House of Assembly Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1) 54 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate State Budget State Budget Mr BOYER House of Assembly Wright Mr BOYER (Wright) (15:28): I think it is fair to say that characterising last year's budget, at least insofar as how it affected the north-eastern suburbs of Adelaide, was pretty easy: cuts, closures and privatisations. There was the cutting of the contract to build the new park-and-ride at Tea Tree Plaza, the closure of Service SA in Modbury, the closure of TAFE SA at Tea Tree Gully and the privatisation of patient transfers between Modbury and Lyell McEwin hospitals. Of course, there was also the continuation of some projects funded by the previous Labor government, like the upgrades of Modbury Hospital and Golden Grove Road. However, this year's budget is more difficult to characterise because there really is not a great deal to characterise. Indeed, this budget is pretty solemn reading for residents of the north-east, and there are some very notable omissions. There is no mention of a desperately needed park-and-ride at Tea Tree Plaza, no reinstatement of the funding for Service SA in Modbury and no money for the much-hyped north-eastern public transport plan either, even though the minister has been saying for months that the plan would be hitting his desk soon. Nor does this budget clear up the confusion about how residents of the north-east will conduct their Service SA business in the absence of a Service SA centre. The minister has been saying for months that he thinks we are going to be really excited when we hear what it is that will replace Service SA in Modbury. Well, it has been nine months now since the closure of that Service SA centre was announced, and I think the very least that this Liberal government can do is come clean with people about how they are going to conduct business once the centre at Modbury is closed. Members will remember well the vociferous campaigning of those opposite on the issue of rate capping, none more so than the members for Newland and King. This was, we were told, a big issue, possibly the biggest issue, and something that South Australians clearly voted for, so you would be forgiven for being somewhat confused this week when the Treasurer announced an increase of 40 per cent to the solid waste levy. This has clearly come as an enormous shock to councils, who were completely blindsided by this announcement, so blindsided in fact that tonight I believe Tea Tree Gully council is holding an extraordinary meeting of elected members to discuss the 40 per cent increase and how they are going to pay for it. I am also reliably informed that Salisbury council will be holding a similar meeting on Monday night to assess the potential impact on their ratepayers. I believe that the members for Newland and King have been invited to attend tonight's meeting at Tea Tree Gully. I very much hope they accept that invitation so they can hear firsthand the impact this 40 per cent hike will have on councils and ratepayers in their areas. Of course, we have already heard some strident comments from the mayors of Tea Tree Gully and Salisbury council. The Mayor of Tea Tree Gully, Mr Kevin Knight, called it 'disrespectful to community—a mockery of the budgeting and public consultation process'. The Mayor of Salisbury, Ms Gillian Aldridge OAM, said: We were very conscious of keeping rates at an affordable cost. We sat there, night after night, trying to get it right and now we have got to the stage where we have to throw it all out. It is a easy to throw numbers around, but what would these increases mean in real terms to councils like Salisbury and Tea Tree Gully? In Tea Tree Gully, it could mean that ratepayers will be paying an extra $3.1 million collectively. That is a lot of money to a local council. There are a lot of new footpaths, playground upgrades and dog parks in $3.1 million. To add insult to injury, those very same ratepayers are set to wear a whole lot more pain elsewhere, with a $725 increase in the cost of parking at Modbury and Lyell McEwin hospitals and a 5 per cent increase in car registration and driver's licence fees—but, of course, you will not be able to go to the Service SA centre at Modbury to pay them. On the one hand, we have local Liberal members of parliament, like the members for Newland and King, espousing the virtues of rate capping, and on the other hand they hit those very same councils with an enormous levy hike, a hike that those councils can only meet by passing it on to ratepayers—the same ratepayers those opposite told us they desperately wanted to protect with rate capping. You would be forgiven for thinking that, after effectively outsourcing the responsibility for balancing the budget to local councils, we would see debt going down. But, no, what we have seen from the party that for decades took the moral high ground on fiscal restraint is a massive increase in state debt, an increase that will see state debt go from around 25 per cent to 59 per cent. To turn briefly to the north-east before I conclude my remarks, I ask: what do we get for these levy hikes and fee increases in the north-east? Well, not much, but certainly not lower costs or better services.