House of Assembly Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1) 55 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate State Budget State Budget The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER House of Assembly Morialta Deputy Leader of the Opposition The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:10): I want to take this five minutes to provide a ready reckoner to my constituents, and those others watching the parliamentary feed, on the state budget: how it impacts South Australians and, in particular, having a mind to how it impacts South Australians who are young or potentially have not even been born yet. The headline thing in a budget people talk about is deficits and surpluses. The Treasurer is proud that he has delivered a surplus. I point to the fact that in this year's budget there is nearly $3 billion extra in the budget than was forecast just a couple of years ago. This is extra money coming into the state each and every year as a result of bracket creep on things like payroll tax. The businesses who were not previously paying payroll tax are now paying payroll tax because the cost of labour has gone up. Businesses who were paying less payroll tax are now paying more because of inflation and the cost of labour. It is because of significant increases in GST revenue, unanticipated by earlier budgets, because of the cost of living going up dramatically. Can I say, this budget surplus is built on a fabrication. In terms of real terms, what it is built on is a massively inflated tax take: stamp duty because the property prices have gone up, payroll tax going up because the cost of labour is going up, and GST going up dramatically because the cost of food and other groceries has gone up. Despite the small operating surplus as a result of this billions of dollars of extra tax take—which, of course, the government has immediately starting spending each and every year going forward rather than putting any aside to pay down debt or putting any aside to let South Australians be taxed less through reductions in tax or payroll tax—there is also a massive inflation in the debt figure. Some people ask, 'Why can the debt go up even though there is an operating surplus?' The debt can go up because the operating surplus does not take into account capital investment. It does not take into account the expense, for example, of the north-south corridor. It does not take into account, for example, the expense of the Women's and Children's Hospital. I highlight these two projects because they are specifically inflated as a result of decisions taken by this government. Both projects are delayed and inflated as a result of rescoping and changing and delays by this government. The north-south corridor is $5 billion more expensive and being delivered later as a result of the decisions of this government and the Minister for Transport. The Women's and Children's Hospital has been moved to knock down the police barracks and is being delivered later, as a result of the decisions by this government and the health minister. It is $1 billion more than it was going to be. These decisions matter; they delay projects and they massively inflate the debt. I should also say, of course, the Women's and Children's Hospital also has the corollary that they are moving the police horses and the dogs—and the band, presumably, and other things—to Gepps Cross at a cost of, presumably, $200 million or more extra, all added to the state's credit card. This is the financial outcome of the Malinauskas Labor government. Stephen Mullighan, the Treasurer, says occasionally, 'The former government put on debt as well.' That is true. We were dealing with a once-in-a-generation—in fact, once-in-four-generations—global pandemic. It was a once-in-100-year global pandemic where we had to spend money to keep people alive and to keep people in jobs. That is a fairly significant difference. The government has put extra money into health. We acknowledge that they talk a lot about the inputs into health; we are interested in the outcomes in health. The government did not promise, 'We are going to put X, Y and Z inputs and, after every budget, add in extra inputs because our plan isn't working.' The government said they were going to fix ramping, and ramping is three times worse. We are interested in outcomes. The government only talks about inputs. We have said that we will relieve the burden on GPs, and in particular their patients, if we are elected next election by removing the payroll tax from GPs which this government is going to start collecting on 1 July. We have also said that we will increase the threshold on payroll tax to deal with some of that bracket creep, and we will remove payroll tax from apprentices and trainees because we do not think it is fair that they have that impost put on them, given that small businesses are paying that, and larger businesses are doing the state, those apprentices and trainees a great favour by employing them in that way. As the shadow minister for education, training and skills, I note that the budget's big spending allocations here were in training—although actually that was an allocation that was announced in October last year despite the government's repeated efforts to get new media for it—and in three-year-old preschool, which was promised for 2026 and is now being delivered in 2032. My summary for the constituents in Morialta and elsewhere is that this was not a very good budget. I am not very impressed by the work the government has done here, and I urge them to do better in their final year next year—the fourth and final Malinauskas government budget—ahead of better management coming in 2026.