Bills

Appropriation Bill 2019

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 20 June 2019.)

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (11:02): With great pleasure, I rise to my feet to speak on the Appropriation Bill. As is tradition, we will be supporting the bill. I was going to start off with some of the positive things that are in the budget. They are few and far between, but there are a number of things that I am supportive of, and I think it does not hurt to mention a few positives, especially in my portfolio area, because we do tend to always dwell on the negative, and I will certainly be getting to that.

There are a number of proposals within the budget. The additional funding for the dog fence is something that people in the metropolitan area would very rarely think about. It is one of the longest pieces of infrastructure in the world. A fair part of it crosses my electorate and also the electorate of Stuart. There is absolutely no doubt that the livestock industry has been faced with a number of problems when it comes to maintaining the fence's integrity and keeping out wild dogs. The funding in that area is welcome and it is needed.

During the federal election, I had an opportunity to speak with our federal colleagues to see if they would be willing to match the commitment made by the Liberal-National Coalition when it came to supporting the fence, and I was pleased that we made that commitment. Unfortunately, we were not elected, but if we had been we would have also matched the funding needed for the fence.

There is $7.5 million going to technology support and innovation for the primary industries sector, so I think that is a positive as well. There is an emphasis on biosecurity, which is a continuation of some of the good work we did when we were in government. Contrary to the position that is often put across, the world was not frozen for 16 years. Many good things were done, and we did a number of good things in the area of biosecurity. It is good to see that continuing to be built on.

One concerning aspect of the Liberals' first budget, the one before the current budget—especially given that a number of people in the farming community and in the pastoral industry were facing some real challenges with drought—was that it had no tangible allocation to assist farmers and pastoralists in South Australia. It was incredibly disappointing. It was very disappointing compared with what was going on in New South Wales and Queensland.

Admittedly, their primary industries sector had been in drought for a longer period of time over very extensive regions but, given the scale of support that was offered for primary industries in those states and the capacity for some of that support to distort markets to the disadvantage of South Australia, it was unfortunate that no tangible assistance was provided. There was support for counselling services, which was something I supported at the time.

We have had some good rains across the state, but there are still areas that are doing it hard, and we still do not have much in the way of tangible support in the current budget. I am especially thinking about some of the northern areas of our state that have missed out to a significant degree on the rains that have fallen. There was a record-breaking dry period between January and May this year, before the rains hit. It was the driest period on record. We need to get our heads around some of this.

There are always ups and downs when it comes to weather. We are told ad nauseam, 'Well, the climate is always changing. We've always had drought, and we've always had this and that.' But the trends are just overwhelming. The trend we are in is going to be a drying trend. All the modelling that has been done in relation to climate change—I prefer to call it global warming—indicates that Australia, and this state in particular, is highly vulnerable, and our primary industries are especially vulnerable.

The global trajectory we are on at the moment is for a 3° to 4° increase in average global temperatures, and that is going to have a major impact in Australia. Looking at the grain industry and this budget, there is not much in terms of adaptation or innovation not just for the grain industry but for agriculture in general. This is coming down the road at a relatively fast pace. When we look at some of the science concerning a 3° to 4° increase in average global temperatures, the predictions—there is always an element of uncertainty, so they are probabilities—are that it could hit the global production of grain by as much as a 40 to 50 per cent reduction.

That is absolutely huge in a world with a growing population. I am not saying that South Australia can fix this problem, but I would have thought there would be some reflection in the budget of these issues that we are going to face in regional South Australia amongst our primary producers. It would have been good to see something in the budget instead of yet more cutbacks. When it comes to the primary industries, there are yet further cutbacks. There is a $20 million cutback to the operating budget for the Department of Primary Industries and Regions.

That is significant, and that has come on top of a cutback in the first Liberal budget. This time around it looks like about 30 full-time equivalents are going to be cut from Primary Industries. That is disappointing. I do not stand up here in this shadow responsibility and say that our record when we were in government was perfect, because it was not. There was a series of cuts to Primary Industries, and I think some of the areas of cuts we have to come back and have a really close look at. What is going to be important? What are the things that we can do to assist our primary industries?

I guess I always come back to one of the things that I think is incredibly important with not just primary industries but economic development as a whole, which is that whole area of research and development. It needs the support organisations like SARDI and others when it comes to that innovation agenda. As a state we need to do far more in that area.

If we reflect back far enough, once upon a time South Australia was a world leader in dryland farming. I would like to see us get back into that position, and I will be doing what I can as the primary industries shadow to put pressure on our shadow treasurer, as this is an area that, when we come back into government, we should take seriously. We should not look upon it as one of those easy targets, because investment in that sort of area is incredibly important.

There have been a number of initiatives in the budget that are very damaging for parts of regional South Australia. The proposal to introduce a property tax in the Far North of our state in the unincorporated areas has come out of the blue. The history, when it comes to the property taxes, if you like—maybe the equivalent of a rate at a local council level—is that two communities do pay a property tax or levy at the moment—those are Iron Knob and Andamooka—because they are among the bigger communities in the unincorporated areas. Without any consultation, the Treasurer has talked about a property tax of between $120 and $400 per property. I am hearing on the grapevine that it could end up being significantly higher than that.

The issue here is that we are talking about incredibly small communities that have very limited capacity when it comes to raising money. We are also talking about widely dispersed pastoral properties, and the pastoralists, as a result of a levy of this nature, will not get anything in the way of either a direct or indirect benefit, so I do not think this is the way to go for the unincorporated areas when it comes to raising money for necessary infrastructure and necessary governance.

The Outback Communities Authority in some of the earlier comments they made I think got it right. They talked about going out and consulting with communities, consulting with pastoralists about the nature of governance in the unincorporated areas and how best to fund it. I guess my view is, given the incredibly scattered nature of the population, the administrative costs and compliance costs might well be more than what you are going to raise from some of those incredibly small communities. We hear #RegionsMatter again and again; obviously it does not matter when it comes to the unincorporated areas of our state.

Another big hit—and this is a big hit—on people in the unincorporated areas in addition to Roxby Downs, Coober Pedy and Kangaroo Island is the removal of the concessions on registration. For some businesses in the unincorporated areas, and in Roxby Downs, Coober Pedy and Kangaroo Island, that is going to be a big hit. I was speaking to one business who indicate that it is going to cost them, given the number of vehicles they have and the number of heavier vehicles they have, an extra $20,000 hit a year.

When I had a look at the households in Roxby Downs as an example, and looked at the number of vehicles in some of those households, that is going to be a big hit on those households. This is a blanket removal across the unincorporated areas and a removal for Roxby Downs, Coober Pedy and Kangaroo Island.

The reason Labor never touched this particular registration concession was that we were incredibly mindful of the additional transport costs faced by people in remote areas. Fuel costs are significantly higher in remote areas than they are in the metropolitan area and in other regional communities in the more settled parts of our state. Sometimes diesel and petrol are 50¢ or 60¢ a litre dearer and that puts an impost on people straightaway.

Then there are the vast distances that are travelled and often have to be travelled in order to access services. We were very mindful of all that. Even during the Foley years and the other years, we never touched it. We talk about #RegionsMatter, but obviously it does not matter when it comes to the unincorporated areas and it does not matter when it comes to Roxby Downs, Coober Pedy or Kangaroo Island. All those areas face very significant additional costs as a result of this budget.

There was hardly any mention in the budget about the duplication of the road from Port Wakefield to Port Augusta. The minister has indicated that there is going to be a bit of a spend there. I am assuming it is the normal 80 per cent federal spend and 20 per cent state spend. I am told that another three overtaking lanes are going to go in. I welcome that, but I point out that, when we are told that the state was frozen for 16 years and nothing ever happened, the growth in overtaking lanes on that stretch of road and other stretches of road did happen under a state Labor government and with the support of both a Labor federal government and a Liberal-National government.

I welcome the overtaking lanes, but we need to get on with the initial work of duplicating that particular road. I acknowledge that this has to be done in a staged fashion, and you get different estimates. Depending on the approaches, it can be anywhere between $1.2 billion and $2 billion to do that duplication but, at the end of the day, it is National Highway 1. It is an incredibly important piece of infrastructure for this state. It was very disappointing that there was no mention of this highway in the budget, apart from overtaking lanes.

It might well be that the $60 million that the federal government is going to put on the table will be used to do some of the initial studies, but we have a long way to go. It is not just an important piece of economic infrastructure; there is a far more powerful driver and that is saving lives. Over the last few years, over 20 people have been killed on that stretch of road and over 200 people have been seriously injured. That is going to continue until we start to seriously address this. For someone who drives a lot on regional roads, it is not all down to the infrastructure but, if you improve infrastructure, you will improve safety outcomes.

Those of us from the regions know that a not insignificant number of our fatalities and serious injuries are as a result of single-vehicle accidents, with people being tired, fatigued, on the phone, or there might be other issues at work. I recall that a few years ago three people were killed in one single-vehicle accident. They had been working late shifts, had put in a lot of hours of work and were driving back to their home, from Whyalla to Port Pirie, and they lost control of the vehicle. Three members of the same family were killed in that particular accident. It is important that we continue to address some of these real needs when it comes to our country roads.

I will touch on both the recreational and commercial fishing sectors. In 2017, after extensive consultation with the commercial sector and the recreational sector, we came out with a $20 million buyback scheme for commercial licences, plus the introduction of quotas for some of those species where quotas did not exist. That scheme was going to commence from 1 July this year, but unfortunately that commitment has not been worked on by the current government, which is incredibly disappointing.

I acknowledge that new governments can change policy, but all this work was done. I think we would all agree that commercial buybacks are necessary. I think we would all agree that quotas are necessary, especially when it comes to snapper and some other species. If the government had improvements, they could have implemented that particular program and then built upon it, but I suspect the Treasurer did not want to part with $20 million.

I find it a bit rich when some of those opposite say that the state of the fisheries is all the fault of the previous government, when we worked over an extended period of time attempting to improve the fisheries. It is never easy, given the conflicting interests and the pressures. We have all seen the recent data from SARDI on snapper stocks. Once again, that is one of those areas that needs more investment so that the quality of the science is of a high standard.

It is of a high standard, but it is a standard that reflects the resources available. We need to do far more in that area. It is important to set quotas in the commercial sector. When we were in power, we reduced daily catch limits time and time again and then we announced that we were going to introduce quotas. We need to introduce quotas, and it needs to be more than just a daily catch limit: it needs to be a yearly or a seasonal quota in order to ensure the sustainability of a particular species.

Mr McBRIDE (MacKillop) (11:22): I rise today to speak in support of the Appropriation Bill 2019. Our government has seen fit to hand down a budget that is focused on supporting regional communities, one that continues our agenda to build our regional economies and support regions, businesses and families. Our government has done this in the face of significant reductions in expected GST revenue, which is expected to total $517 million between 2019 and 2020. Our Treasurer acknowledged this challenge in his budget speech delivered in the house on 18 June.

Our government has sought to address this shortfall in a responsible way while investing in priorities. On a statewide basis, the budget includes investments that will support our economy, ensuring competitive costs of doing business in Australia. Notably, the budget embeds the exemption from payroll tax for small and medium-sized businesses with a wage bill of less than $1½ million. It embeds our government's commitment to reduce the emergency services levy to save South Australians $90 million in total, which will enhance the ability of families to make their own choices about where they spend their tax savings.

The budget provides the opportunity for lower income households to benefit from reduced household energy costs. It has an emphasis on building stronger communities through the investment of $75 million over five years to address critical housing needs for people in remote communities and $45 million over two years to address preventative maintenance and construction programs. The budget has an emphasis on building a better health system, which includes $537 million in new expenditure, and also includes investment in education, including investment in the building and upgrading of a number of regional high schools, including Glossop and the new Whyalla High School.

A strong and thriving economy needs good infrastructure, and investment is key for the economic success of our regions and state. A very welcome emphasis in the budget is on transport and infrastructure. We are increasing investment to address both metropolitan and regional road priorities, including significant works on priority metropolitan intersections and major roads. I am pleased that we have had some good outcomes for MacKillop in roads, community spaces, sporting grounds and the CFS.

Our government is undertaking a record spend on roads. Roadworks and upgrades have been neglected for too long and are a big winner in the budget, with $1.1 billion over eight years to be spent on regional road projects and transport infrastructure upgrades. Specific investments that will benefit MacKillop include the $250 million upgrade to the Princes Highway. Works will include widening, safety upgrades, new overtaking lanes, as well as duplication along key sections of town bypasses.

As to the $143 million in regional road maintenance, benefits for my electorate come from two examples. First, the Riddoch Highway will get new passing lanes, both north and southbound, between Tower Road and the Coonawarra and one between Nangwarry and the Mount Gambier forests. Also, the second example involves the works to increase safety on the Clay Wells and Ngarkat roads to enable the reinstatement of the 110 km/h speed limits. There is also the $8 million allocated for the enhancement of freight linkages in and around Smith Street in Naracoorte. The works will ensure safer and more controlled heavy vehicle movement and support freight movements to Teys Brothers, the abattoirs, the saleyards and other agribusinesses.

On a wider basis, other regional roads to benefit from this transport infrastructure include $125 million to upgrade Eyre Peninsula roads, including the Eyre Highway to the Western Australian border; $87 million to upgrade the Sturt Highway, from Renmark to Gawler; a $62 million upgrade to the Barrier Highway, from Cockburn to Burra; $1 million over four years to improve roads on Kangaroo Island; and $55 million to improve the safety and condition of the Horrocks Highway.

With all that expenditure, I acknowledge that—and others might want to bring up this point—yes, there are federal funds involved in all these road expenditures. But without our support and without our engagement from the state government, the federal government funding would never have come forward. With support for these upgrades, from both federal and state governments, we are able to deliver these improvements. I hope that continues into the future with the election of the new federal Liberal government and with us with at least another three years to go of our state government, the Marshall Liberal government.

Community and open spaces funding has also been approved, including $267,500 to support the Millicent Parklands Revitalisation Project to enhance the recreational precinct in Millicent for festivals and community events and to improve opportunities for recreation and activities, getting people outdoors, while $334,000 has been committed to upgrade the three main streets in Kingston to create a more vibrant townscape and improve the visitor experience.

Sporting facilities commitments include $108,000 to replace the oval lighting at Mac Park at Millicent. This will enable the Millicent Saints, who play in the Western Border league, to play twilight games in Millicent. It is a vibrant town and it is a vibrant sporting town, and that will be a welcome addition to that sporting fixture. There is also $150,000 for the Kalangadoo Football Club to upgrade their facilities, along with $250,000 from the federal government, which totals $400,000, plus support from the local government and the private funds that the club has managed to put together. It will be a magnificent build for the Kalangadoo township and their sporting precinct. I thank the minister for all the support he has given to our sporting facilities in MacKillop.

Mobile blackspot funding has been delivered to install a new tower for Tower Road between Penola and Nangwarry, which is a blackspot for those travelling between Naracoorte and Mount Gambier, alongside Nangwarry, where there is a blackspot where people travelling through lose their phone coverage. On a main highway, it will pick up within about five or 10 minutes and you are back on again. It is one of those nuisances that many travellers and motorists travelling between Naracoorte and Mount Gambier have to face.

Many of these initiatives have been possible through co-investment with commonwealth government funds. Other initiatives from which MacKillop may draw benefits include the investment of:

$42 million over two years for preventative maintenance and construction of Housing Trust homes;

$32.7 million over five years to fund a range of upgrades to regional high schools to upgrade facilities to assist and accommodate year 7 students;

$7.5 million over three years for the red meat and wool sectors to help grow both industries;

$1.8 million over five years to pay school fees for dependants of 457 and 482 visa holders in regional areas;

continuing investment of $140 million over 10 years to improve regional hospital and health infrastructure;

interest-free loans of up to $10,000 to help get people into the housing market; and

$4 million over four years into coastal management.

Touching on those expenditures into housing, we know and recognise, and we want the parliament and the state to recognise, that the areas between Tintinara and Bordertown and down to Naracoorte have massive housing shortages. This is holding back our regional towns in terms of growth and opportunities. There are some massive businesses that have been in the area for a long time that are also growing further, and we do have a housing shortage. I hope these moneys that are going towards Housing Trust homes and affordable housing—most particularly affordable housing—come to bear and that we address this issue and bring opportunities to MacKillop and the regions.

Given the difficult decisions that were required to be taken, the budget has brought with it some changes to fees and charges, notably:

the obvious increase in gazetted fines for speeding;

licence fees for builders, plumbers, gasfitters and electricians;

liquor licensing fee increases; and

the increase to solid waste levies to councils, which will increase to $110 on 1 July and then go to $140 in 2020. The primary driver for this change is focused on reducing landfill and increasing the recovery of resources and recycling.

As much as those tough decisions are being made by my government to apply increases in these areas—and I find them hard to support, in the sense that we do need them but they are hard to sell—this Appropriation Bill is very much consistent with the first budget that the Liberal Marshall government brought down.

We have actually been a bit consistent, in the sense that the budget last year did not pave the way for paying down any debt left behind by the previous Labor government. I think that caught the Labor government off guard. I was very pleased by the way that the Liberal Marshall government have gone about getting into government and going through the 100 days of promises—getting through them and getting them rolled out.

Coming back to the point, when the Liberal Party came into government one of the things that I think we suffered was in saying that we are economically responsible and will pay back all Labor's debts and perhaps expenditure that was not well thought out and that we will then roll out what we believe in. But we never get that opportunity. Our time runs short, and this is why this budget is quite unique.

I also find the way that the opposition leader responded to this budget was unique, in that I think the budget has probably caught Labor off guard. Perhaps they have even called us out in saying, 'Where are you Liberals? Where are you really welded-on Liberals in this, with the expenditure and debt projections out to $22 billion? How do you think that you will navigate your way through this?' I have not seen anything to date that actually says that we will get to those debt levels, although it has been forecast—

Mr Malinauskas: It's in the budget papers.

Mr McBRIDE: It is, but we can do a lot of things. Economies change and we build on it. As the opposition leader would recognise, things change over years and opportunities come by. As we build the economy, we obviously expect to build this state, and that is what we do not think you did all that well over the last 16 years. One of the two things—

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr McBRIDE: —that you really cannot point a stick at and throw stones at are education and health. I really welcome from our Marshall Liberal government that they never took a razor gang to the two portfolios of education and health that the Labor Party hang their hat on and say they are champions of. When you build a new hospital that completely runs over budget—a new hospital that runs $300 million over budget annually—and you then in your speech accuse us of the high rate of ramping of ambulances at the bottom of the Royal Adelaide, let me tell you that we are all to blame for that.

Mr Malinauskas: Yes, well, it has doubled under your watch.

Mr McBRIDE: Yes, and we are all to blame for that. It is really ironic that within 12 months perhaps you are accusing us of closing beds, perhaps you are accusing us of sacking nurses and perhaps you are accusing us of not employing doctors, but we have not changed any of that. In fact, we have actually taken on what you left behind.

I would say to you, the opposition leader, in your speech when you talked about the budget measures you were critical of, that we have not taken a razor gang approach to any of these sorts of public infrastructure or spends. We have rolled on where you have left off. We have a lot of the people in charge of what you left behind still there operating, looking after the hospital and education systems—

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Malinauskas: What's KordaMentha doing? What are we paying them $50 million for? Nothing?

Mr McBRIDE: As the member has just so kindly reminded me, we have KordaMentha into the hospital. As I said in my initial point about the hospital, it is running at $300 million above budget with a $20 million spend, again, on one of those things that you know needs to take place, that we need to move documents to warehouses outside the hospital because the hospital does not work for a paper trail like it needs to. It is just one of those things we have to navigate our way through.

In response to Labor, and where we are with the budget and our expenditure, Labor now then has to say, 'Well, the Liberals are not going to be as responsible economically as they used to be and they're going to build their plans and progress.' We are going to build an economy, we are going to strengthen our employment, we are going to bring apprentices to rebuild the numbers to where they used to be. Apprenticeships used to be around 30,000 but, no, they have dropped—

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr McBRIDE: —to about 13,000 under the previous government.

Just on the news today we hear about trade shortages in Port Adelaide. Port Adelaide is not all that far away from Croydon, which the opposition leader is meant to belong to. These trade shortages are a result of the previous government, and we have got to address this.

I recognise that we are so lucky to have a massive defence build coming to South Australia, but this government also has to navigate its way through that very carefully because I do not want to see my region starved of tradespeople who go to this massive defence build. It will be very lucrative, it will be very fruitful for the economy, it is going to build a whole economy around the Port Adelaide precinct down there, but we have to manage this well.

One thing is that it is a huge opportunity, but the second thing is that we have to manage the likes of tradespeople and apprentices coming through. In fairness, the opposition leader brought up that training of apprentices. He claimed in a speech that there have never been so few apprentices. I would say that, yes, there may be so few but it has not changed a lot since he left. We are going to put an emphasis on this, we are going to strive for it, we are going to bring those training programs back in.

We have a trade minister who knows all about bringing apprentices back. Both he and I went through a system back in the nineties—and maybe even the eighties for the minister at hand today—that had those 20,000 or 30,000 apprentices coming through. They then turned into tradespeople, and that then turned into small businesses that kept our state going, building our state as we think it ought to be built. This comes back to the point about the education system I just touched on.

The last Labor government had a lot of emphasis on students going through and completing year 12, and I think he mentioned that 75 per cent of students were going through and completing year 12. That is a wonderful accolade, but when apprentices are going through the apprenticeship schemes a lot of apprentices do not do year 12. They actually leave in either year 10 or 11; I think year 11 is the preferred outcome, but some do leave during year 10 and start their apprenticeship in their trade.

No wonder our tradespeople and the number of skilled workers out in the Port Adelaide precinct are becoming short in number—because the government had an emphasis on educating our students through the university program. They had a university degree, but they did not have the jobs to go to, so what did they do? They would normally find themselves in careers outside this state, and hence we saw the population decline and the skilled and the best brains in our state leave rather than stay and operate within the state.

It will be interesting to see how Labor navigates its way through this budget program we have. I know that the Marshall government has a plan, I know that it is not putting a strong emphasis on the way that the last Labor government left our budget. I know that it has a plan to spend money to rebuild the state, putting in infrastructure and build that actually create jobs and make it easy to do business in this state so that it can flourish to its full potential.

Our government has delivered a responsible and sustainable budget to address revenue challenges. I am pleased that the budget continues to deliver for our regional constituents to support building regional economies, and I commend it to the house.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (11:39): I acknowledge that I speak just after the contribution from the member for MacKillop. Mr Speaker, about 20 years ago I enjoyed listening to a radio program on the Triple J breakfast show hosted by Mikey Robins and Adam Spencer. You might recall that Adam Spencer is now a much-loved science commentator and MC of noble events. Although they did not have the broadest listenership, it was one of the most deeply loved and enjoyed breakfast programs in the country. They used to broadcast nationwide.

In particular, they had a segment they would play, not every morning but at least twice a week, called Defending the Indefensible. They used to ask a very knowledgeable, very talented and very skilled debater to come in and argue for three minutes why a particular outrageous conjecture was, in fact, a terrific idea. If my memory serves me correctly, although I did my best to perhaps damage my capacity to retain memories at university, I think they used to get in the world champion debater, Greg O'Mahoney, who is now a very skilled barrister in Sydney and was the world champion debater in the very early 2000s

Unfortunately, what we have here is a government which is bereft of Greg O'Mahoneys. We have a government which does not have the capacity to sell to the public of South Australia this most extraordinary state budget. In that respect, I will agree with the member for MacKillop. He was right: it was not just the opposition that was perhaps taken by surprise by this budget; it was the whole of the community of South Australia, bar those few dozen people who comprise the Liberal party room.

It is just extraordinary that here we are, within 15 or 16 months of the last election, and everything that we had been told was important to the Liberal Party of South Australia has been cast aside. All those commitments about lowering costs for South Australians have now been shown to be broken election commitments. Those commitments about better services have been completely skewered by the extraordinary level of cuts.

The member for MacKillop talked about how they are making sure that they are not getting stuck into the health system. Well, $1.2 billion of unidentified savings over the four-year period, and the appointment of corporate liquidators to work in the hospitals and determine how patient care should be administered, is extraordinary.

We also had, year after year and budget after budget, under the former Labor government, the now Premier, the member for Dunstan, his predecessor, the former member for Heysen and, of course, the Hon. Rob Lucas of the other place, going on and on and on about how outrageous it was that the levels of debt that the Labor government, when in government, was projecting across their budget's forward estimates was unsustainable and outrageous.

What were the quantums of those figures? We were getting into figures of $11 billion or $12 billion for the total government sector over a four-year period at the end of the four-year period. Then we have the member for MacKillop and his other colleagues trying to argue with a straight face that double that amount, over $21 billion, is absolutely fine: contrary to everything they told us before the last election, that level of debt is fine.

Of course, the other broken election promise that has now embodied itself within this budget is the promise about lowering council rate bills for South Australians. It is just extraordinary that on those four measures—lower costs, better services, debt reduction and council rates—this government have completely vacated the field. They have completely given up, and now we are at a point where we have to start asking: what does this government stand for?

Everything that the Premier has been telling us that is important to him and important to his government is not in this budget. In fact, the exact opposite is in this budget. They have left themselves, in this budget, with no credibility on the things that they told South Australians were the most important to them in the lead-up to the last election. Yes, it took South Australians by surprise because it is extraordinary. What is the justification for all these decisions that apparently needed to be made by the government? They complained for months and months about an unforecast reduction in GST grant revenues from the commonwealth and that this had necessitated the budget settings we now have.

It is interesting to go back and look at how much GST was forecast to be received in this current financial year and the financial year that finished only two days ago, that is, the 2018-19 and the 2019-20 financial years. If you look at the budget as it was handed to the incoming Liberal government, those figures as at the 2017-18 Mid-Year Budget Review—well, in fact, in the 2018-19 financial year—this government received $100 million more than they thought they were going to get at the time of the last state election.

In the 2019-20 year, of course, the figure is less. It is $150 million less, not the $517 million that they complained about. The net effect of those two years? Being down $50 million out of combined receipts of $13 billion. Does that necessitate the extraordinary action this government is now foisting upon South Australians? It is an unprecedented—I think is the most accurate word—explosion in fees, charges and taxation levels imposed by this government.

For many years, there has been the same method of indexing these fees, charges and rates of taxation. It occurred under the former Liberal government of Brown and Olsen, it occurred under the former Labor government and, up until three weeks ago, it was also to occur under this government, but this government broke that model. They said, 'No, we won't look at inflation and we won't look at the cost of the public sector delivering goods and services. We will break from that and we will just arbitrarily increase them,' and those increases have ranged from 5 per cent to 600 per cent increases in taxes, fees and charges. Even in doing that, have they tried to insulate South Australian households from the worst effects of that? Absolutely not.

They have come straight after every single household and every single business here in South Australia with more than $100 million a year of higher taxes, fees and charges. It is extraordinary. Motorists are bearing the brunt of it with higher registration charges, higher driver's licence fees and, incredibly, even an increase in the administration fee on people's vehicle registration notices and also an increase in the administration fee charged for transactions at Service SA Centres—you will remember, the very same centres that this government promised to close in last year's budget. In fact, the birth of this new financial year, which we are into the second day of, says that 48 hours ago the Minister for Transport was due to close the first one. Of course, something else that has blown out under his watch—in that case, this time line.

We have seen Consumer and Business Services fees or, for people speaking English rather than bureaucracy speak, those fees and charges which are levied on every business and registered activity here in South Australia have exploded. We have also seen an extraordinary increase in marriage fees, of all things. It is remarkable that this government has left no stone unturned. Hospital car parking: if you are a worker at a hospital, for example, close to my electorate at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital you can look forward to an increase in hospital car parking fees of $725 a year. If you are a visitor going to a hospital, you have lost two hours of free parking at those hospitals.

Public transport has been targeted—making people pay for the privilege of purchasing a ticket, the $5 Metrocard fee is being reintroduced under this government; abolishing the two-section fare—trying to make sure that this government gets as many people out of buses, out of trains and out of trams as possible and shoves them into sole-occupant vehicles to further congest our roads closest to the city. It is absolutely remarkable public transport policy.

The police rent tax—making people pay for the benefit of being kept safe and protected by our police force. Liquor licensing fees—exactly what we were promised would not happen at the last election, the Deputy Premier has gone after licensed venues with a stick, seeking an extra $3 million a year. For regional motorists, it is getting rid of the outer areas concession and increasing mining fees. I have not even mentioned the extraordinary increase in speeding fines designed not to change one iota of behaviour out on the roads but simply as a revenue-raising measure.

In last year's budget we were also promised up to $48 million a year worth of land tax cuts. They were legislated, but they have not yet come into effect. Rather than the government just being honest with the people of South Australia and telling them, 'When we made that commitment, when we legislated these tax cuts, we thought we could afford them,' they have now chosen to massively ramp up land tax on thousands of South Australian landowners, many of whom can least afford it. Many came to this country, for example, in the 1950s and 1960s and started working for themselves or working as labourers or working in factories.

When they did not have access to compulsory superannuation because it was not even a gleam in the eye of a commonwealth government, they invested in property. They bought themselves a house for their family. When they had more money they could spend, they bought an investment property and they rented out to the community, thereby giving themselves a retirement income. Those people, who have used the existing tax law to structure their financial arrangements in a way in which they can provide for their own retirement, are the people being punished by these changes to land tax aggregation, which are designed to raise a further $40 million a year. It is just extraordinary.

Then there is the attack on council rate bills. The government, which committed to introducing rate capping, which it said would bring down council rate bills, has now moved to do the exact opposite. Of course, when you put a minister in charge of introducing rate capping who cannot actually come up with a viable model for rate capping, it is no wonder there is no rate capping system in place at the moment. It is even more extraordinary that the rate cap that he told South Australians he would have introduced was multiple times higher than, for example, the council in my electorate—the City of Charles Sturt—was going to increase their rates by.

How does the government respond to this now that they have been embarrassed by the behaviour of councils in setting their own budgets, which were going to increase rates by less than what the Minister for Transport wanted them to increase rates by? They introduce a bin tax, a 40 per cent increase to the solid waste levy. This is despite being told by the Premier, when he was the leader of the opposition, that this is just a price gouge: 'It will increase illegal dumping right across South Australia. It is essentially another tax—a carbon tax on the households of South Australians—and they cannot afford it.'

He has now completely ignored those commitments and statements that he made to the people of South Australia before the last election. As a result, we have seen nine metropolitan councils, which have more than 500,000 households within their council areas, all having to move to increase their council rate bills for the coming financial year as a result of this unprecedented hike in the solid waste levy.

We have also seen this government shake down government businesses for additional revenue. That all might seem pedestrian and boring to the casual observer, but when SA Water is the largest government business that exists—and this government last year took an extra $128 million of dividends out of SA Water, and this year they have gone back in for another drink—the impact this will have on SA Water and their ability to deliver affordable water rates into the future is extraordinary.

We have also seen them go into the South Australian Government Financing Authority. If you compare the dividends in this budget with those in the last budget of the Labor government, even in the three comparable years there is an extra nearly $80 million in dividends out of the South Australian Government Financing Authority and an extra $60 million in dividends against HomeStart. It is remarkable. What is all this for? Why are we seeing the government take these extraordinary dividends out of government businesses, leaving the cupboard bare, leaving nothing in the pockets of South Australian households and businesses through these higher taxes, fees and charges? Is it to pay down debt? No. Is it to invest in productive infrastructure over the next four years? No.

It is remarkable that they could be imposing this higher level of taxation on South Australians and still ramping up debt. Their justification that this is for productive infrastructure is a fallacy. Of the $5.4 billion that we have been told will be required for the future extensions of South Road, $126 million is available from the state government in these forward estimates—remarkable. How much money they put into it is almost a rounding error. In regard to the amount of money that will be required to finish the Women's and Children's Hospital, a further billion dollars sits beyond the forward estimates.

It will not just stop at the $21 billion. The member for MacKillop tried to claim that the $21 billion will never happen anyway. No, it is going to get much worse than that. We have an extra $4 billion rocketing down at us beyond the forward estimates, and they are the projects that have already been announced. That does not leave any room for any further spending in any area of government beyond what is in this budget over the next four years.

How much will that debt cost us? It is going to cost us $1,075 million a year by the end of the forward estimates—$3 million a day in interest repayments. Remember, this is when interest repayments are at their cheapest. According to the government, this is the right time to borrow because interest rates are cheap. I know that Rob Lucas is older than me. I do not need to stand next to him to demonstrate that. I know that he has been around longer than me, and even he can remember that sometimes interest rates are higher than the 3.2 per cent that the Premier tells us the South Australian Government Financing Authority can currently borrow at.

It might be fine for him to retire in 2022 but, for the rest of us who endeavour to be around here a little bit longer on either side of this chamber, this is absolutely frightening. If interest rates move by one percentage point higher, according to the budget papers there is an extra nearly $100 million a year in interest repayments. Heaven help us if interest rates move much further up than that over the next five to 10 years, because those hundreds of millions of dollars in extra repayments are hundreds of millions of dollars less that we will have to spend in health and education and in all the other areas of government service delivery.

The extraordinary level of cuts that we saw in last year's budget has been compounded in this year's budget. The member for MacKillop said no cuts in Health. Over 1,000 full-time equivalent staff in the health department will be cut in this financial year alone. Also, we see this mean-spiritedness of the government in continuing to cut funding to those organisations that rely on government the most. They are cutting nearly $1 million a year to the Victim Support Service, cutting nearly $800,000 to the Women's Domestic Violence Court Assistance Service and instead picking it up and placing it in the Legal Services Commission, where, guess what, last year the Deputy Premier cut funding. How many people who are victims of domestic violence in our courts have to be without adequate representation for this government to get the message that you cannot cut funding from these organisations?

They are cutting low-security beds at Port Augusta Prison while complaining that the prisons are too full. They are trying to find revenues or cut funding to APY lands policing. They are cutting grant programs in the Office for Recreation, Sport and Racing. They are cutting $10 million from the Critical Skills Fund and cutting $7 million from community grant programs in the Department of Human Services. They are also cutting programs aimed at reducing recidivism by those people who have previously been convicted of crimes. It is just remarkable. It is so mean-spirited and so out of touch with the priorities of the community of South Australia that you wonder how much longer they will last.

Of course, it has not quite ended there. Only yesterday we heard the government's commitments about the privatisation of our train and tram networks. I assure you, Mr Speaker, you will be hearing a lot more about that later on today, particularly as we move into the grievance debate on this bill. This dreadful budget of broken promises does not just reflect on the credibility of this government and the credibility of the Premier; it also reflects a government that has no strategy and no vision for this state.

People could have forgiven a massive ramp-up in debt if there was a central narrative and a central purpose for it, but there is not—that is the problem. There is the tail end of a series of Labor government-initiated infrastructure projects and some promise beyond the forward estimates of future projects in the future. This is a dreadful budget by what is now regarded broadly as a dreadful government.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (11:59): I would like to make a small contribution, if my voice can hold up for this debate. I think it is very important to provide some context to this budget. Like any budget, whether a state or federal budget or even a council budget, it is not just a financial economic statement; it is also, in my view, a very strong moral document because it outlines the government's priorities for the wellbeing of the community.

It is not a question of whether you have a tough budget—we have heard it has to be a tough budget for a whole range of reasons—or a soft budget, but it is a statement about choices that governments make. Governments do have choices. Every time a government decides to do something, it can also decide to do something else. Circumstances may be such that governments do not make the choices they want but, in the end, they make choices. That is very important to remember. Over the last week, I have heard a number of ministers, particularly some of those close to my own electorate, talk about how this had to be a tough budget for the good of the people. I think that is just complete nonsense.

What is the moral of this budget? What is the Marshall Liberal government's story about this budget? The moral is simple: the Marshall Liberal government just cannot be trusted. It cannot be trusted on the three key pillars on which it sought election. It said it would bring down the cost of living. That was one of its tenets or pillars when it went into the election. It said it would take control of state debt. It said it would not cut public services. Amongst other things, they are the three key pillars on which the Marshall Liberal government—or the Marshall Liberal opposition at the time—sought government. On all three of those pillars, it has broken all its promises.

This budget can be best described as a smash-and-grab budget. It smashes the future prosperity of this community by sending our state debt into the stratosphere. It smashes our public services by cuts to public services. Only yesterday it was announced that it is going to privatise our train services. It is going to grab from each taxpayer in this community additional taxes, fees and charges way beyond the inflation rate. This government, therefore, fails the trust test.

I will give a brief overview of the increase in charges that people in this community now have to wear. Driving a car is more expensive, with hikes to motor registration up 5 per cent and driver's licence renewals up 4.5 per cent. Catching public transport is more expensive, with hikes to fares up 2 per cent, the axing of the two-section card, costing some commuters up to $849 per year, and now they are actually going to charge you to buy a train ticket or bus ticket.

On the one hand, we have the Minister for Transport saying that patronage is down and we need to do whatever we have to do to increase patronage on public transport. I agree; it is important to increase patronage on public transport as an equity issue, but also to get cars off the roads. On the other hand, what does he do? He increases the charges. He actually puts in a disincentive to use public transport.

Going to hospital is also more expensive, with hospital car parking up $725 per year for nurses, cleaners and other staff, while patients, their families and friends will pay 20 per cent more. Free car parking for the first two hours in some hospitals has been removed. Ambulance fees are up by 5 per cent. Even putting out the humble wheelie bin is going to cost more, with this government increasing the solid waste levy by 40 per cent, which means higher council rates.

As my colleague just said, on the one hand we have a minister saying that he wants to peg council rates and ease the pressure on ratepayers, and on the other hand what does this government do? It actually increases costs to ratepayers by a whopping 40 per cent in one year. The money is not going to be used to educate the community about increasing recycling programs, etc. The money will be used, basically, to fill the gap in this budget black hole that it has created.

This government has also decided to tax the tradies more, with licences up 10 per cent, trade registration up 10 per cent and ute registration up 10 per cent. I will say a bit more about that, and particularly what the MBA has to say about the increases in both the solid waste levy and the tradie taxes.

They are also taxing jobs, with a 70 per cent hike in mining taxes. They are also taxing entertainment, with hikes worth thousands of dollars on pubs and bars. The Liberals are also now going to introduce for the first time a police rent tax, where you actually have to pay to be protected by the police, which I would have thought would be a basic public service a government would provide to their community for their wellbeing.

In relation to the solid waste levy, and also the tradie tax, it is interesting that some government ministers have talked about how local government should absorb the 40 per cent increase. I am not sure how many councils have that sort of fat in their budget to sustain those sorts of increases. On the one hand, they have implored councils to keep council rates down—which I think is a good thing—but then they have increased the cost to councils and the cost to taxpayers from 0.5 per cent to 1 per cent.

Certainly, the councils in my area have said that they cannot absorb this increase and they are now passing on those increases in charges and fees to the ratepayers. It makes a mockery of the minister's whole campaign around rate capping, when some of the councils have gone beyond the recommended rate cap to an increase in the solid waste levy. It is also interesting to note that the MBA has expressed its concern about the cost of building new homes and the impact the solid waste levy will have on the building industry, at a time when the housing industry is doing it quite tough. We have seen a number of building companies go into liquidation over recent months.

So what does this government do? It imposes additional tax to make it harder in that regard and also imposes additional tax on subcontractors or tradies, who have to reduce their own net income by absorbing the costs or have to pass them on to the contractors and the homebuyers. At a time when we are trying to increase home ownership, this government has increased the cost of purchasing a first home. Prior to the election, as I have said, this government made a whole range of promises to the electorate. It is unfortunate that in this budget they have confirmed they are prepared to break every promise they have made.

The other point I would like to finish on is the state debt. For 16 years, the former government heard this then opposition say how critical it is to keep the state debt down, how to control expenditure, etc. In this budget, they have actually sent the state debt soaring. On the admission of their own Treasurer, this state debt is unlikely to be paid off in his lifetime. This government has created an intergenerational debt for not only this generation but the next generation to pay off. In one budget, it has achieved the ultimate trifecta: increase charges and fees, increase debt and cut services to the community. It takes a certain level of incompetence to achieve that in one budget.

Ms STINSON (Badcoe) (12:09): I rise to speak about the Appropriation Bill. There is a lot to be critical of in any analysis of this budget, the second budget for this government. We could talk about the extra taxes, fees and charges that are hitting everyday people, the quite cruel concentration of measures targeting our most vulnerable people—including, it seems, the member sitting next to me, who is struggling a little—and the many sudden cuts to organisations that are doing exceptional work in our community. We could also remark upon the dismissive and cold language of those opposite directed at the many losers from this budget, especially in the other place.

The thing that worries me the most after well over a year of this new government is the lack of a vision. There is no coherent agenda and there is the lack of a narrative, a story to tell about our state's direction. There is no thread that binds the various cuts, closures and privatisations and, for that matter, the choices of spending, minimal as those investments are. It is a mishmash of bits and pieces, with no central theme or aspiration.

Budgets are about priorities. We all wish we could fund absolutely every good idea, but that is plainly not possible. Budgets are always full of choices, sometimes very difficult choices, but those choices put together in a budget show the priorities of a government. It shows their values, their direction for the state and their vision of where they want the state to be. But this is a value-free zone. The only values that might be gleaned from this budget are a propensity for taxes, cost shifting and privatisation, but that of course is not a vision at all.

Nowhere has a vision been so sorely needed, yet so completely absent, as in child protection: 115 full-time equivalent staff are set to lose their jobs, although the government—and, I must say, the minister—is nowhere to be seen on this, but it has instead been sending the CE to answer questions. Nevertheless, the government is saying that they will not be front-line jobs. Of those 115 FTEs, apparently they are not front-line jobs. What a joke! They have already admitted that 59 of those jobs are front-line jobs—59 FTEs are financial counsellors who will serve their last few days this week. If they are not front-line jobs, I am not sure what are.

Imagine a mouse-infested home in our northern suburbs with young, struggling parents inside. In their care are a toddler and a baby, and they have no money, no food in the house and limited parenting skills. They love their kids, but they just do not know how to care for them. They did not have any parenting models themselves. They had no-one to learn from. This young couple sought help from a non-government organisation. The NGO would not go into their home. They called the financial counselling wellbeing service.

A financial counsellor went into the home and a safety plan was developed for the children away from the home. The counsellor sat down with the couple and showed them how to get back on their feet. She equipped them with the skills and knowledge that many of us take for granted. The counsellor showed them how to budget for groceries, how to cook inexpensive family meals, how to fill out Centrelink forms and Housing SA applications to get the support they needed, and told them where to go for local parenting classes.

The financial counsellor worked hand in hand with a Department for Child Protection social worker, who was then brought in to assess the safety of the children long term. That story is not an invention but a real scenario described to me by a financial counsellor since this cut was announced. That is the work she does. She does not see herself as a number cruncher or a backroom operator but as a social support. She is on the front line, it is hard work, but she loves helping people who need it.

You might say, 'Hey, those things that she is doing are the job of a social worker,' and, yes, a lot of what she does is a lot like social work, but the fact is that this is the work our financial counsellors are doing. Should someone else be doing it? Maybe they should, but they are doing it—the financial counsellors are doing it—and no-one else will be doing it when they go this week.

Financial counsellors have said to me that they do not think the minister knows what they do. They say to me that she has no idea of the type of work they complete, how hard it is and, most importantly, what it will mean for families and children when they are not there. She has not visited them in the field or met the people they help. It is pretty easy to cut things when they are numbers on a page and not real people. When the financial wellbeing counselling service in the Department for Child Protection shuts down, what will fill the vacuum? I understand that in September last year most financial counsellors managed about 50 cases each, and there are 59 financial counsellors, including a manager. That is a lot of cases, and there is clearly strong demand.

In estimates last year, the minister told this house that a tender would go out within nine months and that it would be worth $1 million. Well, the clock has counted down and there is no tender. Who knows if there was ever going to be one? A spokesperson for the department told the ABC that financial counselling services exist in the Department of Human Services. Others have been told they can go to an NGO.

Although both these groups do fantastic work, SACOSS and the Financial Counsellors Association have said that they are not remotely the same as the face-to-face services provided by the financial wellbeing counselling service. In addition, those services are not tailored to the child protection experience and they are not embedded within the Department for Child Protection. I hope that the minister realises the impact of this cut before it is too late. There is no shame in realising a mistake and correcting it, especially when it comes to the welfare of little children.

Also among the 115 FTE job losses are an unknown number of staff hired to tackle the backlog of investigations and carer assessments. Something like 300 roles were recruited by the former government in response to the Nyland recommendations. By our best estimate, 89 of those were due for contract renewals or terminations on 30 June. It was only after the opposition asked questions about those roles that the staff heard something from the department about their futures, but it is still uncertain how many of those 89 staff have had their roles converted to ongoing positions or extended for another 12 months.

By our estimation, 44 will still lose their positions. The minister is welcome to clarify that anytime she likes and tell us what she is doing with these staff but, of course, when asked about this and other issues in child protection she has told us, 'I am not responsible.' It begs the question: who is? There will be additional roles scrapped and additional workers made redundant due to the target of 115 job cuts this financial year.

Concerningly, those additional jobs are apparently going to be achieved by natural attrition. We know that the most high-stress jobs, the highest turnover roles, are front-line positions, and those are the roles that we can least afford to lose. A bit of honesty about where the job cuts are coming from would be appreciated by the hardworking staff who dedicate their careers to helping children and families in need.

Then there is the overspend. Most deceitful, of course, is that half-hearted effort to sell the $2.5 million overspend in the Department for Child Protection as an investment. For starters, it is more like $9.5 million because $7 million was already put into the exploding cost of care for the last financial year in the previous budget. It is not an investment. It is clear that this government does not want to spend that money. It is a mistake. It is a failing that is now being papered over—not very well, I might add—as an investment in the care of children.

This $9.5 million overspend is the result of yet another broken promise. The budget papers spell it out: the cost is due to the increasing number of children coming into care, and those children are not even coming in at the same rate as under Labor. The speed at which children are coming into care is faster than under the previous government. In fact, the minister has managed to reverse the downward trend of children coming into care into a rise. Under the previous government, the rate of increase was falling; it is now going up again. This year, it has risen by about 9 per cent compared with 6 per cent last year.

There is no doubt that before the state election, and even for a while after it, those opposite were promising a huge reduction in the number of children in state care. They said they knew how to do it, and people believed them. They promised to reduce the number of children in care, increase the number of foster carers, reduce the number of child abuse and neglect reports and fill all the vacant positions in the department. If any of that has been achieved, the minister is keeping it a secret.

Last September, we heard from the minister that this minister would achieve 50 additional foster carers, over attrition, every year. Has that been achieved? I am going to go out on a limb here and say no because the minister and her department refuse to answer how many foster carers there are and whether it is more than in March last year. Why would the minister not be transparent about it if they had managed to reach the target of 50 new carers above attrition?

What about the minister's promise last September to see the rate of children coming into care arrested at around 3 per cent each year? That is just simply not happening. As I said, we have seen a 9 per cent increase under this minister and that is three times more than she promised. There are now almost 4,000 children in state care. That is a flat out broken promise and it shows that this government has no credibility when it comes to child protection.

It beggars belief that a department facing increasing pressure, facing more and more children coming into care under this government and unable to stick to its budget, could now be whacked with a $20.6 million target for additional cuts. More than $5 million a year needs to be found. Considering the minister's last attempt to rein in the budget resulted in 59 front-line workers losing their jobs for a so-called saving of $4.4 million, it makes you wonder where she is going to find $20 million to axe.

The other thing that is really worrying in these budget papers is that, despite those budget blowouts, several of the key performance indicators are not being met. That at least raises some worrying questions. The number of child abuse notifications requiring further action is up by 2,591. The number of child abuse investigations is up by 766, which is a rise of 17 per cent. That, of course, can cut both ways, but it absolutely raises some questions about the levels of abuse and neglect in our community, and I think anyone would be concerned about that. The budget is blowing out, but we are not seeing improvements in some of the key performance indicators for this department.

The small glimmer of vision for child protection revealed in this budget is one that is rather familiar to those of us on this side of the house. We commend the government for the expansion of family group conferences. This was a great initiative started under Labor, and the credit goes to the member for Port Adelaide for her leadership on that front. I understand that it has been quite successful, so we welcome it being expanded or at least a pilot project looking at new ways of applying it. We look forward to hearing more about it.

We also welcome continued funding for continuous monitoring of screening, another great initiative under my colleague the member for Ramsay, a measure that ensures real-time detection of people who might pose a risk to children. We welcome the adoption of these elements of Labor's vision for child protection on top of the new legislation that is being rolled out, which is also a product of the Labor era. This is a vision we support because it was Labor's vision.

It was a central promise for this government to provide better services. I took that—and many did—to mean better services for all of us, including those who need the government's support the most: children, children without parents to care for them at home. Of all the people to let down, these children should not be the ones to have to bear the brunt of broken promises, but clearly they are. I would urge those on the other side to reflect on whether they think they are really providing better services to these children who need support the most and who need the services of this government the most.

Is it better for them to have 59 financial counsellors axed? Is it better for them to have 115 full-time workers cut? Is it better for them to have $20.6 million cut from the department's budget? Is it better for them to have financial support for foster carers stripped? Is it better for kinship carers to have to fight to get into a Christmas lunch? Is it better for the workplace rights of those working in the department to be trampled or for 24-hour rosters or for uncertain employment? Is it better for them for workers hired to address case backlogs and assess kinship carers to be dismissed before their jobs are done?

Is it better for them to have a minister who is playing golf with her friends, rather than meeting with the guardian or the commissioner? Is it better for them to have a minister who says she is simply not responsible for the Department for Child Protection? It is not. It is not better for those children. There are not better services for them, more jobs, lower costs or better services. There are not more jobs in child protection—there are fewer—with 115 full-time equivalents being axed. There are not lower costs but much higher costs for those who sacrifice their own time to care for children, and there are certainly not better services in child protection.

Vital services, like financial counsellors, are being shown the door. This is a government that is not only unconcerned about sticking to even a semblance of its election mantra but it is a government that has no vision to replace it with whatsoever.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (12:25): Once again, the hypocrisy of the government knows no bounds. That is unfair on the new members who are here because the new members were not here in previous years when the then opposition members, now government members, railed against appropriations for moneys that were not outlined in the budget. Mr Deputy Speaker, it is my sad duty to inform you that once again a government is appropriating money that is not set out in the budget. It is being held in contingency for matters that will be announced at a later date; that is, debts are being incurred now for a purpose of which the house has no knowledge.

Members previously railed against the former treasurer for attempting to procure money through appropriations without having all that money accounted for in the budget, yet now there is silence. There is silence from members opposite and silence from the critics of the former treasurer and the former government on this practice. Why? Because this government are experts at now increasing debt and not laying out the purpose for which that money is being spent.

I had intended to go through and critique a large number of the appropriation measures in the agency statements and the budget measures outlined by the Treasurer, but a new event has occurred. Things have changed. What occurred yesterday was that the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure announced the privatisation of our entire public transport network system. That is a wholesale breach of an election commitment made by all members—including you, Mr Deputy Speaker—that an incoming Marshall Liberal government did not have a privatisation agenda.

No doubt that reassured your constituents, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the constituents of all members opposite that the incoming government would not be the same as the Olsen and Brown governments that last governed in this state, when they made commitments not to privatise essential state utilities and then did. I was here in 1999 when ETSA was privatised. In the preceding 1997 election, the then premier and the then deputy premier (Hon. Graham Ingerson) ruled out categorically any notion that essential services, especially the Electricity Trust of South Australia, would be privatised.

Quite famously, the Hon. Graham Ingerson said, 'ETSA will not be sold'—full stop, unequivocal. Of course, history and events show a very different outcome. We were also told at the time of the privatisation of ETSA—and I think it is relevant for today's considerations of appropriation—and assured by members at the time of that privatisation, that prices would be strictly regulated and that there would be a net benefit for the people of South Australia. Sound familiar? It is exactly the same mantra we are hearing today from the government.

The government are claiming that the privatisation of our train and tram network will result in this magical formula, where the government will make savings yet services will improve; that is, less government money will be spent on this service yet, miraculously, there will be an improvement in amenity, in service, in frequency and in patronage but fares will not go up and there will be no additional costs to this whatsoever.

I have to say that I stopped believing in unicorns when I was a little boy. My daughters do—they are constantly searching for unicorns—but I did not think that the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure had not outgrown a childhood obsession with unicorns. Apparently, he still believes in unicorns. That could be just by virtue of his age, or it could be delusional, or it could be, of course, a lie.

Mr PEDERICK: Point of order: the member is quite obviously reflecting on the minister. I would ask him to withdraw and apologise.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens has said that the minister obviously believes in unicorns.

Mr PEDERICK: And he said 'a lie', sir.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Yes, it is.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. Member for West Torrens, you should not be putting words into the minister's mouth. I bring you back to the Appropriation Bill. I know you have some stuff you need to talk about today.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you very much. A wise adjudication, sir. I take your point, and I think you have set me straight. Again, I thank you for that.

It is impossible for any member of this house to take seriously someone who tells us that they can make savings on a public service and improve the reliability, the frequency, the amenity and the outcome of this. I said yesterday publicly that the minister is using childish and juvenile reasons to justify the privatisation of our tram and train network—juvenile reasons. Why? Because the concept that he wants South Australians to accept is that we will get a better outcome.

I submit to the parliament that the privatisation of our bus network was a disaster for this state, but of course once these matters are done, it is very difficult to undo them. I am cautioning the government now and asking them to reconsider what I think is an error, a juvenile error, an error that is, I think, simplistic and could be overcome very quickly if the government came to its senses.

Of course, there is another important matter that needs to be discussed and debated in this parliament, and that is the matter of a breach of faith with the public of South Australia. It was made very clear by the public sector in a public debate that the then opposition leader, the current Premier, attended with the former premier, the former member for Cheltenham, when they debated the future of South Australia, what their policies were, what their visions for the next four years were and what any potential new government, to be elected in 2018, would do.

It was put very clearly to the then opposition leader and now Premier: did he have an agenda to privatise SA Water? Did he have an agenda to lower the levels of public servants in the public sector? Did he have an agenda to privatise assets that he would be in charge of as the leader of this state? The answer was unequivocal. He did not have a privatisation agenda.

Indeed, he went on to talk about the benefits of public essential services and the benefits of a large public sector and how they were without a doubt one of the most important assets and tools of the state. For any employer your biggest asset are your employees. These documents and the money being appropriated by this house today lead us to fewer public servants and the privatisation of essential services.

You have to ask yourself this: were South Australians misled? Were they told something that was not true? When was this planned? Well, let's look at the government's track record. In April of this year—I think it was 20 April—the government announced a tender for Adelaide metropolitan bus services, and they split that tender. Within that tender there was no mention of rail or light rail services being included, yet the tender was split and it was announced to begin yesterday, 1 July. After previously being announced on 20 April, we heard yesterday that the light rail system would be included in that tender that conveniently opened yesterday.

I do not believe in coincidences; I do not believe that things happen by accident. I suspect that what occurred was the planning of the privatisation of our rail network was contemplated well before the budget. Indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker, I submit to you and the house that measures in this budget foresee the privatisation of our rail network. The money being appropriated by this bill would be larger had not the government attempted to outsource these services.

Interestingly, the Premier made public statements saying that there was no privatisation in this budget. It is just not true. Those statements were made outside the house, but they were made publicly. Assurances were given to the people of South Australia that there were no privatisations being contemplated in the budget.

Again, I say to the members of parliament who are here as backbenchers, who read these budget papers probably at the same time as I did, that they are being asked to do things to their communities and their electorates that they did not contemplate. Indeed, they are being asked to do things that they told their communities they explicitly would not do. But, of course, the future is in their hands. I do not think that government backbenchers understand the power that they actually have within a government. Governments rely on majorities. I think former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull put it best: 'the iron laws of arithmetic'. Numbers matter. Without numbers, nothing in this place can happen.

I say to the members who have light rail and rail services going through their electorates—the members for Morphett, Davenport, Waite, Black and Gibson—those members, although two of them are in the cabinet, have extraordinary abilities now to protect their constituents from these privatisations. If they will not protect their constituents, perhaps the other iron rule of politics, self-interest, will kick in and they will think about their own political futures.

Matthew Abraham, who is probably the father of the press gallery in this state, along with Mike Smithson, quite ably wrote an article that this Treasurer has cut the umbilical cord to the electorate. The Treasurer is flying off into the sunset in just over two years' time. He is not recontesting the next election. His fortunes are no longer linked to the government and to the members who are members of that government. His fortunes are now linked to history. He is chasing something completely different from what members who occupy this house are chasing. He is chasing a set of numbers.

He is chasing acknowledgement of the finances of this state, and I think he has led members opposite into ruin. We are heading into record debt, a debt to revenue ratio that has nearly doubled from what the government inherited. I do not know how any member opposite can sit calmly and quietly while knowing that they are increasing the state's debt to a level unprecedented in the state's history—unprecedented—and they are doing it willingly. They claim, because they have budget surpluses—they claim they have budget surpluses—that debt levels are acceptable.

The former state government ran a debt to revenue ratio that must always be below 35 per cent; that is, as a measure of household debt, if you are looking at an ordinary household, if your income was $100,000, the maximum debt you could incur would be up to $35,000. This government is taking our debt to revenue ratio close to 100 per cent and members opposite are calmly voting for all these measures, supporting these measures.

We had the incredible situation where the Treasurer of this state actually informed the public that this debt would not be reconciled or paid off in his lifetime—in his lifetime. That is an extraordinary thing for a Treasurer to say—a Treasurer who is retiring, a Treasurer who has broken faith with the people of South Australia, a Treasurer who did not tell anyone before the election that he would rack up such debt.

I will go further. Going through the budget papers, I suspect that members opposite are borrowing money now, appropriating money, to pay wages. They are claiming that they are appropriating money and borrowing money—'good debt', as they like to say—to be spent on infrastructure. Yet there is a discrepancy between their debt and their infrastructure spend. What is that money being spent on? We can only assume that that money is spent on the recurrent costs of government.

The former government did not borrow money to spend on recurrent expenses once in its entire 16 years—never, not once. Yet here we are, 15 months into this new government, and the debt burden that they are saddling South Australians with is dramatic, on top of privatisations they did not warn South Australians would occur, on top of abandoning a precedent set by treasurers—Stephen Baker, Rob Lucas, Kevin Foley, Jack Snelling, Jay Weatherill and myself—for using a formula for the indexing of fees and charges. Why? A couple of reasons.

The reason that every government from the State Bank on, until yesterday, 1 July, indexed those fees and charges according to that formula was (1) to give certainty to business, to give certainty to South Australians that there was a formula that treasurers would use so there would be no arbitrary increases in fees and charges just to suit the time of the current Treasurer. Inflation can go up and it can go down, but in running an inflation rate at about 1.3 per cent—it is lower in metropolitan Adelaide—how does a government justify increases of between 5 per cent and 60 per cent to 70 per cent? On what basis? On GST writedowns?

It is not the first time there have been GST writedowns. But, by abandoning that formula, they open themselves up again to this ridicule and criticism that they have no agenda and that they are simply scrambling to borrow money to pay for recurrent expenses. Members of the backbench, some of them from quite distinguished previous careers, are now being forced to go out and sell this pile of rubbish to the people of South Australia.

While I am on rubbish—the temerity of a government that wanted to cap council rates to then impose an increase on taxes on those councils after their budgets had been set that they could not recoup other than through raising rates! The hypocrisy knows no bounds. I can understand the anger in those local communities. I can understand the anger of those councils. Many members might not understand how the rating system works, but some do because they were on councils.

A rating system is based on a council consulting with its community about its budget, understanding what its asset base is—that is, its rateable assets—and then fixing a rate to raise the money that they have set out for their budget. When you add costs afterwards, it is not like they get taxes, fees and charges that they have not accounted for. They have to raise their rates to meet the difference.

Every time someone's rates go up now in South Australia, the people they can thank are the member for King, the member for Morphett, the member for Heysen and, unfortunately, you, Mr Deputy Speaker, because this government has imposed on councils changes that they have not contemplated, despite having criticised the former government for introducing this levy and increasing it to levels. There was a difference: the councils were consulted. At least, that was my understanding. I have to say that, by and large, the government has got itself into some very difficult times indeed.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL (Mawson) (12:45): Firstly, I apologise for the standard of dress. I have just jumped off a plane from Kangaroo Island. I did a site visit in Kingscote around the wharf this morning, so I have not had time to jump into the suit and tie.

Mr Pederick: I can lend you a jacket, mate.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Yes, actually, you are probably the only bloke who would have a jacket in my size, member for Hammond. I thank you very much for your generosity. You are always a very nice fellow who helps out his fellow travellers.

There is a lot of disappointment, heartbreak and anger on Kangaroo Island about this government. Of all the areas in South Australia, Kangaroo Island has been singled out by this government for the most pain. Having spent the past couple of days over there—I was there last week and the week before that as well—there is absolute anger at this Marshall Liberal government for the way they are treating people on the island. People are wondering: does anyone in this Marshall cabinet even know what Kangaroo Island does?

I think the Premier has been there once since the election. I do not think he left the airport. He came over and opened an airport that we committed the funding for. He was all very happy to take the credit for that. But you cannot just fly in on a chartered flight, stand there and try to up the stakes of Georgina Downer, who they were dragging on stage and trumpeting in the lead-up to last year's Mayo by-election. You have to do more than that. You have to come over and spend time in an area that needs all the help it can get, not having everything pulled from this very special part of South Australia.

Last night, in Kingscote the Commissioner for Kangaroo Island held the first of four forums they will be hosting over the next three days on Kangaroo Island—there will be another one at Parndana, Penneshaw and American River—to talk about life after the Commissioner for Kangaroo Island. The Commissioner for Kangaroo Island was set up after a parliamentary inquiry, after a couple of years of the Economic Development Board looking into it. It evolved out of the Kangaroo Island Futures organisation. A lot of hard work went into it, but this government decided that it would just throw it out.

Talking to members opposite, part of the thought process behind that was not that it was not doing a good job for the people of Kangaroo Island, not that it was not doing a good job for the various sectors on Kangaroo Island. They wanted to get rid of it because no other part of South Australia had a commissioner. That is like saying to people that just because you have running water in your part of the state and no-one else has we are going to turn the running water off in your part of the state.

Perhaps a more mature approach would have been to come up with a commissioner for the Murray and perhaps a commissioner for the South-East of South Australia, who would work across into western Victoria as well, jointly funded by the Victorian government and the South Australian government. I am not sure what the answers are for those parts of South Australia that could benefit from having a commissioner. By and large, the Commissioner for Kangaroo Island did a good job in terms of having contact with ministers, having contacts with senior people within government departments.

I will tell you something that obviously the ministry does not get. Kangaroo Island is 4,500 square kilometres and it has 4,500 people. It is separated by a sea crossing that you have to do either by air or by ferry, and that brings with it a set of circumstances and challenges that do not exist anywhere else in South Australia, so perhaps having a commissioner makes a bit of sense. In fact, we thought it made a lot of sense, and I want to thank the former deputy premier John Rau for the persistence that he put into coming up with some sort of solution.

Last night, at this forum in Kingscote, we looked at what life will be like after the demise of the Commissioner for Kangaroo Island. It was such a pity to talk to people in the room, to see all the momentum that had been built up and to know that it is going to be taken away. People in all sorts of places around not just South Australia but anywhere in the world get a bit fatigued with people coming up with new systems that they have to get on board with. Here we had something that was working, that had momentum behind it and that was only going to get better as time went on, and it has been ripped away from the people of Kangaroo Island.

Another thing that is heartbreaking for people on Kangaroo Island is the absolute lack of knowledge that the tourism minister of South Australia, David Ridgway, has about the visitor economy. They can feel the place going backwards. They say that, from 2013 through until last year, there was momentum and the bookings were great, but now they are seeing a real drop-off in visitor numbers on Kangaroo Island. They are very worried about what the future holds under a tourism minister who does not get it. He does not get it, and that is the scariest bit of all.

If you do not get it, at least listen to the people who are running the South Australian Tourism Commission. I can tell you what they are saying. They are totally frustrated with this government. They say that the $11 million that was ripped out of the visitor economy and the tourism budget last year by the Liberal Party has had an amazingly negative impact on tourism in South Australia. In this budget, we had the government putting out a press release promising this and that. Do you know what the senior executives in the South Australian Tourism Commission are saying about this year's budget? They are saying that it is all smoke and mirrors and that the minister does not know what he is doing.

They do not know how they are going to look after the 18,000 businesses in South Australia that rely on or are part of the South Australian visitor economy. They do not know how the visitor economy is going to support the 40,000 people who are directly employed because of the tourism sector. They are worried sick about an area that, from 2013 through to the election last year, we built up from $4.9 billion worth of value to $6.8 billion. What did we see? Within a year of these guys coming into government it has gone backwards by $100 million.

Anyone here who lives in regional South Australia and who represents regional South Australia has to be worried about this because 44 per cent of the spend in the visitor economy is spent in regional South Australia. There are people employed in the tourism sector in Ceduna, Port Lincoln, Renmark, Barmera, Mount Gambier, Penola, Naracoorte, up and down Yorke Peninsula, Kangaroo Island, McLaren Vale, Barossa, Flinders Ranges, Clare and right around this state because 44 per cent of what was $6.8 billion, now down to $6.7 billion, is spent in regional South Australia.

If I were on the backbench of the Liberal Party and I were from regional South Australia, I would be having a fair crack at this. No matter where you live in South Australia, I would also be asking the tourism minister, 'What's happening with international flights in and out of South Australia?' Never mind the fact that we brought in Emirates, China Southern and Qatar Airways, I am actually worried that we might be in danger of losing some of those airlines. Since the election, we have seen Emirates downgrade the aircraft they use on the route and we have seen them do fewer flights in and out of Adelaide.

Every time those flights land in South Australia, they bring tens of thousands of visitors from around the world into our state to spend money. The best money we can have in our state is money out of the pockets, purses, wallets and handbags of people from interstate and overseas. If we do not look after the relationships we have with these international airlines, we will lose them. If we do not continue the commitment to spend money on marketing South Australia and to put money into infrastructure in the visitor economy, we will have a poorer product and we will lose those flights.

The other side of this great value boost to South Australia—we have the visitors coming in from around the world—is that each one of those aircraft takes about eight tonnes of cargo out with it. Our premium produce from all around South Australia is airfreighted from here to all parts of the world. That is a very good thing to have, but it is very hard to do it if you then have to road transport your produce. Whether it is seafood or some other perishable commodity that needs to be out of South Australia as quickly as possible, it is diminished if it has to be airfreighted; you lose valuable time taking it to Melbourne or Sydney.

There is no visitor information centre on Kangaroo Island. Can you believe that? This government, since the election, has allowed the closure of the visitor information centre on Kangaroo Island. I cannot believe it. I think it is a disgrace. The jewel in our visitor economy, in our tourism drawcards, has no visitor information centre. It is a disgrace.

If I were part of a government that had a minister who knew so little about tourism and who cared so little about tourism I would be saying, 'I want to put my hand up, Mr Marshall, Mr Premier. I want to put my hand up. I want to be the tourism minister because I believe this is a growth industry and I believe this is an industry that employs and supports communities right around South Australia.'

All you people on the backbench, how about you sharpen your pencils and get your résumés ready, because the bloke who is doing the job now is an absolute failure at it. You can talk to people on Kangaroo Island and you can talk to people in other parts of my electorate down in McLaren Vale; they are as one, that this guy has absolutely no idea.

Let's have a look at some other things on Kangaroo Island that this government has hit. For years and years our government was committed to a rebate on registration; if you lived on Kangaroo Island it cost you 50 per cent of the total registration cost to register your vehicle. From yesterday, that has gone up by 25 per cent, and next year the rebate will be gone altogether; they will be paying 100 per cent.

If you are farmer and you want to get your tipper registered, it would normally be $1,500 if you are on Kangaroo Island; now it is $3,000. It is hard enough to eke out a living and support your staff and support your family on Kangaroo Island without these further imposts that this government—that does not know Kangaroo Island, that does not understand Kangaroo Island, that does not care about Kangaroo Island—has imposed over there.

There is a group called the Road Safety Group on Kangaroo Island. It is a group of very thoughtful, well-meaning people; it was actually a group organised and founded by Andy Gilfillan, the Liberal candidate for the seat of Mawson in the last election. That group, like other road safety groups around the state, gets a grant each year of $500—yes, $500—to help with the photocopying, to help with a few other administrative charges, $500. This mean, uncaring Marshall government had ripped that $500 from these volunteers, who quite often have to travel more than a 100-kilometre round-trip to get to and from meetings.

All they are trying to do is make the roads on Kangaroo Island safer. They are being the voice. They are the people who can provide valuable insights into the roads and conditions on Kangaroo Island for the councils, the state governments. These people are at the coalface; they know what is happening. They are already giving up their time, often away from their families and their businesses and farms, to help their fellow Kangaroo Islanders, to help all the visitors who come to Kangaroo Island. A lousy $500 is all they have got, and this government has taken that away.

It has taken away the visitor information centre, it has taken away the number of tourists who are going to Kangaroo Island, it has taken away the Commissioner for Kangaroo Island. Steven Marshall, this Premier, and this government do not give two hoots about the people of Kangaroo Island, and I can tell the house that in 2022, at the next election, the people of Kangaroo Island will remember. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00.