Bills

Supply Bill 2024

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 1 May 2024.)

Mr COWDREY (Colton) (12:00): I would like to continue the remarks that I began yesterday on this important bill, the Supply Bill, that provides a level of funding to the government to fill the period before the parliament passes the Appropriation Bill for the coming financial year. I note at this point that, despite the questions raised yesterday in regard to the Hansard record around the insertion of the second reading speech and explanation of clauses into Hansard and what appears to be a significant difference and issue with the financial year, we have not seen the Treasurer correct the record. Again, I stand here waiting and hoping that that will be done imminently.

In regard to some of the issues that we traversed yesterday, the vast majority of my contribution to this point has surrounded the clear contrast between where the government sees the economy sitting and the language that has come from the government to this point. Again, I paraphrase the Premier telling South Australian households and businesses that they have never had it better and that the economy is flying. The stark reality for households, as we know, is that they are significantly worse off compared to where they were when this government came to power in 2022.

The average South Australian household effectively is more than $20,000 worse off, with an escalation of costs around mortgages, everyday household items, insurances, electricity costs and effectively everything across the board on the back of what has been a historically high period of inflation not just for the country but specifically in South Australia. I think it is important to point that out, and I will come back to it at a later point, that Adelaide itself has the highest inflation rate of all Australian cities, and it has been the case for at least the last period. There is something that clearly says that South Australians are doing it tougher than most other places. As we discussed yesterday, this comes on top of historic rises in housing costs.

I do not think there is a day that goes by when there is not commentary around how difficult it is for first-home buyers to break into the market. We see in the media yesterday a thought that at some time in the not too distant future property prices in Adelaide could eclipse those over our eastern border in Victoria, in Melbourne specifically. I do not think that is anything that anybody in this place would have thought possible in our lifetime. I know, growing up as I have, we have always looked to the east and thought how lucky we are in South Australia to have property prices that are relatively affordable in comparison.

Even if you look back to the period of time during COVID, so many people moved back from not just interstate, the east coast, west coast, or wherever else they moved back from, but also overseas, and part of the decision-making process was not just the fact that we were in a jurisdiction that handled COVID as well as anywhere in the world. I think it is not a stretch to make that comment; it has been well said, and from many places. But also, because of the relative affordability of the Adelaide housing market at that point in time, people could move from the east coast—from much smaller blocks and sometimes even apartments—back to Adelaide, where we have significantly larger block sizes, and be able to come and raise their children in a place that we all love living in.

That is the reason each and every one of us, the 47 of us in this chamber, choose to stay where we have been born and bred, for many of us, or for those who have come from interstate to call South Australia home. It has always been one of the major selling points for South Australia, the fact that we have affordable housing stock. To see the headline that, essentially, the expectation from some quarters is that we could be eclipsing Melbourne in the not too distant future is a frightening thing for many.

I also want to begin my remarks today by giving an update. Yesterday I went through a list of companies and businesses—mostly in the hospitality industry—that have, unfortunately, really suffered over this period of time. Again, this is in complete contrast to the constant commentary from the Labor government, and the Premier in particular, that small businesses and households have never had it better.

It was a significant list of businesses that I traversed yesterday. They were not just isolated to metropolitan Adelaide, the CBD or a particular part of suburban Adelaide, but a complete spread, from regional small businesses to the CBD, to areas like my own in Henley and right across the metropolitan area. There are a number of hospitality businesses that just have not been able to make it work in the current economic climate where we have significant cost escalations across just about everything that goes into the cost base of running a small business, whether it be rent, electricity prices or the cost of the products that they use.

In The Advertiser this morning, we learned that a cafe sitting adjacent to The Duke of Brunswick Hotel has been the latest casualty in what was described by the journalist as 'the state's hospitality crisis.' I think it is difficult to characterise what is happening around the CBD and our suburbs as anything but that. To this point, have we heard any commentary from the government in terms of what they intend to do, where they intend to step in or what they would like to do to assist in putting downward cost pressure on the environment for small business? There has been virtually nothing.

The cafe that I reference is called The dob. As I said, it is a cafe that sits next to The Duke of Brunswick Hotel on Gilbert Street. They announced just this morning that they will be closing their doors for the final time on Friday at 2pm. The owner of that business is somebody with whom I note the opposition stood side-by-side calling for help.

The question that sits with the government is: where are they now in this business owner's time of need? The reference from that owner essentially outlines that the current economic landscape made it as challenging as it has ever been for smaller businesses to stay open. I quote directly from the article, in which the owner, who also runs a number of hotels in the state—at least two—said that 'increasing costs and additional burdens such as payroll tax made it untenable for us to operate the cafe without compromising the stability' of other operations.

It is obviously a difficult decision for any small business owner to reach the point where they have to close their business, not just in the interests of their own financial situation but often with the interests of their broader family and the other considerations that come into making those decisions. This is someone who employs 60 people in South Australia and that number has diminished off the back of a decision that has had to be made. That is a failure of government policy to have not found a way to step in and assist in what has been an incredibly difficult period of time for this industry and small business in general.

As I touched on yesterday, it is not that this government has not had the capacity. The additional revenues that have come into this government off the back of each and every household and each and every small business that has been doing it tough has been immense, unlike anything that those opposite could have ever pictured. But, again, instead of showing fiscal discipline, instead of showing an ability to provide or to make any real effort to make things that little bit easier for those households and small businesses doing it tough, instead of doing that, it was simply trousered into general revenue to cover the cost blowouts that had occurred over the previous year.

It is little wonder that some of these small business owners are sitting there wondering where to from here and will this government come to help us. Again, it is such a stark contrast to the approach that was taken by the former government where decisions that were made were made in the interest of trying to reduce the cost burden for South Australian small business, whether that was the emergency services levy, whether that was around water bills, whether that was around payroll tax, or whether that was around electricity prices generally with the interconnector putting downward pressure on those.

But the business referenced in the article this morning was not the only one. Another two have just announced their closure. Japanese restaurant, Kosho, in North Adelaide, and Foam coffee in Rundle Place have both closed after falling into liquidation as well, on top of the long list of businesses that I referenced yesterday. It is very clear that something needs to change. It is very clear that it is very difficult for small business at the moment. There has to be a realisation of that on the government benches and on the Treasury benches, that it is now time to step up and provide a level of support, to provide some downward pressure on the cost environment for small business in South Australia, because if steps are not taken then the list that I went through yesterday and added to this morning will only get longer and longer.

That stands at the feet of a Premier who has described himself as a pro-business Premier. Again, in my view, and in the view of this side of the house, clearly that is another case of this government saying one thing and actually doing something completely different. We need only look at the headline promise from this government and the crab walk that so quickly turned from talking about ramping, about ambulance response times, to talking about anything but the core election commitment that was made to the people of South Australia that sat on virtually every Stobie pole across suburban Adelaide and much more broadly across the state: that this government would fix the ramping crisis.

Instead, where are we more than two years later? Ramping is significantly worse than it was at the time of the election—significantly worse. If decisions cannot be made in the best interests of both the people of South Australia and the South Australian business community on the back of what the Treasurer himself described as windfall levels of GST and what I would happily describe as windfall levels of payroll tax and stamp duties coming into the Treasury coffer, then imagine when times are bad. Imagine if revenue had dropped. It is a frightening prospect.

More broadly, if I turn to some of the other issues that are making things more difficult for South Australian households and families, I think the first one—and I referenced it earlier—is in regard to inflation. We have experienced the highest level of inflation in the nation in Adelaide for a significant period of time now. As I said yesterday we have, for the first time in a 12-month period from March 2023 to March 2024, slipped down to 4.3 per cent but, again, maintaining the highest inflation rate in the nation.

What does that mean in reality? It means that every South Australian family and every South Australian small business is still having to dig that little bit deeper into their pockets just to pay for what they did previously. That is the stark reality of what that statistic means for South Australian families. It is not something that sits well when we think that we have had these issues for such a period of time, and that the inflation rate has done nothing but assist the revenues coming into the state coffers.

The other issue I want to touch on, probably more briefly, is the reality around the unemployment rate. There has certainly been a lot of talk on the other side of the house about where we are as a state in regard to unemployment. Obviously, there are flow-on effects that come from having significant employment and having labour shortages. I do not think there is a week that goes past when I do not talk to a small business or a medium-sized business, for that matter, or even a large business. One of the key things that they talk about is that finding labour has been difficult—although it is clear from the work that the South Australian Business Chamber has done around their survey of business expectations, that this is now not the first or primary concern for South Australian businesses.

The crest is well and truly starting to form, in terms of where these statistics are going. We have heard a lot about record employment numbers, and the record of number of people employed in the state, but there has been a significant change over the past couple of months. We are now a lot further away from that number and when it was achieved than we have ever been. Frighteningly, in the last lot of the ABS data that was released in relation to employment numbers and the unemployment rate just a couple of weeks ago, there was obviously a significant uptick in the unemployment rate in South Australia, upwards of 0.6 per cent, and now sitting at 3.9 per cent which, again, is historically low but in comparison now, bringing South Australia back towards the bottom end of the table when we look across the border at other jurisdictions.

The frightening part is the fact that 10,000 jobs were lost over that month but, more than that, 11,500 fewer people were in full-time employment. It is not just that jobs were disappearing, as had been the case in the previous month, but that full-time work has taken the biggest hit. Again, what does that mean for the average South Australian family? It means that in a cost-of-living crisis, where families are now more than $20,000 a year worse off than they were when this government came to power, their ability to cover those costs is getting more and more difficult. The ability to find full-time work has clearly, from the statistics that have been presented by the ABS, become more difficult.

I did start to work through some of the issues yesterday in regard to the South Australian Business Chamber, as they are now known. It is going to take a little bit of time for me to adjust to that; it is somewhat of a back-to-the-future move but something that will take a period of time for all of us who have been around the place for the last few years to get used to. Their Survey of Business Expectations was released for the March quarter just a couple of days ago. We touched on the fact that, of those who responded to the survey, nearly 40 per cent of businesses felt that the state's economy would perform weaker or slightly weaker over the upcoming year.

The two key measures in that survey are business confidence and business conditions, something that is measured not just by Business SA but by NAB and a range of other surveys that are conducted over periods of time. What is clear is that there has been a trend, certainly in this data, where business conditions are progressively getting worse. In fact, they are down four points on the data of the previous quarter but also down to what is now essentially the lowest point since COVID. They are also well below the level that business conditions were at the last election.

Again, what businesses are seeing out there is not just a complete and utter contrast from what the government is saying but a clear indication that there has been difficulty for them across a range of different areas. I will go into more detail in regard to some of the issues that have been pulled out by the Business Chamber. In particular, in regard to business conditions themselves, I think it is important to highlight that essentially this fall has happened over the full part of the last 12 months.

We are now obviously well and truly below the neutral score, which is 100, sitting at 86.7 points, but we have lost 19 points compared with where we were a year ago. So businesses on one hand are being told by this government that they have never had it better, but the reality is that we know business conditions are 20 points worse, basically, than they were this time a year ago. It is just chalk and cheese.

Further from that data, in regard to business conditions, the chamber in their survey drill into the primary issues that are affecting businesses in this state. We have already discussed the issue around costs, which is clear. I do not think you would meet a household or a business that would say that there has been no escalation in costs for them over the last 24 months, because clearly that just has not been the case. You only need to look at macro figures to know that that is well and truly true.

Two of the top four issues are effectively issues that government has either control of or a degree of control of, with the first being input costs. That was the primary issue affecting business, and there was a significant jump in that across the last six months, now sitting at 77 per cent of businesses outlining that that is something that is affecting their business. The second of those two issues is government policy, and I think this is an important one to touch on. I will go into more detail on that. Government policy has increased across the last six months in particular and is increasingly becoming an issue for South Australian businesses.

That is the complete opposite of what governments should be doing. Governments should be here to try to grow jobs, to drive investment, to improve business conditions, but instead we have the businesses of South Australia saying that government policy is making things more difficult for them and has become more of an issue for them, particularly over the last six months. That is not a pro-business government. Businesses are telling us, are responding to this survey and saying that the direction this government has taken and the policies this government is implementing are detrimental to them. That is not me saying that, it is not the opposition saying that: it is South Australian small businesses saying that.

As I touched on yesterday in regard to costs, some ideas have been floated by the South Australian Business Chamber, in particular around electricity rebates—and I will go into that in more detail later in my contribution—but their pre-budget submission, as highlighted both in this document and more broadly publicly as well, has called on the government effectively to double that and to look at payroll tax reform as a matter of absolute urgency. That reflects not just what the SA Business Chamber is saying, that reflects what we are hearing from business both publicly and privately in discussions the opposition has had, too.

Again, these are decisions that should have happened 12 months ago. These are decisions made when a government has additional revenues coming into its budget on the back of small businesses, on the back of households, paying more and more and more. This is a government that has profited from higher costs to households and small businesses and, instead of doing anything to provide relief to make things better—small bits and pieces—it is clear from the numbers that it has pocketed a lot more than it has provided back to anybody.

In regard to the issue that I highlighted around government policy becoming a bigger issue for small business in South Australia, the chamber has pulled out—and I will read the document verbatim so that I do not make a misstep:

Government policies were again a concern featuring in the top five issues—

at number four, I may add—

for [nearly half] of businesses. Many respondents commented that recent industrial relations changes at both state and federal levels have become a major constraint.

We only need to look back at what has happened, both at the federal level and the state level over the last little while, in regard to industrial relations. We know that, clearly, for Labor governments it is a constant tension, a constant tension between both sides of this house—there are slightly different values: the value of job creation, of understanding that business creates jobs as opposed to governments, that the government is there to support, to uplift and to provide opportunity, that we cannot have a state where essentially we do not foster new industries, new businesses and the creation of new jobs.

One of the issues that was very clear was that government policy around industrial relations has put on a handbrake and became a concern for small business in South Australia. We only need to look back again at some of the major changes that have come in. Within the first six months of this government, roughly, the changes to the Return to Work scheme saw the levy paid by South Australian businesses increase. As cited in this document as well, industrial manslaughter provisions have not been well understood by small businesses in South Australia to this point. There are difficulties for businesses understanding what those laws mean for their businesses and the requirements they will now need to meet as a result.

There is also the additional public holiday in particular affecting those hospitality businesses that we have just mentioned, a long and growing list of small businesses now not able to operate based on the existing cost environment. This government rushed a bill through both houses of parliament in quick succession, with no engagement whatsoever with the business community, and funnily enough, what have we got? We have hospitality businesses in South Australia not able to open their doors anymore and hospitality businesses that once employed South Australians no longer doing so.

This is what happens when you do not understand the consequences of decisions that you make. This government had no regard whatsoever for the potential impacts on the business community when making some of these changes, in particular around the public holiday. How do we know that? Because they did not even bother to talk to them, did not even bother to seek their input around what it would mean for hospitality businesses in South Australia who are disproportionately affected by public holidays and who are finding it tougher in South Australia to operate.

At the federal level, one of the key issues for small businesses, in particular, has been the closing loopholes legislation that had been passed through federal parliament. As I said earlier, businesses that responded to this survey highlighted industrial manslaughter and psychosocial hazards regulations that were brought in under the WHS Act as some of the key drivers for business in terms of these things becoming issues.

One of the telling parts of how this government, and the federal government in particular as well, have gone about their industrial relations reform, and as I mentioned before with little to no consultation in some circumstances with business, is the fact that they have tried to keep these changes, as best they could, under the rug, keep these issues out of the media, keep these issues as low profile as possible, and as has been touched on earlier, despite what the Premier espouses as his pro-business credentials, the reality of what is happening is obviously quite different from that.

The approach that this government has taken does have consequences in reality. If you look at the survey results in regard to broad business awareness of the changes that have been made both by the federal government and this government in regard to the closing loopholes bill, nearly 70 per cent of businesses in South Australia are either not aware that the legislation has come in or do not understand what they need to do to comply with it. That is a problem—that is a significant problem.

When you look at the regulation changes around psychosocial hazards in the workplace that came in under the WHS Act in South Australia, again, just over 70 per cent of businesses have said that they are either not aware of the regulation changes or they do not know how to comply with them. That is a failing of government. That is a clear desire of this government again to pitch itself as a pro-business government, to try to sift through the desires of the unions but not draw it to business attention as best as they possibly can.

But what does that mean? We have a business community in South Australia that is now largely unaware or does not understand how to comply with the legislation that has been brought in. That does not serve anybody's interests. It does not serve the outcomes of what the union is trying to achieve. It does not serve the outcomes of what small businesses in South Australia are trying to achieve.

It is a fundamental failing of government when you have a government that is not even willing to stand by what they are trying to do by actually educating business in South Australia about what they are trying to achieve, but it says everything about this government because it is all smoke and mirrors, it is all say one thing and do another. That will come to light in time, but there is no greater evidence of that fact than the results of this survey.

I think it is also important to read some of the contributions. It is not just a quantitative survey; there is also the ability for those respondents who complete it to provide some commentary. There are a couple here that really stand out to me that I thought were worthwhile to put on the public record. The first being, and I quote:

Payroll Tax on general practitioners will have a big impact on affordable primary health care. Most general practices have a risk of closing.

We will get back to that issue later because it is important and it is one that is clearly going to be something that everybody is looking to in this state budget, given the amnesty that has been provided to this point, if it can be described as an amnesty. I have certainly heard rumblings from some businesses that it has not quite been as advertised, but it is a clear issue. I will come back to that in a second. The second quote states:

Payroll tax is a significant impost on a business of our size. This has been the first FY that we've reached the payroll tax threshold and it has made a tangible difference to our business. Without payroll tax, we would be able to employ an additional 1-2 FTE…

In layman's terms, that business could be employing two more South Australians. The third quote reads:

Payroll tax disproportionately impacts businesses whose wage costs are high relative to gross revenue. It does need to be reformed.

There are those businesses in South Australia finding it more difficult than everybody else at the moment. The hospitality industry is certainly an industry that would well and truly fit the definition provided in that quote. I have already discussed at length the fact that businesses are doing it tough in terms of costs. That is borne out in the survey as well. The report found, and I quote directly, that '77 per cent of businesses were concerned about the rising cost of wages, energy and rent'.

Finally, I think one of the most insightful and important parts of this survey was the foreword—I guess we cannot really call it a foreword, given it is at the back of the document—from William Buck that conducted the survey on behalf of the SA Business Chamber. They posed the question: why is the nation's best-performing economy dragging behind in business confidence and business conditions? It has explained what has been lost I think on this government for a long period of time because we would not be in this position if it had not been.

While there are positive macro indicators, those indicators that have provided the results, such as those of the CommSec survey, fail to consider the micro issues faced by businesses—costs, profitability and labour availability. When it comes to what this government has done for small business over their time in office to this point, what we can see is an escalation of costs with very little to show in terms of proportionate return of the substantial additional revenues that have come in to government.

We have seen clearly from this survey an increased burden and cost to small business on the back of industrial relations changes, and we have seen an inability for this government to communicate the new requirements and burdens that they wish to put on small business in South Australia. That does not sound like the record of a government that is out there trying to actively assist small business in our state.

The second piece of work that I want to briefly provide a level of commentary on today is in regard to a document that was released publicly earlier this week, conducted by the Committee for Adelaide, which is a new, non-partisan venture that seeks to work for the benefit of broader South Australia to provide thought leadership in regard to how the state can better prosper moving forward. I think it is a noble endeavour that has been well supported by some of the business community, community groups in South Australia and others more broadly—I think some of our educational institutions as well.

The work that was done has culminated in this document, which is titled '5 point plan to boost productivity', one would assume in South Australia and in Adelaide more specifically. Productivity is important. As I touched on yesterday, not only is it the very basis for improving our quality of life and delivering better wages, delivering better outcomes and ensuring that our GDP and GSP growth in the state continues to be driven forward but it positions us for the jobs of the future.

Interestingly, this bit of work highlighted five points, obviously, given the title of the document, to boost productivity. I think it is worthwhile moving these into the public record of this house but also providing a level of commentary around, at the very least, a couple of these points. The five points were:

1. Increase investment in technology, innovation, training and research and development (R&D) across government, academia and industry.

2. Position Adelaide to be a world-leader in digital technologies and artificial intelligence (AI).

3. Ensure South Australia leads the way in gender equity, inclusive workplaces and economic empowerment.

4. Support businesses to access talent, capital, and local supply-chain opportunities.

5. Reduce red-tape, speed up decision-making and modernise workplaces and systems.

In particular, I think the first two points are worthwhile reflecting on. All of them within this document are well and truly worthwhile, but the first two I see as almost the opposite of what has been occurring, as we understand it, and against the policies of this government to this point.

I will look specifically at the first one, 'Increase investment in technology, innovation, training and R&D across government, academia and industry'. If I reflect primarily on how that dot point relates to government, in the first of this government's budgets, where primarily the cost savings across a range of departments were borne out, the Premier I believe at that juncture highlighted the fact that a disproportionate amount of cost saving was going to be undertaken by his agency in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Despite the best efforts of all our shadow ministers during the estimates process that followed this government's first budget, essentially the answers to every question, provided by every minister, when it came to cost savings and efficiencies that had been provided to government departments or agencies, were essentially: 'We haven't identified those savings yet. It's too early for us to have done that. They will be achieved.' Clearly they were not, given the cost blowouts that occurred and were highlighted in their second budget relating to the first financial year.

It begs the question of what has happened within DPC around investment in digital government, around the transition of government services to digital platforms and around investment in cybersecurity. There is a broader question around this government's pathway, policy or agenda around technology, the digital world and government services. I know that in some ways this government has certainly had a view that anything that the former Premier, the former member for Dunstan, was interested in is surely something that they cannot be seen to be attaching themselves to in any way whatsoever, because that would, in some perverse way, prove that perhaps the former Premier was onto a good thing.

Certainly, it is my understanding—and I am happy to receive information from the government to the contrary—that within DPC currently there is not the same level of effort in regard to the work that was there prior to the election. That is the number one point to improving productivity, both across the public sector and the private sector, but primarily when we are talking about everything that we can directly control, which is of course the public sector. It would be helpful to get information at a period of time, considering that, for the second iteration of estimates on the back of the second budget, to this point there still have been no clear answers in terms of where budget cuts were made.

Certainly, when we reflect on the significant cybersecurity attacks that have occurred over the last 12 to 18 months—which were highlighted in this place for a prolonged period of time and were unfortunately kept secret, for lack of a better term, by this government until they were exposed in this very chamber—it has to be asked whether we are doing enough, whether we have maintained our effort and whether the cuts that may or may not have been made within DPC have borne any level of additional risk to the public sector. Secondly, what pathway, what trajectory, have they placed South Australia on when it comes to improving the productivity of the public sector in South Australia?

The second dot point that was pulled out in particular was to position Adelaide to be a world leader in digital technologies and AI. This is one that I think is particularly important for us to reflect on because, again, I do not think that I have heard much in terms of positive commentary from those who are involved in Lot Fourteen or in some of the other institutions further down North Terrace, directly to our east, in regard to the level of importance or investment from this government on that site since the change of government. It has certainly been a question that has been put to me on a number of occasions, whether the Deputy Premier as the responsible minister actually has much of an interest at all in procuring, in providing improvement on that site.

It has often been described to me as something that was entirely positive for the direction of South Australia—that Lot Fourteen was providing a space where we had businesses wanting to come. It was, and hopefully still is, a magnet where we had significant international companies that were moving on the presumption that they would be joining a growing, flourishing environment of R&D focused on new digital technologies and AI and centred, of course, by the Australian Institute of Machine Learning.

We have these thought leaders, the Committee for Adelaide, putting out papers saying that we need to accelerate the creation of a flagship entrepreneurial and innovation centre and hub at Lot Fourteen to continue collaboration and commercialisation of IP across the universities as well as defence, space, cyber and critical technology sectors—all those sectors that were effectively identified by the previous government as being important not just to provide the jobs for the future but also to provide growth industries for the future here in South Australia.

We have that same group calling for the fact that Lot Fourteen needs to position itself as the national leader for AI and digital skills and training, and that we want the best and brightest to be seeking opportunities in South Australia.

The questions that are often put to me are: when was the last time we saw a press conference at Lot Fourteen? When was the last time we saw a positive announcement from this government at Lot Fourteen? Where is the story? Where is the continued journey that Lot Fourteen had been on? Where is the continued attention that should be there? These are the questions that are so frequently put to me and they are ones that I unfortunately find difficult to answer, because from my perspective it has been difficult to see much by way of attention from this government in regard to that sector that we know is going to be critical and we know is going to underpin productivity, GSP growth and new opportunities in this state.

We can go into a further debate about the priorities for this government and the fact that perhaps they are not as interested in supporting some of these sectors, perhaps they are not as interested in supporting some of these small start-up businesses and perhaps they are not as excited about supporting opportunities to really change the face of what South Australia is and stands for.

The disappointing part about that is how well positioned those industries of defence, space, cyber and critical technologies are to the underpinning work and commitments that we have from the federal government that were secured through the former Liberal state and federal governments around the AUKUS agreement where we will see, all going well, nuclear-powered submarines built not more than 15 to 20 kilometres away from here, give or take, down at Osborne.

We know that we are well positioned for some of these sectors, primarily on the basis that we have both the space and the ability. I noticed in the paper earlier this week or last of a recent launch from the South Australian outback. We are well positioned both from a geographic perspective but also from a skills base, and a soft investment that has been made at Lot Fourteen. It is absolutely critical that the momentum that has been gained over the term of the Marshall Liberal government is not lost during the first term, and hopefully only term, of this Labor government because it does not serve South Australia well to have a departure from the approach that has been taken to this point.

We can see it, and the Committee for Adelaide can see it. It is something that very clearly needs to be addressed by this government, and it needs to be clear. Are they committed to Lot Fourteen? Are they committed to these sectors or not? It is as simple as that and, to this point, I am not sure that those answers have been clear, concise or in any way communicated more broadly to South Australia.

In the five minutes or so before we hit lunch, I just thought it important to go back and give a brief history of how we have reached this point with the South Australian state budget. In coming into government, Labor had a significant level of election commitment. Having looked at the books in their first budget, I am sure the question for them would have been, at that point in time, how they were going to deliver those. We know—well, we certainly know on this side of the house anyway—that the answer to that question was simply to push the two biggest infrastructure projects in the state's history into a review, to get them out beyond the forward estimates to then allow them to deliver what they had committed to prior to the election.

There is a broader question in regard to those projects—(a) we know that the productivity benefit that would have been gained from the delivery of those projects earlier is clearly not going to be realised and (b) the significant cost escalation that has come on the back of those reviews. Again, it is hard to determine whether these things are good, bad or otherwise when essentially the cost-benefit ratios and the plans on which these decisions have been made are not released publicly and, more so, have not even been released to the likes of the Auditor-General, as we understand it. He has, to this point, obviously made requests of the government for attachments or cabinet submissions. We will at a future point in time I am sure address this issue again with the newly minted Auditor-General.

But then there is the question around the role of the CFMEU in some of these decisions to delay some of these projects. The union had had little to no involvement—certainly by way of the Victorian branch anyway—in South Australia up until the Premier of South Australia was elected in 2022. We saw pictures of the Premier arm-in-arm with CFMEU members on the night of his election. We saw a donation accepted on behalf of the South Australian Labor Party from the CFMEU, despite the questionable behaviour that had occurred by union leadership prior.

If we want to talk about the impact of industrial relations on small businesses here in South Australia, certainly within the construction sector, there has been no greater impact for them than the Victorian-led John Setka takeover of the South Australian branch of the CFMEU. We have seen small businesses essentially held over to sign union EBs. We have seen picket lines at the front of South Australian small businesses that are just trying to do their jobs, get out there and build infrastructure in South Australia.

The question that still remains on this side of the house in regard to the CFMEU's role, in what will be the two most important infrastructure projects in our state's history to this point, is how much will they benefit? How much will the CFMEU benefit from the new Women's and Children's Hospital project? How much will they benefit from the cost escalation that has come from the review? I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00.