Bills

Supply Bill 2016

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 19 May 2016.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (16:17): I rise on behalf of Liberal members to support the second reading of the Supply Bill. The Supply Bill, as members will be aware, is a mechanism each year to provide appropriation of just over $3 billion to enable the continued payment of public servants and public services until the passage of the Appropriation Bill some time later in the year—and given that the budget has been put back we understand until now early July, although that might not impact on the final passage of the Appropriation Bill through the parliament, the Supply Bill nevertheless makes provision for the ongoing delivery of public services in South Australia; therefore, it is unexceptional and we support it.

The Supply Bill is one of the few opportunities, particularly for members of the Legislative Council, to speak on any issue that might in any way directly or indirectly be funded by the public purse: a dollar here or a dollar there as part of our 2016-17 billion dollar annual budget is funded in some way by the Supply Bill. It has traditionally been treated with great flexibility. On occasions, I think some members have sought to restrict the length and breadth of the debate, and certainly I support the notion that it is one of the few opportunities that Legislative Council members have had over the years to be able to speak on a wide variety of issues and that convention, in my view, ought to be continued and protected.

Having said that, I want to address some issues in terms of the financial and economic issues that confront the state of South Australia. The federal budget that was recently brought down had some good news for South Australia. Without putting all the detail on the public record, the total payments to South Australia from the federal budget next year, compared to this financial year, increase by just over $1.1 billion. To be precise, total federal payments to South Australia next year will actually be $1,137 million more than for this year. By 2018-19 the federal budget shows the total payments will actually be $1,756 million more than for financial year 2015-16.

What we are seeing is that next year's payments, compared to this year, jump by just over $1.1 billion, and by 2018-19, if compared to this year, they actually jump by over $1.7 billion. That comprises both tied grants and completely untied general payments such as the GST. The jump in GST revenue is extraordinarily significant when one looks at just this year compared to next year, a jump of more than half a billion dollars in GST payments to South Australia from the commonwealth.

We often hear from the Premier and the Treasurer that, yes, we are getting this extra money from the commonwealth government, but it is tied up in health or it is tied up in education or tied up in environment specific purpose payments. But the reality is when one looks at the federal budget that, yes, there have been increases in the specific purpose payments, but there have also been big increases, and are going to be big increases, in the GST payments to the state, which are completely unencumbered and completely able to be spent at the discretion of the state government.

So the state government makes the decisions within its own spending priorities as to how it wishes to spend the money. That disproves the essential premise that the Premier and the Treasurer have often proclaimed, that in some way any additional monies that we get from the commonwealth are tied into particular areas. Yes, a proportion is tied to specific purpose payments but a very big sum of money comes in the GST, which is for the discretion of the state government to spend.

What we also saw in this federal budget was a further increase in health spending. The debate about health spending in South Australia and health contribution has been mired in claims of what the extent of any cuts or savings might have been. I noted this morning on ABC that the ABC Fact Check, which the Labor Party often proclaims is the independent source of factual information on controversial issues, completely discounted the position of the Premier and the Treasurer in South Australia in relation to health funding.

Essentially the argument is relatively simple, although it is a complicated argument to prosecute in eight-second grabs on television. The essential argument which the ABC Fact Check highlights has two points, the first of which is that health funding from the federal government is continuing to increase. This is a discussion point that the state government has utilised on occasions as well, and the federal government utilises on occasions as well, that is, in absolute terms, health funding continues to increase.

The extent of what is claimed to be a cut or a saving is whether it is increased at the rate that was either agreed or promised. The situation is that health funding does increase, it does not actually get cut. But it might have been cut, or there might have been savings made from, a level of a previous agreement, that is, there might have been an even bigger increase in health funding that had been promised or committed and therefore what is known as the saving or the cut is a reduction in the level of the increase in health spending.

The ABC Fact Check said that, in essence, the position that the Premier and Treasurer in South Australia had been prosecuting was factually wrong. There have been increases in health spending, contrary to the claims that had been made by the Premier and the Treasurer. The other issue that the ABC Fact Check raised has been the subject of an argument between the federal government, federal opposition and various state governments as well, and that is that former prime minister Gillard had promised large, unfunded increases in health spending outside the forward estimates. The ABC Fact Check said—and this is not the Liberal Party saying this—that was essentially an unfunded promise made by a former prime minister.

It was surprising for me to hear that coming from ABC Fact Check, because they almost entirely mirrored the position that federal Treasurer Morrison, Prime Minister Turnbull and, prior to that, former prime minister Abbott, had been prosecuting for a number of months, if not years. That is, in essence, saying that former prime minister Gillard promised the world but did not fund it, and what was being talked about was a reduction in the level of increase in health spending. I can understand both sides of this particular argument, but, as I said, the ABC Fact Check has come down. Because the Labor Party are such firm supporters of the ABC Fact Check, as the independent source of advice on—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am sure they would not want to cherrypick it, given the statements that have been made in this house today and in recent days. I am sure they would not want to cherrypick the ABC Fact Check advice. The reality is that we are seeing increases in total funding coming to South Australia.

In the specific purpose payments, we are seeing another increase in health funding in this budget. The state government will say, 'Well, look, it's still not as much as Julia Gillard promised us.' Nevertheless, it is a further increase over and above the increase that prime minister Abbott and the Abbott government had promised. The Turnbull government have provided an ever further increase in specific purpose health payments to South Australia. In addition to that, we have this huge increase of over half a billion dollars next year, compared to this year, in GST, which we can spend completely on health if we wanted to, or on education, or on transport, or whatever it is. We in South Australia have to make those particular decisions.

The other general point I make in relation to the Supply Bill is on the recent issue of the privatisation of the MAC. There was a genuine discussion point as to whether or not the government's privatisation of the MAC was going to qualify for the 15 per cent asset recycle bonus—that is, for every billion dollars in an eligible privatisation, the commonwealth government would pay a bonus of $150 million to the state if you had eligible new infrastructure projects to spend that on. That was known as the asset recycle bonus fund.

As I said, the first question is: is it accepted as a privatisation or not, and how much of it is accepted as a privatisation? There was a genuine question as to whether this was a privatisation, because the MAC will continue, and there is an introduction of four new private sector competitors. Some of the money was actually taken out prior to the introduction of the private sector competitors, and the tender had finally concluded (that is, taken out of the MAC and put into the budget). Would that qualify for a potential asset recycle bonus?

There were also issues as to the way it was taken out. Some of the money was taken out as a dividend, and some of it was taken out as a retained surplus. There were genuine questions and discussions at the federal and state levels as to whether all of those payments—particularly given the advice former under treasurers had given to the Budget and Finance Committee—would be included in the calculation.

The reality is that, in the most recent Treasury appearance before the Budget and Finance Committee, the Under Treasurer reported that the commonwealth government had agreed that the MAC privatisation was accepted, it had met the qualification from the commonwealth as an eligible privatisation, and that all of the funding that was being taken into the budget had already been taken as a dividend or as retained surplus, and that those amounts that were still to be taken would qualify.

If that is the case, the estimates provided to me recently are that that potentially could be a total of somewhere between $2 billion and $2.5 billion being returned to the state budget. The Mid-Year Budget Review I think already incorporates an estimate of about $1.6 billion, but, as I said, estimates provided to me from both industry and government sources indicate that it will be much more than the $1.6 billion; it will be at least $2 billion and possibly as high as $2.5 billion.

The 15 per cent potential bonus for that is, if it is $2 billion, at least $300 million extra, and if it is $2.5 billion it is $375 million extra that is available for job-creating infrastructure projects. Having got approval for the first stage of this, what the state of South Australia had to do was actually go to the commonwealth and say, 'Here is a new infrastructure project which will help create economic growth and jobs in South Australia, which we want to get a tick of approval for to spend our $300 million to $375 million on.' What the facts now show, from evidence in the Budget and Finance Committee and elsewhere, is that the state government started to play games.

The first game they played was they said, 'We won't come up with a new project. What we will actually promise to do, if you will give us this extra $300 million plus, is accelerate the completion of the Darlington project and the Torrens to Torrens project by six months.' They went to the commonwealth and said, 'We won't actually have a new infrastructure project, but we have two existing projects we are already funding. We want to spend this money on bringing forward the completion date from one particular date to a six-month earlier date.' Unsurprisingly, the commonwealth said, 'Who do you think we are? We didn't come down in the last shower. That is not an eligible project. That is not a new infrastructure project that is going to help create jobs and drive economic growth in South Australia. Go away.'

So, what Mr Rowse told the committee at his last appearance earlier this year was that the government then packaged together about $400 million worth of projects. That is why this estimate that I have put on the public record of $300 million to $375 million would appear to be in the right ballpark, because the Under Treasurer has conceded that he and the state made an application for $400 million worth of asset recycling bonus money to be spent on a variety of projects.

What did they try this time? Having been knocked back about accelerating two existing projects, they tried to repackage already announced projects from the 2015-16 budget in June last year and the Mid-Year Budget Review in December. They packaged together an extraordinary package of things, like already promised upgrades of school facilities, road maintenance, and the major events funding package, which is the package of money we give to whatever that body is—whether it is the Tourism Commission or Events SA, I am not sure of the exact title now—to pay half a million dollars to Liverpool Football Club (the Treasurer's football club) to come and play a soccer game here in Adelaide, or to the Rolling Stones, from that major events fund. That is not even an infrastructure project.

The Under Treasurer said, 'Well, I know it's not infrastructure but we argue that it is economic development.' But that is not what the asset recycle bonus fund said. It said that it had to be an eligible infrastructure project, and yet the state of South Australia tried to convince the commonwealth government to get funding for its major events funding package.

The fourth one was, again, the already announced transport project, the Northern Connector. Again, the same problem; it was an existing project like Darlington and Torrens to Torrens. Unsurprisingly, when the federal budget papers came down a few weeks ago, South Australia missed out completely on getting any of the asset recycle bonus fund. Two other states and two territories were listed as having received asset recycle bonus funds. South Australia did not receive a dollar. We checked with the federal minister's offices and said, 'Well, is there something in the pipeline? Is there more money coming?' and they said, 'No, we're about to go into caretaker mode and that's it,' and the federal budget papers make it clear that the asset recycle bonus fund was closed, and the unspent monies were returned to budget as a budget saving.

That is saying to us that the government, having taken the decision to privatise the MAC, and the government, having won the first part of the argument, that is, to qualify all of the money they receive as being an eligible privatisation project—so having completed the first tranche, the government started playing games with the second tranche in terms of trying to get funding for already existing and committed projects, some of which were not even infrastructure. But then what happened was that the federal government said no. They have now closed the fund, and South Australia missed out on somewhere between $300 million and $375 million in funding which could have been used for a new infrastructure project to help drive economic growth and create jobs in South Australia.

The Premier and the Treasurer have questions to be answered, because unless they can come up with some convincing response as to why they gave up $300 million to $375 million—and one other point I would make is that the Under Treasurer has put on the public record in the Budget and Finance Committee that any monies a state receives for the asset recycle fund (so if you got the $375 million) would be quarantined from the horizontal fiscal equalisation arrangements for the GST, so that is, it would not be that we would get $300 million to $375 million in recycled bonus funding, and then lose GST grants as a result of it. So the Under Treasurer was asked that question by the committee and he was quite clear that that was not going to occur.

It seems an extraordinary position, and only the Premier and the Treasurer can answer why this has occurred. It is a critical issue, because on the surface of it what it is saying to us is that through the financial mismanagement and incompetence of the Weatherill government, the Premier and the Treasurer in particular, we in South Australia have lost out $300 million to $375 million in funding for us to be able to help tackle the unemployment problem in South Australia.

I am sure there are one or two thinking members of the Labor caucus who, hopefully, will assist us in asking the hard questions. How could you have let this happen? What is the level of financial mismanagement and incompetence that exists at the upper levels of this government after more than 14 years? Is it just laziness? Is it incompetence? And, sadly, in relation to the Treasurer, is it just a simple issue of financial mismanagement and a lack of understanding of relatively simple budgetary and fiscal issues that relate to his portfolio? But only the Premier and the Treasurer can answer these questions, and answer them they must, in relation to those issues.

There were a significant number of other issues that I wanted to address in some detail, but I will only touch on them pretty lightly now. I will prosecute them at a different time. We have seen significant other financial mismanagement and waste right across the board. We are a state that is confronting the highest level of unemployment in the nation. No matter how the Treasurer and the Premier try to spin the issue, the brutal reality is that every month the unemployment figures come up and we are, sadly, Top of the Pops in terms of our unemployment. We have been looking at what it is the government has been doing, or seeking to do, in relation to tackling the unemployment issue.

Those members in this chamber have seen the completely inadequate response from the Leader of the Government in this chamber in relation to the Northern Economic Plan, and, sadly, his understanding of what is being done under the Northern Economic Plan is lacking, sadly lacking. There is a lack of urgency.

It is a plan which was launched in January. The $10 million Small Business Development Fund was launched in January, and, contrary to what the minister told the Legislative Council, applications will not actually open until 1 July. Small businesses will not actually receive funds until some time well after 1 July. Yet, we have a chronic unemployment problem in the northern suburbs already, as we are told, and the lack of urgency from the minister in actually getting action undertaken on a plan that has already been announced is very sad indeed.

Today we asked the question about the other big plank of the Northern Economic Plan, the $7 million Northern Adelaide Food Park. Again, when one goes to the PIRSA website, the Department of State Development website, government websites, there is no detail at all as to how that funding is going to be distributed, when the money will actually be given to businesses to help to try and create jobs in the Food Park. In fact, again, evidence taken from PIRSA at the recent Budget and Finance Committee made it clear that they still had not decided on how the $7 million was going to be allocated.

For the life of me I cannot understand how a government can get itself into a position where it announces a Northern Economic Plan, a $24 million plan, and it says we are going to have a $10 million Small Business Development Fund and a $7 million Food Park, and it has no idea at all as to what the guidelines will be for the development fund for small businesses or for the Food Park.

Surely to goodness, your governance systems, your governance structures, ought to be that if you are releasing and launching a plan which says it is a great idea to have a $10 million Small Business Development Fund, you have actually worked out how you are going to distribute the money, and you can actually start the plan straightaway, if you have a chronic unemployment problem in the north.

The same thing with the Food Park. If you are announcing $7 million to attract tenants to the Food Park, why on earth would you not have already agreed and decided on that before you actually launch the plan. The reason is that the government is really only interested in the announcement. It is interested in the packaging. 'You have to have a number, Premier and ministers.' 'Okay, we've got $24 million.' 'You've got to have a couple of titles in there.' 'We'll call one a Small Business Development Fund, because that sounds good, and we will call one a Food Park, because there is support for that at the local level, and we will put $7 million in it.'

Maybe a minister asked the question, 'Well what are they actually going to do and how are they going to spend the money,' and they say, 'Well, we have no idea, but we will sort that out later,' because the Premier and the Treasurer and the government are only driven by the press release. They want to go out there in January to announce a bold new Northern Economic Plan with $24 million in funding, and everyone assumes that something is actually going to happen. Here we are in almost June and you still cannot get a dollar out of the Small Business Development Fund. That will not start until July.

We still do not know, and the minister does not know. A month or six weeks ago, when I asked him the question, he said, 'Look, we are working on the guidelines for the Food Park and I will bring an answer back to the house shortly.' Today he is flick passing it completely, saying, 'I've got no idea whether there are guidelines'—not that he's working on them—'that's somebody else's problem, that's PIRSA's problem'. So, we do not know how that is going to operate.

That is the problem, sadly, after 14 years with this government. It is more interested in the announcement, the packaging and the plan—the saleable title: the Northern Economic Plan; the saleable title—$10 million small business development fund; the saleable title—a $7 million Food Park—but it does not give a continental about how it will actually operate or work, that can be done later on. There is no urgency, no hurry, no need to resolve these issues quickly. Too bad if there is chronic unemployment in the northern suburbs already, as they often tell us: the reality is that that is just left until afterwards. These are questions that members of the caucus should be asking of the Leader of the Government in this chamber, the Minister for Primary Industries, the people who are responsible for these catastrophes within government. You announce the funding, and then nothing happens.

We had the extraordinary position of the Investment Attraction Agency. The Investment Attraction Agency! Members of the Budget and Finance Committee who are with me at the moment, I can see the look in their eyes, because they know what is coming. The evidence we took about the Investment Attraction Agency was that they have $15 million to give to businesses in South Australia. We asked them the question: there is $5 million this year, how much money did you spend on administering the $5 million? Then we asked: you have $10 million next year, how much money are you going to spend on administering it? To put you all out of your misery, they are spending $13.6 million on 40 full-time equivalent staff to distribute $15 million in grants to businesses!

Now, who is in charge of that program? Surprise, surprise, minister Hamilton-Smith! Why are we not surprised? A man certainly lacking in any financial competence or management capacity at all is demonstrating it adequately, a minister who is more interested in empire building, in having mini-bureaucracies. Because he does not control the whole of the Department of State Development (there are about five ministers involved in that department) what he is doing, having been given responsibility for that, is building up his own mini empire in it. He is taking it over from within. It is like a cancer growing within the Department of State Development under his control, the Investment Attraction Agency.

He appoints a highly paid chief executive, and they now are going to have 40 full-time equivalents. They have already spent more than half the $15 million on two businesses. So, two businesses have got $8 million out of the $15 million, so there is only $7 million left to be distributed, and you have 40 full-time staff. You have hot and cold running staff through the Investment Attraction Agency, under the control of minister Hamilton-Smith and the chief executive, doling out money at a cost of $13.6 million. They have gold-plated taps, gold-plated desks or whatever in the Investment Attraction Agency.

This is what your government is doing. This is what you do when you hand over control to carpetbaggers, to people who sell out their principles from one side of the political spectrum to the other for the price of being a minister and having a white car. A mini-empire is being built within that Department of State Development, and the only way it will be justified now is that they will have to give him more money, because it looks terrible if you are spending $13.6 million to spend $15 million. They will not do the right thing and ask, 'Minister Hamilton-Smith, why on earth have you got 40 staff and $13.6 million to distribute $15 million?'—that is the obvious question—'Let's get rid of three-quarters of those staff that you have just taken on.'

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: Get rid of the minister!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Get rid of the minister as well. 'Let's get rid of those who you've just taken on, and we'll use the rest of the agency, together with a few number of extra staff who you've got.' But you have other ministers in other agencies. They must look at the hands-off attitude to ministers like minister Hamilton-Smith and their departments and the programs like the Small Business Development Fund and others. They must just shake their heads, surely, and say, 'What level of incompetence am I sitting around the table from? How on earth do we support and protect ministers who perform in such a financially incompetent way that they can spend $13.6 million on distributing $15 million?'

What is the solution going to be? Not to cut it back and solve the problem. Cabinet is going to be asked in the budget discussions, the ministers sitting around this table, 'We're going to have to give minister Hamilton-Smith more money to distribute, so the equation is going to look a bit different.' It will be $13.6 million to distribute $30 million or something, so that percentage will change a bit. Other ministers are going to have to take further cuts and savings in their budgets because ministers like minister Hamilton-Smith, minister Maher and others are incapable of actually managing their budgets, and the Premier and the Treasurer, sadly, are lacking the authority or the willingness, or both, to pull in the reins and do something about what is going on in some of those departments.

We have seen some of the other programs, such as the Unlocking Capital for Jobs program, the $50 million program. We asked the question. This was a big announcement in the media; a big announcement, 'We are going to unlock capital, we are going to provide assistance to businesses to create and grow jobs.' We asked the person responsible for that, 'How many applications have you done due diligence on and how many grants have you given?' One in 18 months—one! There is $50 million there, a big announcement, they signed up the banks to the scheme, and they have given one grant.

We asked the question, 'Maybe you did due diligence on a whole range of others because you deemed them worthy and then you rejected them or something?' No, they had only ever got to the due diligence stage of one application, which was the one they gave. They had a few inquiries, but they were not serious enough to take any further. So we have an unlocking capital program somewhere in this agency, supposedly creating jobs with a $50 million bankrolled budget, and over 18 months or two years it has processed one application to one business.

There are so many of these examples, it would make you cry, if you were that way inclined. It would make you cry to have to endure sitting through it, as we do on Budget and Finance every second week. There is a $4 million scheme that Premier Weatherill signed up with minister Brock, a $4 million loan scheme for small businesses, a part of a job acceleration package that was announced to get minister Brock across the line. We asked the question, 'Okay, how many small businesses have you assisted through the $4 million loan scheme?' None, zippo, zero, nil; not one. A $4 million dollar loan scheme has been operating there for almost two years, or whatever it is, and not one business in South Australia has been assisted by Premier Weatherill and minister Brock's small business loan scheme.

That is the problem you have with this government and with these ministers. You have ministers and premiers who just do not understand how the real world works. They see the real world in terms of businesses being, we announce a package which we can market to the media. It has to have a trendy title and a lump of money; call it something nice and that is it. Then you just move onto the next one. You have the $4 million loan scheme. You have the $50 million Unlocking Capital for Jobs scheme. You then have the industry Investment Attraction Agency scheme. You then have a Small Business Development Fund. You then have a Food Park, whatever it is. You just move from scheme to scheme with different lumps of money, different ministers all involved, no accountability, no record, other than the work that committees like the Budget and Finance Committee do to—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: It makes the Riverland Sustainable Futures Fund look good.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: There are any number of these schemes and funds and grant schemes, etc., which need to be brought to account in terms of what is the value of these particular programs. What we need to do as an alternative course of action is to actually bring down the costs of state taxes and charges, the cost of doing business in the state of South Australia, essentially the proposition that Steven Marshall, the member for Dunstan, put to the people in South Australia at the last election, and continues to be the basis of the 2036 trailblazing document that was launched earlier this year by the Leader of the Opposition.

For those members who are interested, I always have my copy with me and I am very happy to quote from it at length if any members need guidance in terms of what is an alternative course of action; what is a better way of approaching the budgetary and financial problems of the state and the economic development and job creation issues that confront the state of South Australia. Is it, after 14 years of doing exactly the same, worthwhile continuing with or is it actually worthwhile contemplating a new direction, a fresh change, something which actually recognises the reality of the real world and something which recognises that what has been done for the last 14 years by this government has failed and failed miserably? With that, I indicate my support for the second reading.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (16:56): I rise to speak to the Supply Bill 2016. I hope I do not repeat too much of what my colleague the Hon. Rob Lucas has said. Unfortunately, I had a briefing with the Minister for Agriculture and the chief of Biosecurity on an important issue so I have been somewhat delayed. Nonetheless, I will make a few comments about the Supply Bill.

Of course, it is about supplying the financial resources to the Public Service to continue doing their work until the Appropriation Bill is passed after the budget which now has been delayed a week from late June until early July, until after the federal election. We are not quite sure why that is: whether it is because there is bad news in the budget and the Premier and the Treasurer and their Labor mates in Canberra did not want that bad news circulating in South Australia prior to the federal election, or whether they think it is good news and they do not want that good news swamped by a good election result when Malcolm Turnbull is returned to office on 2 July.

An honourable member: Don't be so sure about that.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: At the end of the day, we are here debating the Supply Bill. As members would know, I am the shadow minister for agriculture, food, fisheries and forests and tourism, many of which operate in regional areas. I know my colleague has spoken a little about the regional development grants but I have had some firsthand discussions, if you like, with a number of the recipients. It is an interesting strategy when a good local business is awarded a grant: they have met all the criteria: there is the fanfare, the press release and then there is the deed of arrangement that comes afterwards. The government announces it, the minister, the Premier and minister Brock spruik it by way of a ministerial statement—how many jobs have been created and all of this wonderful investment.

However, when you drill down into it often the conditions that are placed upon the people who are fortunate enough to be awarded a regional development grant are so onerous that they are not able to take them up. There are things like having stationery approved by the government before it can be printed; titles taken over some of their assets. In one instance I heard that an application was lodged in January. It is now the middle of May and they have heard nothing other than an acknowledgement that it had been lodged. Business people—as you would know, Mr President, having been a subcontractor with a backhoe business—need to actually get on and do their business. If they have applied for a grant they need to get an answer, whether it is to be forthcoming or not, because they often have to make other decisions about investment.

People have been quite disappointed with having lodged the application only to find it takes forever to be notified and then, in the end, if you are fortunate enough to get a grant and all the fanfare, the announcement, the press release, the story in The Advertiser, the story in the local paper, the story in the Stock Journal, to find that the terms and conditions being offered to you are so onerous that you cannot actually take up the grant. I wonder how many of those grants have not been taken up as a result of the very onerous conditions that the government has put on them.

I noticed a couple of weeks ago that, out of that same fund, interest-free loans were to be granted to businesses in Whyalla. I think everybody supports that move in this very difficult time, with concerns around Arrium. Nonetheless, if they have the same conditions attached to them as some of the other grants the government is talking about, even if they are interest-free, these poor people will not be getting the assistance they think they are getting. I will quickly move on to the ongoing saga of the administration of the drought loans, particularly in the South-East. As members would know, I grew up in and have farmed on the South Australian-Victorian border, and it seems bizarre that Victorian farmers have been able to access the drought loans much more easily and readily than South Australian farmers.

I have often suggested that I think South Australian Treasury takes a much more mean-spirited view of these drought loans. For the chamber's benefit, the way it works is the federal government allocates money to the drought scheme, and the state government then administers that money. Interestingly, the state government charges the federal government (in this case, $2½ million) to administer the loan. If a farmer defaults, the state government has to take the risk; the commonwealth expects the money back.

I expect what has happened in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland is that the state governments have recognised that agriculture is an important part of their economy. Our government talks about food and wine from a clean environment being one of their strategic priorities, but it is clearly not a strategic priority. If you look at what is happening across the border, I suspect that the Victorian treasury department takes a slightly more generous view of agriculture and is willing to take a bit of a risk. More of these loans are approved in the other states; here in South Australia, they are not.

We have seen time and time again that the government talks the talk but does not actually walk the walk. That gives me a chance to segue into one of the issues that one of the ministers in this chamber (Hon. Ian Hunter) is dealing with. I heard him described in question time today as, 'The worst water minister this state has ever seen.'

Minister Hunter is in charge of the natural resources management levy as well. The other day, he said something in relation to the crisis facing dairy farmers which I found quite alarming. The opposition would like to see dairy farmers exempt from the NRM levy for 12 months. At the end of the day, this is a crisis facing the dairy farmers, and this would easily be an opportunity to relieve them of a few thousand dollars. Minister Hunter said, 'Oh, but the NRM levy—'

There being a disturbance in the chamber:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order! Is the Hon. Mr Malinauskas okay? He's not?

The Hon. P. Malinauskas: I'm fine.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: You looked like you may have passed out. I know I am boring, but I did not think I was that boring.

The Hon. P. Malinauskas: No, I was just on the phone.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): It is out of order to speak on a phone in the chamber. Many people take no notice of that order, but the reality is that the members in the chamber were concerned about your positioning.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: We all look forward to your political death, but certainly not your real death.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): I call the Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Thank you. The Hon. Ian Hunter said that an NRM levy is less than 1 per cent of a business operating cost, and he is probably right. But, when a business is operating below cost, and therefore they are actually not making any profit at all, that 1 per cent is a significant impost upon that business. He does not actually understand how business works. We do not have thousands of dairy farmers, but they are confronted with a particular crisis at the moment. One way the government could show some good faith is by waiving that levy for those particular dairy farmers.

The consumption of South Australian milk is interesting, too, in relation to public servants. In DEWNR (Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources), the minister's own department, they had a tender document wanting a company to offer to supply milk to the agency, but it did not stipulate that it had to be 100 per cent South Australian milk. You would have thought it was a pretty simple thing for a government. Minister Bignell is out there saying we have to buy more South Australian milk, the Premier has been out there saying it, we have all been out there saying it, and yet you have a government that actually has a tender that does not say, 'You must buy South Australian milk.'

I have also had it reported to me that in the Royal Adelaide Hospital only last week there were two pallets of New Zealand milk seen in a lift. Now I am told it has actually been secreted away, because they were a little bit embarrassed about that. I also heard from a patient in the Repat last year who was served what I assume was the little UHT pot of milk with their tea or coffee in the morning; again, it was New Zealand milk.

It is a bit rich for our government to say, 'The community has to support our producers and buy South Australian milk,' when clearly minister Hunter's agency was out there looking for any milk, and the anecdotal evidence is that the Department of Health buys any milk wherever it can get it. It is a bit rich that we have, if you like, two different messages coming out of the government: do as I say, not as I do. I think it is really important that we do support our producers, and it is really important that the state government actually is a model customer and leads by example, rather than just telling people what to do.

Another thing that is also interesting that comes back to the state, which is a theme I am just picking up on as I get briefings from various agencies, is the promotion of our great state. There is so much money now spent on promoting us to ourselves. It is about, if you like, endorsing the government's policies. The government spends millions and millions of dollars on their own political announcements. But there is also the other stuff, like we saw before the last election.

The 'Adelaide, Breathe' campaign, where that space cadet dropped out of a spaceship and floated down to Adelaide, was one of those trendy advertisements, and it was really only shown in Adelaide prior to the election. I think it has had some more airings since, but all of this money is spent to promote South Australia to ourselves, which does not actually grow our economy. It does not bring more people, more tourists and more students, it does not grow the economy, and it does not grow our exports. It is sort of designed to make us feel good about ourselves.

I know there are a number of publications that have some government input. There is The Lead, the contract with Solstice Media, and there is Brand SA that do some promotion of the state overseas, but mostly it is focused inwardly to make us all feel good about ourselves. I think it is time we actually had a look at that expenditure. If you are running a business and there are 10 or a dozen staff, do you walk around and spend money telling each other what a great business you have, or do you actually go out and grow your sales, your revenue and your product range? That is what this state needs to be doing.

On that, I just have a few little areas I would like to mention, and maybe some of them are pumping up my own tyres just slightly. Recently, we have announced that Adelaide has been fortunate enough to win the world whisky conference in 2017. It is quite an interesting concept, where I managed to meet the guys who were promoting this and introduced them to the Convention Bureau. The Convention Bureau then went through a bit of due diligence and I believe provided them with some money out of the bid fund to secure the conference.

This conference has only ever been held in New York and London, so to have it here in Adelaide I expect will be a very different format. So, I was delighted to have that. You will see some of the world's biggest players come to this conference: Diageo, Jim Beam, all of the big players and all of the big scotch whisky companies out of Scotland, but you will also see lots of the very small producers from all over the world coming here.

Twelve months ago I hosted an industry forum on the distilled spirits industry, and I invited PIRSA to attend. The name of the gentleman who did attend escapes me now, but we had a representative from PIRSA there. This was about growing our economy. It was not about scoring political points; it was about growing our economy. I was pleased to see somebody from PIRSA there.

Some 10 days ago I hosted another one of these forums as a planning forum, if you like, ahead of this conference next August, so we are talking 15 months away. It has never been held in the Southern Hemisphere and there was huge international and overseas interest, and we had people from a range of industries here in South Australia. But also, it is interesting to note, there were more people from overseas and interstate at that particular forum interested in what was going to happen in Adelaide next year than we saw from South Australia. There were people from Scotland, Ireland, Wales, India and the US, and it was quite unbelievable that we had this really strong support.

In the lead-up to that forum I wrote to minister Bignell and asked if he could attend. I put on the record that Mr Bignell's office wrote back and said that he was unable to come. I was disappointed because it would have been good to see him there. I also wrote to the chief executive of PIRSA and the chief executive of the Tourism Commission because I thought these are the two agencies that would benefit from having some representatives there, who could get a feel of the magnitude of this conference. Unfortunately, I did not receive a reply from either of those two chief executives, which I am a little disappointed about. The conference itself will be here in 2017, 2019 and 2021, so this is not just a one-off event; this is something that will be here for a number of years. I see the Hon. John Gazzola getting quite excited about the opportunities to go to the World Whisky Conference.

The Hon. J.M. Gazzola: No, I didn't get invited.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Well, you could have represented the minister, but he obviously did not see fit to send you along, but I am sure that I can arrange a VIP pass for the conference if you would like to go to it. It was a really useful day and I was excited that we had this great gathering of people. I know that the group who put it together are tremendously appreciative and delighted that they have support from the bid fund and the Adelaide Convention Bureau, and they cannot speak highly enough of that and they are delighted, and I am delighted as a South Australian. We would not have the event here if it was not for that support. I do congratulate the bid fund and the convention bureau for making that money available.

We had all of these players (and a lot of them will not be back until the conference) here last Friday at an event not funded by the government, not funded by me, but funded by the industry itself to pull them together, and this includes the Australian Hotels Association, the Restaurant and Catering Industry Association, and Karen Raffen from Brand SA came along. We tried to get as many of the stakeholders in as we could, and I am a little disappointed that we did not have somebody from PIRSA or the SATC.

I looked across the crowd and could not see them. I do not believe they were sitting up the back taking notes and not making themselves known to me. If they did, I am pleased they did, but I do not believe that was the case. However, I hope they will support this event because it is an emerging industry that could help grow our economy, and we have all these little bars in the laneways that have popped up around Adelaide that the government is really proud of, and most of them now stock a range of boutique whiskies and gins, and we are seeing more and more gin producers, so this is a great opportunity for our state in that conference.

I also want to quickly mention the World Water Ski Championships, which is an interesting event. Prior to the last election there was a bid in process, and I rang Mr Bignell and said, 'Look this is a too-important event. I think we should have it. It does not really matter who wins the next election, we should bid for the 2017 World Water Ski Championships.' Incidentally, they wanted to put it into the Torrens, and we all laughed a bit and said, 'You could never ski in the Torrens,' but the world experts see the Torrens, west of Morphett Street Bridge, as one of the world's best bits of water for water skiing.

It is right in the middle of the CBD; it does not flow or rarely flows; it has no tide; and, it has reeds down the side of it so the water level and the water conditions never change. For these world championships you need to have identical conditions. The boats are computer controlled so it is actually just the skiers' ability. Also, being in the middle of the CBD, you can stay at the Intercontinental as a competitor and walk to the event.

The world waterskiing authority said, 'We would like to come to Adelaide, but you need to bid.' I said to minister Bignell, 'We need to bid.' He said they would have a look at it. Sadly, they did not bid and, of course, we did not win the election so a bid did not go in. I know the head of Events SA, Hitaf Rasheed, had said to me on a number of occasions, 'David, we might have to put a couple of hundred thousand dollars into this event.' I know that it has a viewing audience of some 300 million. I spoke with Mark Beretta, who is the sports reporter on the Channel 7 Sunrise show—I think he was a national waterski champion—and he made the comment, 'If you put that on, Channel 7 will come and film it.'

So there are some real opportunities. I expect it would take some investment of money to make it work; nonetheless, we missed an opportunity, and now Seattle is hosting the 2017 event and Malaysia is hosting the 2019 event. A disappointment, but hopefully we have not lost it forever and maybe there is an opportunity to showcase our city sometime in the future, in 2021 or 2023, with that particular event.

I also note the demise of the tourism signs. I think they were erected in 2000 by our tourism minister, the Hon. Joan Hall. Members would be familiar with them, the great big colourful ones you see at various times promoting the Flinders, the outback or Eyre Peninsula. Sadly, most of them are in disrepair. Some of them have fallen down and been taken away. In fact, I think I have related in here the issues with the sign out at Coober Pedy. It got so bad that it got stolen, but in the end DPTI wanted a traffic management plan lodged by the council to re-erect it. It was just a joke. Even though we are moving into the digital age, I think those signs form a fairly important part of the future of our promoting South Australia.

I did have a briefing from Tourism the other day, and I will pursue this more vigorously next Monday at the Budget and Finance Committee. We have 80 signs around the state. My understanding is that the SATC is only going to upgrade 22 of them. Matthew Abraham or David Bevan drove across the Victorian border, I think around Pinnaroo and Ouyen, and saw the sign that had fallen down. I do remember him on radio one morning saying, 'It looks so bad'—I do beg your forgiveness for this, Mr Acting President—'it looks like South Australia is a busted-ass state because they can't even afford to have a decent sign to welcome people to the border.'

I saw a map recently of the location of the 22 new signs that minister Bignell and his team are proposing, but there was no sign at the South Australian-Victorian border east of Bordertown. To declare not so much a conflict but an interest, my farm butted onto the highway and almost the border. There was one neighbour's paddock between us and the border, so I am very familiar with that road and with the amount of traffic. It is the busiest road coming into South Australia. It is busier than the road through Pinnaroo and Ouyen up to Sydney, busier than the Riverland, busier than the highway to Perth, because it connects two pretty important cities.

It is the busiest highway, with a lot of tourists. When I was back there and farming, at times there were about 2,000 vehicles a day, and it would not surprise me if it is not up to some 4,000 vehicles a day, yet there was no intention to put a sign there. If you are going to have a policy to replace at least 22 of them, why would you not have one at one of the gateways to the state? I was a bit surprised. I raised it, and I suspect that SATC may have changed their mind now and will be upgrading 23 of them. I have just checked my notes for the latest figures. There are 4,600 vehicles a day, so that is 30,000 a week and 1.5 million a year. So it is a really good place to tell people about what we have here in South Australia.

It is interesting that there is a whole range of things that the government talks about doing well, but when you drill down to it, they really skate over the top. I think the tourism signs are a good example of their absolute focus on Adelaide. The Liberal policy of bringing footy back to the city was such a good policy, because football in the city has promoted—

The Hon. P. Malinauskas interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order! The honourable member is out of order.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I will not be distracted by—was he just at the SDA or still working in the supermarket when the policy was announced? I am not sure. But, at the end of the day, bringing footy back to the city was always a very good idea. That is why we are not surprised that the city's—

The Hon. P. Malinauskas interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): I remind the honourable member that interjections are out of order at any time, but particularly when the member is out of his seat and leaning outside of the chamber.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Thank you for your protection, Mr Acting President. Nonetheless, it was a great idea and we knew it would be successful, but what we are seeing now is all these people coming into Adelaide. We have more people coming than ever before, but they stay fewer nights because the government's policies are not dispersing them into the regions, so we are not seeing the benefit out into the regions, as we should, from increased visitors.

I do not want to go on for too long tonight, but I will speak about a couple more issues. I congratulate PIRSA. As members would know, this chamber and then the House of Assembly passed the bill to allow South Australians to grow opium poppies. I commend PIRSA for the work they have done to progress the promulgation of regulations and expressions of interest. Whilst I do not expect that we will see poppies all across South Australia from border to border, nonetheless it needs the support of the agency for that whole regulatory framework to support the industry. I am happy because I noticed only today that some information has gone up on the PIRSA website in relation to the regulations around the production of poppies. I am excited by the opportunity, but I am also really pleased that PIRSA has got on and done the job. It gives you a warm glow that you can get a bit of legislation through the parliament and then the government agency actually progresses it and does its part as well, so we end up with an opportunity for our farming communities.

We announced just recently the multi-peril crop insurance, which is an opportunity for farmers to, if you like, offset their risk by ensuring against their production costs. So, at the end of the day, I hope in the next budget we see the current government offering that, because at this point in time it is only $40,000 or $50,000, but it will give the farmers the incentive to manage their own risk, and that is very important.

I want to cover some issues around the Investment Attraction Agency and the board chaired by Mr Rob Chapman, President of the Crows. Recently, my colleague the Hon. Rob Lucas exposed that the Investment Attraction Agency is spending I think $13.6 million to distribute some $15 million in grants to businesses. Evidence to the Budget and Finance Committee last week revealed that the Weatherill government is now spending $4.9 million of this on 30 staff in the new Investment Attraction Agency to administer $5 million in grants to businesses. Next year, the Weatherill government has promised to spend $8.3 million on 40 staff to administer $10 million in grants to businesses.

It really surprises me; of course the government's focus has also been on South-East Asia. Minister Hamilton-Smith, the Hon. Kyam Maher's very best friend he says often in this chamber, has had a big focus on South-East Asia and India, and it has an international board, but there is not one board member from that part of the world. Everybody knows that India is a complicated part of the world with which to do business, so I really cannot understand why the minister would not have on the board somebody from that part of the world.

I also draw attention to something Mr Chapman had to say at an SA Business Index luncheon. He is Deputy Chairman of the government's Economic Development Board and head of the government's investment agency, and, amongst other things, Mr Chapman said:

We've got to sell South Australia for a start. At the moment, we're not even in the consideration phase—no-one knows where we are...not even on the radar so we've got to do a better job at selling the state, and then make a value-proposition or compelling reason why they should relocate here.

This is not the first time I have raised this issue in this place. The state Labor government is intent on trying to sell, as I said earlier, South Australia to itself. We need to promote South Australia to the world, not to ourselves. It is interesting that the two full-page ads this year by Brand South Australia, around Easter time, in The Advertiser were telling South Australians how good South Australia is. We are all still here, and most of those who are not happy with South Australia have already gone. I am not quite sure that we need to tell each other why South Australia is good, we have to be telling the world to come back. It is concerning that the deputy chair of the state government's own Economic Development Board and head of the Investment Attraction Agency feels compelled to come out with statements like the one I just mentioned because he is so frustrated by the incompetence of the current government.

Going forward, I hope to see this government change its approach and start selling South Australia to the world, because South Australia has a lot to offer, with our premium food and wine and advanced manufacturing, and the future has been secured by the federal Coalition's $80 billion naval shipbuilding project to be built in Adelaide. We have some of the most beautiful regions in the world for tourism. There is much we have to offer, and the government needs to be selling South Australia. With those few words, I support the Supply Bill.

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