APPROPRIATION BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

(Continued from page 3684.)

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (15:25): I rise to briefly speak on behalf of Family First on the Appropriation Bill. I note that the Hon. Robert Brokenshire will make his contribution early next week, to which I am looking forward, of course.

As with all budgets there are good and negative aspects. Family First is in favour of a number of the measures that the government has adopted in this bill but, of course, we are not so impressed with some other measures. I do not have a long speech today, but I have prepared some key measures, if you like, that I would like to highlight that we are quite pleased with, and also some of the ones we are not happy with at all.

In saying that, a recent survey found that 77 per cent of Australians believe that the government's prime objective (and when I say 'the government' I mean not necessarily this state government but any government's prime objective) should be to achieve the greatest happiness of the people and not necessarily the greatest wealth. Budgets, unfortunately, focus on things which can be given a dollar figure. The more intangible aspects of our lives, like happiness, family and respect for the law and institutions, are made irrelevant if only because they cannot be easily quantified.

Family First, as a party, is perhaps most interested in those intangible things—not that we are not interested in budget matters, which are very important. However, as I mentioned, we believe that less tangible matters are as important and, indeed, in many cases, more important. These are things like defending traditional family values; promoting the value of every human life; supporting marriage and family in general; preventing reckless drug behaviour; pursuing justice for the poor and marginalised; supporting education and the benefits thereof; supporting victims and preventing crime; curbing South Australia's appalling addiction to gambling; looking after our environment without becoming extreme in that regard; and ensuring high-quality health care for the city and, indeed, for the country.

Strong families make life worth living. At times, important things do come down to money, and that is when Family First will take a close interest in budget matters—when they affect the family. I will start by doing something somewhat unusual as a cross-bencher, and that is to applaud the government for several measures. As I said, there are good aspects to this budget and there are things that Family First does not like at all.

First, the government has provided (to its credit) $190.6 million in this budget to protect children from harm and neglect. Some $15 million is provided for early intervention and home visiting centres to support children at risk of abuse. At a time when reports of child abuse have doubled in the past six years, these measure are more than appropriate and most welcome. Australia now has some 266,745 reports of child abuse each and every year—a figure which demands urgent attention and, I think, to anyone's mind, it is absolutely appalling. Indeed, last year we had an appalling 20 per cent more babies born with drug withdrawal symptoms in our hospitals than the year before. Clearly, that also needs urgent attention. Therefore, I take the rare step (some would say) of congratulating the government in approving these budget measures. This is, indeed, a step in the right direction.

Family First also agrees with a primary focus in another area of the budget, and that is what the Treasurer himself described as a public transport revolution. He backed that up by explaining that it was the most ever spent on rail. We do quibble with that to some extent because, in fact, William Webb (in the 1920s) probably spent more when one looks at the actual spending in real dollar terms. However, in doing so, he almost bankrupted the state—something we certainly would not applaud. This budget, as far as we can tell in real terms, has spent the second-highest amount on public transport to date in our history, and that is to be applauded.

There is little to be gained politically in budgeting for the expensive electrification and standardisation of the rail network, but it is something that is necessary for the long-term benefit of this state and, again, we do applaud the government on this initiative. We also wonder whether the commonwealth was approached to fund the electrification, given that Perth's electrification was federally funded some years ago. I ask the question: did the government miss an opportunity to seek funding from them; if not, what are the details of the funding and what is the arrangement with the federal government?

Family First disagrees with certain aspects of the plan, however. Whilst the broad brush of increasing the spending on public transport is to be applauded, we disagree with the specific ways in which that will be spent. It is primarily a plan to bring commuters to entertainment venues rather than a genuine mass transit initiative. While we need rail access to AAMI Stadium and the Entertainment Centre, for example—to venues that are highlighted in the budget—we most urgently need ways to bring commuters to work and ordinary destinations such as their homes, shopping venues and other places at a time when South Australians are reeling under astronomical petrol prices.

In 1882, shortly after foundation, this state completed construction of the enormous Sleeps Hill viaducts and tunnels on the Belair railway line, the longest tunnel being some 377 metres in length through solid rock. It is concerning that over 120 years and with all our modern machinery we will not even contemplate doing anything on that scale, and certainly that has not been envisaged in present times.

Family First proposes that we extend the Tonsley rail line not only to the Flinders Medical Centre but also up the hills to meet with the defunct but still relatively complete Willunga rail corridor and provide rail access to Sheidow Park, Reynella, Woodcroft, Morphett Vale, Hackham and Huntfield Heights. Suburbs in the forgotten and neglected south are crying out for infrastructure. The beauty of this plan is that we do not then need to build a $51.7 million bridge over the Onkaparinga River from the Noarlunga rail line and will re-use the existing Willunga line bridge to reach Seaford and Aldinga.

If we were able to achieve such bold infrastructure improvements in the 1880s, why can we not do the same today? Let us look at the Barossa Valley as an example. Why should not the residents and the tourist destinations of the Barossa Valley have their rail corridor back? Instead of leasing it to GWA for an incredible $1 a year for the initial period for hauling limestone, let tourists finally take the train to the Barossa again. Let the 3,500 commuters who drop off their car at Gawler to take the train to work take it from the Barossa instead. Indeed, I have spoken to many people who would desperately like to see that be the case once again. The line is there; the infrastructure is there; this is imminently doable.

Why not look at rebuilding the Northfield line to Pooraka, cover the new Northfield subdevelopments of Walkely Heights and Valley View, with Park'n'Ride stations for Port Wakefield and Main North Roads? Again, the corridor is already there; it is just growing weeds at the moment, sadly. Meanwhile, if we are standardising the TransAdelaide network, does the government realise that trains can now go all the way to the Mount Barker junction again? Why focus on only one or two extra stops costing over $1 billion when we can run trains again through the Adelaide Hills at almost zero or very low new infrastructure cost?

For what they achieve, these need not be expensive projects. Perth's comparative 1991 northern suburbs line was achieved at an indexed cost of $341 million for some 33 kilometres of track and with a comparative 774 metre twin tunnel. I stress again that those costs are indexed for today. The 77 kilometres of their Southern Railway to Mandurah track built during 2004 to 2007 was done at a cost of $431 million, somewhere between $6 million and $10 million per kilometre, it is estimated. It is frankly wasteful that we are budgeting $162 million for a tiny stretch of track from North Terrace to the Entertainment Centre when Family First proposes we do far more with the same amount of money, as I have just outlined and which will benefit many more people. Outlying suburbs and regional South Australia are crying out for a resumption of passenger rail as other states have introduced. Petrol prices and environmental concerns demand significant and bold action, and South Australians want more than simply more convenient transport to their entertainment venues.

We also have the confusing double message in this budget of a touted so-called 'transport revolution' and at the same time a significant hike in ticket prices. Adelaide is now one of the most expensive public transport cities in the world, and it sends absolutely the wrong message. On 1 July the price of a single Metro ticket rose to $4.20 for a single trip. This ticket of course can be used for a period of up to two hours.

I will compare that with the cost in other cities of the world (and I have converted them to Australian dollars to provide a fair comparison). In Adelaide, the cost is $4.20; in Paris, on average, $1.97; in New York, $2.20; in Amsterdam, $2.20; in Tokyo, $3.10; in Lisbon, $1.37; in Athens, $1.75; in Berlin, $2.90; in Madrid, $1.38; in Rome, $1.38; and in Moscow, an incredible 40 cents. Yet we charge $4.20 for inferior services while calling it a transport revolution. This budget should also have expanded the fuel subsidy scheme to give some relief at the bowser, reducing the cost of petrol by 8¢ to 9¢ per litre.

So, the fuel subsidy scheme is to be introduced for an 8¢ to 9¢ subsidy. This is, indeed, a significant point, when one considers the incredibly high price of oil at the moment, which is now well over $US125 a barrel. If the Premier had outlined that the oil find in November, which is mentioned in the media, was worth about $1 billion at $US81 a barrel and it is now worth an extra $540 million to this state, surely this additional unexpected revenue would be enough to provide some fuel subsidy relief similar to that which Queensland experiences and about which I have previously spoken publicly.

Just prior to the state budget, Family First called for an introduction of a fuel subsidy, as I have said, to relieve families at the petrol bowser. It is timely that I speak today, when just yesterday in this place the report of the Select Committee on Pricing, Refining, Storage and Supply of Fuel in South Australia, which has attracted media attention overnight, called for some fuel subsidies, particularly for families in regional areas.

Family First has for years at state and federal levels been lobbying consistently to seek relief for families increasingly crushed by the rising cost of petrol. In the face of federal inaction, we believe that the state government has to tap into the windfall of the South Australian resources boom for the sake of South Australian families.

The Queensland scheme, upon which our proposal is modelled, runs at about $541 million per annum, based on the 2007-08 Queensland budget, but consistently delivers lower petrol prices in the order of 8¢ to 9¢ a litre below its interstate counterparts, including South Australia, of course. This results in cheaper prices for groceries and other essential items due to the reduced transport costs as well as reduced diesel costs for running farm machinery. In any event, are not South Australian families entitled the some direct dividend for oil exploration in the state's north, to which I have just referred? Indeed, the simple truth is that, if we have cheaper transport costs, we have cheaper almost everything.

The claim that cheaper petrol prices leads to inflation is absolute rubbish. The reality is that petrol is one of the components measured in the inflation basket. If petrol reduces in price, inflation goes down, not to mention the impact on all other items that I have just outlined—groceries, for example. As petrol gets cheaper, almost everything gets cheaper and, therefore, inflation goes down.

I return to the point I was making before about the Premier's claims. On 2 October last year, the Premier used the term 'the land of the giants' and announced that a significant oil find had been made by Innamincka Resources, a find which, based on the then crude oil price of $81 a barrel, was estimated conservatively in the media to be worth some $1 billion and headlined as a 'billion dollar oilfield'.

The question has to be asked: if that is the case, and given the extra revenue that is expected to flow into the state, why cannot some of that be handed back to families in the form of a petrol subsidy, just as they do in Queensland? South Australia's constant production of oil, according to the last figures we could obtain from 2004-05, was at some 577,084 kilolitres per annum at Port Bonython, and it will surely increase significantly when the Innamincka find comes on stream. No doubt it generates a healthy stream of royalty revenue to the state government. Surely this would be enough to provide some fuel subsidy relief similar to that in Queensland. Indeed, not only is there a benefit in the reduced fuel prices but also there are inflationary benefits, as I have just outlined.

Turning to another topic, Family First is disappointed that in this budget we continue to pour money into SHine SA and the AIDS Council, which have systematically and continually shown levels of disorganisation and open misuse of funds.

The AIDS Council has used government money to produce pro-drug use magazines, when its mantra is to do exactly the opposite. On its own admission, it refers its disabled clients to prostitutes; it demands that its workers have prostitution and drug use experience; and it misuses funds in other extraordinary ways—this is with public money. Instead of funding being cut and other service providers being sought out, it is actually provided with more money in this budget.

I said I would outline a few areas of concern. The Hon. Mr Brokenshire will pick up on a number of other issues. I wanted to highlight the initial response under the heading of appropriation, if you like, and I have done that. There are some key areas that I am pleased with, in the instance of the increased expenditure, which I have outlined, in terms of child protection and the focus on public transport. I have also outlined some of the areas that I am particularly concerned with, and the Hon. Mr Brokenshire will carry that on next Tuesday.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON (15:45): I had been waiting for the Hon. Bernard Finnigan to make his presentation on the Appropriation Bill, but on reflection I doubt that anything the honourable member will say will alter what I propose to say on this year's budget. Any government's budget provides a prism through which its true priorities can be discerned. The question one must ask is: has the government allocated the available resources to those in greatest need? To put the question a little more bluntly: have the allocations been made on the basis of the real needs of the community, or have they been made to meet the electoral objectives of a political party? The fact is that this budget is transparently a budget designed to improve the electoral prospects of the Rann Labor government and its priorities are clearly wrong.

Media focus on the budget has vastly increased in recent years. In my lifetime there was always media focus on the federal budget, which is understandable as people want to know what changes in taxation will be made—what will be the cost of a schooner of beer and how much will the price of smokes rise by, and so on—and whether pensioners will benefit. So there is great interest in the federal budget. Traditionally the state budget has not attracted as much media attention because in the past it has appeared that they do not directly affect individuals. But the media now quite properly gives blanket coverage to the state budget as well as the federal budget.

Unfortunately, the media focus and the pressure cooker lock-up is on what is in the budget: tell us all the goodies. The Treasurer goes into the lock-up, humours the journalists and spins the new measures and describes all the wonderful things he proposes to do. So, those who are there frequently overlook what is not in the budget. It is interesting to know what is not in this budget and what this government has overlooked, because that is as important in showing its priorities as is what it has decided to fund.

As has been the case in the past, this is a purely political budget. It is important that people look not at what a government says, because what it says is wonderful self-congratulation, but at what it actually does. So the budget provides a prism through which you can actually discern the priorities of this government. Here are the priorities of this government, including $100 million for a football stadium, $100 million for a professional organisation that even last week could not fill its stadium when there was a showdown in Adelaide under the existing facilities, a facility which in most terms is new. The temporary school buildings at the Rose Park Primary School which I attended more than 50 years ago are still there. The education department is still dealing with facilities half a century or a century old, as are many of the courts in our state, but here the government is deciding not to refurbish or do up those things and provide those services but, in a bread and circuses arrangement, to provide $100 million of taxpayers' funds to improve a facility that is privately owned on private land, albeit used by many members of the public.

Members opposite may be cat calling about the Liberal proposal in relation to stadia: our proposal is that the private sector ought to be encouraged to develop facilities of this kind, as it has in other places. With this government $100 million goes towards improving AAMI Stadium. Another $50 million goes to the Adelaide Entertainment Centre so that it can build new reception rooms and conduct business in competition with the private sector. Those things perfectly illustrate what this government regards as appropriate expenditure of public money.

The Chief Justice of South Australia is very highly esteemed throughout this country (as has recently been reported), and we all hope he will be appointed to the High Court some day—in fact, the government has been promoting his case. However, when it comes to his making the perfectly reasonable request that the Supreme Court building in Victoria Square, which is over 100 years old, be brought up to some modern standards with the provision of new toilets and the like, there is nothing at all given in this budget for that program. All that happens is that the judges get a mouthful of cheek from the Premier and the Attorney-General, saying that they are interested in a Taj Mahal.

Speaking of Taj Mahals, would you believe there is $1.6 million to actually refurbish the Attorney-General's office at 45 Pirie Street? That is not much, but he can find the money to do that, whereas he cannot find money in the budget to enable the courts to be refurbished—and not, as is being implied, for the benefit of the judges but for the benefit of litigants, witnesses and victims who have to go to those courts and who presently do not have access to those facilities.

Regarding expenditure and disability services, once again this government has been remiss in not providing funds to assist those seeking additional resources for members of the community who have disabilities, their families and supporters. There have been some announcements about equipment and the like, but when you see that $100 million can be found for a football stadium and $50 million can be found for an entertainment centre but that practically nothing can be found for those with disabilities, it shows that the priorities of this government are clearly wrong.

We find in the Mullighan inquiry report on children on the Anangu Pitjantjatjara lands a serious and valid recommendation for a remand facility to be established on the lands to meet certain requirements. Today the government announced its response to that inquiry, and we find that there are no funds to enable that to be done. This government has been shilly-shallying about developments on the lands for years but it was not until the Howard federal government's recent intervention, when serious dollars were put into Aboriginal programs, that it finally got moving on the building of police stations and other facilities.

However, it was not a priority of this government to implement the recommendations of the Mulligan inquiry. That is too difficult; there are no votes in that. They believe there may be some votes in football stadia and entertainment facilities and the like, but when it comes to serious decisions about improving facilities the government is missing in action. As we have come to learn, many of the good news stories that come out of the budget—which are swallowed hook, line and sinker by certain sections of the media—are not for programs which will show any beneficial result in the immediate future; they are over the horizon of the next election.

The mirage of the wonderful developments that are to occur in the future simply disguise the fact that nothing is being done at the present or, rather, what is being done at the present is to spend money on entertainment centres and the like. The proposed much-vaunted Marjorie Jackson-Nelson hospital—of which wonderful pictures appear in the papers from time to time—is not within the current horizon of this budget, and in any event is off budget as the government hopes to obtain a public-private partnership in relation to it. However, with the changing world financial markets, the capacity of the state of South Australia to undertake it or be attractive to investors is diminishing.

Similarly, with the correctional facility at Mobilong, there is $3 million, I think, in the budget this year for further feasibility studies, consultants, engagement, design and the like, but actually not one brick has been laid on that facility, which is just like the Marjorie Jackson Nelson hospital—an announcement without substance and without consultation. I think it is a perfect example with the new Mobilong prison where prison officers were not consulted; the psychological and other services that are essential to the effective running of a correctional institution were not consulted; and the convenience of the people who have spent their lives developing careers in this area were not considered. They are told that they can get on the non-existent bus and catch it on a daily basis to Murray Bridge. It is a further illustration of this government's knee-jerk response to serious policy.

The much-vaunted investment in public transport is also well over the horizon. What do we have in terms of a real development in the near future? It is an extension of the tramline from the casino to the Entertainment Centre without, on the one hand, any feasibility study, without any analysis of exactly where the tramline will go, of its effect upon the busiest thoroughfares and the busiest intersections in metropolitan Adelaide, of the real need for it, of the interrelationship between expanding the entertainment facility to have more daytime events and, on the other hand, the suggestion that there will be a Park'n'Ride facility that will enable vast numbers of people in the western suburbs to access this new line.

Once again, it is a project without substance, a project which will be attractive, which people can talk about on talkback radio but which, in substance, does not meet the real needs of the South Australian community. There is nothing of any substance in the budget for the transport needs of those people who live in the outlying suburbs of Adelaide who are not being adequately served.

This is not only a budget of missed opportunities. It is a budget that disguises the fact that this government's priorities are not the provision of services, not health, welfare and law and order as it proclaims but a budget for the re-election of a Labor government. It is deplorable, and I do hope that the community will soon come to learn how empty is the rhetoric of the Rann government.

Finally, on what is seen by many as the most significant problem facing the state and undoubtedly a problem of enormous dimensions—namely, the continued and expanded supply of fresh water for critical human needs in towns and cities in South Australia but also for food production—there is precious little being allocated in this state budget to resolve that issue. We constantly hear the government saying that it will be able to negotiate some additional funds that have already been allocated to South Australia through the federal government's initiatives, but there is clearly no financial planning of water policy evident in this budget.

The only thing we see here is the inclusion in this budget of an anticipated injection of funds from South Australian water users, on the false premise that the funds they are paying would be flowing into government coffers only after 1 July, whereas, the government, in fact, has now had to make the grovelling admission that it has cheated South Australian taxpayers by charging them for water used prior to 1 July. However, the important thing is that there is really no plan, no real budget provision, for solving this state's water problems. This budget is an abject failure.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN (16:01): I commence my contribution today by apologising to honourable members for the brief delay before the Hon. Mr Lawson's speech. It appears that the former treasurer and the former attorney-general on the opposite side felt unable to make a contribution to the Appropriation Bill until they had heard my contribution. I thank them for the compliment they pay me when they have to wait to hear my learned contribution before they are able to make a contribution of their own.

This budget continues the responsible fiscal management, investment in the future and framework for continuing economic growth in our state that the Rann government has built on over the last number of budgets. This budget is focused on action now for the future. It includes a huge investment—the biggest investment we have seen in decades—in public transport, which will lay down the foundations for electrification of the rail lines, north and south; an extension of the tram network; new buses; and other improvements in public transport.

We have seen that this budget includes funding to fix up court facilities and more money for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute crimes. This budget again shows, as we have in the past with the increased numbers of police officers and funding for police, this government's commitment to providing adequate public safety.

This budget comes on top of our previous budgets, which also focused on action now for the future. The super schools program will ensure that we have the right schools infrastructure into the future and, of course, we have seen a massive investment in the health system of our state, including the commitment to build the state-of-the-art Marjorie Jackson-Nelson hospital, which will be a world-leading hospital here in our city. We have continued our record of having an all-time high number of police, nurses and doctors being funded from the state budget, unlike the situation with members opposite, who went to the last election promising to get rid of 4,000 public servants to pay for their promises.

This budget is committed to building economic growth, which will be the bedrock of our future, as it always is, and this includes payroll tax cuts and the first home buyer's bonus, to ensure that we remain competitive with other states. The government has put in place the infrastructure and plans necessary to ensure our water security into the future, which we all agree is fundamental, and this includes the building of a desalination plant. I am particularly proud that the Premier and the government have led the way in developing a national, independent Murray-Darling Commission to protect our great river.

I want to address the Country Health Care Plan, which has been the subject of some discussion by members opposite and in the other place. With the opposition's response to the Country Health Care Plan. we have seen one of the worst examples of Liberal fear-mongering in the community that we have seen for many years. We know that this is an old sport for the Liberal Party. What you do is you go from your comfortable home in the eastern suburbs of Adelaide, hop into your air-conditioned or chauffeur-driven car and you go out into the country and say, 'Those people in Adelaide, those Labor people, they don't care about you. They're going to close your hospital. They're going to punish your community. They don't care about you because you live in Liberal seats, but we'll look after you.' That is what the Liberals do time and again, and that is certainly what they are doing now.

We know that there are concerns in parts of the community in the country about the Country Health Care Plan, but a lot of it is based on the inaccurate information and the fearmongering that has been undertaken by members of the opposition. We know that the facts of the Country Health Care Plan are these: no hospital will close; every hospital will maintain emergency services; there will be more services in the country, meaning that fewer people need to travel to the city for treatment; and country health funding is up 55 per cent since the Liberals were last in power. They are the facts.

When people in the country are aware of the facts and are aware that they may have been receiving misrepresentations about closing hospitals and downgrading services, they will realise that there is nothing to be fearful of and that the Liberal Party was trying to misrepresent the Country Health Care Plan to them.

I understand that there are genuine concerns in country communities about the future of their health facilities, especially the presence of general practitioners and, indeed, about the survival of some of the smaller communities. That is a problem in the country; there is no doubt about that, and that has been the case for many years. You only have to visit most smaller country towns to see boarded-up shops and old service stations which are no longer used and so on to know that there has been a threat to country communities (particularly the smaller ones) over a long period.

I understand that people have genuine concerns. The Country Health Care Plan is designed to address those concerns and to put in place a plan and the infrastructure for the future to ensure that people in the country are offered the best standards of health care. I will certainly not go out to people in the country and say, 'Because you don't live in Adelaide you have to accept a substandard level of care and, therefore, you can have a local facility which will offer you substandard care rather than going to Adelaide or to a major country hospital for treatment.'

The issue of people in the country having to travel for treatment has always been a problem. As I was growing up, just about everyone in my family, at some time, had to come to Adelaide. That has always been a reality, as I am sure you would know, Mr President. That does cause a lot of pain, expense and inconvenience for a lot of people. However, at the end of the day, we have to remember that our aim should always be to offer country people the same level of health care that people in the city receive. We cannot say to those people, 'You live in the country; you're just going to have to accept second best.' I will not be part of a government that sends that message to country people—a message that says, 'You have to accept substandard care because you live in the country.' What we are doing instead is ensuring the survival of the future of country health care by providing major country hospitals, as well as metropolitan hospitals and other hospitals, and the other services that will continue to be provided to ensure that people are able to get the best level of care.

The same thing happens to people who live in metropolitan Adelaide. I am sure that there are people who live at Elizabeth who have to travel to Flinders Medical Centre for treatment, and vice versa. The reality is that, to get the best standard of care and the appropriate treatment, sometimes travel is required, whether you are in the city or the country—sometimes even interstate travel. That is the reality, particularly given the advances we have had in medical care.

I do not think that anyone can pretend to offer the same level of care in every single health facility in the state. That is simply not right. No-one can suggest that one is able to provide, in every single health facility, all of the same services, the same operations, the same specialists, the same programs of treatment. This is because many of them nowadays are very complex, very specialised and very expensive and they involve particular equipment that is only available in one or two locations.

Country people should not have to suffer substandard care whereby we just give them a nice place where they can suffer and die, rather than giving them the treatment they need, wherever that treatment will be—whether it is in the city or in a major country hospital—and wherever that treatment is required that is the treatment they will get. That is the basis of the Country Health Care Plan. That is what the government is committed to, and that is what I will certainly defend.

We know that the Liberals, despite all their protestations, have a genuine contempt for country communities. We have just seen the Hon. Mr Lawson talking about Mobilong and how dreadful it is that we are building a new prison at Mobilong. People who live in Burnside and North Adelaide might have to travel to Mobilong, and how awful that would be!

Now we see the Liberal Party organising a meeting to protest the Country Health Care Plan, and where is the meeting being held? In Norwood; the heart of the country! They are having a meeting in Norwood to talk about the Country Health Care Plan. Presumably, since they all live in the eastern suburbs of Adelaide or the Adelaide Hills—apart from the Hon. Mrs Schaefer—they did not want to travel very far for this meeting, so they are having it in Norwood.

We can contrast the government's program with what the Liberal Party is offering. Like many people, I take an interest in US politics, as I am sure we all do, because we know that what happens there will have an impact on all of us. As I am sure many of you would know, Senator Barack Obama is running on the slogan 'Yes, We Can'. The Liberals' new prescription is 'No, We Can't'. They have borrowed it from the Greens and Democrats; their answer to everything is 'No, we can't'. Marble Hill: can we redevelop a ruin that has been sitting there for 50 years and invest in that facility for the future of this state? No, we can't. Can we redevelop Glenside Hospital to make it a world-class new mental health facility and provide facilities for our arts community there, as well as housing and drug and alcohol facilities? No, we can't; we should leave it as it is. Can we extend the tramline a few metres up the road? No, we can't. Can we build a new, state-of-the-art, world class hospital on North Terrace? No, we can't. Can we redevelop Port Adelaide? Can we knock down some rusty iron sheds to ensure a world-class development? No, we can't.

Mr Kingsley Haskett has come along to the Statutory Authorities Review Committee; he is a very admirable man and clearly a fine craftsman. I certainly feel a nostalgia for the boat yards on Jenkins Street; it is very nice to go there and visit, but at the end of the day they are old sheds and they are not representative of what is now happening in Port Adelaide and what Port Adelaide now is. Here is another example where all the Liberals can say is, 'No, we can't'.

Can we have a mining boom in South Australia? No, we can't, as far as the Liberal opposition is concerned. The Liberals are always out there, talking it down, saying there will not be a mining boom and we should not rely on hoping and planning for future mining in this state. We have seen with the planning review that the Liberal Party is simultaneously claiming credit for the changes the government has made in the planning area, particularly in city development, yet it criticises every approval and development that comes along.

In every question time we have the Hon. Mr Lucas in particular and other members of the opposition throwing back their sleeves and saying the government is in the pocket of developers. The Hon. Mr Lawson last night withdrew after saying the planning minister was in the pocket of developers. There are constant accusations of sleaze, and constant attacks on every approval, every development and every plan that come along, and at the same time Mr Ridgway is trying to say the Liberal Party is responsible for our changes to planning.

Can we have a lock-out after 3am in city venues to combat anti-social behaviour? No, we can't as far as the opposition is concerned. It is clear that the Liberal members of the Legislative Council are out of control. We know there is a lot of tension between the Liberal members of the upper and lower houses, and who can be surprised? We see staffers and members of the lower house opposition coming up here keeping an eye on the Legislative Council members.

We have seen them having to backtrack on Marble Hill and WorkCover, because they know they are not following Liberal policy, so someone has to pull them into line. The other day we saw the absolutely extraordinary prospect of the Liberal opposition almost derailing urgent legislation to address truth in sentencing to ensure that vicious criminals will stay behind bars without doubt to cater for the contingency of a court case. The Liberal opposition tried to delay it and then complained about the process and said we should not have been doing that: that keeping to what they see as the traditions of the Legislative Council in the way things have been done here for the past 100 years was more important than a bill that would prevent murderers going free. That is what we have seen.

We just saw the Hon. Mr Lawson attack the spending on AAMI Stadium, yet his leader—the Leader of the Opposition in the other place—wants to spend $1 billion or so on a new stadium in the city. Liberal Party members in this place constantly attack development and everything the government is doing. They say, 'We don't want spending on football stadiums or public transport. We want to give stamp duty cuts; we want to do all this stuff.' It is no wonder that the Liberal opposition in the lower house is despairing of their Legislative Council team, because they are out of control; they will not follow Liberal Party policy. It is a longstanding tradition. They used to have their own party room meetings. They consider themselves above the day-to-day fray of lower house politics. It is no wonder that the opposition leader, Mr Hamilton-Smith, is despairing of his team here.

We have heard the alternative government—the opposition—talk about building a city stadium, undergrounding powerlines and providing tax cuts; they are just some examples. Where will the money come from? We know the answer, because the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Ms Lensink, gave it to us last night during the Marble Hill debate, when she said that it is hypothetical. When she was asked what the Liberal opposition would do, in terms of spending public money on the facility if the legislation that the Liberal opposition is sponsoring in this council were to pass this council and result in the project's falling over, the answer was: 'It's hypothetical.' That is the Liberal Party's budgetary position: 'It's hypothetical.' Let us hope that a Liberal government in this state is hypothetical, for the sake of South Australia's finances and for the sake of the people of this state.

It is no wonder that the Hon. Mr Hamilton-Smith has not updated the Newspoll on his website to reflect the last three months. He still has the results from the first three months of the year on it. The results have been out for about a month, but he has not updated it. The first time the Newspoll came out it showed a bit of an improvement in the Liberal position, where it had gone from annihilation to massive defeat. It was straight up there on the website and he was boasting about it. However, now that the last two polls have shown steady support for the government and for our plan of action for the future and our responsible fiscal management, Martin Hamilton-Smith does not want to know about it. He has not put those results up on his website, because he does not want people to know that his leadership and his plan for the state have ground to a halt.

I commend the Appropriation Bill to members. It continues the Rann government's responsible economic management. As I said, for the sake of our state finances, with respect to Liberal Party policy, when it comes to, 'Where are you going to get the money? It's all hypothetical,' let us hope that it is the Liberal Party's ascension to government that is hypothetical. I commend the bill to members.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (16:18): I am delighted to be able to speak at this hour of the afternoon, and I am pleased to be following the contribution of the Hon. Mr Finnigan. It is not because of anything sensible or useful that he has added to the debate. As I suspected, he managed to cover a range of subjects under the broad convention of the Appropriation Bill.

The Hon. C.V. Schaefer interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, indeed. He was able to traverse the subject of the Liberal Party leader's website and market research results. He was able to talk about US elections, sentencing laws and the approach of Independent members in relation to the WorkCover legislation under the broad ambit of the Appropriation Bill. I welcome the flexibility and the conventions we now have to be able to traverse a range of issues under the auspices of the Appropriation Bill. It is for that reason that we are indebted to the Hon. Mr Finnigan and his contribution—as I said, not for anything sensible or rational that he added to the Appropriation Bill debate but for the much needed flexibility that I am sure members this afternoon and my colleagues on Tuesday next week will be able to avail themselves of in addressing the Appropriation Bill debate.

The first matter that I want to address in relation to the Appropriation Bill is the issue of deficits and surpluses in budgets. Dishonest claims have been made by the Rann government, its ministers and its wholly owned subsidiaries sitting on back benches in another place and also in this place. They continue to make claims in relation to the magnificence of the current Treasurer in producing surplus budgets and the absolute abomination of former Liberal treasurers Baker and Lucas in producing deficit budgets during that particular time. I want to look at the facts and place on the record for new members, in particular, the facts in relation to some of those claims. I seek leave to have inserted in Hansard without my reading it a purely statistical table taken from Budget Statement, Budget Paper 3.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: This is a subsection of a table from that budget document, which looks at the budget results for the current year and for the forward estimates period through to 2011-12. It looks at the three measures of whether a budget is in balance or in deficit: the cash surplus, the net lending position and the net operating balance position. Let me first address the issue of the cash surplus, because that was the way in which, up until the late 1990s and the early 2000s, budgets were essentially reported in South Australia, and it is also the way in which the federal government still reports its federal budget result. When one sees the result of the $20 billion surplus, that is not an accrual measure, such as net lending or net operating balance: that is a cash result, because federal governments, Labor and Liberal, have not moved into this world of accrual accounting in relation to reporting of budget results.

When one looks at the cash position in this budget, one will see that we are looking at a deficit of half a billion dollars this year and for each of the next two years, and a budget deficit of $363 million in 2011-12. The figures are $530 million, $545 million, $527 million and $363 million. We are talking about budget deficits of just on $2 billion, in cash terms, brought down in this particular budget.

The next measure of the health of the budget is an accrual accounting measure and it is known as net lending. This was the one true measure of the health of the budget, or otherwise, announced by Treasurer Foley when he came to government in 2002. He said, 'Look, we have moved beyond cash, and the one real measure of whether or not a budget is in deficit or surplus is this measure of net lending, and I, the self-proclaimed all powerful and magnificent Treasurer, will produce net lending surpluses henceforth', that is, from 2002-03 onwards.

That worked for a couple of years and then all of a sudden the Treasurer started getting advice from Treasury that there was no way, on the current spending patterns, that he was going to be able to maintain the promise he made in 2002. What happened is that at about the time of the last election the Treasurer jettisoned that particular measure because it was going to become a deficit and stay a deficit, and he adopted a new measure, which I will talk about in a moment.

Let us look at this net lending measure. Under this particular measure this year the budget is in deficit by $548 million, next year $589 million, the following year $611 million and in 2011-12 $460 million—a $2.2 billion deficit over the coming four years. So, on the cash measure, there is a $2 billion deficit over the coming four years; and, on the net lending measure, that is the one true measure that Treasurer Foley said in 2002 would have to be used—$2.2 billion in deficits over the next four years.

The only measure remaining, where this budget could be said to be in surplus, is another accrual accounting measure, and it is known as the net operating balance. On that measure we have a modest surplus of $160 million out of a budget of $13 billion or $14 billion this year, and the Treasurer estimates that that will increase to $300 million or $400 million over the forward estimates period.

On the measure that the federal government uses we have $2 billion in deficits over the next four years. On the measure that in 2002 Treasurer Foley said is the only real measure in terms of the health of a budget, we have $2.2 billion worth of deficits over the forward estimates period. That is why in 2006 Treasurer Foley said, 'Well, I know what I said in 2002 but, because it is now in deficit and I want to be able to say that the budget is in surplus, I had better go to a new measure, which is the measure called net operating balance, and that is the only measure where I am able to say that this budget happens to be in surplus.' They are the facts in relation to the position of whether or not this budget is in surplus or deficit.

I now turn to the dishonest claims that have been made by the Rann government, its ministers and some of its wholly owned subsidiaries. It relates to—and it rolls off the tongue—'I am magnificent', says Treasurer Foley, 'I produce surplus budgets. You Libs were hopeless and incompetent. All you ever produced was eight deficit budgets.' I seek leave to have a purely statistical table on this issue inserted in Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: This table, which is headed 'Underlying non-commercial sector cash result: surplus/(deficit)', is for the period from 1993-94 through to the end of the Liberal government's eight-year term in 2001-02. Now that this table has been inserted in Hansard I can indicate that the first seven years' figures were calculated by Treasury prior to my leaving office as treasurer in 2002, and the numbers for 2000-01 and 2001-02 have been taken by me from the actual results for the financial years 2000-01 and 2001-02.

Throughout that period the former Liberal government was essentially producing budget figures on a measure that the public sector called the non-commercial sector. I will turn to some differences between that and what is known as the general government sector in a moment but, as a result of the Commission of Audit in 1993 after the State Bank crash, the commission stated, 'You need to have a better measure of what the public sector is about.' As a result of that the non-commercial sector definition was established, and throughout the period of the Liberal government (eight years) the non-commercial sector was the pre-eminent sector that the budget papers were produced on.

A smaller subset sector called the general government sector was also reported on, because of national agreements, but the budget documents were produced for the non-commercial sector and on a cash basis. They were the results that were being produced during that period. During that period, the government in 1993-94, in the first budget that we inherited straight after the State Bank, had a cash deficit of $200 million, and the next one, still straight after the State Bank debacle, was a deficit of $239 million. Then there is a gradual and strong reduction in the level of the deficit over that period through to (in the latter years of the Liberal government) modest surpluses in the last two years of $21 million and $22 million. In the previous year (1999-2000) there was a deficit of just $25 million.

When you are talking about a budget of $7 billion or so, whether it is a surplus or a deficit of $20 million, it is less than half of 1 per cent of total revenue. So, to all intents and purposes, budgets were being balanced over the last six years of the previous Liberal government. Some were very small deficits; some were very small surpluses. If you take the last six years, from about 1997 onwards, it is almost balanced in terms of the small number of deficits and surpluses.

In the end, if you want to talk technically about what the government inherited, the non-commercial sector cash result position being reported was surpluses in the past two years of $21 million and $22 million. The claims being made by the current government, in particular the Treasurer, that the former government never balanced a budget, only ever produced a string of deficits, is based on falsehoods. I turn now to how the government has reconstructed its figures to demonstrate that, because it produces a table and graph which, in graphic form, shows purported deficits under the former government and surpluses under the current government.

How has the government managed to achieve this result? I will turn to this in a moment. Whilst at the same time as trying to reduce the level of budget deficit we inherited—and the first estimate of the budget deficit was not the $200 million eventually reported: $300 million to $350 million was the analysis done by the Commission of Audit in 1994—and trying to bring the budget into balance, we were reducing state debt from $11.6 billion down to $3.2 billion over that time frame, and I will comment on that later.

I turn now to how the Treasurer and government manage to turn a position of repairing the state's finances and producing surpluses into its claim that the former government only ever produced deficits. It does two things, because the facts are as I have just outlined them. It just changed what you measure in two ways. First, instead of the non-commercial sector being the measuring stick as to what is going on in the state and budget, the government took the narrower definition of the general government sector.

What does that mean for practical purposes? It means that, whilst the former government reported on a non-commercial sector, this government takes out of that measure bodies such as: the Adelaide Convention Centre, the Adelaide Entertainment Centre, the Adelaide Festival Centre Trust, the Land Management Corporation, the Lotteries Commission, the Public Trustee, the South Australian Forestry Corporation, The South Australian Housing Trust, the South Australian Employees Residential Properties Body, the South Australian Motorsport Board, SA Water, TransAdelaide, the West Beach Trust, the Adelaide Cemeteries Authority, and various electricity authorities.

Whereas the former government was reporting on the non-commercial sector and included all those bodies and agencies I just mentioned, the government has now said that it will no longer report the budget in terms of its health by that measuring stick, that it will take out all these bodies—and bodies like the Housing Trust, SA Water and TransAdelaide are very significant bodies in terms of their impact on the budget. They are all removed in terms of the government's measure, which is now the general government sector. So the impact of whether or not they are making profits or whether there are losses in those bodies are not included in the government's definition of whether or not the budget sector, the general government sector, is in surplus or deficit.

Secondly, it changed the measure: that is, instead of reporting on cash grounds it said it would only report on accrual accounting grounds. It then said to Treasury, 'Okay, Treasury, you go back now to the Liberal government years and redefine what they did by changing the measure from cash to accrual and by changing the measuring parameters from the non-commercial sector to the general government sector, and we want you to construct a new set of figures as to whether their budget was in balance or in deficit.' So, retrospectively, it has got Treasury to go back and say, 'Okay, new measuring stick (the general government sector), new measuring stick (accrual accounting), and were those budgets in deficit or surplus?' Through that device they have been able to construct a set of accounts which purportedly show deficits under the Liberal government and surpluses under the Labor government.

They also engaged in a number of rorts and fiddles, but I will mention just one of those. In 2001-02—bearing in mind that the election was held in February 2002 and the new government took over two-thirds of the way through the financial year and therefore was in a position to rule off the accounts at the end of the year—at the end of the year a budget line had been approved for a transfer of $300 million from SAFA and the South Australian Asset Management Corporation to go into the accounts. It was a revenue item, and in this budget we are still seeing revenue items from SAFA and the South Australian Asset Management Corporation.

It had been a longstanding revenue treatment for budgets and continues to be taken into account for the government currently. In that period after March and before 30 June when it ruled off the accounts, it reversed that decision. What does that mean? It means that the last Liberal budget, 2001-02, suddenly lost a $300 million income line and the first Labor budget in 2002-03 had a bonus of a $300 million income line because it could transfer the money that year. That fiddle is not just a claim from me as the former Treasurer and from the opposition. The former Auditor-General in New South Wales, Tony Harris (who had commenced writing for the Australian Financial Review), and other Financial Review journalists reported on that budget and on the Treasurer's fiddle, that is, taking $300 million out of the last Liberal budget and putting it into first Labor budget and, through that device, pretending the new government had inherited a massive deficit.

If you actually look at the figures, if you even accept that the first two changes the government made—that is, to have a new general government sector and to use accrual accounting measures—before this particular fiddle, the last Liberal budget would have shown a deficit of $124 million on accrual measures for the general government sector. In the first year of the Labor administration there was to be a surplus of $312 million—that is by including the $300 million fiddle in relation to SAFA and the South Australian Asset Management Corporation dividends.

If those figures had been as originally included in the budget by the former Liberal government, the last accrual accounting measure for the general government sector would actually have been a surplus of up to $200 million, and the Labor government's first budget would have been a surplus of about $100 million. So, even with the new measures that the Labor government was implementing, the budget it inherited had a surplus, in accrual accounting terms, of up to $200 million, giving the lie to the claims that were made by the Treasurer and others at the time, and that continue to be made, that the former government had left a massive black hole and a budget in deficit.

I turn to the second issue in relation to overall aggregates, and I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard without my reading it a purely statistical table on debt.

Leave granted.

(a) Net debt data for the years up to and including 1998 are sourced from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Government Financial Estimates 2003-04 (catalogue number 5501).

(b) There is a structural break in the methodology used to calculate superannuation liabilities between June 2003 and June 2004. This accounting change, which involved the adoption of the Commonwealth Government bond rate for valuation purposes in line with the accounting standard on employee benefits, resulted in a significant increase in superannuation liabilities.

(c) There is a structural break in 2007 reflecting the amalgamation of SAFA and SAICORP on 1 July 2006. The transfer of SAICORP'S assets and liabilities from the general government sector to the public financial corporations sector resulted in an increase in non-financial public sector net debt of $99 million at 1 July 2006 and an increase in net financial liabilities of $90 million at 1 July 2006.

(d) There is a structural break in 2008 reflecting the amalgamation of the South Australian Community Housing Authority (PFC) with the South Australian Housing Trust (PNFC). This results in an increase in net debt and net financial liabilities and a decrease in net financial worth of $98 million in 2007-08, with no impact on net worth.

(e) There is a structural break in 2008 reflecting the first time recognition on the general government balance sheet of South Australia's share of the net assets of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. This has no impact on net debt, however results in a reduction in net financial liabilities of $615 million in 2007-08, and increases in net financial worth and net worth of $615 million.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: This table is from Budget Statement 3, page B8, and is headed 'Non-Financial Public Sector Key Balance Sheet Aggregates'. It looks at net debt but also looks at unfunded superannuation, net financial liabilities, net financial worth, and net worth. I draw members' attention to the table because it shows that, all through the period from 1993 to 2002, the Liberal government significantly reduced the State Bank and other financial incompetence debt—which peaked at $11.6 billion in 1993—that it had inherited from the former Labor government. The Liberal government reduced that to $3.2 billion by 30 June 2001, and on 30 June 2002 (the first period of the new government) it was still at $3.3 billion.

It is informative to look at what has happened to net debt since then because, in an approach that had support from the opposition over the past six years, the level of net debt was further reduced from the $3.2 billion that was inherited down to just on $2 billion as at 30 June 2007. So there had been modest improvements; it had significantly dropped from $11.6 billion to $3.2 billion under the Liberal government, and that reduced from $3.2 billion down to $2 billion under the Labor government.

This budget sees a very significant increase in the level of net debt over the forward estimates period, because that $2 billion net debt figure is to increase to $5.2 billion by 30 June 2012. So we are seeing a $3 billion increase in net debt off a base of $2 billion, an increase of 150 per cent in terms of the total level of net debt in South Australia. The point, as the Liberal leader in another place has highlighted on a number of occasions, is that we are seeing a significant reversal of the hard work undertaken first by the Liberal government and, to a much lesser degree, by the Labor government in the past five or six years, so it is a very significant increase in the level of net debt.

At the same time it is also informative to look at what has happened to unfunded superannuation since this government was elected. When the government was elected the last figure, as at 30 June 2001, was $3.2 billion; to be fair, as at 30 June 2002 (which was just after it was elected), it was $3.9 billion. That number has jumped from $3.2 billion on 30 June 2001, and is now estimated to have more than doubled to $7.1 billion—an almost $4 billion increase in the level of unfunded superannuation since the election of this government through to 2012. So, we are seeing massive increases in the net financial liabilities of the state of South Australia; we are seeing the net financial liabilities jump very significantly from the 2007 measure of $9.5 billion through to $14.7 billion in 2012—an increase of $5.2 billion in terms of net financial liabilities to be confronted by South Australians.

Other than for economists, treasurers, accountants and those business people who follow these issues, what are the particular concerns regarding that? Well, the obvious ones are that this government will have to continue to plunder the families of South Australia through ever-increasing rates of taxation, charges, levies and duties to fund the ever-increasing debt and ever-increasing waste. I am sure members who sit on the Budget and Finance Committee will be staggered, every two weeks or so, when they are confronted with further examples of incompetence, negligence or mismanagement by some ministers, government departments and agencies.

That is the sort of waste that taxes and charges and ever-increasing rates are going to have to fund. The other warning sign, not just coming from the opposition, is from ratings agencies like Standard and Poor's. In the interests of expediting another matter, I seek leave to conclude my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.