Bills

Appropriation Bill 2015

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 10 September 2015.)

The Hon. T.T. NGO (15:35): I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill. It is simply not enough to be aware of the challenges facing this state if we do not have a plan to address those issues. The lack of detail in the opposition's economic policy for this state was the main reason they lost the state election. They have only themselves to blame and, from the response to the state government's most recent budget, it seems as though nothing much has changed.

We are all aware of the challenges facing this state as the decline of manufacturing hits its peak with the pending closure of Holden in 2018. The Australian dollar, though now in more manageable territory, had been too high for too long. Our state's manufacturers cannot continue with business models that will fail at the whim of increased export costs due to increases in the valuation of our national currency.

We need to export products that are sought for their value rather than their price, but this is easier said than done. It is this transformation with which the federal government should be assisting us. Amidst the fall in state government revenue, we are obliged to continually fight with the federal government to continue its funding into health and education as well as fulfil its commitment to horizontal fiscal equalisation. Regardless of which state you live in, Australians should receive the same quality of health and education services.

With the fall in commodity prices, mining states such as Western Australia have learnt the hard way how a state's fiscal position can deteriorate rapidly. The weak fiscal position South Australia finds itself in is more a reflection on the economic adjustment that this state faces in ensuring that new industries replace old industries rather than the so-called reckless spending that the opposition would lead South Australians to believe.

It is interesting that as a percentage of spending to gross state product (GSP), South Australia's rate has been reducing. In the 2013-14 budget it was 16.9 per cent. It is now 16.6 per cent. Western Australia's spending as a percentage of GSP has increased in the same period from 10.3 per cent to 11.7 per cent. To put this into context, for the last couple of years Western Australia has had a much bigger pie to eat from than South Australia. The problem is that Western Australians are beginning to eat a lot more of theirs.

South Australia's net debt as a percentage of GSP sits at 4 per cent. In the most recent budget, Western Australia's has grown from 4 per cent to almost 6.5 per cent. To continue the analogy, they have been borrowing a lot more pie than we have. Their state is now projected to have an operating deficit of $2.7 billion and their state debt is $30 billion. Without being blessed with the natural advantages of Western Australia, South Australia has had to live much more within its means and be a lot smarter in how it spends taxpayers' money.

My question is this: is it fair that a government blessed with rivers of gold, wastes them, and then calls for a so-called 'fairer' distribution of GST, showing complete contempt for the value of horizontal fiscal equalisation? It has been that very activity in Western Australia's mining industry that has led to the high interest rates and high national currency which has plagued South Australia's traditional export industries, particularly manufacturing. This has hurt our GSP.

It is at this stage of my contribution that I will assume the opposition understands these fairly basic economic outcomes that I am talking about. Spending is not South Australia's major problem: instead, the state government needs to grow its pie, figuratively speaking. Leading up to the last election the basic Liberal Party line was that waste needed to stop, but there has been no amount of savings produced by the opposition to demonstrate that it could do this without cutting Public Service jobs or services to the community.

I do not pretend that there are not bureaucratic savings that can be found in government without hitting front-line services, but the opposition leader, Mr Marshall, cannot get away with saying that the state's economic problems will be cured simply by trimming the bureaucracy and that then there will be enough money to spend on other government services whilst having no debt and the continuation of surpluses. That is fantasy land, and I honestly believe members opposite would privately acknowledge that as well. The main game is that we need to grow South Australia's pie rather than fight about the distribution of the pie we have at this moment.

If we come to an agreement that this is the primary challenge facing our state, then it is important to reveal what plans the two major political parties in this state have to reach that goal. My belief is that the Liberal Party has confused what conventional responses need to be in responding to the economic challenges South Australia is facing in its current economic cycle. In contrast, there has been a clear philosophy behind the Weatherill government.

In the 2013-14 budget and the economic period leading up to the budget, there was serious concern at the very low level of growth in our state's economy. This, of course, was being fuelled by the peak in mining exports in Western Australia, which was fuelling the high Australian dollar. As private investment boomed in the mining states and flatlined here in South Australia, Premier Weatherill, under the banner of Building a Stronger South Australia, embarked on an aggressive government infrastructure spend.

As we know, many projects have been built under this government, the short-term gain being that people were kept in jobs, particularly in the construction industry, and the long-term gain obviously being the productivity benefits that will flow from that investment. This government never pretended that it could permanently spend its way to prosperity; this was a temporary measure, with the knowledge that the state's fiscal capacity had been seriously drained. At the time, the opposition leader labelled the government's infrastructure spending as a false economy; now, in response to the government's 2015-16 budget, he has called for more infrastructure spending. Does the opposition not see the contradiction in these remarks?

The opposition dismisses the fact that, historically speaking, this government, in its 2015-16 budget, is still spending record amounts on infrastructure. The Weatherill government is investing $10.8 billion over the forward estimates. It is true that there is a minor decrease in the level of infrastructure spending in this year's budget; however, this is only because it has fallen from historically high levels.

The Weatherill government has also facilitated a tax reform package announced in this year's budget. The tax reform package announced is the most ambitious in the state's history: $670 million returned to businesses and their families. From 1 July 2016, the stamp duty on non-residential real property transfers will be reduced by a third, with a further third reduction of stamp duty on non-residential real property transfers by 1 July 2017, and completely removed by 1 July 2018.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. T.T. NGO: I will get to that point a bit later. By 1 July 2018, this government will abolish stamp duty on non-residential real property transfers, abolish stamp duty on transfer of units in unit trusts, and abolish stamp duty on transfers of mining licences and tenements.

In addition, the government plans to: (1) abolish share duty; (2) abolish stamp duty on non-real property transfers, including non-fixed plant and equipment; (3) expand the stamp duty concession for exploration tenements, including retention tenements; and (4) expand the eligibility criteria for corporate reconstruction relief.

The opposition leader has called for all these tax measures that abolish stamp duties from a number of transactions to be brought forward, as outlined by the Hon. Mr Ridgway. Does he truly expect South Australians to believe that, if the government continues with its record level of infrastructure spending and also brings forward all elements of this tax reform package, and then implements payroll tax cuts which he has been advocating for, then somehow he will deliver surpluses while reducing state debt?

Mr Marshall and the state opposition have continuously railed against increasing debt and deficits. As I said earlier, any level of Public Service spending that potentially could be saved under a future Marshall government would be dwarfed by the amount of expenditure he is effectively advocating here. Does Mr Marshall plan to cut front-line services by advocating for a smaller Public Service rather than better government? The Liberal Party's contradictory statements on the economy are because they know that their real plans will not be tolerated by the South Australian community.

In stark contrast, the Weatherill government has been transparent about its economic plan for the state. As I said earlier, before the 2013-14 budget it was about fuelling growth through public expenditure in infrastructure. In the 2014-15 budget, it was about, and continues to be about, fighting federal government cuts, as well as the discussion around ripping the GST money from South Australia. This is in complete contempt of the historical workings of Australia's federation.

In this year's budget, the Weatherill government believes that now is the right time in the state's economy cycle to implement a $670 million tax reform package that gives the entrepreneurs of this state the levers in their own hands—the levers that will create jobs, maintain jobs and reward vision. The lower Australian dollar will help and, with the diversion of private investment from the mining states, it is time those dollars came into South Australia. This is why the government has specifically targeted certain taxes for abolition in this budget: stamp duty, the transactional taxes, which directly affect economic activity. The message from this government is that if a business wants to move headquarters or wants to invest in equipment, then it will not be penalised for doing do.

This tax reform package aims to encourage the private investment South Australia needs so that we can see growth in our state's GSP. These tax cuts aim to encourage the growth of new industries or, just as importantly, new players in existing industries. These tax reforms have reaped praise from the likes of Bank SA's chief economist, who in July, in The Advertiser,commended the budget and its reduction in business taxes.

The Property Council of South Australia welcomed the government's abolition of stamp duties on commercial conveyancers, calling the reforms 'a bright green light for investment'. Its executive director, Daniel Gannon, who many of you here know not long ago was the opposition leader's chief media adviser, told the ABC:

The Property Council of Australia has fought long and hard to put stamp duty abolition on the table. Today we have seen the State Government heed that call.

Meanwhile—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: He was a spin doctor, remember.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: He was. Meanwhile, on Sky News recently, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive, Kate Carnell, urged other states to follow South Australia's lead and cut business taxes to spark economic growth and create jobs. Ms Carnell commented:

We applaud the Government for having the foresight to take this bold initiative to invest in growth. Other states should consider following South Australia's lead and free up their own economies.

Primary Producers SA chair, Rob Kerin—of course a former boss of you guys, a former Liberal Premier of South Australia—

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: And a longtime West Adelaide supporter.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: —and longtime West Adelaide supporter—and they will be in the grand final this week—has welcomed the move to abolish transactional taxes for businesses by 2018. This particular initiative means that when farmers transfer non-residential property to family members stamp duty will not be payable. Mr Kerin noted:

To take that tax off the farming industry is really good news. Some of it is more immediate with the family transfers.

To have no stamp duty on the sale of farm land by 2018 is a good boost and I think that's good news for the sector.

It's been a huge barrier. In a lot of cases it's had some pretty severe impacts. It will certainly help with succession planning.

It seems pretty clear to me that a wide variety of business representatives see the tax reforms embedded in the state budget as necessary and timely reforms, particularly given the economic climate in which we presently find ourselves. Mr Marshall's only response to this government tax package is that it should be brought forward.

The Weatherill government has continued its small business payroll tax rebate for another year. Small business owners with payrolls equal to or less than $1.2 million will continue to receive this rebate. This will mean an up-front payment of up to $10,000 in this coming financial year for many of those small business owners. This is effectively a halving of the payroll tax rates. Mr Marshall has constantly argued that we are the highest taxing state in this country, and he has particularly advocated for a more permanent reduction in the state's payroll tax.

The Weatherill government has prioritised certain tax cuts over others because it is being fiscally responsible. The government believes that removing stamp duties will have a positive impact on commercial activity in the state. It should help grow the state's economic pie. This is the reason behind the Weatherill government's tax reforms, not because we believe South Australia is the state with the highest cost of doing business. This claim that the opposition continues to make is simply not borne in any fact.

With regard to payroll tax, we have seen it reduce from 6 per cent at the end of the 1990s to 5.5 per cent during the middle of the last decade, and now it is at only 4.95 per cent. That is a Labor achievement that business benefits from. Only Victoria (4.9 per cent) and Queensland (4.75 per cent) have lower payroll tax rates. Since 2000, the threshold for paying payroll tax has increased from $456,000 to $600,000, meaning that the majority of small businesses that have wages under the threshold are exempt from paying this tax.

Small business plays a vital part in driving the South Australian economy, and I am told—this is a very important fact—that only 10 per cent of businesses actually pay payroll tax in South Australia. If Mr Marshall wants to progress with our tax cuts to business, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars in payroll tax cuts, then where will he find the money in the budget? If the Liberals want to take government in this state at the next state election they will need to be a lot more transparent on their economic plans for this state than they are now. I commend the Appropriation Bill to the council.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (15:56): I rise to speak to the Appropriation Bill 2015, and perhaps in my contribution I will also respond to a couple of the points made by the Hon. Tung Ngo. I thought I would have a slightly different approach to my Appropriation Bill speech and have a look at some of the historical facts that have got us to this disastrous point today.

When the Premier delivered his first budget as treasurer a couple of years ago, he spoke of the sense of purpose, self-respect and security that well-paid employment brings. By that measure, South Australia's psyche is at an all-time low. Given that speech around 27 months ago, he said that South Australia's outlook was strong, and as mining wound down in other states, we would increasingly be seen as 'the next mining and energy frontier', and he was 'committed to the manufacturing remaining as a cornerstone' of our economy.

I believe in getting a fair go, like most South Australians. Indeed, every government and premier deserves one, but Labor has had four of them: four chances to prove that they can both create and execute a plan, not only to capitalise on good economic times, but to mitigate the bad ones. We have seen the state strategic plan, the 100,000 jobs commitment, the 30-Year Plan, the seven strategic priorities, and then the 10 economic ones.

There is talk of a plan to overhaul democracy itself. There is not time for another plan, especially one which targets record jobs and employment and 12 years on delivers the opposite; especially one which banks on our being the mining frontier and maintaining manufacturing as an economic cornerstone, only to see both industries grind to a halt two years later. This government has had a fair go and a chance to deliver, and now it is time for change.

If we look back some 13 or so years, it is no lie that winning elections has a lot to do with public perception. I think it is fair to say that, in the early terms of the government, perhaps voters had opted for change, and because their trust was still relatively intact they were less inclined to thoroughly check a government against its promises. Premier Rann knew this, he capitalised on it and it became entrenched in Labor's philosophy: promise the world and deliver an atlas. In contrast, previous Liberal governments had tidied up budgetary disaster. Those budgets were not exciting, they were not sexy, and nor did we attempt to market them so, but they were necessary and prudential and, ultimately, they delivered a clean financial slate for this Labor government.

In his inaugural speech, premier Rann spruiked a charter of budget honesty but quickly lost control of the public sector employees and efficiency in government service even somewhat successfully covering his tracks by changing what a measure of a budget surplus actually was. He relied on the fact that most voters would not look at the budget in forensic detail, and he honed his skill in manipulating the public perception. Even the media gave his budget a relatively benign treatment, and that legacy has clearly carried on, with the recent ABS stats showing that for the past five years Labor's forecast of our economic performance, the state's final demand has been overestimated. That is the key measure of economic growth and it means that Labor is even less prepared than we thought it was.

Premier Rann rode on the back of deals brokered by previous Liberal governments to achieve an AAA credit rating. He also relied on the fact that serious symptoms of poor government and in particular economic mismanagement would only manifest themselves years later. I take this opportunity to remind people of a 2002 key Labor election commitment which was to hold a drug summit. Despite his supposed tough on drugs stance he waited three years from the summit to progress any of the recommendations.

Sadly, 14 years on we are on the cusp of one of the worst drug epidemics in the nation's history. In South Australia, drug lab detections have more than tripled in nine years, alongside increased seizures of amphetamine-type stimulants and cannabis in the last 12 months. SAPOL has said that between August 2014 and February 2015 police have received almost seven kilograms of methamphetamine, arrested more than 270 people and uncovered 30 drug labs. This is bad news for our health, bad news for our economy and a metaphor for every other broken promise that Labor has made since.

Incidentally, there are some very disturbing facts that this year 2 per cent of the nation's population will try ice, and the recent stats show that 2.2 per cent of our population will try ice. We know that there are some significant impacts on the community if people become addicted to this material. I think it is just an example of a commitment that was made by a premier for the entire time that I have been in this parliament and yet, 13½ years later, we are in a worse situation than we were then. After nearly every commitment that Labor has made over the last 13 years to fix the job and fix the economy we are actually in a worse situation today than we were when we started.

I recall that there was the statewide distribution of premier Rann's famous pledge card. I still have a copy of it pinned up on my pin-up board, as if the current state of our economy is not a reminder enough of where he and his successors have failed us. One of the cornerstones was no more privatisation, a commitment which he reiterated in the 2006 election, yet in the last few years we have seen the privatisation of forestry, the lotteries, the South Australian Visitor Information Centre and travel centre, and the process is underway with the Motor Accident Commission. There was even some talk of privatising some SA Water assets, and I know the government has had some economic modelling done on it. It is one thing to commit to not selling off public assets and another to maintain that commitment through tough economic times because you have budgeted accordingly.

Crucial to premier Rann's illusion that he was actually doing something was the State's Strategic Plan of 2004. There began arguably a very effective strategy of distraction. This was drawing the voters' attention to long-term aspirational targets and away from any immediate failures. What has ensued in the decade is increasingly fanciful intangible goals designed purely to quash the preceding ones which remain undelivered.

Premier Rann promised that his grand plan would deliver state unemployment below the national average within five years; 11 years on, sadly, our unemployment is at 8 per cent which is 1.6 per cent above the national average of any of the states or territories in Australia. That is, again, another example of a promise made when Labor formed government some 13 years ago of where we would be, and that is below the national average, but now we lead the nation in an indicator of our economic failures.

He also promised that he would shirk the projected population decline but failed to effectively plan for an economy that would support any population growth. Eleven years on we are experiencing an exodus of skilled and experienced and qualified young people because there are no jobs. Meanwhile, our ageing population means that our existing bank of valuable and skilled experience has quickly been depleted at the other end. The government is cutting funding to a crucial workforce of skilled and young people.

Premier Rann promised that he would reduce the net loss of people from the state to zero by 2008 and that we would see a positive inflow by 2009. However, if we look at the facts, from 2003 to 2014 we were one of the only two states consistently recording a net loss—a net loss—yet this is a premier in a Labor government. Again, I am just demonstrating where they have continued to fail, where they said they would reduce the net loss of people from the state to zero by 2008. Sadly, we are losing people at about 3,500 per year.

If you look at the time line of job losses in South Australia over the past decade, which I will come to later, it is no great surprise that we are losing people in droves. Of course, it is not all to do with unemployment, but it is an essential measure of people's overall satisfaction with the state and what it is offering them in an employment and a lifestyle sense. Premier Rann targeted trebling our export income by 2013: the goal was $25 billion. Two years on from that deadline—we are now 2015—our merchandise export market is worth less than 50 per cent of the $25 billion: it is $11.36 billion.

With more international trade opportunities than we have ever had in this state, this Labor government is poorly positioned even to capitalise upon them. It is interesting to note that the federal leader, the Hon. Bill Shorten, wants to oppose the free trade agreement with China. While Premier Weatherill and his colleague, Daniel Andrews in Victoria, might argue against the federal opposition leader, he is the boss, he calls the shots, and if that is the path they go down and happen to form government in the future then we can look to an even bleaker future for our poor state, South Australia.

In Labor's second term, the magnitude of their financial mismanagement was becoming increasingly apparent. By 2007, South Australia was forecast to have the worst economic growth of all mainland states, and this was presenting in housing affordability and job losses, amongst many other indicators. Treasurer Foley's increases in stamp duty were blocking prospective first-time home buyers and, with the announcement that Holden would downsize, it became clear that Labor had injected millions of taxpayers’ dollars without negotiating the retention of a single one of the 600 jobs.

As Mitsubishi followed suit, with a closure costing some 930 jobs, it became clear that Labor had completely failed to protect South Australia's economy and had absolutely no plan to transform this state from its existing reliance on the manufacturing sector. This was happening six years ago, but it is only now that they are saying, 'We have to have a plan to transition our economy.' The indicators were well there. The Labor Party in this state has union members entrenched in it, and people I knew in the union movement were telling us this was going to happen.

Five, six or seven years ago, they were saying that it was on the cards, yet they have done nothing to prepare this state, to protect jobs in this state. All they have done is attack the federal government because they did nothing themselves. Instead, when this all happened, the premier, Mr Rann at the time, focused on PR damage control, spending about $25 million a term on spin doctors, and by 2009 Labor was spending some $40 million per annum on spin doctors. In reality, much of Labor's second term was spent minimising the fallout from growing negative attention on the premier and treasurer's personal lives.

Labor was hungry for a third term, and they rightly knew this time that public perception would not be so easily swayed. They certainly could not base their campaign on results—there had been none for the preceding eight years. The key would be obstructing the public's attention. Something far more grandiose was needed, so Labor's approach was to unveil a plan with enough shock factor to momentarily disrupt the growing negative sentiment: it was the announcement that Labor would create 100,000 jobs by 2016 in industries like mining and manufacturing. The only catch was that they would need two more terms to do it.

At this time, Labor also released its 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide. Its centrepieces were improved community engagement and revitalising the CBD with an extra 11,000 CBD dwellers. The city is certainly vibrant, but perhaps not in the way premier Rann envisaged. I recall reading in David Penberthy's column, 'You can feel the buzz in the streets, a hustle and bustle as people make their way from their former employer to a job placement agency, maybe even to a real estate agent as they ponder a new life interstate.'

As for public engagement, the 30-year plan itself was the most heavily criticised Labor plan ever in terms of transparency and how it was developed. Five years on, voters are so disenchanted with Labor's public engagement farce that Premier Weatherill is appealing to them through a fluff and nonsense campaign, called the 'Innovative public participation opportunities and participatory budgeting', which I will revisit later in my contribution. In any case, the strategy to deliver on the promises made in 2010 were irrelevant to premier Rann. Labor won its third term on tactics, not on popularity and certainly not on trust. Rann's parting promise of 100,000 jobs is the most stark example we have of Labor riding a 13-year tide of empty promises.

I now turn to the last four years with Premier Weatherill; from early in his premiership, it was clear that Mr Weatherill had no economic solution either. He maintained that South Australia was on the cusp of a mining boom and that manufacturing had a bright future. He banked on unprecedented wealth and economic opportunity well into the next century on the back of the Roxby Downs expansion. He said that enterprises would spring up from the expansion that had not even yet been imagined. I was reminded of his optimism when reading David Penberthy's piece a few weeks back:

Adelaide is rising phoenix-like from the ashes of the old economy to lead the world in industries which are just around the corner and will make themselves apparent soon. Our unemployment rate is the envy of many nations. They include Spain, Uganda, and at least two of the Baltic states.

I do not begrudge this government its efforts to try to foster BHP's expansion, but I take issue with Weatherill's claim that its focus has always been the diversification of the economy. Transforming the Economy, he labelled it, as it became a common theme coinciding with Holden's 2013 announcement that it would cease manufacturing in Australia.

My question is: where is there any evidence that South Australia has been transformed from an old-world manufacturer to a digital age economy? Where is there any evidence that the government is injecting additional efforts into new sectors that we still rely on? I turn to one I am the shadow minister for, that is, agriculture.

All this time the Labor government has had their premium food and wine from a clean environment initiative, and now of course we see them constantly talking about the opportunities for food, although their federal colleague, the opposition leader, does not want to sign the China free trade agreement. If you look at the budget, over the last seven years—and this is the PIRSA budget, the total amount for agriculture, food and fisheries—it has gone from $113 million in a steady decline and reached a low point of $59.8 million, so only about 40 per cent of the budget. In 2009-10, it was $113.5 million; in 2014-15, $59.8 million; and there has been a slight increase this year to $67.9 million.

So, all the time that they have been talking about the premium food and wine sector, and the Leader of the Government opposite me was minister for a time, they were talking it up but every year they put fewer and fewer and fewer resources behind it. Again, it was almost a hollow promise—they would talk the talk but would not back it up with the financial resources to make it work.

In 2013, Premier Weatherill released the seven strategic priorities. He targeted growing advanced manufacturing as a way for the future. To the Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, and Automotive Transformation: the northern Adelaide unemployment rate is now over 9 per cent. He sits in this chamber and it is a figure that I think he should be ashamed of.

In the first two years of the Our Jobs Plan, the government spent only $14.9 million of the $22 million budgeted, and 33 per cent of northern Adelaide businesses were reported at risk of closure as a result of the automotive industry shutdown. It said that Labor would realise the benefits from the long-term mining boom shortly after they announced all the extra mining jobs. They have since clarified that those jobs were estimated based on former commodity prices.

You have to question the thinking of a premier who announces that there will be an additional 5,000 mining industry jobs in the 12 months leading up to the announcement that commodity prices crashed by 25 per cent and mining jobs reduced by 22 per cent. It is a continued strategy of distracting the public from the reality of poor government, poor planning and poor decisions. The reality is that 5,300 mining jobs have been lost since the Premier made that commitment last November.

Only now, with BHP announcing its job cuts, does the Premier admit that his target is unattainable. With successive plans and targets, each more fanciful than the last, the Premier has painted himself into a corner and there is little more he can do but divert attention away from a fast-approaching and epic train wreck.

The seven strategic priorities aimed at creating a vibrant city that energises and excites is a recurring theme in Labor's plans. The Advertiser reported in July that there was a net loss of people from South Australia and it continues at about 3,000 per annum, and that South Australia shed 13,000 jobs in the mining and manufacturing sector in the 12 months to May this year. It is reinforcing that the ageing population is creating a worrying brain-drain. What is bewildering, though, is that, despite our high unemployment, areas like agriculture and horticulture are significantly affected by long-term vacancies.

On that note, I turn to our Minister for Higher Education, who has been pivotal in reinforcing that trend. Her management of the skills and training portfolio has been nothing short of pathetic, with cuts to regional-based training just highlighting that this Labor government has no concern for upskilling and growing one of the sectors that has the capacity to save our economic ruin. What is the Minister for the Status of Women doing to get more women better opportunities in the workforce?

At the same time as announcing the 100,000 jobs targets, premier Rann said there would be an extra 50,000 training places for women over the past five years. How has that target gone? The unprecedented unemployment rate in South Australia has been driven by a rise in women's unemployment, which skipped up to 7.5 per cent from 6.9 per cent in April and now is the highest rate since May 2000.

The other strategic priority was to keep our quality of life affordable for everyone. Last financial year, 35,000 South Australians were referred to the state government's debt recovery unit for being late to pay the emergency services levy. Property rates and charges, including the ESL, have increased by 17 per cent in the last year and the average household water bill has grown by 241 per cent since 2002.

In August last year, the Premier thought it was time for a few more initiatives to fail the public on. He was running out of ideas, so he boosted the seven priorities to 10 priorities. Paraphrasing Tom Richardson, Weatherill was dismissive about the striking similarity to the seven priorities, saying the previous ones that I have mentioned above were about broader things not actually connected to the economy, like growing manufacturing and affordable living. Only a premier who thinks those issues are divorced from the economy is capable of such ineffective leadership.

If I have not yet succeeded in painting a picture of why it is time for actual change rather than to just talk, let me point out that, around the time of the announcement of the 10 economic priorities, the Economic Development Board was also releasing the Shaping the Future of South Australia program. The first of its 10 actions for the state government was to develop a clear, concise, meaningful vision for South Australia that can be understood, believed and followed.

Thirteen years after taking office, the Labor government is not even at the beginning of an action plan: they are just beginning to think about making one. We have had enough plans, and we have failed them all. It is clear that this government is desperate: they are out of ideas and the distractions are not working any more. Five years on from the 100,000 jobs commitment, they have delivered a so-called jobs budget which only commits to a 1 per cent jobs growth.

The federal government department for employment has provided a five-year forecast that South Australia will have the lowest jobs growth of all states and territories. It is interesting that New South Wales will have an extra 350,000 jobs between now and 2019—the federal Department of Employment has released these figures—the Victorian economy will have 300,000, Queensland will have 250,000 but South Australia will have less than 55,000.

I think we were all baffled a few weeks ago with the unveiling of Premier Weatherill's democracy manifesto. He said that the old days of announce and defend decision-making were over and that a new era of genuinely engaging people in debate and decide had arrived. What he meant was they have actually sold off everything that was nailed to the ground, there is not much left to announce, so all they have left is to flog government itself. The 24-page document speaking of foresight, fresh thinking, challenges, catalysing action, collaborative economic pilots and a festival of innovation and democracy, did not have the one word in it that every reader was looking for—jobs.

Recently, we have seen other examples that voters are not buying the distractions any more. Premier Weatherill was using the time zone debate as a diversion from important economic issues. Overwhelmingly, South Australians are not interested in that discussion, and the Premier's attempt at leadership is proving less effective, as his time zone proposal was scrapped only a few weeks ago.

If the Hon. Kyam Maher's new best friend, Hon. Martin Hamilton-Smith, the Minister for Trade and the Minister for Defence Industries, had ever listened when he had been a member of the Liberal Party party room, he would have known that this is not an issue that the broader community was ever interested in. But, sadly, listening was not one of his strong points when he was a member of the Liberal Party, and I suspect the Labor cabinet will find that out for themselves as time progresses. But I am distracted.

This government has had four chances in 13 years. It continues to blame external economic pressures under which every other state seems to be thriving or at least doing a fair bit better than us. In fact, if premier Rann and Premier Weatherill and their Labor team had fulfilled every promise made since 2002, South Australia would be protected and our economy would be safe.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. For 13 years this Labor government has continued to make promises that it has continually failed to deliver, and we have had the same result every time. Just as a little summary, we have a drugs epidemic with ice. It is a tragedy affecting thousands and thousands of families. We have more young people these days leaving the state than ever before.

In fact, I have met young families with young children who are thinking of leaving the state because there is no future here. We have the highest debt this state has ever seen. We have the highest unemployment rate this state has ever seen. We have the lowest business confidence in the nation and, of course, ours is the highest cost jurisdiction in the nation, and our standard of living is declining with increasing pressures from water, electricity and emergency services.

The Hon. Tung Ngo said in his contribution that the Weatherill government had an economic plan. Well, I have just covered the last 13 years of plans and it is plain to see that the government has failed on every one of those. If this state does not change its game plan, if we do not give another government a chance, then this insanity will just continue.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (16:21): I rise to speak to the Appropriation Bill 2015, more commonly known as the budget that the Treasurer handed down on 18 June in another place with much fanfare and self-praise. The Treasurer talked a lot about the government's so-called tax reform, saying that it will create jobs. A tax reform cannot create jobs: business creates jobs and should be assisted in doing so by government. This is one thing Labor does not understand.

The references the Treasurer made to the commonwealth failing to invest in our automotive industry suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of government and a lack of wise management of public finances. The declaration that a few exemptions and a tinkering around the edges of Labor's business tax regime is the most comprehensive tax reform in this state's history is typical hyperbole and hubris from this Treasurer. To go on to say that the reform 'will build the enterprises that create careers' is simply embarrassing. How can levying taxes build an enterprise? Don't entrepreneurs build enterprises?

The Treasurer goes on further to say that the government's tax reform stands our state out as a beacon for business investment. The bill has not even passed yet. The language is bizarre to say the least, but we would expect no less from this Treasurer. That result remains to be seen, and we will see whether this so-called tax reform makes any impact on our economy.

I am perhaps being a touch unfair because any reduction in taxes is a move in the right direction, but I am here to say that the changes do not go far enough. Like the Treasurer, I would also like to see an efficient tax system; however, it seems that he is out of ideas on efficiency and ours are vastly different. I would like to see regressive business taxes such as payroll tax completely abolished.

I would also like to see arbitrary taxes such as stamp duty completely abolished. These are manifestly harmful taxes on productivity and on aspirational economic activity. Where is the incentive to invest when the Labor government slugs you for taking a risk and parting with your hard earned cash? This is why I am extremely disappointed with the limitation on the government stamp duty exemptions solely to business transactions—but what about mums and dads?

At a time when housing prices are at the highest they have ever been, why are we punishing working people further for doing the right thing by their family and purchasing or building a new home? The South Australian housing market and building industry is completely stagnant. Why are we not encouraging working South Australians and spurring on the economy in this way?

The Treasurer and his friends who sit opposite may ask, 'Well, how do we afford it?' The answer is in the spending. We have seen insane increases in public sector spending, partly on wages but largely in unbudgeted spending, and budget blowouts on capital works projects. We learnt last week that the new Royal Adelaide Hospital has been further delayed by six months, costing the government a further $34.5 million on top of the $622 million blowout of the original budgeted figure.

I agree with the Treasurer when he says that South Australia faces serious challenges. However, if the state's economic conditions are in the control of the government, the impact of currency exchange rates, commodity prices and commonwealth funding would be far less than what they have been. The government and the Treasurer have been far too quick to point the finger elsewhere for South Australia's economic woes when the blame lies squarely on the Labor Party.

The economic mismanagement is plain to see in an example in the Treasurer's speech, when he refers to a surplus being delivered in next year's budget. How is this possible? We have just heard that the cost of the new hospital has blown out, we know that there has been no dramatic reduction in Public Service numbers, there has been increasing capital spending, and public debt is at the highest it has ever been.

The answer is fudged accounting. If the numbers are moved around it is easy to invent an operating surplus, but the reality is that any surplus is servicing mounds of debt anyway, so there are no net benefits whatsoever to the South Australian taxpayer—which, in this state, is largely business and entrepreneurs, the very people government is meant to be assisting in this budget. The lack of credibility is palpable.

Further regarding the government's proposals, it is interesting to see the Liberal Party's election commitment to abolish the Save the River Murray levy being adopted by the Treasurer. We commend him for that. As I mentioned earlier in this contribution, we on this side welcome all the reductions and exemptions from the burden of taxation for South Australians, but more can and should be done.

The Treasurer talked about no tolls being an achievement for the Weatherill government. Is this an achievement or is it just short-sighted politics? I find it quite bizarre that the government would not seek to recover some of the capital outlay for massive infrastructure spends on the north-south corridor and port access when the logistics industry itself has said it is happy to pay for better infrastructure so long as it is built immediately. It seems a no-brainer. This is a win-win, as a toll would not affect passenger traffic.

As the Treasurer mentioned, the opposition has worked with the government to implement real reform in the area of WorkCover, and I commend the Hon. Mr Lucas for his work on the bill. I agree with the Treasurer when he said that we can no longer rely on the commonwealth or others to sustain our industries, whether they be automotive or otherwise; in fact, we never should have in the first place. Inevitably, subsidies will run out, and the old business model will become unsustainable. Government subsidies create complacency in the industry.

There is no doubt that government, whether state or commonwealth, should be supporting local manufacturers and producers wherever possible, and I would be the first to support a directive to preference purchasing of local goods and services for government contracts and needs. However, crude subsidies are simplistic and ultimately harmful to the economic prosperity of the businesses immediately affected and also the wider community.

It is for this reason that I find it concerning the government is spending $15 million on the attraction of new business and the development of key industries. How about reducing the tax burden by a further $15 million? The government should be concerned only with the economic environment and not with individual businesses. If the economic environment in South Australia is so attractive for business already, why are there not hundreds of head offices of national and international companies here? Why would the government have to spend money on targeted assistance in order to attract those companies here?

In today's global market, where companies can choose to base their head offices in jurisdictions which offer the best tax arrangements and lowest business costs yet continue to operate globally, why are we bothering with this? It is quite pathetic. It is akin to paying the kid next door to play with your son or daughter even though you know you do not have the best toys. Eventually the kid from next door will get bored; similarly, those interstate and international companies will find a better deal elsewhere once the money dries up. It is a very short-sighted economic policy. To me, this sort of policy only serves certain ministers, such as the Hon. Martin Hamilton-Smith and the Hon. Mr Bignell, allowing them to go on junkets under the guise of attracting foreign investment.

I welcome the increase to the government's bid fund. This is something within the purview of the government and something that is important for the state's reputation on the world stage. I would like to see more international events being hosted here in Adelaide; however, I do not believe that the Minister for Recreation and Sport's Frankfurt stopover or his $100 bottle of Argentinian malbec got us any closer to this goal.

According to the Treasurer, the government does not believe infrastructure investment is a false economy, as it leverages private sector spending. However, if the government is using public funded infrastructure projects as an example of job creation that is, indeed, misleading. These are not long-term jobs and, quite obviously, if a vast majority of construction in this state is as a result of public funding, this is artificially propping up the industry. Essentially it is a life support system. Public-funded infrastructure spending is absolutely necessary, but should be kept within strict guidelines on a needs basis. Cost-benefit analyses are a must.

This leads us to the commitment by this government of $1.3 billion to 'create jobs'. We understand, on this side, that it is indeed the private sector that creates real, sustainable long-term jobs. Over the forward estimates the government has committed $3.3 billion in health, which includes the new Royal Adelaide Hospital (although one wonders if it includes the blowout as well), $1.4 billion on road projects, $353 million on public transport, and $1.7 billion on water infrastructure.

What is obvious is that, if public money was spent more wisely and efficiently, and if efforts were made in cost recovery, such as with selective tolls on roads to assist the industry in adhering to the findings of cost-benefit analysis, particularly with large projects such as the desalination plant, the state and its taxpayers will get much more bang for their buck. There is far too much wastage when it comes to public spending. As a bookend, if there is so much of an increase in spending for health, why can the Repat not be kept open, given the savings from the closure are reportedly only $14.2 million. To me it is totally mean-spirited.

Finally, I criticise the government for spruiking its supposed increase in spending for justice of $85.1 million, while simultaneously closing suburban and regional magistrates courts, putting even more pressure on the Adelaide Magistrates Court, which is quite obviously counterproductive. To summarise, there are some steps in the right direction, but they are nowhere near far enough to have the economic jolt that South Australia desperately needs. However, as is convention, I commend the bill to the council.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (16:31): I rise in support of the passage of this bill, and in doing so I recognise its importance in providing $12.037 billion to the various programs incorporated in the 2015-16 budget of government. It is my intention to focus on the particular area of suicide prevention, a field in which I have long worked, as it relates to the priorities of the government and the manner in which public servants carry out those wishes.

From 26 to 29 July this year a member of my staff and I attended the National Suicide Prevention Conference conducted by Suicide Prevention Australia in Hobart. This event was attended by 400 people from across the country in both the private and public sectors, from NGOs and, of course, many volunteer members of local community suicide prevention organisations.

This gathering of incredibly passionate people allowed for experiences to be shared and also for me particularly to see the good work that other governments and groups in the sector are doing in the field of suicide prevention right across a range of jurisdictions. It was quite startling, albeit positively, to hear the level of funding and commitment that other state governments have made to the area of suicide prevention across Australia.

For example, in Victoria the Andrews Labor government is spending $5.9 million on programs promoting suicide prevention in the LGBTIQ community. This is a continuation of the hard work that has already been done in that area by the coalition government in Victoria. Prior to the last Victorian state election I had met with the then minister for mental health, now the Leader of the Opposition in the upper house, the Hon. Mary Wooldridge MLC, and we had discussed the efforts that the then government was making to reduce the rate of suicide in the Victorian community, particularly in the LGBTIQ sector.

I remember meeting with a young lady from an area (I will not say a peri-urban area) bounding with outer Melbourne, and she was doing great work across a range of communities with young gay people who were at great risk of self-harm and suicide. I was most impressed with the work that that young lady was doing. I gather from the ongoing commitment of the Andrews government that that work is continuing in Victoria.

It was interesting to learn at the conference of the comparison of work that other governments are doing in this area. Another example was that New South Wales has tackled the issue of suicide prevention through its Mental Health Commission, which is funded to the tune of $10 million by the current Baird coalition government.

At the conference, it was interesting that the Deputy Mental Health Commissioner presented attendees with a brief snapshot of the work that they are already engaged in and the worthwhile opportunities that they continue to pursue in the suicide prevention area. It was particularly pleasing to see the proactive approach to preventing the unnecessary deaths caused by suicide but also training people on the front line—government employees on the front line—to deal with the impacts, the pressures and the trauma caused by suicide and attempted suicide.

In particular, I was impressed by the efforts of the New South Wales government to train every front-line police officer in the state in suicide prevention and also to provide similar but more relevant training for front-line personnel on the Sydney Trains and New South Wales TrainLink networks. It is very important work and I have already asked questions about the possibility of that happening here through the minister here in this place representing the Minister for Transport.

I also understand from the input at the conference that the Palaszczuk Labor government in Queensland is also directing its efforts in suicide prevention through its own Mental Health Commission. This body is provided with $8.5 million in funding, slightly down from the previous year. The current Mental Health Commissioner, who we heard from at the conference, has compiled a suicide prevention strategy for Queensland which is currently being implemented.

In addition to these efforts, the Queensland government has also committed to spending $380,000 out of existing resources to train emergency department staff in suicide prevention, which as we would all agree is a very worthy and potentially life-saving act. I think it is something that we need to work on: those issues of putting those front-line people and giving them more experience about how to deal with suicide and with attempted suicide, particularly and self-harm.

The Queensland government also keeps an in-depth registry of deaths due to suicide which enables more accurate research into what have become known as 'suicide hot spots' and other issues related to suicide. This helps better target and develop more effective prevention programs across the state. Certainly, I think one thing that is consistent around Australia and in other parts of the world is that the need for more up-to-date information about the number of suicides in a particular part of a state or the country is very relevant, because a lot of the information, by the time we get it now, is quite out of date, so that is something I would urge the current government here to have a look at.

I was very lucky while in Hobart to meet with the Tasmanian Minister for Health, the Hon. Michael Ferguson, and his staff. The minister in fact spoke at the conference and presented one of Suicide Prevention Australia's awards at the conference dinner. The awards are very appropriately known as LiFE Awards. Leading up to the last state election in Tasmania, the Hodgman Liberal team committed to providing an additional $3 million in funding to suicide prevention in the state. The current minister has delivered on that commitment and is now working very hard to deliver initiatives such as:

develop a youth suicide strategy together with Youth Network of Tasmania;

analyse suicide hot spots to reduce risks if places are known for repeat suicides;

assist local communities to implement community suicide prevention plans;

establish early intervention referral pathways;

deliver suicide prevention awareness training to persons in key occupations; and

ensure Tasmanian researchers can access information needed to allow in-depth analysis of Tasmanian suicides to better target prevention strategies.

Of course, on that point, I suppose I have quite a long association with suicide prevention in Tasmania through the CORES program and through the work of the University of Tasmania. I commend the Hodgman government for its extensive efforts in this field and their strong and ongoing commitment to suicide prevention in that state. I was very grateful for the time to sit down with staff from the minister's office and the department to talk about the rollout of the government's initiatives, and I appreciate the minister providing us with that valuable time.

I think it is also important to note that a state which has stepped up to the plate in recent times in relation to suicide prevention is Western Australia. A number of years ago, I met with the then minister, Mr Jacobs, who at that stage was a very new minister in a very new coalition government in Western Australia. They were grappling with, I think, very large rates of suicide, greater than the rest of the country.

Last year, I attended the National Suicide Prevention Conference when it was held in Perth, and the strong commitment of the Barnett coalition government under the stewardship of the current Minister for Mental Health, the Hon. Helen Morton MLC, became apparent. The Hon. Helen Morton's Ministerial Council for Suicide Prevention is spending a massive $26 million on suicide prevention in Western Australia over four years. The new suicide prevention strategy, Suicide Prevention 2020: Together we can Save Lives, aims to reduce the current number of suicides in Western Australia by 50 per cent over the next decade.

It was launched in May this year and is based on evidence and recommendations from the latest research and reviews completed by Edith Cowan University, the Western Australian Ombudsman, and the Western Australian Auditor-General. The strategy has six key action areas which focus on:

greater public awareness and united action;

local support and community prevention across the lifespan;

coordinated and targeted services for high-risk groups;

shared responsibility across government, private and non-government sectors to build mentally healthy workplaces;

increased suicide prevention training; and

timely data and evidence to improve responses and services.

I particularly thank the Hon. Helen Morton MLC and the people I have had quite a bit to do with on her suicide prevention council. They have shown a terrific commitment, along with that state's Mental Health Commission, in the continuing rollout of their initiatives in that area.

Nationally, the Coalition government is taking action to support suicide prevention. In 2013-14, the federal government spent $113.4 million in a single year on the National Suicide Prevention Program and the 'Mental health: taking action to tackle suicide' package. The ongoing support from the federal government to the suicide prevention sector both government and community-based is commendable.

I encourage the new Prime Minister and his continuing Minister for Health, Sussan Ley, to continue to provide leadership in this area, not only through the development of strategies and the provision of funding—and I think refocused funding in some areas, and I have indicated that to the minister—but also through COAG and other cooperative bodies.

At the conclusion of the National Suicide Prevention Conference, I attended the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Human Rights Pacific seminar in Wellington, New Zealand. Whilst I was there, I was able to speak with officers from the New Zealand Ministry of Health who gave me a great insight into the range of effective programs the New Zealand government is operating to prevent suicide across different cultural communities. I noted the very strong leadership in this area indicated by the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon. John Key. It was very clear to see that the leadership comes right from the top in that government.

I also had the opportunity to speak to officers from the Ministry of Justice who advised me of their efforts to combat cyber bullying, which has been a contributing factor in a number of youth suicides in New Zealand. I commend the National Party government for its work in that area and, certainly, it has brought in legislation in relation to cyber bullying.

In South Australia, the situation is somewhat different. Despite my efforts and those of many others in this parliament, many on my side, and I must say a number of others on the crossbench and some on the Labor side, the current government has been somewhat lethargic in its efforts in suicide prevention. In comparison with interstate and overseas efforts, the Weatherill Labor government has committed only $1.1 million to this life-saving cause.

I commend the public servants working in this field who have already done so much with relatively little. I believe that the government and the current Minister for Mental Health (Hon. Jack Snelling) should actually have the political will to do more. The minister does not play a great role in the mental health space. I note that his parliamentary secretary, Leesa Vlahos, does work in that area, but the space left by the minister's lack of action in the area is quite large.

I do not wish to be political about this, but I think the minister does need to step up and show some leadership in the area. I do not recall the minister's actually addressing the matter of suicide directly at any stage in the public arena. I think that is a shame and that he ought to have a look at the leadership shown by a number of ministers and governments of various political persuasions around the country.

I am proud that the South Australian parliamentary Liberal Party is the first political party in Australia and, to my knowledge, elsewhere in the world that actually has suicide prevention as a stand-alone portfolio. I am supported in my role very much by the shadow minister, the Hon. Stephen Wade. However, the stance of having a separate portfolio was only backed up significantly at the Hobart conference with evidence that a very large number of people who suicide actually do not have a mental illness background. It is more a set of circumstances and the severe reaction to that set of circumstances that cause them to suicide.

It is something that I feel very strongly about, and we need to recognise that many of the people who attempt suicide or who take their life are not ones who have had a mental illness background, so we need to adjust the way in which we work in this area to take account of that.

Through my time working in the field of suicide prevention, I have felt that each time the current government has finally made a commitment it has been dragged every step of the way to do that. If I have had a role in dragging them along, I am proud of it, but I think it should not be that way. There is an easy manner for the government to adopt a far more effective proactive approach because there are so many people in the community who want to work with the government in this area.

I call on the Minister for Mental Health in another place to reflect on the government's approach to this important area and consider what it would mean for South Australians in need if we were to make great strides to be a leader in this field. Having said that, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the government and the public servants who are working on the rollout of the state's Suicide Prevention Strategy, particularly on their work in establishing a number of local suicide prevention networks across South Australia. These networks have been established by the local community or, in many cases, by local government bodies to develop strategies for suicide prevention which are relevant to the community.

Once one of these networks has been established and a local strategy created, endorsed, and in many cases linked to the strategic plan of the relevant local government body, the local network can receive $5,000 in funding from the government for their work. It has been encouraging to me to see a large number of these groups established around South Australia, largely in country areas, but we do have some in the metropolitan area. I will not go into those different ones because I have raised them many times in the past in particular, but I am pleased that there are more in the pipeline and I am very keen to see that happen, and I will go as widely as I can to support those people.

I have had the benefit of attending the two regional network of networks meetings held in Mount Gambier and, clearly, this year bring together groups from all over country South Australia and some metropolitan areas to share their experiences. It has been an absolute privilege to work with the people who have attended those events and, in many cases, travelled significant distances to be involved, and I look forward to the statewide network of networks event to be held here in Adelaide on 9 October.

I would also like to briefly mention the Indigenous Suicide Prevention Network that has been established in Mount Gambier for some time. It sits alongside the other Mount Gambier Suicide Prevention Network but is a very impressive group working together across the Aboriginal communities of the South-East. Suicide is one of the most challenging areas of Indigenous health, and I congratulate all those involved in that particular group helping to stem that alarming rate of suicide in Aboriginal communities.

I was heartened during the estimates process in July 2014 to hear the Minister for Health and Mental Health indicate that an additional one full-time equivalent would be committed to the rollout of the state government's Suicide Prevention Strategy. This additional person was to be a crucial addition to the single officer who had been allocated the mammoth task of rolling out the strategy across South Australia on their own.

Unfortunately, more than 12 months have passed, and I understand that the appointment has only just been made. In fact the recruitment process only began in July this year. Over one year had lapsed and after questions in this house from myself and subsequently writing to the minister, I was eventually advised by his parliamentary secretary that the recruitment would take place. It is just a pity that it has taken such a long time to get that person on board. I was, however, heartened to hear at the National Suicide Prevention Conference in Hobart that South Australia will soon be in consultation on the development of a new strategy that will replace the current document that will expire next year.

Another issue that I took away from the national conference in Hobart was how critical it is to support programs that promote suicide prevention in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and questioning community. I made some reference to that work earlier, particularly in relation to the work of the Victorian government.

This incredibly important area is not being funded currently by the government. For many reasons, ranging from social to emotional, the LGBTIQ community has a significantly higher than average rate of suicide. Prevention and post-prevention programs for members of the LGBTIQ community in crisis are far more effective when they specifically target issues affecting that community, and that was proven to me when I visited the young lady I mentioned earlier who was working in the inner country areas of Victoria.

I noted in last year's estimate process that the Minister for Health and Mental Health in another place made a commitment that if an application for grant funding through the pool made available as part of the Suicide Prevention Strategy was to be made to the government for a program specifically targeting the LGBTIQ community, it would be given favourable consideration. I was encouraged by this statement but I am yet to see such an application granted, and so I live in hope that that will come to fruition in the near future.

I have hoped in this speech to give some comparison with the work that has been done in the area of suicide prevention around this country and in New Zealand. I hope that the government will continue to build on the work and the framework that is being developed and that it will start to work harder and provide greater leadership in the field of suicide prevention for all South Australians. With that I support the passage of the Appropriation Bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.