APPROPRIATION BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 28 October 2010.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (11:05): I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill and, in doing so, I ask members to reflect: if you picked up the budget papers without knowing which party is currently in government in South Australia, would you be able to work it out from the budget papers alone? If the Treasurer was charged and had to prove that this budget is a Labor budget, would there be any evidence for the prosecution to make a case?

When you see that it contains cuts to business assistance, you would suspect that it is a Labor budget. With taxes set to increase by $1 billion over the next four years, it looks more and more like a Labor budget. When you see debt increasing to $7 billion, you would say, 'Yep, it's a Labor budget.' But, then, what would you make of some of the other measures?

When nearly 4,000 public servants get the axe, how can this be a Labor government? When the budget claws back a pension increase in public housing rent, how can this be a Labor budget? When the budget uses the law to override the outcomes of collective bargaining negotiations of unions, how can this be a Labor budget? This budget demonstrates that this government is arrogant and totally disconnected from its constituency and its values base.

Again this week, when the Treasurer was confronted with another problem with workers' entitlements, what was his response?—'Shit happens'. This is the Treasurer of a Labor government who would be a premier in a Labor Party government. So, where was cabinet when this budget went through? Did the Labor cabinet stand up for the workers? Did it stand up for the Labor movement that gave it the opportunity to serve in this place?

The Treasurer told the other place that the decision the government took to extinguish workers' entitlements was an 'absolutely unanimous decision of cabinet. Absolutely'. So, it is fine with minister Gago, formerly of the nurses union. It is fine by minister Caica, formerly of the firefighters union. It was fine with minister Weatherill, the darling of the left. He said this week that he is 100 per cent behind this budget.

I will have no more of these left-wing Labor members self- righteously chest-beating. We now know that their ministers, without exception, supported the decision to legislate away what they could not negotiate away. It was a unanimous decision. The left is no better friend of industrial Labor than the right, and we all know that the right would sell their grandmother to stay in power.

So, where was the caucus? Did the caucus stand up for the workers to protect the Labor movement that put them in this place? No. When the Treasurer gave caucus a briefing on the budget, it gave the Treasurer a standing ovation. When the Treasurer said that he was going to close the Parks Community Centre, Labor MPs applauded. When the Treasurer said that he was going to cut adult education, the champions of the workers applauded. When the Treasurer said that he was going to legislate to undermine collective bargaining, this so-called Labor caucus applauded.

Government MPs have said during this debate, 'So, what would you do?' I remind honourable members that I was elected as a Liberal MP. If my party were to take a budget decision to the detriment of workers, of wage and salary earners, people would say, 'So what? What would you expect; he's a Liberal?' You would expect that from Liberals, Labor tell us, but this is meant to be a Labor budget. It was written by Labor MPs.

I know that governments have to make hard decisions. I know that parliamentary Labor cannot always do what industrial Labor wants it to do, but it is another thing altogether for this so-called Labor government to act in fundamental contradistinction to its own raison d'être. The reason the Labor Party exists is that industrial Labor, at the end of the 19^th century, felt that it needed to have a parliamentary group to protect its interests. It needed a parliamentary group to stop laws that may be to the detriment of workers. Today we see that very parliamentary group introducing budget measures which use the law to override union-negotiated collective agreements.

This Rann government will go down in history as the only Labor government to legislate to reduce worker entitlements. The same members who, in this place, repeatedly pontificated self-righteously about the Howard government's WorkChoices, have brought legislation in this place which has done even worse than WorkChoices. Let us remember that WorkChoices put the choice in the hands of employers and employees; this government has chosen to use the law to override union-negotiated workplace entitlements. This Labor Party, in this parliament, has no right to pontificate in the future.

So much for rights at work. It reminds me of some comments made recently by ALP Senator Doug Cameron in the Sydney Morning Herald. The article read:

The Labor Senator Doug Cameron has ramped up his attack on his own party, suggesting the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, herself is prolonging rules that stifle public debate and turn government MPs into 'zombies'…Yesterday he described serving in the Labor government as 'a bit like having a political lobotomy. You can't speak your mind. You can't think about some issue because they are all off the agenda.'

In another article he is quoted as saying:

The pledge system and the party system just put a blanket over every different point of view. Everything is focused on the spin and on the take of the day and long-term strategic policy decisions suffer because of that.

I must admit that I was particularly struck by the description of Labor Party MPs as zombies, because that actually resonates with my own experience. They come in here, parrot the questions, parrot the ministers' speeches, blindly follow a Labor budget which is a total betrayal of Labor values, and there is not a squeak. They are zombies. You almost get a vision of Michael Jackson's Thriller clip, with the Labor caucus mindlessly wandering across the courtyard.

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: In fact, Bernard Finnigan is in the front row. This Rann government, as Senator Cameron rightly accused, is in the same stable as the Gillard government. They are a bunch of zombies, totally obsessed with spin and totally in denial of Labor values. However there is hope, there are signs that a few of the zombies are stirring. The Hon. Steph Key, member for Ashford, was willing to publicly say that she does not support cuts to workers' entitlements by legislation. Is that not amazing? One MP in the Labor caucus is willing to say that they do not believe—

An honourable member interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Hunter will cease exciting the honourable member.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am sorry that I have more passion for Labor's values than the Hon. Mr Hunter. I look forward to hearing his contribution in defence of why he thinks it is fine for a Labor government to legislate to take away workers' entitlements. Of course, our President is no zombie; he has attended protest meetings and said publicly that if there are enough people really concerned about what is happening here the government might change direction on this as well.

So I am glad to say that there are at least two members of the Labor caucus who are not zombies. However, it is sad that the President does not hold out hope that the Labor caucus itself might rise up and stand up for Labor values. I think all its members care about is their own preferment in their parliamentary careers.

The Rann Labor government has destroyed its own credibility. I suppose, in a sense, it has a right to expend its own political capital, but I remind the council that the decision to pare back workers' entitlements by legislation is not damaging the government alone. I would like to quote from the judgement delivered on Wednesday in the industrial commission by Deputy President Judge H.W. Parsons on behalf of the full bench.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I appreciate that the Hon. Mr Finnigan and the Hon. Mr Wortley do not want to hear what the Industrial Relations Court is saying about the behaviour of its own government, but I intend to put it on the record. Judge Parsons, speaking on behalf of the full bench, said:

…we respectfully voice certain concerns to the Chief Executive about the implications of the Government seeking to override clause 2.2.6 of the Agreement by legislation.

In our view such action may tend to undermine the currently productive industrial relationship between the PSA and the Chief Executive. The PSA entered into the Agreement negotiations in good faith on the basis that the terms of the Agreement would apply for the life of the Agreement and that prior to its expiry date the parties would renegotiate the terms and conditions.

We are concerned about the effectiveness of such future negotiations. A likely consequence of legislation overriding terms negotiated by the parties in good faith is that the Chief Executive's role may be undermined. The question arises: how can a fair and certain negotiated outcome in future bargaining be achieved if the Chief Executive and the PSA know from this experience, that his word is not final but may be overridden by parliament?

Judge Parsons highlights the damage done by this government to its own management team, but that is not all: she goes on to say:

There are also implications for the statutory role of the Commission.

I pause to reflect that the Labor Party in the past used to regard the centralised industrial relations system as one of its great achievements. What Judge Parsons is saying here is that the parliamentary wing of Labor is actually undermining the industrial relations system it established. She goes on to say:

The general objects of the Act require that the Commission promote goodwill in industry and encourage the prevention and settlement of disputes that cannot be resolved by amicable agreement and provide a means of conciliation for that purpose.

Later in the judgement she goes on to say:

The important statutory role of the Commission in implementing those Objectives of the Act by assisting the parties in their negotiations may be rendered far less effective and impact on the Chief Executive's desired outcomes if the parties come to the Commission with a lack of confidence about the binding nature of any compromises reached.

Labor members seem to be deaf to the pleas of the community and deaf to the response of union leaders from around Australia—not just in South Australia. Union leaders from around Australia are expressing their dismay that a government that claims to be a Labor government is acting in such a way. Now we have an industrial relations judge expressing concern about not just the impact on the management of the Public Service but also the viability of the industrial relations system going forward.

This was a budget where Labor said that it was going to reconnect with the community. Instead, it used the law to pare back workers' entitlements. This so-called Labor government has undermined itself, it has undermined the management of the public sector, and it has undermined the industrial relations framework that it committed to defending.

I would now like to address some matters in the Attorney-General's portfolio. The budget confirms the crisis in our justice system. When the Attorney-General was appointed earlier this year he acknowledged the crisis in our justice system. In that context I will quote from the Sunday Mail of 2 May. This part is comment by the journalist:

Recognising that increasing court delays are a pressing problem confronting the government, Mr Rau pledged to work with the courts and the legal profession, among others, 'to see if there are ways that problem can be improved'.

The article further states:

...he acknowledged there was a backlog of cases, particularly in the criminal jurisdiction, and 'that is not good. Obviously, the longer a person has their criminal matter outstanding the longer they are in limbo. If that individual is guilty it means the victims are denied the opportunity of involvement in the process and some resolution. On the other hand, if that person is not guilty and they may have been held in remand there is a clear injustice if they are eventually acquitted or the charges withdrawn.'

At the conclusion of the article it states:

...Mr Rau said his only ambition was to 'leave this office with the justice system in better shape than it was when I found it'.

So, earlier this year, the Attorney-General acknowledged that he had inherited a justice system in crisis. Labor's failure to resource the courts is demonstrated in the budget papers which show that the Supreme Court's backlog of criminal cases is up by 5 per cent to 13 per cent in the past year and the Magistrates Court backlog is now 32 per cent. That increases the trauma for victims and justice delayed is, so often, justice denied. In appearing before the estimates committee in another place, Chief Justice Doyle highlighted that backlogs are getting worse under this government. He said:

I do not know how bad it will get. The projections are that, if we do not get on top of the problem somehow or another, in 10 to 15 years' time we will have an absolutely mammoth backlog of cases, the sort of thing everyone would agree you cannot possibly have. You would be waiting for four or five years for trial. I will not worry about precise figures, but all I can say is that in 10 to 15 years, if present trends continue the situation will be awful. So, we cannot let it get there...I do think that, with the best will in the world, we will need some more criminal trial courts. Basically, we have 12 for the District Court at the moment, and two additional judges last year.'

The Chief Justice also highlighted the problems with facilities:

The reality is that the Supreme Court building is pretty hopeless...The courtrooms themselves are not inefficient—they are all right—it is just that the facilities for the staff and the public are hopeless because we are cramming too many people in there.

I have already advised the house of cases of victims and defendants needing to use the same conveniences because the facilities are so poor.

The Attorney-General acknowledges that there is a problem with the justice system, and the Chief Justice has reiterated that, so what does the budget do to fix it? Courts' funding increases by a mere $6 million in 2010-11, whereas court related fees revenue increases by $9 million per year. It is one thing to say that you have not got the money, but then to raise the money and not dedicate it to the industry from which the users are paying is a peculiar decision. The government is clearly going to focus on 'efficiency measures' (the words it gives to them), such as giving early guilty plea offenders a discount on their sentence.

The Liberal Party continues to believe that the South Australian community needs an independent commission against corruption. We are disappointed there is no hint of funding for an ICAC in this budget—in fact, the reverse: the government is actually taking money out of accountability bodies. The Ombudsman loses $97,000, which is a 5.4 per cent reduction, and the Police Complaints Authority loses $125,000, which is a 9 per cent reduction.

The Premier recently reiterated the government's lack of interest in accountability by again indicating that it is not moving towards an ICAC. Worse than that, it is actually taking out resources for bodies that address corruption. We saw a similar lack of regard for the need to maintain public sector probity in the government's laid-back approach to the problems in the Burnside council.

In relation to offending, I am also concerned that the government is increasingly failing to effectively manage programs in the rehabilitation area. For example, the budget papers indicate that participation in diversion courts has fallen in the last year. In the Drug Court, it has fallen from 68 to 56; in mental impairment, it has fallen from 236 to 217. So, we need to make sure that if we are putting money into diversion programs—and the opposition believes strongly that we need to help offenders deal with their offending behaviours—we also need to make sure that we are spending that money effectively.

I am hoping—and I will be exploring this further—that this reduction in participation is not a reflection of the fact that the government is not willing to increase funding and is, if you like, cutting the programs by stealth. The completion rates are also a concern. The Drug Court completion rate, for example, is down from 35 per cent to 27 per cent. We need to make sure that we have got the places for people to address their offending behaviours and we also need to make sure that they are properly supported to complete.

The Attorney-General is clearly trying to distance himself from his predecessor in the tone of his management of the office, but he needs to do more than just stop defaming judicial officers. He needs to manage the justice system so that we maximise the impacts on offenders in addressing their offending behaviours, because after all, that is fundamental to reducing the number of future victims.

In conclusion, I stress that this is not a Labor budget. It lets down ordinary South Australians and, in particular, it lets down the labour movement that this government is meant to represent, and it fails to address the crisis in our justice system.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (11:24): I rise to speak today on the Appropriation Bill. I note that I have already addressed many of the issues in the budget bill, so I will not go over too many of those again.

The Greens do not welcome these budget measures which come from a so-called Sustainable Budget Commission. We find that there is no true sustainability in this budget. It fails to address the long-term viability of our natural environment and our social fabric. This so-called Sustainable Budget Commission is a misnomer. In reality, it is nothing more than a razor gang tasked with making deep cuts to services and jobs which will hurt the community most.

I think the Greens would have liked to have seen a Sustainable Budget Commission actually focusing on increasing the sustainability of government programs and services and developing and supporting programs and projects that meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Early intervention is true sustainability. The Greens strongly believe that some of the suggestions put forward by the commission are positive and can enhance long-term environmental and social capital.

We would have liked to have seen a raising of the royalties to 5 per cent in line with most other states. Claims from the mining industry that this would imperil the Roxy Downs expansion are self-serving and alarmist. The proposal to impose a car parking levy in the CBD is also supported by the Greens, as long as it would be counterbalanced by increased spending on public transport to give commuters the opportunity to get to work without contributing to the rush hour gridlock. Raising the fees associated with liquor and gambling licensing is also supported, and alone would probably come close to covering the funding of the drug education in schools program and the healthy foods guidelines that have been targeted in this budget.

If the government was serious about saving $1.5 billion over the next three years, rather than slashing jobs and services across the board in ways that will seriously impact across the entire community, the Greens propose instead cancelling two major projects that actively reduce sustainability. That is, the $812 million 2.8 kilometre elevated superway—aka, the 'superwaste'; the road to nowhere. It is expensive, wasteful and a white elephant, and it costs $290 million per kilometre.

Redirecting a fraction of this funding into public transport or redirecting freight from road to rail would have done more to free up traffic than the creation of a new road that, ultimately, must rejoin the existing road networks at some point, with the inevitable bottlenecks. Also, cancelling the duplication of the Southern Expressway would save an additional $445 million. This would ensure that the government could afford to provide services such as schools, hospitals and police, and the many services that we have heard about that are being cut in this budget.

Some other measures that the Greens fully support being cut include the Clipsal state hospitality events. We would love to see the state dinner of 750 guests cut. That was something recommended by the Sustainable Budget Commission that we welcomed. We would like to see the Premier's Strategic Communications Unit cut by 5 per cent in this coming financial year, 12.5 per cent in the next and a further 50 per cent by 2013-14. Surely the Premier is doing such a great job he does not necessarily need the resources of this unit. If he does a good job, the good news will sell itself. There are other Premier's office savings that could have been made in this budget that have not been.

I note that the defence department remains relatively untouched, despite several recommendations in the Sustainable Budget Commission, which would not minimise the output of that department but would just make them be a little more frugal, a little wiser with their travel and not necessarily indulging in such great amounts of self-promotion. We would have liked to have seen this be a truly sustainable budget. We would have liked to have seen our priorities in this state gotten right. Early intervention and getting things right before they turn into major health or social issues is what sustainability should be all about.

We have heard a lot of talk from the Treasurer in particular that these budget cuts were taking an internal cut. By that, he referenced the cuts to the Public Service, as somehow that being an internal cut to the government. They could have started with the internal cut of reducing ministers from the current level by three ministers, which would have given us more than $3 million of savings. When you look at the Ardrossan accident and emergency centre being cut by $140,000 that it desperately needs, and when you look at Kevin Foley's phone bills of $22,000, where he is clearly on the phone saving his political life, I think we should be prioritising saving actual lives.

The anti-poverty unit, as we know, is to be cut. I also have grave concerns that, even prior to this budget, the foster care unit in Families SA was severely depleted. Unlike the Minister for Families and Communities, we know that children in this state are still being kept in inappropriate care.

Despite her assurances that they are no longer being kept in hotels and motels, when she says that does not cover bed and breakfasts and apartments, we know that is just sophistry and weasel words at their worst. We know bed and breakfast and apartments equate to children being kept in hotels and motels in this state, far too many of them and for far too long. We need to do better. The community deserves better.

Of course, we see no ICAC in this budget; not even a small measure of saving $1 million by having a logbook for the ministerial chauffeured cars. That is not really taking the cuts internally, is it? I also point to the fact that we quibble over amounts such as $140,000 for an accident and emergency unit, such as $250,000 for civilians of this place to take a case to the British courts and get compensation for having had nuclear bombs exploded in their backyard, yet we are willing to give Lance Armstrong $2 million. Who knows how many millions of dollars we are giving him, and for what benefit and what sustainability in this state?

I simply conclude with a congratulations to the people of the Parks community and a word of hope on the promises of a backflip on adult re-entry in this state so it is actually accessible for those who did not get a first chance at education, who are probably failed by the lack of support services, who are probably failed by a system that we are not adequately funding in the first place. They will, hopefully, now get their second chance at adult re-entry education, but we will be scrutinising the government's backflip and make sure it gives South Australians a second chance at education, which is a fundamental human right. A high school education in a developed nation is a fundamental human right. We will ensure they get that second chance. We will not give this Labor government a second chance and I doubt the South Australian people will either.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN (11:32): I rise to make a contribution on the Appropriation Bill. I did speak a little yesterday in committee on the Statutes Amendment (Budget 2010) Bill in relation to the overall framework of the budget and it is important again to keep in mind that this budget and the work of the Sustainable Budget Commission has been framed in the context of a very substantial decrease in the projected revenue coming to this state over a period of time because of the global financial crisis. The Hon. Mr Lucas is trying to play semantics about the time frame, but at least he is not trying pretend that there was not a global financial crisis or that there has been no effect, as some of his colleagues seem to do.

We have growing demands on our health budget. That is a reality, due to our ageing population and to the increased costs that have affected health services around the world, with increased technology and increased ability to treat conditions we did not have. We have an ageing population and a growth in chronic disease across the population, and it is obviously having an effect on demand for health services. To respond to some of the remarks of my other colleagues, the Hon. Mr Wade's contribution this morning was quite an extraordinary one. He was principally regretting that this was not a Liberal budget.

He spent a considerable amount of time saying, 'Oh well, you would look at this budget and you wouldn't think it was a Labor budget.' He kept talking about what members of the Labor Party should be doing in relation to the budget. He seemed quite regretful that it was not his own budget. He was not criticising the budget per se, but saying, in effect: why did not the Liberal Party come up with a budget like this? It seemed a very extraordinary line of argument to say that this ought to have been a Liberal budget, that only the Liberal Party would be this responsible was essentially the argument being advanced by the Hon. Mr Wade.

He also mentioned comments by Senator Doug Cameron and some recent comments about members of the Labor Party being bound to support Labor policies and legislation that has been supported by caucus. There seems to be a bit of confusion on this point. I think some in the media have confused the changes that were made in the federal caucus during the last term, when Kevin Rudd was prime minister, with the longstanding arrangement about the binding of party members. Kevin Rudd certainly did lead a change in the way the federal ministry, or shadow ministry, is chosen—at the will of the leader rather than a ballot of caucus.

The pledge that all Labor members take to support and be bound by the decisions of caucus and the platform of the party is very longstanding. It might even go back to the foundation of the party, I am not quite sure; but, certainly, the pledge, as it is known within the party, is very longstanding. The suggestion that that is something new or that it is somehow or another having an effect on the Labor Party or the government's ability to do its job is rather extraordinary, because it would seem to suggest that no Labor government has ever been effective because it has been a longstanding pledge.

I do not think anybody, even our opponents, would suggest that no Labor government has ever been able to do anything worthwhile. So, I think people just need to be aware that the pledge that all Labor members are bound to support Labor policies that go through caucus, consistent with our platform, is longstanding. That is not to say that it cannot be a subject of discussion within the party.

Indeed, in my own maiden speech I said that perhaps it is something that ought to be considered in this day and age, whether or not it is appropriate for all party members to be bound by the platform and for parliamentary members, in particular, to be bound by the decisions of caucus. I did talk about that in my own maiden speech. It is something that is obviously a matter of ongoing discussion within the party.

The Hon. Mr Wade talked a bit about Attorney-General portfolio matters, in particular court delays. Certainly, the government has made no bones about the fact that we would like to improve the efficiency of the courts, the administration of justice and, in particular, reduce court delays. We have taken steps to address that matter in refurbishing the Sturt Street courts, which are now hearing District Court matters.

As the Hon. Mr Wade himself mentioned, we have out for consultation a bill that aims to codify the early giving of guilty pleas, or earlier giving of guilty pleas, and what implications that has for sentencing and for time served in prison, to encourage a more efficient way of simply processing charges. Obviously, no-one is obliged to plead guilty; anyone is entitled to maintain their innocence and take a case through the courts.

However, we know that a lot of people turn up on the day of trial, or a day or two before, and then plead guilty. That, of course, means that the prosecution has gone to a lot of work and expense, and it means that all the witnesses have had to be prepared for giving evidence. Of course, witnesses and victims have to be ready, and that can be a fairly stressful and traumatic thing to have to be ready to give evidence. Then, if it turns out that that does not even need to be done, it puts people to a lot of expense and also sometimes a lot of emotional stress that is not necessary.

So, in that guilty plea bill we will just codify the arrangements for the long-standing discounts that are given on sentencing for cooperating and pleading guilty at an early stage of the process. That would, of course, have a very significant impact, because you can plan your court lists a lot better if you do not have a week set aside for a criminal trial, for example, that then does not go ahead. The Hons. Mr Wade and Tammy Franks mentioned an ICAC and asked why it was not in the budget. It seems to be a pretty extraordinary thing that you would put funding in the budget for something that does not exist.

I am sure the honourable members would be the first to criticise if there was a line in the budget about an ICAC. They would be asking why we are trying to sneak it in the budget instead of making an announcement about it. Of course, there would be nothing in the budget about any sort of integrity or anticorruption commission, because no decision has been made about that. The Attorney-General did announce earlier in the year that he was reviewing the public integrity structures in the state, and he indicated that he will report back to the House of Assembly in due course about what that review found and any proposals arising out of it.

So, the government has indicated on more than one occasion that it is considering the issue of making our public integrity system as good as it can be, ensuring that it plays a vital role in maintaining and upholding standards of public integrity and public confidence in our system. Naturally there would be no mention in the budget of an initiative or a body that does not exist. The Hon. Ms Lee talked about Halloween and how the budget was a bit like a Halloween party with the members of the government cast as the goblins and demons. Of course, the origin of Halloween is that it is the day before the feast of All Hallows or All Saints, so it is actually All Hallows' Eve which has morphed into Halloween.

Originally the goblins, ghosts and things were meant to be the demons trying to stop the souls of the just rising to heaven. I believe it started off as a bit of a pantomime which has ended up becoming part of a cultural tradition in some places, particularly the United States. If there is any sort of parallel with Halloween, I think it would be that some of the honourable members opposite might be the ones trying to stop a good budget getting through the house rather than trying to scare the people of South Australia.

The Hon. Ms Lee also said that we 'hate' country people. I think her words were: why do they hate country people so much? It is quite an outrageous comment. I certainly find it offensive to us all on this side to suggest that we hate country people or, indeed, hate any of the citizens that we represent. It is a quite unkind and unjustified accusation to say that we hate country people. Similarly, the suggestion, which some honourable members have made via interjections, that we make decisions based on whether or not people vote Labor is certainly not the case.

No government operates in that way because, if it did, there would be considerable areas of the state and the city which would not get government services. The suggestion that this government or any modern government operates like some sort of 1930s mayoralty in the south of America, distributing largesse only to its friends, is rather absurd. I certainly think it is very unfortunate that members would use that sort of language to suggest that, in this budget, any member of the government is demonstrating hate for other people.

I come back, ultimately, to the question I asked yesterday: what would other members of this house do in relation to the budget? What is their solution? Honourable members opposite have done what you would often expect people opposing a government would do, and that is to take those measures in the budget, which we have acknowledged are painful and which we would rather not adopt, stir things up and try to make people as angry as possible about those decisions. That is the sort of thing you could expect some opposing members to do, particularly in the minor parties, because that is generally the way they garner support.

However, the Liberal opposition, of course, aspires to be in government and, six or seven months ago, they were probably pretty hopeful that they would be in government. I strongly suspect that they would have then been very happy to get the Sustainable Budget Commission's report and to have used that as their basis for making probably even greater cuts. As the Hon. Mr Wade seemed to be saying: if only this had been a Liberal budget.

Again, I think members have to ask what it is that they would do. All budgets will involve difficult decisions about the spending priorities of a government; that is natural. There will always be those who think we should spend more money in more or fewer areas or that there are certain things we should not fund, and it is always easy for people to pick out individual examples—what about this, what about that? You often hear people choose particular things. Some people ask why do we give money to the opera, or they say why do we do this or why do we do that?

It is always easy to pick something out in isolation and say, 'If you change this, that would make all the difference,' but of course people have different priorities and different views about what it is that the government ought to be doing. Some people would say, 'Why is it the government's job to build economic infrastructure? Isn't that what business should do?' Some people would say, 'Why is it the government's job to build schools and pay for people's education? Isn't that something they should pay for themselves?'

Other people would say, 'Why don't we have much higher taxation and a much higher level of government services? Why don't we have a more social democratic model where people pay more like 40 or 50 per cent tax and we have a lot more services on offer and far fewer charges?' There is obviously a very broad spectrum of opinion as to how government should operate and how it should make its spending decisions.

We just have to take into account what people have to say. We have to balance and examine those priorities and come up with the best budget we think we can in the circumstances that we are facing. Again, remember those circumstances: we are facing a $1.4 billion fall in projected revenue because of the GFC and a continual growth in demand for health services. They are the circumstances we have to take into account, and what the government has chosen to do is to make sure that it can bring the budget back to balance and ensure that it is able to provide for the health services and, importantly, deliver on all the commitments it has made in the last term of government and during the election.

People seem to forget the extraordinary range of infrastructure and planning for the future that is going to happen in the next decade in South Australia. We have the building of a new state-of-the-art Royal Adelaide Hospital which will be really the best, newest hospital in a metropolitan city across all of Australia and it will be a very important part of meeting our future health needs.

We have the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval, assuming all the parties agree, and there are obviously a few more steps to take with this project. However, the government commitment is there to ensure that a very substantial redevelopment to provide for a world-class sporting facility in this city will take place. We have the duplication of the Southern Expressway which is long overdue and which we know would have cost far less had the Liberal government done it at the time it built the Southern Expressway. We have the electrification of the main train lines. We have hundreds of extra police.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: We hear again about the State Bank from members opposite. I don't think anyone on this side of the house is going to be getting up and saying that—

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink interjecting:

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I have been in South Australia all my life, the Hon. Ms Lensink.

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: That's right. Members opposite like to talk about the State Bank. I am sure the Hon. Mr Holloway in particular is well aware of the State Bank and the role that played and the effect that had on the state's economy. However, let's acknowledge that that was 19 years ago and that is a long time in the life of the state.

There has been a very substantial shift in the way South Australia is performing and the outlook of our economy in the time that we have been in government and, as I say, we have a very large range of infrastructure projects coming through in the next decade in cooperation with the commonwealth. As the Hon. Mr Holloway has told us on occasions, we have a number of new mines coming forward. We expect the Olympic Dam expansion to go ahead.

There is a whole range of very positive things happening in the state. Again, I think it is important for honourable members, if they are so appalled by this budget and they think it is a bad budget, to ask: which bits would they change? Which promises or which commitments do they think should go? The Hon. Mr Wade has been talking about Attorney-General portfolio matters. Would he like us to cut out the community justice court initiative? Would he like us to go back on our domestic violence reforms? Would the Hon. Mr Stephens like us to go back on our commitment in relation to the Port Augusta sports facility?

There is a whole gamut of things that are going to be happening funded by this government. Honourable members opposite, if they are opposed to what this budget is doing, need to answer the question: what is it that they would do instead? It is all very well to get up and say 'Well, what about this and what about that?' and pluck out a few minor things, but when it comes to balancing the government's priorities and balancing the budget, you have to take all factors into account and you have to weight it at all up.

Every cent and every dollar of government expenditure is important and should be done properly and accounted for. Often, the things that people will highlight are things which essentially, in the context of the budget overall, would not be the things that could make a difference sufficient to change some of the things that the opposition is concerned about.

I have not heard any of the honourable members opposite, particularly in the Liberal opposition, getting up and saying, 'You should not build a new hospital' or 'You should not do the expressway' or 'You should not go ahead with the trains' or 'You should not do any of the infrastructure projects to which you have committed' or 'You should not have concessions for elderly people for their utilities' or 'You should not put extra police on.'

No-one is highlighting any big-ticket item. Not a single member of the Liberal opposition has got up and said. 'Here is how you can save $500 million: by cutting out x, y, or z.' None of them has done that because they do not have the courage to say that. Instead, all they will do is try to say, 'You should not be doing this and you should not be doing that. What about this or that?' It is the easiest game in the world to take the budget and try to pick a few bits out of it and say, 'You are doing the wrong thing here and there.'

We have acknowledged that it is a difficult budget. We have acknowledged that it is a painful budget for a lot of people but to suggest that the opposition has come up with any sort of rationale or vision for themselves simply cannot be said. On no occasion—whether it be the Leader of the Opposition, Mrs Redmond in the other place, or in this place—no-one has come up with a vision or an alternative.

Not a single Liberal member has been to able to get up and say, 'Well, this is what we would do: we would get rid of this commitment; we would cease that program; we would not go ahead with new police officers; we would not build a new hospital; we would not redevelop Adelaide Oval; we would not invest in the most extensive public transport infrastructure in the state's history.' None of them has said any of those things. They simply will not. They do not have the courage to put on record what it is that they would do.

To the Hon. Mr Lucas's credit, at least in 2006 he had the courage to say, 'I would get rid of 4,000 public servants whether they like it or not.' That is what he promised to do. He was not going to worry about targeted separation packages. He was not going to worry about how it was to be achieved or what effect it would have on services; he was going to get rid of 4,000 and that was going to save his money. At least he had the courage to say exactly where he would get his money from. This opposition is simply not prepared to put on record what its vision is and what it would do to ensure that our budget can be sustainable.

As I said yesterday, the alternative is that we trundle along and in five to 10 years we wake up and say, 'Oh dear, there is $1 billion hole in the budget; what shall we do?' Then you face massive and very painful cuts to public services or job losses or you have very large increases in taxation or even new taxes. We have seen that the Liberal Party, of course, as form on this. The last time they were in government, the emergency services levy came in. They think, 'There is a hole in the budget; what shall we do?' Bang—new tax or cut something out.

What this government has done is put in place a framework to ensure that the budget is sustainable. The Sustainable Budget Commission is not just a slick phrase; it is about ensuring that the budget can be sustainable. Otherwise, we will be like the United Kingdom, the United States and so many European countries where government expenditure and revenue simply do not add up. The only way to solve that is big increases in taxation or massive cuts in expenditure, in programs and in jobs. We are not going to put the state in that position. We are not going to be irresponsible.

We are not going to say, 'Well, five to 10 years, I don't know. We may or may not be in government; we will let somebody else worry about it. We will let someone else decide how many thousands of public servants they are going to have to shed, which hospitals they want to close, which schools they need to close; we will let somebody else decide whether they have to increase land tax or motor registration fees. We'll let someone else take those tough decisions because we want to avoid short-term political pain from a tough budget.' That would be irresponsible, and that is what we are not going to do. We decided that we were not going to squib it and take it easy.

We did not say, 'We don't want to face the legitimate concerns people have about some measures in the budget. It's all too hard. Let's squib it and avoid the tough decisions and keep it nice and easy because, politically, that's the easiest thing to do.' That would be irresponsible, and that is not what we are going to do. We have put in place a framework which takes into account the projected fallen revenue because of international circumstances and which puts in place the foundation to ensure that we can meet demand for health services.

We have done that in a way that ensures the budget is sustainable into the next decade, that is, that we can put the budget in the black and keep it there. We did that rather than just saying, 'It's too hard. We're not going to face up to the fact that international circumstances have reduced our revenue. We are not going to face up to the fact that we have an ageing population and a chronic disease problem and that we have more demand for health services. We're not going to face up to those things. We're going to squib it and we're going to avoid having a tough budget because, politically, that's easier.'

That is not what this government will do. We will be responsible and fiscally disciplined, and we will not exercise the sort of carelessness of the Liberal Party in its period of government. We are putting in place the fiscal framework that will ensure that the state is on a solid foundation in the coming decade, and that means, as we have acknowledged, some tough decisions and some pain for some people and communities, and we have acknowledged that.

It is certainly not with any relish that we make any of the difficult decisions, but we have put in place a framework which ensures that we keep the budget sustainable and takes into account the fall in projected revenue because of the global financial crisis and which enables us to meet future health spending needs and delivers on all our commitments made in the election and in the last period of government—and that will mean by far the biggest infrastructure program in the state's history.

I commend the Appropriation Bill to the house. I acknowledge that people have certain concerns with parts of it: they are legitimate and, of course, we understand that. However, we have to do what is in the best interests of the state and ensure that we are able to keep the budget on a sustainable basis so that, in a decade's time, we are not facing up to 25 per cent cuts in programs or leaving thousands and thousands of public servants with no options. In a decade's time, we do not want to face up to having to close hospitals or schools or massively increased taxation. That is why we have put in place the budget we have this year; that is, to ensure that we are established with a proper fiscal framework for the next decade. I commend the budget to the house.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister Assisting the Premier in Public Sector Management) (11:59): It is with pleasure that I conclude the debate. I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate, even though many of those contributions from members opposite were, shall we say, a lot less constructive. As the Hon. Mr Finnigan has just pointed out, no-one at all from outside the government benches really put up any alternative. As I said the other day, it is the easiest thing in the world to be a critic; it is a lot harder to write the script—and we certainly have not heard any alternative vision whatsoever.

When we concluded the second reading debate on the Statutes Amendment (Budget 2010) Bill, I did respond to many of the points that had been raised in that debate, and I could raise similar points in relation to this bill. The Hon. Mr Finnigan has really addressed, I think, the main economic issues that are behind this budget. If you do not take those issues into account and look at the context in which the budget is framed, how can you have a proper budget debate?

If we look around the world, as I said yesterday, we can see what is happening in the UK where they are freezing public sector wages for two years, they are cutting programs by 25 per cent, one in 12 public servants are leaving, and they are cutting pensions and a whole lot of other things. Because this government and the federal government have been able to weather the global financial crisis better than those other countries in Europe which are adopting those incredible austerity measures, we are in a better position; we do not have to be as draconian. Nonetheless—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: —we do have to take some action. What I think the public debate within the state really needs to be elevated to, in terms of the budgets that we face, is that whatever the budget is for one particular year it is not a budget that you can stick with going forward. We only have to look back to where the situation was eight years ago when this government came to office. Since then we have employed 4,000 more nurses, 1,500 more doctors; and, by the end of this term, we will have 1,000 more police—it is already about 700.

All those people have been added to the state's public sector in that time and they are all out there delivering services. And why is this happening? It is because, as I said yesterday, the fundamental economic drivers in this state are the fact that health and disability and other spending is growing. The demand for expenditure is growing at 10 per cent a year, while revenue is growing at 5 per cent. That is where the sustainability of budgets comes in; you cannot have that happening indefinitely.

In this current budget we have increased health spending by 13.5 per cent, but that is not enough for some people. They say that 13.5 per cent is not enough. We are accused of not caring about country people. If we do not care about country people, why are we increasing the Country Health budget by such a significant amount? The point is that there is a fundamental restructuring. That is why we have needed the 4,000 nurses and the 1,500 doctors, and we will need more as the population ages.

We do need to restructure our Public Service. It is not just a matter of doing it this year because we did not do it last year; we will have to keep doing it forever into the future, because circumstances are always changing. The needs of the public are always changing. Improvements in technology, fortunately, mean that we need fewer of some particular types of public sector workers, but we do need, and this government has certainly employed, more front-line service workers, particularly nurses, doctors and police.

The sad thing about the debate that we have in this place is this fundamental refusal by non-government members to accept the fact that the budget conditions are changing and will always change. There is a demographic change out there. The population of people aged over 75 is going to treble in the very near future. For the first time since the Industrial Revolution, there are more people leaving the workforce than joining it. All these economic drivers will feed into the budget one way or another. You cannot just stand back and say, let's keep spending, let's not cut anything, let's not restructure, let's not restructure the budget.

Non-government members in this house have been very quick to criticise all the expenditure restraint measures that this government has put up, but they have not put forward any alternatives. On the contrary, they keep saying that we should have an ICAC, there is another $20 million a year more. The only person who really said that we should cut things was the Greens' Tammy Franks. I should say something about her contribution. One of my colleagues in New South Wales used to describe the Greens as watermelons: green on the outside and red on the inside. I think that is probably a pretty good summary.

I was in New South Wales a few weeks back, and the new Greens Senator there distinguished herself back in the 1960s by supporting the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. These are some of the people who have actually been elected to parliament. How flaky are the policies of the Greens. They were suggesting that, somehow or other, if we cut the expenditure on roads we could put that into recurrent expenditure. Sure, as the Hon. Tammy Franks said, we could no longer duplicate the Southern Expressway and put that money into teachers and other areas, but while that might do for one year, unfortunately, with capital expenditure, it is a one-off. What you need, of course, with recurrent expenditure, is expenditure year in and year out. It is such an incredibly naive view of public finances to equate capital expenditure with recurrent expenditure that it scares me.

I am just amazed that I have to get up in this parliament and point out the fundamental difference between capital expenditure and recurrent expenditure. What we spend on capital works is important to inject into the economy to create jobs, but you cannot substitute the one-off capital expenditures for recurrent expenditure that will go on, indexed for inflation, year in and year out. That is what this government has to deal with. We have to deal with those areas where expenditure is growing, such as the health and disability services which are growing much faster than government revenue. The only way you can balance the books is through restructuring. That is what this government is doing, and we are seeking to do so in the least painful way possible.

As I said, I covered many of the broader economic points in my contribution yesterday and I will not go through them all again today. The Hon. Mr Finnigan I think put a very cogent explanation of the budget position in his address. However, I need to answer some questions that were raised during the second reading speech on this bill, and I will put those on record now. The Hon. Mr Ridgway asked a number of questions, the first relating to the northern suburbs. He stated:

I note that the supplies and services budget has dropped by $48,000. The minister stated last year that the supplies and services budget is inclusive of the lease cost. Last year that was $59,000. My questions are: is the lease cost still $59,000 and will it remain at that over the ten-year duration of the agreement; and what supplies and services have been cut to achieve the $48,000 saving?

I have been advised that the lease costs have increased by 3.5 per cent. The lease agreement allows for an annual increase of 3.5 per cent for the duration of the agreement. No services have been cut. A range of administrative efficiencies have been considered to reduce the supplies and services costs for the Northern Connections office. The Hon. Mr Ridgway said, and I think this also refers to the northern suburbs:

I note the actual spend on supplies and services was $78,000 in 2008-09, despite there being no budget allocation. This is such for the employee benefits and costs and the depreciation lines. Can the minister explain this spending in the absence of initial budget figures? I note there is $42,000 depreciation for the budget this year. Can the minister detail the items for depreciation?

I have been advised there was no original budget in 2008-09 because the decision to establish the portfolio was made after the budget was set. However, a budget line for supplies and services, employee costs and grants and depreciation were included in the estimated result for 2008-09. The depreciation relates to the fitout of the Northern Connections office. Then in relation to the southern suburbs, the Hon. Mr Ridgway said:

I note that the budget and estimated result for supplies and services in 2008-09 was $117,000—last year's budget paper. This year's budget shows that only $78,000 of it was spent. In last year's estimates the minister stated that supplies and services is the on-cost of having staff and there were two full-time equivalents. Why was there an underspend of $39,000 on the on-costs? In the 2011 supplies and services budget it has been cut from $129,000 to $114,000. Which supplies and services will be cut to support that budget measure?

I have been advised that of the $39,000 the actual underspend for 2009-10 was $9,000, as $30,000 was allocated to corporate service support from the Department of Planning and Local Government. As this is an internal change within the department, it does not appear in the budget papers. A range of efficiencies is being considered and implemented. The Hon. Mr Ridgway then asked:

Will the minister advise what the current employment rate is for the southern area under his portfolio and what was it at this time last year? How many new businesses were established in the area throughout the past financial year? How many businesses closed or relocated? In the past financial year, how many small businesses did the minister personally visit?...Can the minister confirm whether funding for the Small Business Development Grant for the southern suburbs of Adelaide, which in previous years has been $5 million, will be available in 2010-11 for future years?

I have been advised that the state-funded $5 million Small Business Development Grant was part of the $80 million assistance package agreed upon by the South Australian and federal governments to support Mitsubishi workers following the closure of the Tonsley Park facility. The grants were only designed to run up until August of this year. The number of full-time jobs made possible through the Small Business Development Grant since its inception is 215. The council should be advised that since the election on 20 March the minister has visited innumerable small businesses and has firsthand experience of what it takes to run one and the difficulties they face.

In relation to employment rates, I have been advised that the Australian Bureau of Statistics labour force survey estimates at the regional level are volatile, largely due to the reduced sample size of the reduced area. I quote the following three-month moving average statistics provided by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, based on Australian Bureau of Statistics data. During the year to September 2010, in southern Adelaide the number of employed people rose substantially from 178,000 to 183,000, or 3.2 per cent. This is identical to Adelaide's percentage employment growth and compares favourably with the South Australian increase of 2.2 per cent over the same period.

Notably, for southern Adelaide the labour force participation rate rose from 64.6 per cent to 66.3 per cent over the same period relative to the state average participation rate as at September 2010 of 63.6 per cent. I wonder if I have been given the right year there, whether that is not the previous year. I will check that out. As I said, this information has been provided. The employment rate, being the ratio of employment to population, for southern Adelaide as at September 2010 was 75.3 per cent, compared to 75.1 per cent as at September 2009. The corresponding ratio for the whole of Adelaide as at September 2010 was 72.6 per cent. So, I assume, therefore, for the previous answer, that the higher labour force participation rate was at September 2010 and the previous figure was for the year earlier.

As to the number of new businesses established in southern Adelaide, I am advised that this data is not readily available. Similarly, data for the number of businesses closed or relocated is not readily available. In relation to the number of businesses in southern Adelaide visited by the minister, I am advised by him that he visits small businesses in southern Adelaide regularly and maintains close contact with business in the south. During the year to June 2010, based upon his diary records, he visited approximately 70 businesses in southern Adelaide.

As to the Small Business Development Grant, including the final round announced in August 2010, the total funding of $5 million has been fully committed. Building on the success of the Small Business Development Fund, the government will establish a new $1 million per year investment fund to provide assistance to small and medium enterprises across South Australia to assist local manufacturers increase their competitiveness. This program will support small companies (under $5 million turnover) to introduce new technology, new products or to enter new markets.

The government has committed $5.5 million over three years to deliver a package of programs to support the growth of the cleantech industry in South Australia, as well as promoting more sustainable manufacturing. A further $2 million has been committed over four years to establish a national dedicated medical devices partnering program to support innovation and business development in the sector.

I now turn to the police portfolio. The Hon. Mr Ridgway referred to Budget Paper 4 in the Statement of Comprehensive Income relating to fees, fines and penalties with a budgeted amount for 2010-11 of $95.272 million. He asked:

What proportion of that budgeted amount is speeding fine revenue? What is the estimate for speeding fine revenue for the 2009-10 year? How much of the budgeted amount in the estimated 2009-10 result is attributable to revenue generated from Operation Rural Focus?

I have been advised that budgeted revenue from speed offences for 2010-11 is 59 per cent, that is, $56.378 million as a proportion of total budgeted revenue of $95.272 million. Actual revenue from speed-related offences for 2009-10 was $49.197 million. The Hon. Mr Ridgway then continued:

I note that offences allegedly expiated through that operation included a farmer being fined $370 for having mud on his numberplate, people fined for having bags of groceries on the back seat and a farmer fined for having an unsecured shovel on his ute. Will the minister list the top 10 offences for Rural Focus by expiation revenue earned and the revenue per item?

I am advised that SAPOL does not budget to—or report to—the level required to be able to provide information related to the budget for or actual revenue attributed to Operation Rural Focus. However, the following categories relate to expiation notices issued, with the majority speeding related. The expiation notices as issued are as follows:

speeding;

seat belt;

child restraint;

mobile phone;

driver unlicensed or disqualified;

drive contrary to P-plate or L-plate conditions;

disobey traffic signs (Stop or Give Way);

turning and lane behaviour;

driving an unregistered and/or an uninsured vehicle;

fail to obey registration requirements; and

obscured numberplates.

The Hon. Mr Ridgway then referred to road-use regulation performance indicators, as follows:

...two of which indicators relate to the number of drink driving related offences detected by police and recorded on expiation notices, and the static RDST (alcohol) detection rate as a percentage of the number of drivers tested. The first indicator sets a benchmark suggesting the higher the figure, the better the performance. The second sets a maximum benchmark and seeks a lower figure. Effectively, the government seems to be aiming for higher detection and expiation levels, but then suggests that a lower percentage of positive tests is a better outcome. Can the minister explain the seeming incongruity in these targets, and what method is used to record the drug and alcohol test?

I have been advised that there is no incongruity in these related targets. The number of detections and the rate of detections are both related to the number of tests. The more drivers police test, the more drink drivers who will be detected. This explains the first benchmark where the higher the figure the better the performance in testing drivers. In other words, the more you test, the better and more comprehensive your program.

Secondly, if more drivers are tested but the number of drink drivers detected does not rise commensurately, this sampling of the population suggests that fewer people are driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and that our road safety message is getting through. The target is not simply the number of tests, because this would not reflect police work in identifying and targeting drink-driving hotspots. The actual number of random driver screening tests (RDST) for alcohol and drugs that are conducted is recorded and reported upon.

The Hon. Mr Ridgway then referred to the Capital Investment Statement: Existing Projects—Clamping, Impounding and Forfeiture Vehicle Initiative. He said:

On 1 August this year, it was reported that the commissioner was deciding whether to use the anti-hoon legislation for the first time to crush a seized car. Under this legislation cars can all be sold by auction or public tender or sold as scrap metal. Since the legislation came into play how many circumstances have arisen, other than the two the other day, where a vehicle was crushed? How many vehicles have been sold under this legislation? What is the total market value and proceeds of those vehicles? What will happen in the circumstances where it is deemed appropriate to crush a car which still has a financial encumbrance on it in terms of someone possibly owing a finance company some money on that car?

I have been advised that no vehicles were publicly crushed. I can also advise that 46 vehicles have been disposed of through scrap merchants as a result of being unclaimed or unwanted by the vehicle owner. One vehicle has been sold under this legislation. Information is unknown for the market value and sale proceeds of the vehicle, as we receive one cheque for multiple sales, which is itemised. Therefore, on average, $122.10 was received for each vehicle scrapped, a total of $5,616.60.

Under current legislation, there are provisions that a credit provider may make a claim on a vehicle that may have been clamped or identified for sale or destruction. In the IAW CIF legislation of 2007, part 5, section 21(1)(b) provides that a credit provider may apply to the Magistrates Court for the release of the vehicle to the credit provider. Each request is to be treated on its merits by the Magistrates Court.

Also, subparagraph (1)(c) provides that the credit provider can request payment from the proceeds of the sale under the act. IAW section 20(6)(a)(ii) provides that, if an amount remains after those costs and fees and the Magistrates Court has made an order, under the new legislation, there is a requirement for financial encumbrances to be checked.

The honourable member then referred to Capital Investment Statement, New Projects—Hi-tech Crime-Fighting Equipment. He stated:

I note that the estimated total cost is $4.7 million. Can the minister explain the difference between the election commitment of $7.89 million for this new state-of-the-art police equipment and now only the $4.7 million figure in the budget?

I have been advised that the election commitment of $7.89 million includes both the operating and investing capital components of high-tech crime-fighting equipment, excluding depreciation. The amount of $4.725 million is the investing capital component. The total budget excluding depreciation is $8.955 million.

The Hon. Mr Ridgway then referred to Capital Investment Statement, Existing Projects—Police Records Management System, with a total budget of $9.4 million. He stated:

Despite appearing under 'Existing Projects', the project did not appear in the previous year's Capital Investment Statement. Will the minister explain the discrepancy, and in the event that this project is, say, an amalgamation of existing works or a renamed project, what is the budget for its equivalent project?

I have been advised that the 2009-10 Capital Investment Statement reported a work in progress, 'Outlaw Motorcycle Gang Task Force Information Technology System', estimated total cost, $5.181 million.

In January 2010, cabinet approved these funds being amalgamated with a portion of annual provisions and existing SAPOL recurrent funds to form the existing project, Police Records Management System, which appears in the 2010-11 Capital Investment Statement, with an estimated total cost of $9.4 million. The Hon. Mr Ridgway referred again to the Capital Investment Statement, Existing Projects—Police Academy Redevelopment, and he asked:

I note that $35.5 million of the total $59 million estimated project cost is to be spent this year. Will the minister provide a breakdown of what developments are to occur under that $35.5 million allocation and what is to be achieved in the next financial year with the $11.1 million unspent budget allocation?

I have been advised that the $35.5 million cash flow for 2010-11 will include invoices from the builder, the design team and DTEI building management on the project for the period April 2010 to April 2011. The program for this period indicates that the following activities will have taken place:

site infrastructure works completed, including site layout and levelling; formation of car park and internal roads pads and building pads for buildings;

new electricity supply and new water and sewerage services;

removal of redundant radio towers;

relocation of the 66 kilovolts power line off the academy site and onto the street verge;

installation of underground rainwater tanks;

commencement of all buildings; and

completion of: Weapons Training Building Stage 1; Administration Building; Technology and Resources Building; and Facilities Management Building.

The $11.1 million cash flow for 2011-12 will include:

completion of car parks, new entry, internal roads, obstacle course, driver training track, and all landscaping and replacement fencing;

completion of the campus heart, parade ground and Wall of Remembrance;

completion of: classroom training building; auditorium building; accommodation building; weapons training building stage 2; physical training building; and scenario village and scenario house—

I had a look at one of those in WA. It is very good training for police officers.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: No, they have the Scenario Village; they have proper banks and chemist shops, and the like. They even have actors who come in and do it, and then police have to respond. It is a very good way of doing it. I had a look at those when I was police minister and I am very pleased to see that it is coming to fruition.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I am sorry for digressing, Mr President, but I am very excited about this project. One of the pleasant things I did as police minister was to initiate this project to redevelop the police academy. In addition to that, there is the changes room to be completed, and then the connection of all buildings to telephone and data networks. The Hon. Mr Ridgway then referred to Budget Paper 4, Public Safety—Summary income statement. He said:

I note that there are some variations on the figures for this program. For example, in last year's papers the 2009-10 budget for employee benefits and costs was listed as $206.7 million, whereas in this year's paper that 2009-10 figure is $233.9 million. This applies to the 2009-10 budget figures for each expense item listed in the summary. Why are there substantial variations in these figures, as between the previous and current budget papers, for what we would assume would be the same program?

I have been advised that prior years' budget papers are not comparable to the current year's budget papers, as there has been a revision of the program portfolio statement structures for 2010-11. Regarding public safety, this program now contains the sub-programs Emergency Response and Emergency Management and Coordination. These were previously shown under Program 4, Emergency Response and Management in Prior Years. A summary of program structure changes is provided below:

Program 1, Public Order is renamed Public Safety;

Program 2, Crime Prevention is renamed Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Services;

the 2009-10 program for Emergency Response and Management, and sub-programs 4.1 Emergency Response and 4.2 Emergency Management and Coordination have been realigned under Program 1, Public Safety as sub-programs 1.3 and 1.4 respectively; and

the 2009-10 Program 5, Criminal Justice Services and sub-programs 5.1 Criminal Justice Services and 5.2 Custodial Services have been realigned under Program 2, Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Services as sub-programs 2.5 and 2.6 respectively.

The Hon. Mr Ridgway then stated:

The objective of the public safety program is to support a strategic plan of 'improving wellbeing'. Table 6A.31 of the 2010 Productivity Commission Report estimates South Australia's total victims of reported and unreported crime in 2002 and 2005. Assaults have gone from 4,200 incidents in 1998 to 4,500 in 2002, and 4,700 in 2005. Total personal crimes have increased from 4,500 to 5,000. Does the minister think that the wellbeing of the community has improved under a Labor government?

Certainly, community wellbeing has definitely improved under this government. I am advised that the official ABS and latest SAPOL statistics both show that victim-reported crime in South Australia has fallen by over 35 per cent. Additionally, statistics show that violent crime has fallen from 293.3 per 100,000 persons in 2001-02 to just 189.6 in 2009-10. Overall crime per capita has dropped a remarkable 45 per cent. The Hon. Mr Ridgway then said:

I note the existing project relating to the police band bus. I note that the disbanding of the police band was a recommendation from the leaked Sustainable Budget Commission report. How much is estimated to have been spent on the police band in 2009-10, and what is the budget for the current financial year?

I have been advised that expenditure in 2009-10 was: employee entitlements $3.2 million, supplies and services $0.1 million, for a total of $3.3 million. The budget for 2010-11 is: employee entitlements $3.2 million, and supplies and services again $0.1 million, for a total of 3.3 million. The Hon. Mr Ridgway then said:

I note that in the performance indicators it is estimated that in 2009-10 police were involved in 351 fewer events than in 2008-09. Will the minister explain the contributing factors to that drop?

I am advised that SAPOL responds to the demand for special major and local events working with a wide range of stakeholders and where police support is required it is always provided. The number of events where SAPOL provides a service varies from year to year depending on community activity. Mr Ridgway then stated:

I note that the police cadet course will be reconstructed. Will SAPOL be continuing to recruit UK officers and, if so, what is the recruitment target for this year and across the forward estimates?

I have been advised that SAPOL's focus will remain on obtaining recruits from South Australia for the current period and across the forward estimates. SAPOL is targeting an additional 313 FTE police officers over and above attrition over the next four years. SAPOL will not be recruiting officers from the United Kingdom for 2010-11. The recruitment plan will be regularly reviewed over the forward estimates. Mr Ridgway then referred to employee long service leave liability and said:

I note that this liability is $9.1 million. Has the government considered or had any discussions with SAPOL over the option of police officers cashing in their long service leave as an incentive to keep highly trained officers on the job?

I have been advised that no, that has not occurred. The Hon. Mr Ridgway then referred to the emergency management and coordination subprogram. He said:

...it is estimated that in 2009-10 the government fell short of its target of patrols arriving at emergency incidents within 15 minutes of a task in the metropolitan area. Why has the government fallen short of that particular target and what are the explanations for that shortfall?

I have been advised that the figures represent an accurate recording of SAPOL's response. The target is consistently set at a high level to ensure SAPOL strives to maintain and work towards improving a high level of service delivery to the community. The measure of the first responding units includes taskings which do not necessarily require emergency attendance—for example, shop theft.

Whilst there has been a decrease in the percentage of response within 15 minutes over several years, the categorisation of emergency incidents is currently under review to better reflect the taskings which do require an emergency response. The Hon. Mr Ridgway then referred to the Capital Investment Statement and the STAR Group vessel replacement project, and stated:

I note the estimated total cost of the project has gone from $2.27 million (last year's statement) to $2.51 million. The expected completion time has also been extended by a year. Will the minister please explain the change in time and cost projections?

I have been advised that in November 2007 an open tender process was initiated for the vessel replacement project with an estimated value of $2.25 million GST exclusive. Tenders closed in March 2008. The subsequent evaluation process resulted in tenders failing to comply with a maximum vessel length and prices quoted substantially exceeded budget allocations. The tender was not proceeded with.

Following a review and the development of a new strategy, another tender process was initiated in October 2008 and closed in January 2009. This process was successfully concluded with a contract commencing on 30 November 2009 with a value of $2.52 million GST exclusive. Additional funding of $270,000 was required. The Hon. Mr Ridgway then referred to urban development and planning and said:

I note that the objective of the Urban Development and Planning Program is 'leading and presenting South Australia's land use development planning'. Development plan amendments are, indeed, integral to the land use and development planning. I note in particular the Mount Barker DPA and, particularly something that the council said in relation to this rezoning.

The Mount Barker township is currently categorised as a 'medium' bushfire risk, with the surrounding area (which is to be rezoned) nominated as 'high risk'. According to the DPA, the township and rezoned area will all be assigned to the lower 'general risk', which means that homes can be built to lower hazard standards under the Building Code of Australia. What is the rationale for the rezoned area being reassigned as a lower general fire risk?

The Development Plan Amendment for Mount Barker is, of course, currently under consideration by the Development Policy Advisory Committee (DPAC) and this issue will be considered as part of that process. To date, DPAC has not provided me with its advice. However, notwithstanding the particular bushfire considerations concerning the Mount Barker Urban Growth Development Plan Amendment, once urban development has been undertaken in an area the nature of services within an urban environment is such that the level of bushfire risk reduces. Cement does not burn as well as grass.

Indeed, the areas of the state excluded from bushfire risk area requirements, on the basis of Country Fire Service advice, include existing townships and other settlements that have an adequate water supply for fighting fires and suitable emergency vehicle access and egress. This, in part, informed the plan which was consulted upon. However, the plan is still under consideration by DPAC, and as this was a matter raised during the consultation, my committee may have further advice for me on this matter. The Hon. Mr Ridgway then referred to the performance commentary for the urban development and planning program, as follows:

I note the third point from the bottom line consists of statistics on DPAs initiated, considered or completed. In February 2010 the Gawler Racecourse DPA was approved by the minister. The town of Gawler is now making a claim against the minister in the Supreme Court regarding the DPA.

I think that means he is referring to judicial review of the decision. He then asked:

How much has been spent on the legal fees relevant to that claim, and what are the budgeted amounts for future legal costs?

This matter is appropriately being handled by the Crown Solicitor's Office, and I have been advised the cost of defending the action will be met from within that department's budget. Should the government's position be upheld, it is likely, of course, that the government will seek to recover costs. The Hon. Mr Ridgway then stated:

Lobbyist Nick Bolkus had some involvement with the minister relative to the DPA. He was also engaged in the lead-up to the major development approval for the Buckland Park development. These decisions to approve the Buckland Park development were roundly criticised by several planning experts, including the Planning Institute of Australia. Given the recent record of controversy attached to the development decision involving Mr Bolkus, is the minister confident in the advice he received from Mr Bolkus, and will he continue to engage him in the lead-up to further significant development decisions?

How many times has the minister or staff from his office met with Mr Bolkus regarding these developments?

Let me first say that my office has not engaged Mr Bolkus. After consulting my diary, I can advise that I have had a total of four meetings at which Mr Bolkus was present—that is since July 2008. Actually, he was either present or he had arranged them. He may not have been present at all of them, but he was either present at, or had arranged, four meetings in relation to Gawler Racecourse and Buckland Park.

It should be understood by the opposition that Nick Bolkus does not advise me on planning decisions, as suggested by them. In his position, his role has been to arrange meetings between various stakeholders and myself and nothing more.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Well, why are you chuckling? That is what he has done. I am getting a bit sick at this sort of sleaze. Yesterday, we had a situation in one of the debates on private members' business, where the Hon. Mr Ridgway quoted a former minister in this place, Diana Laidlaw. He said how it had made her sick, the relationships that had existed between—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Just repeating what she said. Well, Diana Laidlaw is a very wealthy woman, and a lot of that wealth has come from places like Adelaide Brighton Cement. A lot of workers have actually got sick as a result of that.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Well, I think it is nasty to come in here and make accusations against me. It is all very well to come in here and just sort of throw this sort of sleaze around. Then he says Diana Laidlaw said that this makes her sick because of the relationship between this government and someone else. No evidence, of course; no explanation of it; just throw it out there!

If what the Hon. Ms Laidlaw said is true, then I think she herself ought to take a look at where a lot of her personal wealth has been achieved, and how it has been achieved, before she casts aspersions on me. I suggest that the Hon. Mr Ridgway should do likewise. Let me repeat that Mr Bolkus, or any other lobbyist for that matter, does not advise me on planning decisions. In his position, his role has been to arrange meetings between various stakeholders and myself, and nothing more. I can also add that I see Nick Bolkus at various social engagements throughout the year, as I see many other representatives from peak bodies and organisations.

As I said, a check of the diary indicated that there were four meetings in which he had been involved either arranging or attending. If you have discussions about development, you do not deal with lobbyists: you deal with the people for whom they arrange meetings. You talk to the people who actually have the money they are going to spend on it. That is who you talk to if they want to approach you. What lobbyists do—or certainly the ones that I deal with—is arrange meetings. That is what they do; they arrange meetings, and there is nothing wrong with that, but what we get are members of the opposition with this innuendo.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Yes, but you keep repeating it.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Yes, you are as bad as one another. You are great at innuendo; not so good on facts. It is a bit like the budget that we are talking about: no alternative, no detail, no plan, but just cast a bit of muck out there. Just sort of imply it, as the Leader of the Opposition, Isobel Redmond—she is one of those who is great at doing this, saying, 'Oh, there's a perception out there.' Of course, as she is saying it she is creating the perception. Of course there will be a perception if you keep talking about these things, but these people never come up with any evidence whatsoever of improper behaviour—none whatsoever.

Let us go on with this line of thinking that the Hon. Mr Ridgway was talking about, because he asked those questions about Mr Bolkus.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: They can throw this stuff around, but they cannot take it.

In such cases where the interests of the development ministry have been pushed by influential lobbyists, has the minister granted community groups the same level of direct communication in order to argue their case? In the case of the Gawler Racecourse and Buckland Park, has the minister been swayed by the interests of developers over those of the community?

Then he said:

If the DPA proceeds as approved, what economic effect does the minister predict the new retail complex will have on the traditional Gawler main street?

Whenever considering any development plan amendment for approval, I balance the interests of all stakeholders affected, and I have had on many occasions the opportunity to meet with local residents regarding a variety of planning matters concerning the town of Gawler. If I recall—and it was way back in July 2008—that meeting that Mr Bolkus had arranged, there were people from Thoroughbred Racing SA, I think it was, who were there at the time in relation to that course. That was the first meeting.

I have not met with those people in relation to that for at least 12 months, but I have had many more meetings with local residents, and also with the local member of parliament, Mr Piccolo, in relation to those matters. He is a very effective local member in terms of putting the views of his constituents forward.

I have had many meetings, including a community cabinet meeting held in Gawler in November 2009 where I heard at least half a dozen different deputations in relation to these Gawler matters. I also, of course, have met with council. So, I have met with council, as well as the local members, and the member for Light, Tony Piccolo, who represents very well the concerns of the electorate.

As for Buckland Park and the balance between the interests of developers and the community, if the honourable shadow minister for urban development and planning took an interest in the issue, he would know that the limited number of people who form the Buckland Park community are widely supportive of the Buckland Park development plan amendment. In fairness, there is not a huge community at Buckland Park at the moment; there are only a handful of people out there. However, he asked me and, of course, by this question was suggesting that I had overlooked the community, notwithstanding, as I said, that the very small number of people out there are broadly supportive.

In reference to the second part of the question, the zoning at the Gawler Racecourse will be to provide sufficient lands capable of providing adequate facilities to serve weekly shopping and business needs for the population in the surrounding areas and to the south of the existing main street centre.

The council is currently in the process of rezoning large tracts of land at Evanston Gardens and Evanston Park. In light of this, any development over the rezoned land at the Gawler Racecourse will serve to curtail retail leakage from the township of Gawler into neighbouring centres such as Munno Para, and will alleviate congestion in the main street of Gawler, which has been a concern to residents and business owners alike for many years.

I think the Hon. Mr Dawkins, who knows the area, would agree that there is a fair haemorrhage of shopping down to the Munno Para centre, and there is also a lot of growth in Evanston Gardens. It makes sense to have some extra shopping facilities there at the racecourse site and I believe it is broadly supported by the community in Gawler. Again the Hon. Mr Ridgway said:

…I refer to the Gawler East DPA approved by the minister. What funding and policy commitments have been given to road infrastructure to support the development of Gawler East? (I am aware of an agreement but this minister in this house is yet to table that.) What funding commitment has the government given to that particular agreement?

This has been negotiated with the department and I have been advised that the Gawler East development plan amendment recognises that the development of more than 1,000 dwellings in Gawler East is non-complying until the completion of the link road.

That is the trigger point I have referred to that was not hitherto part of development plan amendments in this state. It is one of the new innovations and we will see that further developed with Mount Barker and thereon for more future development plan amendments, I hope. Traditionally, development plan amendments have never considered the infrastructure needs. We are now beginning that process and it will be a huge and very important innovation by this government.

To continue on with the answer, government is committed to achieving substantial commitments of the link road no later than the first half of the 2013-14 financial year, and achieving completion of the link road by no later than July 2015. I am advised that this will be subject to resolution of any archaeological, anthropological and environmental issues. Government is committed to resolve these issues as expeditiously as possible. Currently the Land Management Corporation has been engaged to undertake a commercial assessment for the Department of Transport, Energy and Infrastructure (DTEI) of the options available for the development of this land to fund the cost of the link road.

The Department of Planning and Local Government is currently leading negotiations on behalf of the state in relation to the provision of the road infrastructure in the area rezoned by the Gawler East development plan amendment. The negotiations between DTEI, the Town of Gawler, the Barossa Council and Delfin Lend Lease are progressing cooperatively and in a timely manner, with the proposed traffic interventions being agreed to in principle by all parties.

DPLG expects that, once local government elections have been conducted and the caretaker provisions are no longer in place, an agreement acceptable to all parties on the apportionment of responsibility for contributions to the cost of each traffic intervention will be able to be reached. The Hon. Mr Ridgway then said:

I note in the summary income statement that $6.64 million is estimated to have been spent on supplies and services. As the minister stated in this place on 3 June 2009, Connor Holmes was engaged by the Department of Planning and Local Government to undertake different work to identify land that has potential for urban development over the next 30 years. What was the total cost of that service, and has that work now been completed?

Connor Holmes was engaged during 2008-09 through a select tender process to undertake the growth investigations. I am advised that the total cost of the service was $250,000, which was completed during 2008-09. Mr Ridgway then said:

I note the third point from the bottom lists—

this is in the performance commentary on the urban development planning program—

some of the DPAs initiated that are considered to be completed. My question is: what is the average time taken in South Australia for ministerial consideration in the decision phase of a council-initiated DPA?

I am advised that the medium time from commencement of a council-initiated DPA to authorisation was 30.23 months in 2009-10. The time taken for ministerial consideration of a council-initiated DPA is not measured. In relation to Budget Paper 4, Highlights 2009-10, Mr Ridgway stated:

I note the continued implementation of the planning and development review recommendations. One was the establishment of a residential code. Has the residential code been formally reviewed, and what is the level of community satisfaction with the residential code?

In order to address recommendation 25 of the Planning and Development Review recommendations, the South Australian residential code (the code) was introduced in stages during 2009. Commencement of operation of the full code, that is, for detached and semi-detached dwellings in the last of the areas to be gazetted, occurred in December 2009.

While the code has been introduced, it is yet to be formally reviewed. Preparation for that review though is well under way. It will address concerns of industry about access to the code, the content of several conditions and the applicability of others. A working group will be announced shortly to review the code and report its recommendations through the Development Policy Advisory Committee as the nominated code advisory committee.

Separately, the Department of Planning and Local Government and the Local Government Association are partnering in a project designed to render access to code-related information easier through an electronic portal and a specific form for code applications. These initiatives will bring a new integrity and administrative simplicity to applications and boost the take-up of the code by applicants. The Hon. Mr Lucas also asked a couple of questions about the funding of the Million Trees Program. He asked:

Can the government and Treasurer explain why other budget cuts, similar to the ones I have just highlighted, have not been included in the budget measures document? So, what other cuts have not been included?

I am advised that all policy decisions are spelt out in the budget papers. In relation to the specific issue that was raised by the Hon. Mr Lucas, there has been no cut to the Million Trees Program. Unallocated funding from the Planning and Development Fund has been directed towards the Greenways and Cycle Paths project.

The Hon. Mr Lucas also asked a question about depreciation. I have been advised that it is standard practice to not show depreciation effects in the budget papers, although depreciation impacts are included in the budget bottom line. This has been in place for a number of years. With those answers, those questions are answered, and they cover most of the matters raised fairly comprehensively, I would have thought. I commend the Appropriation Bill to the council.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The opposition will pass this budget with deep regret. This is a bad, mean and miserable budget. However, under the time-honoured constitutional convention, the upper house does not block supply. We cannot let this Labor bill create a constitutional crisis, but what we can say is that this budget is a budget of broken promises, of Labor's contempt. It attacks the very people Labor is supposed to represent. This is a budget which shames the government and of which Don Dunstan would have been ashamed. South Australians will remember Labor's betrayal. Not just the senior ministry but all Labor members in this house and the other place have let down their former supporters and all of South Australia.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: If we are going to go through second reading speeches again, of course, I reject that. What this government has done through its budget and through a lot of work by the Treasurer and members of the Sustainable Budget Commission is reduce the impact that the budget measures would otherwise have upon South Australians. One only has to look at what is happening today in the United Kingdom, Greece, Spain, France and other places to see what the alternative would be.

Members opposite can just pretend away, if they like, the economic conditions that we face. They can pretend away the fact that we have an ageing population. They can pretend away the fact that health expenditure has been growing at 10 per cent while revenue is growing at a lower smaller rate, and that is 35 per cent of the budget. They can pretend away the fact that we now have, through demographics, an increasingly ageing workforce, fewer people entering the workforce, more people retiring, fewer people to pay taxes. They can pretend away all these things. But this government will not: we will deal with the reality. Yes, the budget is a tough budget, but the fact that we have sat here for over a week and not heard any substantial alternative to what we are putting up, I think speaks for itself.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: We, too, will support the passage of this Appropriation Bill. We have no choice, of course; that is the convention of the Westminster system, and we do not seek to overturn that convention. We respect it. I have listened to this debate now for a week or so, both in the media and in the house and, to be as even-handed as I can, I think there are some positive measures in this budget. My view is that we are living in somewhat difficult financial times and, although there has been substantial GST revenue for this government, we had a very significant global event in recent times which has had an impact. I am inclined to accept that argument.

For that reason, I can understand a government wanting to take a tough approach. But the thing I do not agree with—that I and my party will never agree with—is changing conditions on public sector employees in retrospect. People who joined the Public Service did so under certain conditions in good faith at that time. They joined understanding that their long service leave conditions were as they were agreeing to at that time. To alter those conditions in retrospect, I think is fundamentally wrong, and I absolutely object to it. I understand the financial difficulties. All I am saying is that there must be another way because—and I am thinking particularly of our police officers, ambulance staff and people who genuinely put their life on the line to protect people in the community—to change their conditions in a retrospective way, I cannot accept. I strongly object to that aspect of this Appropriation Bill.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 8), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.

[Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:15]