Bills

Appropriation Bill 2023

Estimates Committees

Adjourned debate on motion:

That the proposed expenditures referred to Estimates Committees A and B be agreed to.

Mr COWDREY (Colton) (15:44): I rise today to make a contribution on the bill before the house, the Appropriation Bill on return from the estimates committee. I first extend thanks to the government for their flexibility in allowing this contribution to be made in the debate.

If I reflect on estimates this year, the first thing that comes to my mind is really a reflection of the Treasurer's inability to verbalise the true statistics that sat within the budget. There was an absolute unwillingness from him to confirm what we knew, what was sitting there in the budget paper in black and white in regard to the financial performance of the state under this Labor government over the last 12 months: to have seen the projected $249 million surplus disappear and turn into effectively a similar-sized deficit over that 12-month period, to see additional GST revenue into the state, to see additional state taxation revenue into the state over that period of time.

It really does make you wonder what was happening in each of the offices of CEs around this government to see every single department—just about everybody except for the Electoral Commissioner—overspend their stated budgets for the year, in the order of well over $1 billion. It is unfathomable that, in the first effective 12 months of a real budget from this Malinauskas government, that was the approach to fiscal discipline we have seen.

In question time today, the Premier almost laughably reflected on how his government had made the hard decisions around fiscal management and that they should be applauded for their approach to spending. Well, it is quite simple, sir: spending other people's money is not very difficult. Showing restraint and control and being sensible with the state's finances is far more difficult, and that is certainly what this budget paper represents.

What is more, it was very difficult, across a number of the questions that were asked, to get any real detail from the Treasurer—whether that was asking questions in regard to the River Murray flood recovery and how much had been dispensed out of each of those funds, whether that was looking at what was required for the Department for Health this financial year, or as to the government hitting their supposed surplus for this 12 months.

We know that the budget papers reflect that, essentially, the Treasurer is asking SA Health to spend $300 million less this year than they did the year before. I simply pose a rhetorical question to this chamber and to those more broadly: when was the last time SA Health spent more in a financial year and does anybody really think that that is feasible?

If we look more broadly across some of the questions that were put to the Treasurer during estimates a number of months ago now, there was a clear issue that started to rear its head in regard to transparency. That goes across a number of areas and questions that were asked, whether that was in regard to the Treasurer's trip to the US and the machinations around that—who he met and whether there was value for money delivered to the taxpayer.

It goes to the very heart of the question that many around South Australia, in the media, in the opposition and more broadly have been asking for a significant period of time now in regard to the investment that the South Australian government has made in Gather Round. Nobody is necessarily saying that that is a bad idea, but surely the people of South Australia should have the opportunity to determine if that money has been used in a way that delivers value for money, because in the absence of having that information it is very difficult for anybody to make a sensible determination as to whether it is or is not in the best interest of South Australians more broadly.

And it lends itself to what we have seen over the last couple of months in particular: whether you look at the River Road issue that the Minister for Transport has managed to wind himself into or if you look at the relocation of the SAPOL Mounted Operations Unit, there was a growing approach of 'Just take our word, it's all going to be fine.' There is a growing approach where it is difficult to get any information out of this government about decisions and what information has been relied upon to make those decisions.

One issue in particular that I want to raise in a very similar vein is in regard to a grant that was provided out of the Department for Infrastructure and Transport to the value of $1.5 million to the Croatian Club. There are but a couple of sentences in the budget paper describing what that grant is for. When questions were put to the Treasurer in regard to that particular allocation of money—what process was involved, were other clubs offered the same opportunity to seek funding up to that amount, was it an open and transparent process, how was the amount of money that was put aside for this project determined to be good value for taxpayers' money and how was it assessed against other similar projects—the answer from the Treasurer was, 'I don't know. I will take it on notice.' The response that came back was a couple of lines essentially saying it was considered and approved by cabinet in the normal course of preparing the cabinet documents. Is that good enough?

We have obviously raised questions previously in regard to election commitments. It is not clear whether this even was an election commitment. It is not clear what process was involved, how this money was allocated, what department and public officials were involved in the decision-making process, or what ministers or otherwise were or were not involved in the process. None of that is clear. That is not good government—that is not good government by any stretch of the imagination—and certainly, I think, something that our investigative bodies should be looking at is how this payment was made and the circumstances that surround it. Did it come out of the Premier's Delivery Unit? None of these questions has any real answer and there are serious questions that need to be answered in regard to that payment.

If we look at the SAPOL relocation of the horses, we dove into the Treasurer's time taking trips to Brisbane and Melbourne to look at the operation of other jurisdictions' mounted operation units. Now we can certainly reflect that the Treasurer did not bring back an approach that prioritised value for money in his trips. We have come now to learn that that relocation of the horses and the other various SAPOL activities that need to be relocated are going to cost the taxpayer somewhere close to $100 million.

It is not even the fact that the cost has escalated; it is the fact that we are going to get a much diminished service but still be expending that amount of money. SAPOL themselves have said that they expect the response time to increase from what is currently 10 minutes to something in the order of 40 minutes or even potentially up to 50 minutes to respond to events. We are spending $100 million and we are getting a diminished service from that. If that is sensible decision-making, let me tell you it does not make a lot of sense to me. It is a hefty price tag by any stretch of the imagination and certainly media commentary has reflected that.

In regard to SA Water, I did want to touch on this for a period of time as well. We have the preparation, as we know, with what happens every four years with SA Water preparing their four-yearly plan. We asked a pretty simple question of the Treasurer as to whether he had provided any advice or had a discussion with SA Water about the regulatory asset base and the pricing order that was going to need to be made and the discussion that happens at these times between the Treasurer's office and SA Water.

These estimates took place on 29 June. The Premier's response was that he had not turned his mind to the pricing order at all. Through FOI, his diary indicates that the Treasurer met with SA Water on 28 March, 12 April and 16 May, prior to this estimates process. I am very keen to understand—given the fact that this is the biggest decision that SA Water make, certainly in regard to their interaction with Treasury over a four-year period, I find it difficult to believe that any discussion whatsoever around that pricing order had not come up in those meetings that the Treasurer undertook during that period of time.

As I touched on earlier, this is the first estimates where we really have had to look closely at the decisions that have been made by this government. The first budget, of course, is essentially the delivery of election commitments. Now we get to the point of looking closely at the decisions that are being made and the changes that are being made across government and also by specific departments. It is clear to us that the level of transparency that was talked about prior to coming to government, certainly, has never eventuated by any stretch of the imagination.

I will also turn briefly to a local issue on which I have asked a number of questions in a number of estimates processes, which is the sand management and beach management review that is occurring at the moment in regard to the metropolitan coastline. Only one section—the southern beaches—has had a reticulation system in place now for nearly 10, or close to 15, years that has served those beaches well. We had the government come in promising to undertake a review and tear up the contract and the long-term solution that was in place.

I am certainly none the wiser, off the back end of the estimates process, as to what the government's plan is and what they are actually looking to do. The only thing we have really learned is that the options that are going to be put forward at this point are not going to have been assessed for their viability or their cost, so it is difficult to move quickly off the back of that to start. The options report was meant to be released last Friday. That was the information provided to the working group that has been meeting with the department in regard to this review. We clearly did not see it released on Friday, we did not see anything yesterday and, again, we are still waiting.

After what is now 15 months of this government, we are no closer to seeing a solution to the significant erosion issues that are there on our metropolitan coastline, particularly through my local area—whether that be at West Beach, where we had essentially seen the beach completely restored and started again, to now Henley Beach South and Henley Beach and moving further north. The longer we do not have a solution in place, the worse those beaches are going to fare, particularly as we head into windier weather and weather that has had more significant effects on our coastline over time.

I also want to briefly discuss some of the other responsibilities that I have, particularly in regard to questions that were put around the public sector and in regard to SafeWork SA. It is very clear, from responses that have since come back to me from the Attorney-General, that there is a lot of work to be done in ensuring that SafeWork SA are appropriately staffed. We are not just, at this point in time, asking SafeWork SA to undertake their normal responsibilities. We are asking SafeWork SA potentially, in the not too distant future, to take additional responsibilities that have not been there previously.

We know, given the responses that have been provided to me today in regard to SafeWork SA staffing, that there are significant shortfalls in inspectors and investigators at SafeWork SA. The parliament can work collaboratively. We can do everything that we can to ensure that workers are safe in the workplace and that the mutual obligation that employers and employees have in keeping each other safe in the workplace is entitled to, but if we do not properly staff SafeWork SA, if we do not ask SafeWork SA to investigate incidents, if we do not have SafeWork SA investigating instances where they are reported, both in the paper and more broadly—we still have no answers in regard to what happened in the building directly opposite this place.

We know that SafeWork has had a look at it but decided not to pursue it. We still do not understand why. These were questions that were asked through the estimates process. These are questions that still remain unanswered by this government. They are significant, and it reflects poorly on the approach of this government to this point and their ability to sell and to deliver election commitments more broadly.

On a final note, if you look at the trajectory of the budget moving forward, it is clear that there cannot be an overspend anywhere close to what occurred this financial year moving forward. There is just no doubt about that. I know that everybody on this side of the house and I know that the public more broadly will be looking very closely at what happens over the coming 12 months.

Traditionally, we are well aware of the Labor Party's approach. I know everybody more broadly has seen what was done under the Weatherill government to get us to the point where additional taxes needed to be put in place to cover the spending that was done. It goes without saying that nothing has changed, certainly in our eyes. Labor still cannot be trusted to manage money, to manage budgets. The questions that were raised during the estimates process have certainly confirmed that to me.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Odenwalder.