Bills

Appropriation Bill 2023

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 June 2023.)

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS (Black—Leader of the Opposition) (11:02): I rise today to begin the opposition's contribution to the state's recently handed down budget. It is the nature of these speeches that they can, from an opposition's point of view, be quite negative, so I want to begin by highlighting some of the things within the budget that I certainly support on behalf of the community that I represent, on behalf of the party that I lead and, I believe, on behalf of South Australia, because you cannot have a budget of such a quantum without aspects of it that are positive, that should be positive and that should be celebrated and championed and supported by both sides of parliament.

There are a number of things I want to highlight specifically in that field: the $6.2 million for additional road safety campaigns in the face of one of the most heartbreaking road tolls in South Australia for many years; likewise, the $3.8 million for the rider safety reform program to support motorcycle riders to travel on our roads in a safer fashion, because we know that far too many motorcycle riders are losing their lives on South Australian roads.

Speaking as a local member, I was heartened to see the $494,000 included in the state budget for the licensing scheme to be implemented for the ultra high-powered vehicles in our state, a direct response to the tragedy that befell the Naismith family, who I am proud to represent in this place and who were told by the previous government, of which I was part, that something like this was probably not possible.

I think that is a lesson to all of us: that bureaucrats can be challenged and that we need to lead from this place, because change can be implemented on behalf of the community. I was proud to see the government take up that initiative as an election commitment, not only pass the laws in this place but also back it up with a small but meaningful financial contribution in the state budget.

I want to congratulate the government on the implementation of the Office for AUKUS—such an important generational initiative, which I have made clear that my side of politics will give bipartisanship support for at every possible step of the way. That is why, as well as an Office for AUKUS, we would certainly like to see a committee of this parliament established. We are not seeking to have a majority on that committee by any means, but we would love to see the government agree to the formation of that committee.

The motion is before parliament at the moment; there will be another opportunity to vote for its formation later this week. I do hope that the government will follow on from the creation of the Office for AUKUS by supporting that initiative that we have in the house at the moment, in the spirit of bipartisanship around such an intergenerationally significant project in South Australia.

The Premier has said that AUKUS will last beyond the life of his government, beyond the life of future Liberal governments, back to Labor governments, back to Liberal governments and, as a consequence, that wholehearted and consistent bipartisanship is much needed. We will support the Office for AUKUS, but we hope it goes far beyond that as well.

We support the continued funding of the startup hub at Lot Fourteen: $20 million over four years, providing support, mentoring, grants and a coming together of our state's startup community at Lot Fourteen so that we can be the startup state. I believe that the state government has a vision for that, I hope they do, and that has a sense of bipartisanship built around it as well. I do wish that startup hub and every single person who participates in it, every single entity that participates in it, all the success, because their success is South Australia's success.

We support the fact that this budget included some relief for first-home buyers in the form of the removal of stamp duty on new homes and builds under $650,000. Time will tell if that goes far enough. It is certainly welcomed by South Australia's construction industry and will be welcomed by many first-home buyers. I do not believe that it necessarily goes far enough. The terms around that might be just a little too constricted to provide significant relief beyond a few thousand lucky first-home buyers. Let's hope the government is open to evaluating that program, ascertaining its effectiveness and seeing if it is going far enough to help South Australians into property ownership.

To own one's own home must be part of the Australian dream. We cannot let home ownership drift beyond the possibility of current generations or future generations. To be able to own one's home should be an aspiration for most Australians from childhood. I hope the government is open to continuing to evaluate and potentially move the goalposts on that commitment, should it not be delivering exactly what is needed.

There are many elements of this budget that the party I lead will speak in support of. I am sure my colleagues on this side of the house will make contributions over the coming sitting days where they will highlight things they were pleased to see. But, of course, there are a number of areas where we think the government has missed the mark.

This budget has built into it an extremely concerning level of fiscal ill-discipline. We know that it has missed the mark in terms of delivering a surplus, and in fact the deficit of almost one-quarter of a billion dollars sets this state up for some significant fiscal uncertainty into the future. The way the government blew their budgets—not just one or two government budgets—and then had those budget blowouts baked into their budgets going forward has rewarded bad behaviour, ill management by bureaucrats and the ministers they report to.

We know that in the state's budget, if you look across all the government departments, the overspend was over $1.3 billion. That has essentially been forgiven and baked into the budget going forward, so the incentive for government agencies to do the right thing, in terms of managing their budgets into the future, has been removed by this government, and that discipline may just disappear altogether in future with the current crop of bureaucrats. If I were a chief executive who had had one of the smaller overspends, I would probably feel quite bad about that because now I have a smaller overspend baked into my new budget as opposed to some of the larger ones.

It is worth just reflecting on some of those overspends: $387 million in the education department, $754 million in the Department for Health and Wellbeing, $66 million in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, $43 million in the primary industries portfolio and $54 million in the Department for Environment and Water, which had a budget of $301 million to start with, so an exceptionally concerning overspend there. If we use the Department for Environment and Water as a case study looking forward, $54 million has been added to that $301 million, so the future budget has essentially had that baked into it, and ill discipline has been rewarded.

When the Treasurer and the Premier sell this budget, one of the key lines they have been using, one of the case studies they have been using, which has been picked up by some people, including some in the business community, and perhaps even applauded is that we are doing well because we are not doing as badly as Victoria. Now, I hardly think that comparing ourselves favourably to the failing socialist republic to the east is a badge of honour.

Thank goodness we are better than them. Thank goodness for South Australians. Thank goodness for South Australian businesses. Thank goodness for South Australian property investors. Thank goodness for those who are trying to get ahead in this state that we are not as bad as the Andrews government in Victoria. I am relieved on behalf of all South Australians that that is the case, but that is not the measure that we should be trying to use as our benchmark for success.

We can do much better than that. The Malinauskas Labor government can do much better than that, and to compare ourselves to Victoria is not a badge of honour. Every single thing that we should do every single day in this state should be trying to be better than Victoria, whether it is sport, whether it is business, whether it is government, but they are not the benchmark for success and they never should be. I want to move through some areas where we have specific concern and then move into the areas of focus that the party that I lead will be taking in the coming months and years when developing a policy agenda as we move through this term.

We talk a lot about health care in this place. The member for Schubert, the member for Frome and many other members on this side of the house, but those two members in particular, speak regularly about the Labor Party's headline election commitment. They were going to fix the ramping crisis—we have heard that many, many times. We know that although there has been record spending in the healthcare system, record amounts handed down in this budget and future budgets, there is still a downward trajectory when it comes to the measurement of healthcare success across almost every measure in this state at the moment.

When we think of Labor's management of the healthcare system, we should reflect on the past: the party that closed the Repat hospital, the party that brought us Transforming Health, the party that built the new Royal Adelaide Hospital with an emergency department that we know was not fit for purpose and has exacerbated ramping since the day it opened. In fact, the Labor Party in South Australia are the architects of ramping, and I suspect they will continue to be the architects of ramping for many years to come.

Interestingly, when we look through the budget papers for the forthcoming financial year, where they have promised to deliver a modest surplus, they have also promised to cut spending in the health department by almost the quantum of that modest surplus. I am not sure if there is any time in recent memory when the health budget has diminished in a financial year and so we do not hold our breath for that to be achieved and perhaps we should not because if we want to see that world-class health system, if we want to see the ramping crisis resolved, if we want to see our emergency departments not being full of patients waiting for beds in a month like this month when almost every other day we have had a Code White across our metropolitan hospitals, maybe we should not hope for that cut for our healthcare system.

Maybe we should hope for more effective spending in a way that delivers the system-wide reform that our healthcare system needs in South Australia, not another bandaid solution before moving to the next fad that comes out of Focus Week—if we ever hear what comes out of Focus Week. The healthcare system in South Australia has fallen off a cliff since Labor came to office. They have delivered record spending and they have delivered record ramping, and I think it takes a special type of incompetence to manage that.

One of the things that is so lacking in this budget is a central vision for economic development for South Australia. Where is South Australia's economy going? What do we want for South Australia's economy? What are the jobs of the future and how are we going to get there? What are those industries which have served this state well for decades or centuries and how are we going to make sure that they continue to deliver for this state in a way that they have done for generations?

I do not think that my job is to continually look back to the four years we were in government, but one thing I do want to highlight is Growth State. Growth State was a really clear economic agenda, co-designed in partnership with industry and industry bodies. There had been a huge amount of thought put into Growth State. Many of the areas were where South Australia had traditionally done very well—again, for generations—in terms of what our state's economy was all about and how we could continue to sustain that and take it to the next level.

But, equally, Growth State had a relentless focus on future industries as well. It had nine sectors: international education; defence; space; high tech; health and medical industries; food, wine and agribusiness; tourism; energy and mining; and the arts and creative industries. These areas created a sharpness in terms of where the government was going to focus our efforts, our support, our desire to partner with industry to deliver innovations and take those sectors to the next level. They were the sectors that we wanted to frame our state when we pitched to the world about what this state was all about when it came to business and economic development.

We know the last budget walked away from Growth State. I think it was one of those situations where a new government comes in and they just throw out the economic vision because it belonged to the previous government and because it was put together by the previous government.

But Growth State was not put together by the previous government. Growth State was a partnership between the previous government and industry. Business was at the table. Business representative bodies were at the table. We had spoken to our trade partners overseas. Trade offices had been involved in designing Growth State. Growth State was our pitch to our state, to the nation and to the world regarding South Australia's business and economic development DNA and I think our state is lesser for not having that economic clarity in the budget.

It is one thing to have a budget that is framed around health care and housing. That is what the government wants this budget to be framed around and those are worthy things, and we welcome that. But if you do not have a vision to pay for health care and housing through continued economic development in this state and a way of turbocharging the growth around those nine platforms of Growth State, I do fear for the future of our state's economy.

Those sectors are the sectors of South Australia's future and now they are fragmented. They are fragmented across the cabinet. They do not have ministerial leads anymore. The economic vision that this budget contains, if you can find any economic character within the budget at all, is almost entirely focused on pet projects.

One of the answers the Premier continually gives when he is asked for his economic vision for the state is the Hydrogen Jobs Plan. It is also the answer they give when they are asked about their energy vision for the state. It is also the answer they give when they are asked about their environmental vision for the state.

In some ways, the Hydrogen Jobs Plan is a very small, experimental project—an experimental project within an embryonic industry. I believe that hydrogen is a fuel of the future and I believe that South Australia has a big role to play in delivering that fuel of the future, both in Australia and globally, but we cannot put all our eggs in the Hydrogen Jobs Plan basket. I wish them well with the Hydrogen Jobs Plan as they contort an election commitment into an economic reality. Good luck to Rik Morris and his team as they whip that one together.

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner: Sam Crafter.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Sam Crafter, that's the other bloke, one of the highest paid public servants in the state. He is doing well out of the Hydrogen Jobs Plan. I am not sure about many other South Australians, but he is doing well. He is a one-man economic stimulus, but the Hydrogen Jobs Plan will not deliver everything for this state. We wish them well, but we are yet to be convinced it is not simply a frolic that will waste, is it $500 million? Is it a billion? Is it $1½ billion?

We know the proposed power plant has now been changed in terms of its scope and the storage element has been withdrawn from it. We do not know if it will plug into the system effectively and we do not know if there is enough water to create the hydrogen, so good luck to them as they develop the hydrogen industry in South Australia.

It is an important industry, but we have to be more than just that. We need to be looking at international education, defence, space, high-tech health and medical industries, food, wine, agribusiness, tourism, energy, mining and the creative industries. That was Growth State, and we cannot forget the importance of those industries.

As we move through this term, the opposition will be increasingly talking about the importance of tax reform. We need state-based taxes to raise revenue in this state, but we must constantly be looking to see that the way those taxes are set and the way those taxes are evolved are meeting the purposes from a revenue-raising point of view and also whether they are positioning South Australia to be competitive nationally at the moment.

As I said a moment ago, we welcome the removal of stamp duty for first-home buyers, for new builds and new homes up to $650,000. We welcome that small change to the way stamp duty will be administered for the coming years.

But where else can we go with our tax reform in this state? I was delighted earlier in the year to appoint the Hon. Heidi Girolamo MLC as the shadow minister for finance and tax reform to take a leadership role in looking at where South Australia's taxes should be at the moment, working alongside the shadow cabinet and in particular the shadow treasurer, Matthew Cowdrey, to look at opportunities for making our taxation system better in South Australia, making it work for all South Australians and particularly making sure that our tax regime in South Australia is structured in such a way that it ensures that we are a competitive state moving forward and not having Victoria as the benchmark regarding what competitiveness looks like.

Heidi and her team have already pulled together a tax reform working group with a whole range of industry representatives and experts to start providing that thought leadership around tax reform in this state. They will look at stamp duty, the emergency services levy, payroll tax, land tax and water bills. Water bills in some ways are a tax, and we fear that the forthcoming regulatory determination for SA Water bills going forward could create an opportunity, like they did last time Labor were in government, to be a major cash cow for the state government's bottom line. Heidi and her team are going to be looking at this on an ongoing basis, and we will have a lot to say over the coming months and years about where South Australia's tax regime should be headed.

We will also have a great deal to say about skills in South Australia. We have a skills shortage. Some of that can be attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic and the particular global challenges that that created—the drop-off with regard to migration for a couple of years. That has put South Australia's business community and skills in a situation of significant challenge when it comes to meeting our skills needs in this state.

It is firmly my view, though, that Labor are failing on responding in terms of providing South Australia with the skilled workforce that we need for our future. In many ways, they are falling back on their same old ways. Between 2012 and 2018, South Australia had the worst training system in the nation, presiding over significant declines over a six-year period. Labor today will not commit to delivering increases in training participation.

Rather, they seem to be focused on feel-good advertising campaigns—billboards about skills, newspaper advertisements—but not necessarily a lot around actual hands-on intervention in the skills market to be able to make sure we have the right people in the right places to do the right jobs. This is something that I experience as I travel around the state. It is a big problem in Adelaide, but the further I get away from metropolitan Adelaide, the greater the problem becomes. We just do not have the skills in South Australia at the moment to meet the needs out there.

The government have their technical colleges. I think the jury is out on those. Are they just a slogan, going back to a term that was used historically? A lot of people know what a technical college is, and a lot of South Australians benefited from technical colleges in the past. We will certainly see what those technical colleges deliver, but I think the intervention that is required is probably far more than five technical colleges scattered around the state. We will watch that exceptionally closely, but our skills development industry in this state is in need of significant ongoing and, importantly, consistent assistance so that we can get our apprentices and trainees into the right jobs with the right skills.

I believe incredibly strongly in the value of apprentices. I saw what the member for Unley did with his single-minded, relentless and sometimes painful focus in cabinet in terms of when he was the minister to drive our take-up of apprentices across the state. When he was a minister, he got results and because of his time as a minister we have more people doing apprenticeships today in South Australia than we otherwise would.

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner: Twenty thousand.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Twenty thousand more, in fact, and how good is that. As the son of a retired carpenter, as someone who grew up ignoring every occupational health and safety rule in the book, running around on building sites when my dad was supposed to be looking after us, I believe so strongly in supporting apprentices, not only inspiring people to take up apprentices and inspiring people to see that as a credible career pathway but also providing wraparound support throughout the life of the apprentice, particularly during the first couple of years when dropout rates can be up to 50 per cent.

We need support for the mental health of apprentices, we need support to ensure that our apprentices have the right tools for the trade and can afford those, and that is something I will be exploring and doing a lot more work on, particularly with the deputy leader and my broader team, over the coming months and years. I actually think South Australia's economic future can be apprentice-led and our skills crisis can be overcome by leaning into the world of apprentices, keeping more people in apprenticeships and supporting private businesses to take on apprentices. I think there is a great opportunity for this state to lead the nation with regard to that.

Linked to our skills challenges is our need to make sure that we are bringing in the right migrants to South Australia. As I often say, with an accent like mine you cannot be anti migration, and I am quite the opposite. I think our doors should be open to get the right migrants in the right places in the state. But migration is a highly competitive field. We not only compete with other states but we are also competing with the world. We are competing with Canada in particular, with New Zealand and with the USA. All those countries, and many others, are facing similar challenges to us and, as a consequence, are pitching themselves as a desirable place for migrants to go.

It is a competitive field and, while migration sits largely in a policy sense with the federal government, states do have a real role there. States have a role to be part of that competitive environment and to be pitching to potential migrants in other parts of the world that this is a great place to live, that this is a place where you will get a job and that this is a place where you will be welcomed to build a great life. As a state—and I think this is something we should do in a bipartisan way—we should pitch to other places in the world the values of coming to South Australia, what makes life good in South Australia and how you get there.

People often ask me why we live in Adelaide, why my family lives in Adelaide. They expect some sort of romantic notion. We live here because it was the easiest state to move to, because it had regional migration status and because in the late nineties and the early 2000s there were a number of things about migrating to South Australia that made our state one of the easier places in Australia to move to. We still have some of those advantages, we do not have them all, and there is a place for the state government to lobby the federal government and to pitch to the world that this is the place to move to. That is why I am the Leader of the Opposition in South Australia today—because my family found it easy to move to a place we had never heard of, the city of Adelaide, and I am glad that we did.

Energy policy is particularly important in South Australia. Energy prices are soaring, and that is putting massive additional pressure on households in the face of a range of other rising costs, whether they be interest rates, the price of fuel or the price of groceries. We also know that it is putting massive pressure on small business. I was speaking to a small business at around 8am today about the challenges they are facing paying a range of their bills, but the one they mentioned first—and they had a go at me when they were serving my coffee—was, 'What are you doing about our energy bills, David?' I said, 'Well, I am writing my budget reply speech, so I will mention you in it.'

Josh—who is the owner of CREAM on Jetty Road at Brighton—this is your special mention, and my staff will clip this and send it to you. He does a great coffee to start the day. I also had eggs, toast and a hash brown this morning because after he said that about his costs I thought I had better contribute a little bit more to him. I never normally have breakfast as a practitioner of intermittent fasting.

We have the highest energy prices in the nation, and in a couple of days' time, with the arrival of the 2023-24 financial year, our energy prices will surge by up to 30 per cent. That is going to be extremely difficult for many small businesses and households to absorb. Energy policy is crucial in Australia. Other nations look at us and think that we really have no excuse given our natural resources, both in terms of renewables and non-renewable resources, for the energy crisis that seems to be enveloping our nation at the moment.

In a bipartisan way, this side of the house has supported a climate policy in this state in one way or the other for a couple of decades as we have transitioned towards clean green renewables. South Australia's opportunities in this regard are immense. We should be proud of what this state has done across both political parties since the turn of this century, at not just state level but also federally. We cannot create a situation in this nation or in this state where wealthier people living in the inner city can dictate what our energy policy looks like, while the further we get from the CBD the harder it becomes for people to keep their lights on and keep their homes warm in winter.

I really worry that if we do not start having some vision and creativity with regard to energy policy we are going to drift into a space where people in suburbs like Trott Park and Sheidow Park, which I represent, are going to struggle to keep their homes warm over winter or decide not to put on their cooling over summer. We could end up with an energy-based underclass in this nation if we do not get energy policy right. Unfortunately—I think largely through ideology driven by the federal Labor government—we are heading into a very scary place with energy policy.

I believe we need to have an open mind with regard to all energy solutions that are available in Australia at the moment. What we need particularly is an open mind when it comes to that transition to net zero. South Australia may be an exception from time to time, but increasingly there is a view that, without having the nuclear fuel cycle as part of the energy mix, the dream of net zero simply will not be possible for many Western jurisdictions. I say that South Australia may be an exception because we do know that there are days now when we have 100 per cent renewable power penetration, but I suspect that dream is almost impossible for the rest of the nation if we want to maintain our economic trajectory, if we want to maintain affordable energy and if we want to maintain energy security.

It may very well be that consideration of nuclear energy in some form (likely small modular reactors) will be necessary. We know that the South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy undertook in the middle of last year a community consultation to discuss what South Australians thought about moving in this direction—at least having the conversation—and a majority of South Australians were interested in having the conversation. It did not mean a majority of South Australians were open to having nuclear power established in this state, but they were open to the conversation.

I think we have to be open to the conversation in 2023 if we are serious about that transition for our nation and having leadership in the energy space within our nation. It is now seven years and one month since Kevin Scarce handed down the royal commission findings into the nuclear fuel cycle, an inquiry that he undertook as the royal commissioner. A lot has changed in the world since May 2016 when he handed down those recommendations, both in terms of the desire of the world and this nation to move quickly towards net zero and in terms of the security outlook of the world from a defence point of view.

Of course, nuclear-powered submarines are now proposed to be built in Adelaide and that could very well change the direction of thinking around this area as well. It will certainly change the way that we behave with regard to the presence of nuclear material in South Australia and the range of security requirements that will be required and the range of skills that will be required. Perhaps it is the time to reopen that royal commission again—have a royal commission 2.0—and start thinking about what South Australia's role could be in that fuel cycle, some seven years since we last considered it.

Seven years is a long time when it comes to innovation and technology and now could be the time to start having that conversation again. I think that conversation should be bipartisan, and the Liberal Party in South Australia is certainly willing to offer a bipartisan level of support towards the conversation. It is just the conversation at this time, but with the level of uranium deposits in this state, with nuclear-powered submarines being likely built within a decade or so in South Australia under AUKUS, now could be the time to have a considered conversation with the business community, with people from all walks of life in South Australia, about what our role is with regard to the nuclear fuel cycle going forward.

One thing that was very apparent to me as a gap in the budget was support for our police service. There are some particular challenges facing the South Australian police at the moment, an organisation that did so much to support us in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, that went well beyond what people would ever consider to be the role of police officers. We know that many people left the police force in that time and have not necessarily been replaced. We know that there was particular strain put on our police force and the support that they need now might be quite different from what they have historically needed.

We know that there are parts of our state in the grip of a crime wave at the moment, and we only need look out the front of this building to see one of those hotspots. There was a reason that The Advertiser described our cultural precinct as 'North Terror' a couple of weeks ago in a front-page headline. Other towns are suffering from the same fear of crime. A few weeks ago, I visited Port Augusta with the member for Flinders and sat down with a number of business and community leaders, who told us tales of significant crime.

Businesses had decided to withdraw from the CBD of that important regional city, to close up shop because they were losing too much trade to people being scared away from the main street, to shoplifting, to broken windows and to a long list of problems that need a quick, rapid and zero-tolerance response, in my view. You can add Ceduna to that list as well.

A unique wraparound level of policing is required for the challenges that we are facing with crime at the moment. We cannot put our heads in the sand with regard to this. We have to name it, we have to respond to it and we have to give our police force in South Australia the tools and the resources to be able to deal with crime in the state.

We cannot leave it to get to a point where the assaults and cases of verbal abuse spiral to become more serious, because if it becomes more serious that could result in someone losing their life. We do not want that. It is time to give the South Australian police the resources they need to step up to hit this quickly, and hopefully that problem can be dealt with and they can get back to what they need to be doing.

Regional South Australia in any given year, depending on the type of season that we have, contributes between $20 billion and $30 billion to our state's economy. Of course, much of that is in some of those traditional industries that South Australia has done so well in, whether it is food and fibre production or whether it is mining and resources. In more recent times, we have seen the tourism industry step up in regional South Australia because the vast majority of the travel destinations that people come to South Australia to visit, particularly those from interstate and overseas, are found within regional South Australia, our diverse and beautiful landscape that can be such an attraction to visitors.

Our regions provide a contribution to what South Australia is all about. While we are a city-centric state in terms of our population—the facts say that 77 per cent of people live in metropolitan Adelaide and 23 per cent of people live in regional South Australia—our state is defined by our regions. The places, the communities, the people contribute so much to making South Australia what South Australia is and to making this state tick. Yes, I have mentioned the economic contribution, but it is a cultural contribution as well and it is an incredibly valuable part of what we are all about as South Australians.

There is absolutely no doubt that the budget that was handed down by Labor a couple of weeks ago reverted to the same old Labor ways of being city-centric in terms of spending. Yes, there is a population here in metropolitan Adelaide, but we have to look after our regions. It is providing appropriate levels of funding so that the standard of regional health care can be what regional people expect. I actually do not think they expect to get the same service that you would get in metropolitan Adelaide. I do not think they are after that. I think they are quite willing to come to metropolitan Adelaide for some services, if supported through the PAT Scheme to be able to do so.

There needs to be a certain standard, and that standard might vary in different parts of the state, but that standard needs to be really clear: if you live in this community, you can expect this; if you live in a particular community, you can expect a doctor; if you live in our third largest city, being Whyalla, you can expect to have a baby locally, which you cannot do now. We need to maintain that standard, and whoever is in power needs to set that standard and fight for funding to deliver that standard.

I will be working with the member for Frome, the shadow minister for regional health services in South Australia; the member for Schubert, the shadow minister for health; and each member who represents regional South Australia on our side of the house to define that standard and to make sure a future Liberal government delivers that standard.

We know that across the state we have a $3 billion backlog in road maintenance, and the vast majority of that is where the vast majority of the roads are: in regional South Australia. We need to get on top of that. I know, when we were in power, we made massive inroads into the backlog of road maintenance and, as a consequence, our roads are safer today in regional South Australia, but they are not as safe as they could be.

As I said at the beginning of this contribution, I welcome the government's expenditure on road safety campaigns. It is critical. We want to make sure that people get home to their families after a long day at work. We want to make sure that, when you are travelling through regional South Australia, you reach your destination safe and alive because we know the heartache and the destruction that come from losing family members and friends on our roads. There would not be one person who represents regional South Australia who does not know the legacy of road carnage in their families or in their wider circle of friends.

When my uncle in rural Scotland was travelling home from school in year 12, as a 17 year old, he was hit and killed by an oncoming vehicle. My family never ever recovered from that. My grandparents never recovered from that. They entered their grave early as a consequence of that, and my mum remembers her brother every single day and wonders what sort of life he would have had if he had married and had a career and had kids. That is what a lack of road maintenance can lead to, and we need to fight for every single dollar we can get for regional Australia.

The member for Hartley, in his role as shadow minister for infrastructure and transport, and the member for Hammond in his role as the shadow minister for regional roads, will take up that fight relentlessly in our coming months and years in opposition.

A quarter of the government's entire regional spend is being directed towards the city of Mount Barker. We welcome that. That community is crying out, as you know more than anyone else, Mr Speaker, for an appropriate level of spend, but Mount Barker is not a regional community. I would not begrudge it a single penny or cent of spending but, under the government's own definitions, Mount Barker does not reach the definition of regional. In fact, you can get from Mount Barker to the CBD of Adelaide quicker than you can get from my house in the southern suburbs to the CBD of Adelaide.

The Hon. V.A. Tarzia: Especially if Tom's driving.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: 'Especially if Tom's driving,' says the member for Hartley. I will not respond to his inappropriate interjections. But, Mr Speaker, this is not to diminish Mount Barker, because your community deserves more expenditure.

The SPEAKER: My regional community deserves more expenditure.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Regional communities—real regional communities—deserve significant expenditure. Mount Barker is a future suburb of Adelaide—

The SPEAKER: No. No, it is not.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: —and it deserves to be given the infrastructure that it deserves. Quite frankly, regional South Australia's roads, the further you get away from Adelaide, get worse and worse. Perhaps the definition does need to be changed if we are going to call Mount Barker regional. My point is that regional roads, regional health care, regional schools—regions, full stop—need to be respected for what they contribute to South Australia's economy and they need to be invested in accordingly.

As I close, I want to reflect on the way that the government behave. I think, when they came to power last year, they shrugged their shoulders and thought, 'Well, the planets have realigned: the four-year aberration is over. The Liberals will go back to being hopeless and we will go back to being in government.' That is not my vision for this opposition, and it does not appear to be the way they are behaving either. The arrogance is unbelievable, and we all see it every single day. It is locker room arrogance: jobs for the boys, chortling in the front benches, mocking, Twitter insults. It is unbecoming of a government. They do not respect South Australians, they do not respect our regions and half the time they do not respect each other.

South Australia deserves a lot better. They deserve a lot better from their budget, they deserve a lot better from their ministers and they deserve a lot better from their backbenchers. The party I lead, the opposition in South Australia, will work relentlessly to hold them to account, to articulate an alternate vision for the state of South Australia and to make sure that this state has a suite of ideas across every policy area to consider as we get closer and closer to the 2026 state election.

It is a great privilege of mine to be a member of this place, and it is a great privilege to be the Leader of the Opposition. This state needs a good opposition as much as it needs a good government, and that is exactly what we intend to be.

Mr FULBROOK (Playford) (11:55): I thank the opposition leader for his contribution. Before I get into my speech, I really want to stress how much of an opposition leader's speech that was. It is very, very rich for a party that took net debt from $14.6 billion to $33.6 billion in its last term of government to lecture this parliament on superior economic management. Another thing to point out—there were lots of points I could pick up, but I have 20 minutes—is their mention of nuclear energy. The point I want to make there is that if it means so much to them, they have just come out of four years in government, so why did they not do something about that in the last term?

However, I rise to say some happier and positive words about the Appropriation Bill and to open the account for the government. It might seem a little bit unusual coming from this side, but I am more than happy to begin by stating facts on how much of a positive investment this will be for the state. At both a state and a local level I could not be happier that this year's budget is addressing some of the key priorities affecting residents in my electorate. At a time when we all need a little bit of extra help, it is pleasing that this budget focuses on the basics rather than elaborate projects like a $664 million basketball stadium.

While there is always more work to do there is a lot locally we are pleased with, especially in relation to our schools. I will talk a bit more about what I call the macro investments a little bit later but, specifically in relation to my community, we are overjoyed with the commitments made to improve our schools. Central to this is a commitment to fully fund a new gym at The Pines School. For those who do not know, Parafield Gardens is one of the largest suburbs in Adelaide; it is so big that it needs three government primary schools to service the local community. Led by Cherie Collings, if you factor in preschool and the Intensive English Language Program, The Pines School provides a great education to about 830 students.

In many ways, this school is a victim of its own success, having an excellent music program that has over 100 participants. It has also done amazing things in STEM learning, with a team selected last year to compete in the national finals of the Tournament of Minds in Canberra. With so much to offer, its one major setback has been its inability to get the entire school community under one roof. Thanks to this budget, I understand that this problem will soon be a thing of the past because of our commitment to deliver a brand-new gym for the school.

Having worked as a school infrastructure adviser on and off for a number of years in the previous government, I know how keen the community has been for this project to get off the ground—and I emphasise the word 'community', because I know Ms Collings is very keen to share the gym with local sporting clubs and other groups within the surrounding area. It will help not just the kids but it will also be an asset to the entire community, who will all have the opportunity to enjoy it.

This may not have been the case initially, as I had word that the architects were initially considering just a three-quarter sized court. Upon hearing this, I raised my concerns with the minister and recently received some very welcome confirmation that the new gym will be full size and will include a foyer, storage, teacher preparation area, and kitchenette, along with staff and student amenities. As soon as the announcement was made, I visited the school and realised how impossible the task would have been to contain the excitement of staff, students and parents.

Just outside my electorate is Paralowie R-12 School, which is still very important to my community as it is zoned to take in students from the northern parts of the Playford electorate. The budget commits to replace the HVAC or, as I call it, the air-conditioning system in the school. Several people from within my community have expressed their concern that the existing system was failing, and I was pleased to also write to the minister to draw this to his attention. Just as Salisbury Downs Primary School received a commitment for a new system last year, we are getting on with the job of fixing this so that the elements do not get in the way of learning at these two great schools.

The main government high school in my community is Parafield Gardens High School. It was established in 1976 and built at a time when spiral staircases not only were fashionable but also seen as functional. Hindsight and, dare I say, a few accidents have made us realise that they are probably not the safest thing for a school. I am pleased that a commitment has been made in the budget to have it removed and replaced with something a little bit more sensible.

While I am not sure if this can be found in this or last year's budget, I also want to commend the minister for finding a few dollars to invest in some Aussie Rules goals for the school. Late last year, I was approached by the newly elected school captain, Thomas Oxford, who made it his sole purpose to get the goals for the school in his term as the SRC captain. A few letters to various ministers later, I am pleased to say that it is now a case of mission accomplished. We found out in the budget week that the goals will be funded, and the school could not be happier. The whole exercise will not just give these fantastic young people an opportunity to play football but it is going to be used to show students that they have a voice, and it will be heard.

I spoke to a number of teachers about Thomas's hard work and they are now unpacking this great news to ensure that it complements learning across the school. Given it took only six months for Thomas and the SRC to achieve this goal (pardon the pun), I am a bit worried where they will set their minds for the second half of the year. One thing is for certain, though, and that is I am sure Thomas Oxford is destined for great things and we will be hearing a lot more about him as time goes on.

I do not believe there will be mention in the budget this year of a Settlers Farm R-6 campus. That is because its $5 million redevelopment has been completed. I did read in the online version of The Advertiser that the project was experiencing delays. The good news is that this could not be further from the truth, and it is nice to take this opportunity to set the record straight.

I mentioned earlier that the weather can be a distraction for a student trying to learn, and so is an empty stomach. There are schools across my community with breakfast programs, and I could not be happier that across the state they will receive a $6.5 million boost. This is the largest investment of its kind and will see more than 1.4 million extra meals provided to South Australian children over the next four years. A child learning on an empty stomach equates to an uphill battle, and I imagine the loss of concentration they sustain is probably felt across the entire classroom. The great thing is that this service is free to students, courtesy of two fantastic organisations that run the program, KickStart for Kids and Foodbank SA.

A lot of schools I represent are deeply interested in the new grant program to help enshrine good nutrition within their communities. This will include funding to support new community gardens, additional kitchen equipment for cooking classes and other related activities such as training and specialist advice to address concerns in relation to food security, nutrition and body image issues. It is investments like these that get the basics right. They point to happier, more attentive and healthy students which is sure to unlock the full potential of so many more South Australian kids.

The community is hurting with the rising cost of living, and we are hearing this loudly. Each month it seems we hear the terrible news that interest rates are on the rise again which, in turn, sucks more and more cash out from our community. I am not seeking to state the obvious, but it seems no matter where you turn something is on the rise which has a domino effect on increasing the cost of something else. When people are suffering, there is no time for a pat on the back, but I do feel that it should be recognised that this budget indexes fees and charges at 4.8 per cent.

Sure enough, there will be predictable stories on what is going up on 1 July, and I recognise that the papers do need to print something. Sadly, governments cannot be spared when it comes to the rising costs of goods and services and these do need to be passed on. To my understanding, while it appears to be heading downwards, the rate of inflation is sitting stubbornly at around 7 per cent. The fact that the Treasurer and his team have managed to absorb over 2 per cent of rising costs without passing on inflationary pressures in full should not go unnoticed. It is efforts like these that do not add extra flame to the fire, and I want to express my particular thanks for that.

Also helping to tackle the cost of living is the $500 energy concession for eligible households and $650 for small businesses. We have all been hit by some outrageous spikes in our electricity bills, and I would hope that this modest contribution helps in some way. I take this opportunity to point out that, while the electricity retailers seem quite happy to bump up their charges, they do not seem to be adjusting how much they return to consumers who are supplying the grid through surplus solar energy. I hope this is something that we can turn a spotlight on in the weeks ahead.

A few weeks back, it was my privilege to introduce constituents to the Premier at Paralowie Village. As we toured the shopping centre, we visited Jimmy, who runs Stanley's—a rather iconic fish and chip shop. The Premier asked Jimmy what was his number one concern; he promptly responded that the rising cost of energy made running his small business more challenging. While we all work within the constraints of a privatised market, we are definitely hearing voices like Jimmy's loudly and clearly.

I know that $650 is modest, but this should be seen as a sign of intent to the small business community. Nobody is sitting idly by hoping global forces will shift for the better. There are some very serious reforms in this sector (spearheaded by Minister Koutsantonis) to improve the regulatory framework as well as establish our own hydrogen power facilities in Whyalla.

On a broader level, this budget deserves a big tick for what it does around housing. One of the key reasons I stood for parliament was that I was worried about the cost of housing and, rather than just complain about it, I wanted to be part of the solution. While there is still heaps of work to do, I am really pleased the state budget will make it easier for new-home buyers, especially young people, to enter the property market. We are doing this in several ways.

Firstly, we are getting rid of stamp duty for eligible first-home buyers who want to build a new home up to the value of $650,000, or $400,000 for new land. The cap for the First Home Owner Grant has also been raised, from $575,000 to $650,000. I understand that this provides eligible applicants with up to $15,000 towards their new home. In collaboration with HomeStart, a new lending product has also been developed. This will allow eligible borrowers to build a new home with as little as a 2 per cent deposit.

We are also releasing more land, with 25,000 new blocks to be released in Adelaide's north and south. More land helps lower housing costs for pretty much everyone, as it helps reduce overall demand across the entire market. Irrespective of whether we are talking about building a new home or choosing something more established—be it for first-home buyers, empty-nesters or growing families—the extra supply should help push down some of the inflationary pressures our market has been plagued with for several years.

There is also significant investment in public housing, which should be commended for multiple reasons. I am a big fan of public housing, not just because it puts a roof over the heads of South Australians. As a member of the Labor Party, I feel we cannot escape our role in accepting that we could have done a lot better in this space. I lament the winding back of the Housing Trust and, with it, a powerful lever that once helped control housing prices in South Australia. That said, this budget does present some hope that the tide is beginning to turn.

I understand that in the last 30 years there has only been a single year when the amount of public housing in the state has increased. I am really encouraged that this budget begins to seriously turn the tide with the announcement to expand the government's public housing commitment, with an additional 564 new homes, and halt the sale of a further 580 public housing properties. This means that by 2026 there will be over 1,140 more public housing properties compared to previous plans. It is encouraging that this is likely to grow further, with a boost of $135.8 million from the Albanese government for additional public housing. This is anticipated to deliver a further 300 to 400 homes.

There are a few realities that we must take stock of in relation to the problems we have around housing. Firstly, the decline in housing affordability did not happen overnight. It was something that happened across the best part of a generation due to the neglect of successive federal and state governments. Unfortunately, as it has taken this long for the rot to set in, without a magic wand it will take years to put right. I will not pretend there is not more to do, but I would rather be where we are now than facing the situation when we first came into government. There is hope now that things can be better and this budget is hopefully a sign that there is more good to come.

In winding up, I think most South Australians have their worries regarding our health system. While we have some amazing employees working in public health, the reality is we need more of them and spaces to put them in, and therefore I am not going to begrudge an extra $2.3 billion in our health service. I note that $1.3 billion will be used to meet extra demand in the system, but there are also allocations such as a little over $100 million extra for the Mount Barker hospital. We need to be very careful not to begrudge investment outside our backyards.

I think we all have stories of having to rely on hospitals outside our local areas and investments like this will give South Australians confidence that there is capacity to be looked after no matter where you tread in the state. I think we also have our own experiences where weekends have got in the way of discharging people back into the care of their loved ones. This is something my family had to grapple with towards the end of my dad's life. He was never happy in hospital, and I feel that the $200 million to help increase the number of patients discharged over weekends will be something that is very warmly welcomed.

Locally, there has been a lot of interest in the announcement of the new hospital avoidance hub in the northern suburbs. I understand that no decision has been made on where it will be located, but I am pleased that a number of exceptional property owners have approached me for details on how they can express their interest in housing the facility.

As you can see, I am encouraged by this year's budget. It is a blueprint that aligns closely to the Labor pillars of health, education, housing and the cost of living. It is a true honour that the public have given us this trust to act in their best interests. I feel this has been repaid and, with this in mind, I am pleased to commend the Appropriation Bill to the house.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (12:11): I, too, rise to make a contribution on the most recent budget handed down. As a regional MP and as a representative in this chamber, I stand here quite disappointed. There were a few small nuggets of hope, but from what I have seen in this place for a number of years now, and as one who has been here longer than most, it was a budget handed down by a Labor government that was quite typical of what Labor do.

Sadly, the regions have been cast aside. I understand that the philosophy of Labor is about looking after marginal seats or city-centric rhetoric. It has a typical flavour about it, and that is that there are those who receive and those who do not. Reflecting on what was a very short stay in government, the Liberal state government can hold their head high because I think there was a much better balance of governing for all of South Australia, not just for the city, not just for the country, but there was a fair balance to undo what had been forgotten for 16 long years.

Our infrastructure network had been left with a significant backlog in maintenance. We saw one of the largest infrastructure projects in the state's history—that is, the north-south corridor—partially started and partially finished. What we are seeing now is that the government are kicking that can down the road and that has seen a significant long-term impact on the progress of that project.

These large infrastructure projects are very hard to start and very hard to continue, but they are even harder to restart once they have been pushed aside. What we are seeing now is that the north-south corridor project has been held up for all sorts of political reasons, and that is because there is a priority given elsewhere: there is a priority given to election commitments and there is a priority given to those who were promised more at the most recent state election. That is something we will reflect on for many years to come.

I do not want to prattle on about how bad it is and what the priorities are, but it is a fact of where we saw the priorities lie. One of the biggest hurdles that every South Australian, every Australian, is facing at the moment is a state government that has the ability to create positivity, whether it be the cost of living—everyday householders, everyday people are doing battle with making ends meet, making sure that their remuneration covers the cost of living, covers the cost of doing business, covers the cost of a satisfactory education system—or making sure that when we need a doctor, when we need the health system, it is there to service our needs, and making sure we all have a roof over our head.

One of the really important aspects lacking in the budget is the ability to give the primary sector recognition and acknowledgement of just how hard it is. They, too, have those day-to-day living expenses. The cost of doing business has never been greater than it is today. Not just here in South Australia but globally, it has become harder and harder. It is very evident now that in this most recent budget there is almost nothing for people living in the regions and, just as importantly, for those people who produce our food, produce the fibre, make sure that every South Australian has three meals on the table a day, make sure that food is affordable, make sure that we have a workforce that can rise to the occasion, make sure that we have a workforce that is able to plant, pick, process, pack and get it to market. We are seeing a lot of headwind there.

We have seen almost nothing in the budget, bar some exaggerated biosecurity announcements. There was a headline that there will be $25 million extra for biosecurity to combat one of the world's most invasive species, which is Queensland fruit fly, yet once we break down that announcement there is very little to see. There is a reannouncement of some of that funding, there is about $10 million of money that would be considered new money, but once we look at the obligation of the government there is a large component of a federal tip-in and a diminishing amount of money from the state government for their responsibility to keep biosecurity as an absolute priority, particularly with food production in South Australia.

Having a fruit fly free status for many years now is being questioned. I acknowledge the good work the current government has done, the ongoing good work by a former Liberal government, because it is an invasive species that, if we do not continue to have the eradication programs in place, will take over. It will change the way we live our lives in ways we cannot understand. Looking across the border—my community lives on the border—there is not a backyard fruit tree that is not infested by Queensland fruit fly, and there is not a vegetable patch not impacted by the Queensland fruit fly.

If we reflect on commercial orchards, commercial crops, it is coming at great cost to have that fruit, those vegetables, that produce, treated. I say to every person in this chamber that we as legislators have a responsibility. As biosecurity legislators, we must continue the fight. The eradication agenda must continue so that we have a competitive advantage when we go into our markets, whether it be a domestic market, a global market or international markets. We have to continue to have that advantage, and that competitive advantage is about being fruit fly free.

It is about having a status of area of freedom so that we have an advantage over our competitors, so that when we put our product into a market at a price we do have that advantage. It is pertinent for the government of the day to continue to satisfactorily fund those biosecurity programs. I cannot emphasise enough that we must have it as a priority, we must have it as an agenda item and the Treasurer must continue to honour the reputation that South Australia has long stood by, that is, having that fruit fly free status.

Again, we look at the ability for a government to promote our product into interstate and international markets, and it is about how we better serve our economy. I am privileged to have the trade and investment portfolio. As a shadow minister, it is pertinent for me to remind the minister on a day-to-day basis that we have to do more. It is one of the most important portfolios as an economic driver. When we are exporting products, we are bringing new money into our economy. When we are selling products into existing markets or ongoing markets, it is putting new money into pay packets, it is putting new money into investment, it is putting new money into the technologies that we need to be globally competitive in.

Sadly, we have seen very little in the way of government putting money into and investing in our food production, in our markets and in making sure that we do have satisfactory representation on our global shores, in our global markets, in those new markets or emerging markets that we so desperately need to hang onto or grow. Every other competitor internationally is also looking into those markets to get their produce into their warehouses, onto their shelves and onto consumers' tables. That is why we need that competitive advantage.

It is also very important that when we are opening up new global trade offices, when we are opening up new understandings of what the world is calling for, we are looking at ways we put more protein into some of those emerging markets or emerging economies. It is more important than ever that we learn how to grow better protein, that we learn how to grow more protein, but we need to learn how do it better and how to do it cheaper. In other words, how do we be more globally competitive?

I think it is very important that the government of the day has a much straighter focus on how we drive our economy. We talk about hydrogen plans, we talk about defence, we talk about all sorts of longwinded projects that are a long, long way away. They are not renewable. We look at some of the government's priorities, particularly with defence, with energy, particularly with hydrogen. What we need is the ongoing commitment to a renewable commodity, which is food, which is the primary production, which is exactly what the regions of South Australia put on our tables every day.

I cannot emphasise enough that we need to earmark more money and that our government's commitment needs to be about producing and making sure our primary producers, who predominantly live in the regions of South Australia, have the tools in the toolbox not only to grow the food but to get it to market, making sure that we have roads and infrastructure that are of a satisfactory standard and not just neglected, as we have seen in this most recent budget.

I have spoken about the primary sector in a little verse, but to attract people to our regions we need a satisfactory regional health system. Very little money in this most recent budget would see the very much-needed upgrade of our regional health system—hospitals, attracting doctors, attracting nurses, making sure that we have satisfactory ambulance networks, making sure that we have all of the health system in train not only in the city but also in the regions so that we can actually sustain a regional economy that was a growing regional economy. Only a short four years of a Liberal government saw that turn around from an ever-diminishing regional population that we saw leaving the regions for Adelaide.

South Australia is in a unique situation. As you know, Deputy Speaker, South Australia has one city and only a couple of satellite large country towns, those being Mount Gambier and Whyalla. That puts us at a disadvantage when we are looking for more stability in our regional centres and making sure that we have those health facilities needed, making sure that we have education programs in our regions, making sure that we do not just see technical colleges out there in the city—there is also a need for that education program to be in our regions. Some of the great educational institutions have historically been in regional South Australia. There does need to be a refocus, a readjustment, on making sure that the regions of South Australia are also given that ability to coexist.

As I have spoken about the cost of living, energy has been probably one of the biggest contributors to the increase in cost of living. I know that as of 1 July we are going to see up to a 30 per cent increase in our energy costs. In the great electorate of Chaffey, we are large consumers of power. The majority of that power consumption is used for re-lifting water. A lot of it is used for processing food, vegetables, horticulture, fruit, and also sustaining one of the great narratives within primary production—the wine industry, which uses large amounts of power.

I have constituents who are already receiving large requests by power companies for hundreds of thousands of dollars as a one-off cost to adjust. That is not about the cost of power; that is only about the supply of power. There has to be something that the minister within the government of the day can do. There has to be something that the Technical Regulator can be a part of to hold these power retailers to account.

As I have said, due to lifting water and the high cost of manufacturing and processing, food comes at a great cost. Not only is that passed down to consumers in some way, shape or form, but what we are seeing now is that the margin for primary producers is becoming so skinny that we are seeing a lot of questions being asked by banks and by an aged primary sector. That is really worrying me, as a member of this place who represents a large amount of primary production—a lot of small family businesses, some 6,000. What we are seeing now is that there are a lot of questions being put into play, particularly within the wine industry.

I see that there is an emerging issue that every South Australian, every Australian, will feel the brunt of, and that is the engine room of the wine industry in Chaffey. The engine room of the wine industry is on its knees. The most recent vintage has seen large amounts of fruit right around the state—not just in the Riverland, not just in Chaffey—either left on the vine or harvested onto the ground. That is going to have a telling tale maybe not this year but in the vintages to come.

Obviously, we are feeling the effects of the COVID hangover, particularly with the middle class. What we are seeing now is that the cost of relief is going to hit that middle class even harder. Interest rates are having a profound impact on mortgage repayments and this, coupled with power, coupled with the cost of food, coupled with the cost of doing business, is going to see South Australia worse off under the current conditions. That is why I am calling on the government of the day to put vision into the way they run the state. Get the Treasurer to put some vision into his budgets, not just look at pet projects, not just look at marginal seats and not just look at a city-centric budget.

Again, what I am seeing is that the issue around the China fallout has had a profound impact on every economy that deals with China. China is still our largest trading partner, and we are very, very small fry, but we still rely heavily on inputs or imports from China. We have to make sure that this government, this state government, works better and more cohesively with our federal government.

I know that I have met with federal government counterparts over a number of meetings in recent weeks to look at ways that we can not only rekindle the relationships that we have with China, but diversify our markets, making sure that we are not totally reliant on one global economy, that we are reliant on many. As Australians, as traders we suck because we are reliant on sugar hits. We have existing markets that have been in play for many, many decades and yet we have sweeteners that come along and we drop our long existing relationships with countries for a new sugar hit; someone who pays a few dollars more, someone who is offering to take every piece of fruit that we have on the property.

I think we need to look at ways that we can diversify our economy more, and that is the job of the government of the day. That is a job of not only the state government, but working with the commonwealth government, working with the federal government, to making sure that we do take advantage of the Brexit, we do take advantage of the European Union; making sure that we have trade offices that have staff, that have the lights on; making sure that when we have delegations who go to those countries that there is a reception party there, there is someone there giving them a hand to making sure that South Australia is in better stead for growing our trading economy.

There is much more to be said, and I will do that at another time, but I think what we have seen is a city-centric budget that has very much disappointed me as a regional member of this place, and I look forward to the government of the day being more responsible when it comes to the state of South Australia, not just the city of South Australia.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Odenwalder.