward. Apart from the $135 million extra we put back into TAFE, and apart from the $611 million extra we have put into education, we have put on the table $1.3 billion to deliver infrastructure upgrades right across our school network. There is no part of South Australia that is not going to get the benefit of the infrastructure education spend that we are going to put forward over the next four or five years—infrastructure that is going to help improve the education we give our children.

Again, we know that when it comes to NAPLAN scores there is one measure that we have not done as well in the past as we should, and the Minister for Education has both eyes focused on making sure that we deliver the best education to our kids, and he has been backed by a government that is giving him the money to make sure that he can get on and do that.

What was interesting in the Leader of the Opposition's speech was that he did not give us any plan for what he would do differently. On the one hand he says, 'Don't increase fees and charges,' but on the other hand says, 'Don't increase debt.' Well, he cannot do both, unless of course he is willing to outline to the house what he is willing to cut to offset those measures. What is he willing to cut to offset those measures?

He did not give us any of that. He gave us a magic pudding answer instead of what we have done, and that is to deliver a fiscally responsible budget. I do not understand where the Leader of the Opposition has been when it comes to talking about this government's attitude to debt. Back in 2015, the then leader of the opposition, Steven Marshall, sat down with the party room and discussed our forced posture going forward in relation to fiscal responsibility.

We resolved and printed for the entire world to see in our '2036' document—three years out from the election, roughly about the time that we are now—that we would deliver surplus and balanced budgets over our government term, but that we would take a longer term approach to debt reduction, because we know that good, responsible use of debt is a great way to stimulate the economy and to build the productive infrastructure in our state.

What we did see at the time was a government that delivered seven out of 10 budget deficits, that was borrowing money to pay the wages. That is not a responsible use of debt. But a government now that delivers balanced books and a surplus means that we can spend money debt funding infrastructure and building capital assets because that is precisely what you are supposed to do. It is what households do. It is what businesses do when they want to grow and create jobs, and what this government is doing to grow and create jobs is to debt fund infrastructure to build the productive capacity in our economy.

It is responsible, and now is the perfect time for us to be undertaking this. How do we know this? Because the Reserve Bank said so, because the federal government is encouraging states to get on and do so, because other states, including Victoria and New South Wales, are doing so. We are using this time of low interest rates to deliver infrastructure to build the productive capacity in our economy, and it is the strategic direction that this budget is going in—surplus budgets, infrastructure spending to stimulate our economy.

Again, this is something where the Leader of the Opposition needs to come clean about which infrastructure projects he wants to cut and which projects he is suggesting we now should not go ahead with. I will give you this quote. The Leader of the Opposition, in relation to an announcement that Bill Shorten made in the lead-up to the last federal election, said this of Bill Shorten's $50 million commitment to the Women's and Children's Hospital: 'Bill Shorten's commitment to invest $50 million in a new Women's and Children's Hospital is a great opportunity and to get this important project started.'

An honourable member: Who said that?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: The member for Croydon on 17 April. It is about two months later and when the state government put, not $50 million but $550 million on the table towards the Women's and Children's Hospital, he said, 'Who commits themselves to a brand-new presumably over $1 billion project without actually knowing what the full cost will be?' So it is okay for Bill Shorten to commit 50 million bucks but it is not okay for the state government commit 550 million bucks. I do not understand if that is not the definition of hypocrisy, but I invite the Leader of the Opposition to give me an alternative view.

What he also said today, for all those people who live in the eastern suburbs and will get the benefit of the Portrush-Magill roads intersection upgrade, was that Labor is not on board. All those people who have to drive up and down Magill Road on a daily basis know, and every heavy vehicle and road user who has to use Portrush Road on a daily basis knows, that if the Leader of the Opposition had his way he would not be delivering this project. Thank God for those people that this project is in the budget over the four-year cycle and will be delivered before the next election before the Leader of the Opposition can cut that project.

But more than that, in relation to responsible use of debt, I think we as a government have been able to demonstrate that we are willing to take the tough decisions to keep the books in balance. We have delivered a surplus now in 2018-19. We are delivering small surpluses over the forward estimates. That is in contrast to the seven out of 10 deficits that those opposite left this state. But more than that, instead of assessing ourselves on what responsible use of debt is, why don't we ask the rating agencies?

Standard & Poor's and Moody's last year put our rating back to Aa1, and this year they have also confirmed that Aa1 rating. They say that we are being responsible in the way that we use debt because we have been able to demonstrate that we are a government that will stick to the savings tasks that we have put in place for ourselves. They are the independent arbiters—who, by the way, the entire world uses—who have said that we are responsible in the way that we have delivered our infrastructure program and the way we have put our budget together.

If you look through the '2036' document, it says that we will deliver more jobs, and we have. It says that we will deliver lower costs, and we have. We will continue to do that, and there is a lot more that is going to happen for South Australians in that space. It says that we will deliver better services, and we are, by making sure that we put money into those key areas of health, education and TAFE to make sure that we are delivering the better services that South Australians want. We are doing all of that and also delivering a budget surplus.

That is what good responsible economic management looks like. It is what this government committed to doing at the last election. It is what '2036' commits us to and it is what we have delivered in last year's budget and again in this year's budget. The proof will be in the pudding as we go forward, understanding how this stimulates our economy, and I look forward to standing here in a year's time, in two years' time, as the fruits of what we have put on the table in this budget come to fruition. I look forward to those opposite realising that this is what stimulates economies—good economic management from Liberal governments that helps to stimulate economies. The way that we know that is that it is precisely the formula that centre-right governments have used right across the Southern Hemisphere—if you look at Tasmania, if you look at New South Wales, if you look at New Zealand.

This is the formula that works—by not wasting money and making sure that you keep the books tight but not being scared to grow and stimulate the economy by building productive infrastructure. This is a strategy. It is a long-term plan that is going to see economic prosperity come back to South Australia.

Dr CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:50): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure I look forward to your protection in the way you gave protection to the minister.

This budget is an odd mix of policy. I can reflect on it only in the context of the way that the people I represent in this place, Port Adelaide, will feel about this budget and about the experience they have had in the last year. Their experience is that they are seeing in the paper today a slash in the number of jobs in the health department.

They have seen a decline in the funding for mental health associated with the bringing on of the NDIS but in the face of the absolute knowledge that there will be people who will be caught between the two who will now not have services that they had previously. They see and they will come to understand the level of cuts being visited upon the education department and the innovation and skills department. They have already seen over the last year the decline in public transport for our area.

For our area, we are not seeing a growth in the kilometres being offered. We are seeing a decline, where people with disabilities and older, frail people, people who cannot afford to run a car, are now being deprived of bus services that previously allowed them to go shopping, to go volunteering, to visit family and to have family visit them. They are losing their services. We see in the budget papers no mention at all of the Port rail spur that had been committed to by the previous government and that the current government said they would maintain.

They very recently had a day in Port Adelaide, with maps and plans of when it would all be rolled out. It is not in there. I think it has gone, and I think it has gone because this government does not care about people who do not vote Liberal and might never vote Liberal. This government has demonstrated that if you happen to live in suburbs that belong to Liberal seats you can be excised from the high school zone overnight. This government operates in a way that is politically motivated, and that is not the mark of a good government. That is not the mark of a government that understands that it governs for all.

I have particular responsibilities and very great honour for both education and the environment and water. I regard those as being connected in the sense that they are both profoundly about the future. They are obviously about the future in terms of the way in which we educate our young people and prepare them for their future—a complex future. However, the environment and water are also part of our future because we are seeing them falling apart in front of our eyes through a combination of the biodiversity crisis and looming climate change, where we are seeing the absolute urgency of doing things differently, that more of the same will be a catastrophe for our young people.

And what do we see? There is an overarching, threefold theme that I see across both those portfolios. One is that the point is constantly missed. What matters is not paid attention to. Distractions of trivialities are focused on. The second overarching theme I see is a blind obedience to Canberra when the Coalition is in government. Whatever they say is appropriate, 'Fine, we'll sign up to that. That'll be absolutely terrific for South Australia,' when it patently is not. The third element of the overarching theme is in this budget where we are seeing serious cuts to the basics in both those portfolio areas. So let's have a look.

Education I thought was shaping up to be characterised simply by a distraction about where 12 year olds go to school. Fine, they won the election on the basis, in part, by saying that would happen. Go ahead. It is not the biggest issue in education. There is absolutely no evidence that it makes any difference where 12 year olds go to school but, fine. It is a distraction. It is not actually what matters. It is not going to make a difference to PISA results, as the leader was talking about. It is not going to make a difference to the percentage of students who graduate; in fact, possibly with evidence from Western Australia, it will do harm to that.

While a well-balanced student who has no disability and who is from a family that is aspirational and believes in education is just as fine in secondary school as in primary school when they are 12, disadvantaged students tend to disengage more quickly from school when they go into a secondary setting at the age of 12 than when they go a little bit later. It puts off for a year that teenage impulse to disengage when they are already from a disadvantaged background. My very deep fear is that we will actually see a diminution in the number of students who finish high school, rather than the increase we desperately need.

We have also seen (and in some ways it is very flattering) a government that has decided that what we were doing in education was pretty good otherwise. Everything that I announced previously as the minister has been continued: languages, policy, music strategy, high-speed internet, which was not simply an election promise as has been said many times in this chamber, but a government commitment provisioned within the education department—in fact, a little bit more provision than the minister has announced, and we might find out in estimates what happened to the missing money.

They were ideas which were based on evidence, based on thoughtful policy, based on research and which this government has continued. Although disappointing perhaps, and showing a lack of imagination in coming to grips with the constantly changing environment we have in education, it was nonetheless pleasing to see that things were not being discontinued. But then what do we have? First of all, we have an agreement with the federal government that Gonski is over. What does Gonski mean? It means that students who are more disadvantaged get more funding. That is what it means.

This government was one of the first to sign up to the federal government's new approach, where they made sure that private schools were looked after and they betrayed public schools—they betrayed them. They will never get to 100 per cent of the school resourcing standard that they ought to have, whereas already all the private schools are over 100 per cent. How is that acceptable? How does a government say, 'That's fine, we don't mind about that'? They were talking about the importance of improving the NAPLAN and they are not paying attention to the most disadvantaged students.

What we also see in this budget, which surprised me—I did not anticipate this; I thought that the minister was a more powerful minister around the cabinet table—is $50 million in cuts, $50 million out of the education department. What is that going to look like? What could it look like? What does the department do that is not done directly in schools that is protected by the federal agreement and always has been protected? What is up for grabs? Well, early childhood could be; that is not protected. Will preschool hours be on the table? Family day-care quality assurance—and, my goodness, we need to make sure that that family day care has good quality assurance—will that go? Will that be cut? Will infrastructure support for schools go?

What about the IT support the department provided, admittedly not brilliantly in the recent NAPLAN Online? There were a few incidents that have made NAPLAN Online pretty much a laughing stock amongst anyone who cares about education, who understands what matters in education, but it might get even worse if you slash the IT department to find the $50 million. What about the support for learning and teaching that happens in schools that is run out of head office? Will that be protected? Are you going to have to look for the $50 million elsewhere, or is that going to be on the table? In regard to Aboriginal education, a strategy is being prepared right now inside the department. What is going to happen to that?

What about support for principals that HR provides, not only placing teachers in schools but also providing support when the teachers are not performing well? We put extra resources in so that the principals do not have to do all the laborious paperwork and HR processes so that they can deal with poor performance. Is that going to be slashed? How else is the $50 million going to be found? What about the speech therapists, the behaviour coaches, the attendance officers also attached to head office? I do not believe that they are protected by the agreement with the federal government. Are they going to be cut? Is that going to disappear?

I have noticed that anything that is not strictly limited to the definition of education is being moved out of the department at a rate of knots. Child wellbeing practitioners are being assigned to another department. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00.