Parliamentary Committees

Economic and Finance Committee: Investment Attraction Policies

Mr PATTERSON (Morphett) (11:01): On behalf of the member for Waite, I move:

That the fourth report of the committee, entitled South Australian Investment Attraction Policies, be noted.

In June 2018, the Economic and Finance Committee resolved to inquire into and report on South Australian investment attraction policies. Through this inquiry there was an excellent level of engagement on this topic, with the committee hearing from a wide range of businesses, community groups and industry groups, as well as state and local governments. The committee received 27 written submissions and heard from 47 witnesses across nine public hearings. This included a hearing in Salisbury on 9 October 2018 and another at Murray Bridge on 11 October 2018.

The aim of this inquiry was to examine South Australia's current and previous investment attraction policies, consider future South Australian investment attraction opportunities and also examine best practice models for investment attraction in places in other jurisdictions. For the purposes of the inquiry, investment attraction is defined as the act of facilitating growth in the South Australian economy, either by attracting new businesses and investors into South Australia or by encouraging existing South Australian businesses to expand their operations.

South Australian investment attraction can be achieved in several different ways, which include expanding existing South Australian businesses, moving a business from overseas or another Australian jurisdiction to South Australia, establishing a new office or business arm in South Australia, buying a share in an existing South Australian business or purchasing assets located in South Australia such as land or housing.

Investment attraction is an important indicator of a jurisdiction's overall economic performance. Being able to attract new businesses either setting up here in South Australia or from other jurisdictions to invest in our state, as well as encouraging the existing businesses to invest further, does help to generate employment and, in turn, economic growth.

The inquiry initially set out to examine a number of specific investment attraction programs. By way of reference, in 2017-18, there were 30 different funding streams for businesses in South Australia, through which 932 proponents were offered either a loan or a grant, with $260 million in grants and $162 million in loans offered.

During the course of the inquiry, the South Australian government announced a number of changes to investment attraction policies, including moving the functions of Investment Attraction South Australia to the new Department for Trade, Tourism and Investment and also replacing the existing programs with a new framework for industry assistance which would be focused on economic fundamentals.

Three new funds were created and these will target proposals that have broader benefits for an industry sector or a number of businesses. These funds include the $60 million over four years Regional Growth Fund and the $100 million over four years Economic and Business Growth Fund, which aims to promote economic growth by 'encouraging growth of existing business, developing new industries, building international connections, and attracting foreign and national direct investment'.

The third fund is the $27.9 million over four years Research, Commercialisation and Startup Fund. One of the submissions we heard from outlined its aims to support South Australian businesses to collaborate with researchers and universities to solve industrial problems, commercialise new products and services, attract research infrastructure investment into the state and encourage the establishment and growth of start-ups. It will also support the activities of the Chief Entrepreneur and the establishment of an innovation incubation and growth hub as part of the former Royal Adelaide Hospital, which is now known as Lot Fourteen.

Members will have noticed much activity occurring there over the short time that it has been running. We have had the national Space Agency set up there, which is very exciting, Mission Control then coming, and also the SmartSat CRC. So they are some of the examples. The CRC will use research from universities to try to commercialise that into a new and exciting growth industry in South Australia.

As I mentioned, the committee heard that these new funds will aim to create a more efficient lower cost business environment to allow all businesses to flourish rather than provide funding to individual businesses. Some of the evidence that the committee collected related to the funds that have now been closed. The committee heard from several businesses about the strengths and also drawbacks of these programs.

To touch on the strengths, these included having a dedicated investment attraction agency or a one-stop shop. By way of example, David McKay, the Chief Operating Officer of Thomas Foods International, whom the member for Hammond knows well, appeared at our Murray Bridge public hearing and confirmed this by saying:

As you can appreciate, it's better to be having an arm of government perform that function as opposed to a consultant on the outside, because they can just cut through and get answers on infrastructure, whether it's out of ETSA, DPTI, the gas people and so on and so forth. It's significant how quickly and efficiently they can do it and how quickly and efficiently they have done it. So we are big supporters of their function, which is a positive.

He was speaking in regard to a one-stop shop. Other strengths were that by employing staff who have significant experience those staff are able to support businesses navigating the various government approval processes, also focusing on the areas of competitive advantage that South Australia has.

We heard from Deloitte, which provided the committee with a series of reports it produced, which highlighted that South Australia's future economic growth will be underpinned by those industries in which the state has a competitive advantage. Another strength outlined was working closely with the Australian Trade and Investment Commission (Austrade) to help attract overseas investments.

At the 24 October 2018 public hearing, the committee heard from Mr Patrick Kearins, the State Director of South Australia at the Australian Trade and Investment Commission, which is the federal government's trade, investment and education promotion agency. Mr Kearins highlighted the following sectors in which he believed South Australia had a competitive advantage: advanced manufacturing and future industries, international health services, food and agribusiness, tourism, and international education.

The committee also heard that the other aspect of investment attraction was to be proactive and undertake detailed research on investors and potential investors. Not only do we identify our strengths but we also go out and try to attract businesses that take up those strengths. We heard evidence submitted about how to go about this: as they are growing, how are they growing? Where are they growing? What technology are they using? Are they looking at Australia? Are they looking at Asia?

If we think that the answers to all these are yes, then we will start contacting them and start trying to build a relationship with those customers. A proactive approach is very important in terms of developing a quality pipeline and a pipeline down the road. It is certainly something that does not come off immediately, but it pays dividends in the long term.

The committee also heard of some specific barriers and drawbacks to the previous investment attraction programs. These included overly onerous application processes and ongoing reporting requirements, a perceived focus on picking winners and providing grants to individual businesses instead of improving the overall business environment.

Business SA was one of the witnesses and they stated that they did not oppose direct assistance to businesses in the case of market failures related to government policy interventions; however, recent growth in grants and loans has extended well beyond what is in the best long-term interest of all South Australians taxpayers, including local businesses. There must be confidence to back the ability of all businesses to create opportunities in the right environment and not continue trying to engineer outcomes by picking individual winners through direct financial support.

Other submissions suggested that the prevalence of direct financial assistance to individual firms in South Australia has led to a culture of local firms relying on and expecting financial support from government. Further, this approach has created an opportunity for businesses to forum shop between agencies and obtain multiple sources of and avenues for assistance. There were also discussions and submissions around a focus on investments that would have occurred without government assistance.

Finally, there was a lack of attention paid to supporting businesses already located in South Australia. The committee heard from several respondents to the inquiry that a current drawback of South Australian investment attraction policies was the focus on foreign and interstate investment attraction, while little attention was paid to supporting businesses already located in South Australia.

Regional Development Australia, Murraylands and Riverland, submitted that it was important to strike a balance between local and non-local investment attraction opportunities. They noted by way of example that a recent study in Oregon, USA, through Economic Development for Central Oregon, showed that $300 million of investment made by current businesses operating in the region was 40 per cent greater than those who were attracted to move headquarters or do start-up initiatives. Again, that underlines the importance of also creating an environment for our existing businesses here in South Australia.

Further, the recent Joyce review into South Australia's international and interstate engagement emphasised the need to look to shift the focus from:

...providing government subsidies to companies, to curating investment opportunities for investors to consider, and to helping investors to navigate state processes quickly to enable their investment in the state.

I will now touch on some of the broader barriers and challenges to attracting investment to the state. These included red tape and over-regulation; high energy and waste removal costs; a lack of technology infrastructure, such as high-speed internet; a lack of access to appropriately skilled labour and poor coordination of this; and, finally, collaboration across levels of government.

There are also investment attraction issues faced by regional South Australia. Again, we heard from Regional Development Australia that in South Australia 25 per cent of the population reside outside the capital city and contribute 54 per cent to the state's economy through leading industries in agriculture, tourism and mining.

As regional South Australia is such a large part of the economy, it was certainly important for the committee to understand that it faces several additional barriers and challenges in attracting investment and that we certainly should be looking to support our regions. These challenges included workforce shortages; a lack of government infrastructure investment across all areas, including both economic and social infrastructure; some planning and zoning issues; and also a lack of cross-government coordination.

The committee also identified some industry-specific investment attraction challenges as part of the inquiry. Some were faced by early-stage technology companies, where there were issues that other businesses may not face such as access to capital, management expertise and some incubator facilities, but also the speed of decision-making there at the cutting edge of technology. Months count with these businesses, and sometimes we were hearing back that the process took six to 12 months, by which time it was really too late, untimely. We also heard about opportunities for further investment in the property industry, such as the build-to-rent scheme occurring interstate.

After considering the issues raised, the committee made a total of eight recommendations to help inform this government's new approach to investment attraction. These recommendations will reinforce the strengths but also work to address the barriers of past programs. Several recommendations also support the conclusions of the recent review conducted by the Hon. Steven Joyce into South Australia's international and interstate engagement. The recommendations include:

ensuring that the Department for Trade, Tourism and Investment continues to provide a one-stop shop for industry and focus on industries where South Australia has a competitive advantage;

reducing red tape to assist businesses to maximise investment opportunities, particularly in regional areas;

supporting regional infrastructure projects; and

exploring opportunities to better support investment in early-stage technology companies and the property industry.

On behalf of the committee, I express my thanks and appreciation to all parties who provided written submissions or who appeared before the committee and provided oral evidence, many of whom travelled considerable distances to do so. I thank the member for Hammond, who sits here today, for also highlighting key issues facing his electorate; he appeared while we were at Murray Bridge.

I also express my gratitude to the City of Salisbury and the Rural City of Murray Bridge, for hosting public hearings at their respective council chambers, and to Beston Pure Foods, for providing members with a fascinating site visit of their Murray Bridge dairy facility. I commend the members of the Economic and Finance Committee for their work and contributions, and I commend the committee's report to the house.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON (Ramsay) (11:17): I am not the lead speaker; the shadow treasurer will take that role.

The SPEAKER: I do not believe we have any lead speakers in private members' business, but—

Mr Pederick: You have 10 minutes.

The SPEAKER: Thank you.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise today to speak on the tabling of the fourth report of the Economic and Finance Committee, which inquired into South Australian investment attraction policies. The Economic and Finance Committee is tasked with examining matters in relation to South Australian finances or economic development. This is a committee with an important role: acting to inform and advise on policy formation directly related to economic growth, jobs and prosperity for the people of South Australia.

Economic growth should be the undeniable bipartisan goal of every member of the South Australian parliament. It was therefore very disappointing when the government members of the Economic and Finance Committee determined to use this committee as a witch-hunt in an attempt to discredit the extensive investment attraction and business development programs developed under the previous Labor government. Furthermore, many of these investment attraction programs—

Mr PATTERSON: Point of order: casting aspersions on committee members' motives.

The SPEAKER: Would the member Ramsay just repeat what she said?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I used the term 'witch-hunt'.

The SPEAKER: I am going to allow that as part of the political argy-bargy. I do take the member for Morphett's concerns on board, though, and ask the member for Ramsay not to impute improper motives to individuals. I will be listening very carefully to future contributions.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Many of these investment attraction and business development programs were closed before this inquiry was even complete, signalling that this Liberal government had already decided to shut down these programs. They were hoping to use this inquiry as a smokescreen to justify this decision after the fact.

I would like to take the time to thank the extremely professional and non-partisan secretariat for their work throughout this inquiry. What emerged from this very detailed inquiry—which received evidence from 27 written submissions and heard from 47 witnesses in nine public hearings across the state—was a different story and indeed a more complex one than the government wanted to hear.

What emerged was that the former Labor government had a clear objective about our goals in terms of investment attraction and that they funded a number of programs to achieve them, programs like the Investment Attraction South Australia agency (IASA) and the Northern Economic Plan whose goal was to increase employment and diversify our economy post the closure of Holden and the resulting dismantling of our vehicle manufacturing industry. We knew that it was important to provide leadership and direction for the future, as well as focus on our areas of strength during this time of economic transition.

The committee tasked itself with the following: (a) an assessment of the former Labor government's investment attraction policies, including their relative successes, challenges and things to improve; and (b) specific details on how to create a more efficient and lower cost business environment to encourage more private investment.

Let me first direct my attention to IASA. IASA's key focus was to capture foreign direct investment, which global examples show leads to job creation and business growth. It was tasked with attracting large interstate and overseas companies to relocate to or expand their operations in South Australia. The agency also provided support to new projects that delivered significant economic benefits to our state.

In the 2017-18 budget, we committed an additional $60 million over four years to attract new businesses to the state, promote job creation and develop key industry sectors. Comprising $30 million of grants through 2017-18 and 2018-19, and $30 million in low interest loans over 2019-20 and 2020-21, some of the early successes of IASA included investment attraction and new jobs at international aerospace company Boeing; IT giant NEC; food processor Ingham's; and IT services provider Datacom.

IASA also had strategic focus on specific growth industries: shipbuilding and defence, renewable education and mining, tourism, food and wine, health and biomedical research, IT and advanced manufacturing. IASA assisted 36 projects, securing and announcing more than $2 billion worth of investment projects in the state and creating approximately 9,000 jobs. Independent estimates and analysis showed that it contributed an extra $9 billion in economic activity over 10 years.

IASA's success was achieved primarily through case management assistance. The committee heard from a number of stakeholders, including Business SA, Costa and Thomas Foods, who reinforced that the key benefit of IASA was a centralisation of functions into a single agency that could assist businesses in navigating government approval processes—a one-stop shop for advice, assistance and support. Costa noted, and I quote:

…the IASA model therefore provides South Australia with a genuine competitive advantage in its ability to attract capital investment that also creates meaningful and lasting employment.

Vanessa Liebelt, Executive Officer, Murraylands Food Alliance stated about IASA:

We have seen it in action over the last year. It was Investment Attraction that worked with a number of our large businesses to assist and navigate some of that complexity and actually come to fruition with some of our businesses here today to actually invest and develop and continue operations or expand their operations. It is very important that that level of case management is provided because it helps navigate the complexity.

There was ample evidence to the committee that not only did the IASA model work but it provided South Australia with a genuine competitive advantage. In a very competitive world, it is important that our ability to attract capital investment is there for the future.

So what did the Marshall Liberal government do in the middle of this inquiry? They cut IASA: it was to be there no longer for all South Australians to look for a one-stop shop. They decided to incorporate it into the Department for Trade, Tourism and Investment. What we heard very clearly from many, many submissions is that this one-stop shop gave the personalised case management services, as well as information about the grants and funding, that needed to happen. That is what they wanted.

Let me talk about the Northern Economic Plan, which was a bipartisan plan devised to provide a pathway for the economic and social transformation of northern Adelaide for the next 10 years. It outlined how partnerships between businesses, industry, government and the community could be created to capitalise on those economic opportunities. The NEP included nearly $25 million of new initiatives aimed at accelerating job creation and diversification.

The City of Salisbury told the committee that the NEP and the governance supporting it provided a focus for collaboration on regional economic matters and structure for cross-government and cross-agency coordination. But, alas, when I asked the Minister for Industry and Skills in 2018, he told the estimates committees that the NEP would be subject to review in consultation with stakeholders. That review, apparently, is continuing, but we all know that the NEP is dead.

The two key investment attraction funds—the Small Business Development Fund and the Food Park Business Development Fund—have been cut. This was despite the committee receiving evidence that, under the Small Business Development Fund, $8.7 million had been awarded to over 180 businesses, with the grant reports confirming that 277 new full-time jobs had been created, with almost the same again anticipated to be created from the outstanding grants. That is more than 500 full-time jobs for South Australians that otherwise would not have been created. I think it is important for us to acknowledge the great work by IASA and how important the Northern Economic Plan was and, unfortunately, they are both dead.

We have recently seen a restructure of DTTI and we have seen cuts, cuts, cuts. We heard, though, two key recommendations: a one-stop shop with a single door and to look on the competitive advantage that we have. We also wanted to cut red tape. These were all happening under the previous program, but I do express my concern, and I will leave members with this about the recommendations: if the case management services were so important, why are we cutting case management from DTTI; and, if cutting red tape is a priority, why is the funding for the State Coordinator General being cut at the end of this year? We now have 7.3 per cent unemployment. There are no winners at all.

Time expired.

Mr COWDREY (Colton) (11:28): I rise today to make a contribution to this debate on the fourth report of the Economic and Finance Committee, entitled South Australian Investment Attraction Policies. As has been said, in June last year the Economic and Finance Committee resolved to inquire into South Australian investment attraction policies. We held nine public hearings, received 27 written submissions, heard from 47 witnesses across the inquiry and travelled to Salisbury and Murray Bridge on 9 and 11 October 2018 respectively. The purpose of this inquiry was to scrutinise South Australia's current and previous investment attraction policies, to consider future South Australian investment attraction opportunities and to examine best practice models for investment attraction in place in other jurisdictions.

In contrast to the member for Ramsay's assertions, the government members' interests were simply to improve the activities in investment attraction in this state after hearing for years and years about the faults of the former Labor government's programs. The inquiry initially set out to examine a number of specific investment attraction policies and programs, and at that point in time 30 different funding streams were available to businesses in South Australia.

During the course of the inquiry (as has been noted), and as a result of the Steven Joyce review into South Australia's investment attraction activities, the government announced a number of changes to investment attraction policies, including replacing existing programs and streamlining them into just three new funds. The committee heard that these new funds aimed to create a more efficient, lower cost business environment to allow all businesses to flourish, rather than provide funding to individual businesses. Also, the functions of the Investment Attraction South Australia unit—previously described as having disappeared—were simply moved into the Department for Trade, Tourism and Investment.

Most of the evidence that the committee collected related to the funds that have since been closed, but there were several businesses, local government organisations and peak bodies who set out the strengths, drawbacks and weaknesses of those programs. The strengths have already been well described, including the one-stop shop or single-agency concept. The staff within Investment Attraction are now within the Department for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Certainly, their skill sets were very well regarded by those in our business community. Focusing on areas of competitive advantage was set out as a clear strength, as was working closely with the Australian Trade and Investment Commission (Austrade) to attract overseas investment.

Negatives and drawbacks to the previous investment attraction programs included a perceived focus on picking winners and providing grants to individual businesses instead of improving the overall business environment in our state, a focus on investments that otherwise would have occurred without government assistance, a lack of attention paid to supporting businesses already located in South Australia, a lack of awareness of the programs offered, and confusion due to the high number of programs and an overly onerous application process and ongoing reporting requirements.

Broader barriers that were identified to attracting investment to the state included red tape and over-regulation, a lack of technology infrastructure, a lack of access to appropriately skilled labour and poor coordination, and collaboration across local, state and federal governments. The committee also heard that regional South Australia faced several additional barriers and challenges in terms of attracting investment. These included workforce shortages, a lack of government infrastructure and investment across all areas, including economic and social infrastructure, planning and zoning issues and a lack of cross-governmental coordination.

After considering the issues raised before the committee, the committee made a total of eight recommendations to help inform the government's new approach to investment attraction. These recommendations reinforce the strengths, but also address the shortcomings and weaknesses of past programs. Several recommendations also support those conclusions reached by Mr Joyce in his review of investment attraction activities.

The recommendations include ensuring the Department for Trade, Tourism and Investment retains the one-stop shop concept; staying focused on reducing red tape to assist businesses and to maximise investment opportunities, particularly in regional areas; supporting regional infrastructure projects; and exploring opportunities to better support investment in early-stage technology companies and the property industry. These recommendations were made to assist the South Australian government and to build on the strengths and ensure new programs can overcome those barriers.

Three new funds were created: the $100 million Economic and Business Growth Fund, the $60 million Regional Growth Fund and the $27.9 million Research, Commercialisation and Startup Fund. These funds all target proposals that have broader benefits for an industry sector or a number of businesses.

Specifically, the Economic and Business Growth Fund promotes economic growth by encouraging the growth of existing businesses in South Australia, and also focuses on developing new industry sectors, building international connections and attracting foreign and national direct investment. The Research, Commercialisation and Startup Fund—similar to what is included in its name—focuses on collaboration with researchers and universities to solve industrial problems and commercialise new products and services and to attract research, infrastructure and investment into our state. Finally, the Regional Growth Fund pursues new economic opportunities for regional South Australia and aims to build and strengthen regional communities.

There are a number of projects that were awarded funding from the Regional Growth Fund in 2019, including projects that went to the Apple and Pear Growers Association, the Coorong District Council, the Mid Murray Council and the Outback Communities Authority. Members will notice a clear change in where those project funds have gone: they have gone to organisations that look after areas or industry groups that look after several businesses.

Two examples of these changes taking positive effects are reflected in the private sector investment and job creation statistics. In June this year, South Australia recorded its highest ever levels of private business investment. Data released by the ABS highlighted that, in the 12 months to June 2019, $12.7 billion worth of private investment was reached—a total investment increase of 3.2 per cent for the year ending in June 2019. Over that very same period, other states recorded negative growth.

By way of job creation since the Marshall Liberal government came in in March 2018, nearly 15,000 more South Australians are in work, of which nearly 10,000 of those who have come to work are employed full-time, and 855,000 South Australians are now employed in our state. These are record levels of employment. The Marshall Liberal government has worked hard to ensure that businesses in South Australia have the right environment to grow economically and to create jobs so that we can keep our young South Australians here in our state.

We have also undertaken some significant reform in the area of skilled migration, with an understanding that one of the biggest weaknesses was providing a skilled workforce, particularly in regional areas and in some of our biggest growth sectors. Earlier this year, the Minister for Innovation and Skills signed two Designated Area Migration Agreements on behalf of the government, which put in place arrangements to more easily allow for people with the appropriate skills, focusing on two areas: the Adelaide City Deal and the Lot Fourteen precinct. They are around sectors like defence, space, advanced manufacturing and technology industries, supporting that innovation hub and the greater programs that are being undertaken on Lot Fourteen.

Importantly, the second is regional South Australia, where we heard time and time again examples of where businesses were just simply not able to access the workforce that they needed to undertake and grow their businesses. For example, it has been noted that two-thirds of South Australian meat processors, including those in regional South Australia, are running under capacity due to serious issues in local skill shortages.

With that, I express my thanks and appreciation to all the parties who provided written and oral submissions to the committee. I thank the member for Hammond for his contribution to the committee's work. I thank the other committee members and also the City of Salisbury and the City of Murray Bridge for hosting us during public hearings. I thank the businesses—Beston Pure Foods and a range of others—that hosted us over that time as well. I commend the committee's report to the house.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (11:38): I rise to speak on the report of the Economic and Finance Committee and its inquiry into investment attraction policies. No-one could be more disappointed in the outcomes of this inquiry and the report it has had to produce than those members opposite. The Economic and Finance Committee resolved to establish this inquiry because the Liberal members dominating that committee thought they were onto a winner here, that they would be able to use the parliament's resources to conduct an investigation into the investment attraction policies and the funds used to attract and promote business development here in South Australia for political advantage.

I know this, of course, because I attended one of the first Economic and Finance Committee meetings and I successfully moved that we establish an inquiry into online gambling and sports betting. It was the first inquiry that the committee resolved to undertake. Of course, at the next meeting, the Liberal members hastily concocted this idea to try to ensure that they would be able not only to dominate the agenda of the meetings of the committee but to try to score some political points while doing so.

How disappointed they have become. Despite calling witness after witness, public servants from the agencies that had been responsible for superintending the former Labor government's investment attraction programs, they were unfortunately unable to locate any of the dead bodies, figuratively speaking, they had thought they would. In fact, the evidence provided to the committee was overwhelmingly positive when it came to the results and outcomes of the investment attraction policies of the former Labor government.

We heard from business groups when they presented to the inquiry that taxation reform to benefit businesses was important. I thought to myself, 'Gee, I wonder if the $300 million a year of payroll tax relief delivered by the former Labor government would suffice? Would the $300 million a year in forgone stamp duty revenue every year from the abolition of stamp duty on commercial property transactions and business transactions qualify, or even the more than $200 million a year, each year, that businesses are saving due to reforms introduced by the former Labor government into the WorkCover scheme?'

Of course, despite the Premier repeatedly erroneously telling this place that he intends to bring the biggest land tax reforms to this parliament—they are certainly the biggest in terms of the biggest tax increases in the land tax regime—he fails to recognise the more than $130 million a year of land tax relief delivered by the former Labor government. If we move on to the actual investment attraction policies and programs that were run, the results speak for themselves about what the former Labor government was able to achieve.

The Investment Attraction SA body was established by the former Labor government and has been wound up and the chief executive sacked under the current Liberal government. This is their record: there was $64.8 million in grants and loans from the economic investment fund committed across 21 projects, resulting in 5,921 ongoing jobs, as well as additional capital investment from those organisations of $634 million. That is an outstanding result in anyone's language, an absolutely outstanding result.

If we think about the companies that were in receipt of this assistance, we are talking about the cybersecurity company VeroGuard Systems; Technicolor, a global post-production firm in the filmmaking industry; Babcock, the aviation company; Strike Energy; and PrimeQ. Of course, we only had to wait until the committee took evidence from the member for Hammond out in Murray Bridge to understand just how important these programs were to the regional economy surrounding Murray Bridge. Investments were made in Big River Pork, Blue Lake Dairy, Costa mushrooms, Ingham's and, even more locally, Robern Menz.

These were transformational industrial developments affecting an important regional community and regional economy in South Australia, none of which would have been possible without these investments. Of course, they have since become very popular, particularly with the Premier. He was asked in question time yesterday to name one company that is putting on jobs, and who did he say? Treasury Wine Estates. We should thank the member for Mawson for that because it was due to his advocacy that the former Labor government gave Treasury Wine Estates money for their new bottling and production plant, the same plant that the Premier is now claiming will produce more jobs in the economic recovery that he tries to claim credit for.

Even when it comes to the renewables and energy sector, we have Neoen and also Sonnen. The Minister for Energy is here. He, of course, likes to rebrand former Labor press releases, claim them as initiatives of his own and put those out as achievements of the current Liberal government when, in fact, they were achievements of the former Labor government. Speaking of the Minister for Energy, we have the $6 million that went to Sundrop Farms for their facility up in Port Augusta. I am sure he is not turning his back on the success of that. Of course, we also have the extensive amount of assistance that went to Thomas Foods International—

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan: I was fully supportive of that at the time. I advocated your former premier for exactly that.

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, you should thank the former premier—Jay Weatherill was his name—

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan: I did, I advocated—

The SPEAKER: Minister!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —the former member for Cheltenham—

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan: —to the former Premier for exactly that.

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —not only for their beef boning room upgrade but, of course, for their better access facilities for their Lobethal plant, a $16 million co-funded project with, of course, somebody who unfortunately, due to factionalism in the Liberal Party, was not able to make the full distance, and that is the former member for Mayo Jamie Briggs, someone we were able to work quite closely with. I have also mentioned Inghams Enterprises, but Primo smallgoods should also get a guernsey.

It was also important to note that these achievements were not only accounted by the Public Service, which continues to this day, but they were verified in a report that was commissioned by the government and completed by Ernst and Young, so you do not have to take my word for it; it has been independently assessed and verified. Of course, it was not only the economic investment fund. The regional development fund had more than 80 projects, which generated $387 million of value added to the economy and over 3,000 jobs in regional communities as well. Then there was the Future Jobs Fund with $44 million of grants and $35 million of loans, generating 4,138 jobs, with a total project value of $562.4 million.

Compare the record of achievement across those three programs with the paltry achievements that we are getting with what replaced them. We had the Premier boasting that he had cancelled 29 job creation and job promotion programs in his first budget, and it is no coincidence that the state's unemployment rate is now 7.3 per cent and the highest for the second month in a row of all states in the commonwealth. That is a shameful record. While we can have the selective quoting of figures saying, 'We have an extra 15,000 jobs,' that comes as cold comfort to the additional 17,000 South Australians who find themselves unemployed under the Marshall Liberal government's regime.

Yes, I would be stonily quiet, too, if I were on the government benches and that was the record of achievement I had to hang my hat on. This is what happens when a government walks away from regional development, walks away from broad-based industry assistant programs that are open generally to the whole community, not just there on a who-knows-who basis, not just there on the basis of, 'Well, I know the president of the Liberal Party, so that will get me a seat at the table to negotiate a $42 million loan for a taxpayer-funded hotel at Adelaide Oval.'

Even more remarkably, what do we see in the Sunday Mail but $28 million of taxpayers' funds going to support 20 jobs at an almond processing facility in the Riverland. That is value for money, is it? That is $1.47 million per FTE, supported by taxpayers' funds. It is just remarkable. That is the new policy we have when it comes to this Liberal government and picking winners. That is the shameful economic outcome and legacy they are leaving this state with. That is why I think this report hangs heavy on the current Liberal government and their record of non-achievement in industry development and economic output in this state.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:48): I rise to support the fourth report of the Economic and Finance Committee, entitled An Inquiry into South Australian Investment Attraction Policies. It is interesting to witness all the feigned outrage from the other side. I note that they did not have the time or the capacity to provide a dissenting report. From information provided to me, I know that it was discussed, but then the Labor members come in here with all this feigned outrage and yet they have signed off on this very report.

Yes, I was very pleased to host the Economic and Finance Committee in my seat of Hammond in Murray Bridge. They had a look at Beston's food plant. It was a bit sad, really. I would love to have hosted the members for Wright, Ramsay and Lee, but they were no-shows. So the whole Labor contingent were so interested in economic development in this state—and there is a lot going on in my seat of Hammond—that they could not bother to show up. We are an hour south-east of Adelaide, at Murray Bridge; I know to some that is a long way, but to me it is like a walk in the park. It just shows their total disregard for regional South Australia. We are so close to the urban environment.

Be that as it may, I just want to reflect on some of the businesses that are expanding—and some of these are beneficiaries of different investment attraction policies. We have Costa mushrooms with around a $70 million expansion to double their mushroom farm out at Monarto, a huge expansion with 200 jobs coming there. It has been approved. Construction has not started yet.

We have the RES energy Pallamana Solar Farm, which is a $350 million proposal. I have been involved with that because it is in very close proximity to the Murray Bridge airfield. I have had discussions with quite a few people, including the owner of the airfield, in regard to how that solar farm is structured. Yes, some people do not want it there at all, but as a result of RES's good thinking, when I went to them and said, 'You might want to shift some of these panels from the airstrip for emergency landings,' they did so, so I commend them for that. I know it still has not made some pilots happy, but I think we have a far better outcome there than we may have had otherwise.

We have the Ingham's feed mill development, a $40 million project just outside Murray Bridge, which is a great automated feed mill for the many, many chicken farms that surround Murray Bridge, at Monarto, out at Kepa Road. Also down at Yumali, not far from where I am at Coomandook, are the grower sheds, a multimillion dollar investment put in down there. It may be of interest to the house that every chicken shed that goes up—I think they are about 170 metres long, though I stand to be corrected—is an at least $1 million investment, because there is a whole lot of regulation that people investing in the chicken industry have to go through, not the least of which is the CFS requirements. I can understand, as a member of the CFS, why you have to have safety, but they are reasonably onerous.

There is another great development happening in my area, and it is off the back of other investment. This is the best thing, when you have private investors working off other investment. Everyone in here would be aware of the Tailem Bend motorsport park, and both federal and state governments put in some assistance funding, basically on the road entrances there. With that investment by Sam Shahin and the Peregrine Corporation, I know he initially said it was $110 million; now he admits $160 million. I would hate to be his hip pocket, because he just keeps investing, which is great, and it is a significant investment in my electorate. It is a great venue, and I note that the Ultimate Rally was there the other day, and they have events there pretty well every day of the week. They have the Enduro event for the V8s coming next year in September.

When you have these events, you need accommodation. Yes, there has been a caravan park set up out there, and there is some accommodation in Tailem Bend as well, but the beauty of it is that the Tregoning group that are building the new Bridgeport hotel had a conversation with Peregrine, and they are in the process of spending $40 million building a six-storey, at least four star accommodation—I thought initially it was 4½, but I think it is at least four star—with 99 rooms in a very significant place in Murray Bridge. I think the member for Mawson may have stayed in that hotel before.

What happened to the Bridgeport Hotel is a bit sad. Some people talked about the heritage aspect of it, but sadly it has been butchered by different architectural—if you want to go so far as to say that—arrangements with different tinwork and brickwork, which has taken away any heritage aspect. Thankfully, we have the right outcome in regard to that building in that it will be demolished and a new hotel built. The new bottle shop has pretty well been completed and the poker machines are going to be temporarily moved while the new build happens. I salute that private investment coming into my electorate.

The Gifford Hill racecourse opened up recently with an investment of $35 million, and what a fantastic venue. Trainers, jockeys and people involved in the horse industry tell me that not only is this track the best track in South Australia but it is the best track in Australia—not by any major planning, but the track is that good because it has been down about eight years. We were hoping to have the facilities built in that time, but we got there eventually. We have the greyhound track at Murray Bridge, with an investment of $8½ million, another great sporting attraction in Murray Bridge. We have the Tailem Bend solar farm that I opened a few months ago, a $200 million investment, and they are looking at doing another investment this time with panels that rotate to track the sun.

We have just had the recent announcement of the Monarto Safari Park; something I knew for quite a while was going to be announced—we just had to line up all the ducks—a $16.8 million investment into the visitor centre, co-funded by our state government and the federal government. It is great to see Gerry Ryan, head of Jayco, a Victorian investment, coming in with a $40 million investment on camping and glamping facilities so you can sleep among the lions. I think there will be some protection, so you will not actually be sleeping with a lion. It will be a fantastic opportunity for not just local visitors but also interstate and international visitors.

We have massive horticulture investment right throughout the electorate. We can look at what is happening around Lameroo, Parilla, Pinnaroo and north of there at Peebinga. We grow about 80 per cent of the country's potatoes and other products such as onions and carrots with huge multimillion-dollar investment in irrigation industries.

I want to comment on the Thomas Foods International rebuild. It was a real pity that this operation burnt down on 3 January 2018, but now they have their new site secured and they will invest, I believe, at least $200 million up to $400 million. That is buoyed by community infrastructure, and the Marshall Liberal government, and the Morrison federal government are co-contributing, in order to assist with roadworks, water access, gas and power. I believe this will open up a precinct into the future for those vital value-added food industries that contribute so much not just to my region but to the state. Obviously, the Thomas Foods complex is a national supplier.

So I commend the report—and I commend the committee members who did come down to visit me in my seat of Hammond—and wish it a speedy passage through the house.

Mr PATTERSON (Morphett) (11:58): I just sum up by saying that this inquiry certainly outlines some really important issues around investment attraction here in South Australia and how we can best benefit the state long term. Many of the submissions talked about setting in place the necessary environment so that all businesses can prosper, as opposed to selectively choosing direct financial assistance.

I refer to a comment in a previous submission: 'It's great if you are a business that gets direct financial assistance, but if you're not, then you are left behind and how can you compete?' This government's agenda is about setting up the economic conditions and having the right policies in place to encourage investment in all industries. I thank members for their contributions and I note the report.

Motion carried.