Supply Bill 2016

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 25 May 2016.)

The Hon. T.T. NGO (15:55): I rise to speak in support of the Supply Bill 2016. As we all know, the Supply Bill is an important piece of legislation that allows for the funding of government services that are vital in helping to foster a fair, compassionate society. Paying the wages of our public servants in fields like health and education is instrumental in improving the quality of life for all South Australians and this is the purpose of passing this bill.

Perhaps the primary question that we face as a state, as well as a country, is how we will continue to sustain our very high standard of living by world standards. The only way the government, as well as private enterprise, will continue to be able to offer good, sustainable wages without government spiralling into unmanageable debts, or inflation running rampant, will be through an improvement in three areas: first, greater productivity improvements within our existing industries; secondly, a bigger South Australia, sustaining a greater population that will enhance rather than denigrate our way of life through a greater demand for services that can be effectively and efficiently supplied; and thirdly, through the establishment of new industries that in the long run are able to attract private investment and contribute to the productive capacity of our state's economy.

Addressing these areas will provide structural surpluses for our state's many budgets into the future. Therefore, we will have the necessary funds to continue to be able to pass the Supply Bill long after my time in this council. This is the philosophy. I want to talk about what this means for South Australia in practice. Improving efficiencies within current industries and their enterprises is something that will be particularly crucial with our defence industry. As members of this council know, I have been campaigning for a very long time for a continuous build here in South Australia, particularly in relation to the submarines contract. I am pleased and optimistic that the federal Liberal government has finally arrived at this position. I thank the Prime Minister and his ministers for this decision.

I would like to use this opportunity to also thank all those involved in this campaign to have the 12 submarines built here. I know that behind the scenes, the state government, through Defence SA and The Advertiser newspaper, started this campaign to lock former prime minister Tony Abbott into making this decision prior to the last federal election. This campaign started at least four years ago, when I was an adviser to the then defence industries minister.

The federal government's intention for a continuous build in South Australia is a shot in the arm for South Australia's economy through the medium to long term. It is not, however, the silver bullet. Lessons must be learned from the Collins class and air warfare destroyer builds, in particular the need to constantly evolve and adapt innovative practices to ensure productivity improvements across the life of our 20 years' worth of building, to deliver a better build and better value for money for the Australian taxpayer.

Just as the Swedes worked with us on the initial stages of the Collins class build, so will the French with their Shortfin Barracuda. Only this time I hope that we build enough of our own intellectual property to be able to get to a stage where we could export our own technology and products beyond 2036. I am pretty sure I will not be in this place at that time, but I hope that I can at least say, 'I told you so.' We do not know what governments will be in place over the next 20 years, but our defence industry needs to insulate itself from any potential political attacks by constantly innovating and collaborating. There is nothing stopping a future federal government reneging on part of South Australia's continuous build contracts.

Before building has even commenced, we already have a key advisory body to the federal government, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, questioning South Australia's defence industry's ability to get the job done on time and on budget. The institute's senior analyst, Mark Thomson, has stated:

…past experience shows that local production, developmental projects, and their fellow traveller, the dreaded 'Australian-unique requirement' are correlated with elevated costs, schedule delays and performance risk.

We saw how conservatives railed against our car industry and have driven it out of the country because, according to them, it was an inefficient use of taxpayers' money, with workers being paid too much. My question is: how then is Germany sustaining a car manufacturing industry when their workers are very well remunerated? The reality is that Holden's internal supply chain was very productive and was as efficient as it could be. The real problem was the plant's lack of scale in a globalised economy where our dollar was at record highs, which left our car industry with no other choice in the absence of government support.

We can see in Western Australia how its mining industry and government have been left unprepared with the price shock in iron ore and other resources. You can bet your bottom dollar that when the Western Australians were receiving record prices for their commodities and the value and volume of its exports went through the roof, not much attention would have been paid as to how it could, and should have, improved the productivity of its exports, not just in labour but through new technologies to lower the cost of exporting its minerals.

The Western Australian government, having run a budget in structural deficit for many years, having wasted the mining royalties on unproductive spending instead of investing in real productivity growth is now left with an almost $40 billion debt, and the terms of trade are now working against it. As a state, how do we insulate ourselves when external factors like global economics work against us to a point where even our productive industries and enterprises feel the squeeze?

This leads to my second and third points: one way is by facilitating greater supply and demand locally. This government has adopted relatively ambitious population targets which will be aided by the planning reforms that are being proposed by the government. As Western Australia has plummeted from the top to the bottom of Australia's economic ladder, it has been the heavily populated capital cities of Melbourne and Sydney that have picked up the slack.

In South Australia, whilst we have the geographical constraints of the beaches to the west and the Hills to the east, there are still significant opportunities for sustainable growth without repeating the failures of Sydney. We can grow our domestic economy through population growth without the need for Sydney's excessive commuter times or its exclusive housing markets which are locking out young people. Population growth done properly will improve our standard of living rather than denigrate it.

Finally, in terms of my third point about the establishment of new industries, we now have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to investigate whether South Australia should play a greater role in the nuclear fuel cycle. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Premier for the process he has established in advancing this issue. We have had an independent royal commission releasing its findings which will now be deliberated on by two citizens' juries and a bipartisan select committee of parliament with equal numbers of crossbench, opposition and government members of both houses.

An honourable member: That is tripartisan.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: Tripartisan.

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

The Hon. T.T. NGO: Multipartisan, thank you. It was a little bit disappointing to hear the opposition leader, Steven Marshall, question the use of citizens' juries. This is a very sensitive issue in the community and it is important that we get the consultation process right at this early stage. As Kevin Scarce said in his report, the community has got to be brought along for it to work. This issue is so important to the future economic prosperity of the state in decades to come. I urge the opposition, who have been, to date, so supportive of this process, to continue to hold the line and support the Premier. With that in mind, I commend this bill to the council.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (16:10): Before I start, I would like to thank the Hon. Tung Ngo for his contribution and the Liberal blue tie he is wearing today. I can just feel some of that liberalism coming out in some of the things he had to say today.

The Hon. T.T. Ngo: I did praise the Prime Minister.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: Yes.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: That might have been bought for him by his staffers.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: Exactly. I rise to speak to the Supply Bill 2016. This is a formality in that the date of the budget has been set in June in recent times, although it has been postponed to 7 July due to the upcoming federal election. Therefore, in order to allow full debate of the Appropriation Bill, a Supply Bill must be passed in order to guarantee the government continues to function between 1 July and the date of assent of the Appropriation Bill.

The amount being sought is in excess of $3.4 billion, which gives an insight into government spending during the first quarter of the financial year: no small amount. The vast bulk of this figure is for wages for an ever-growing Public Service, which should be of concern to all in this chamber. I think at this point in time we have to ask: is $3.4 billion really necessary for wages? The government now provides 13 per cent of the South Australian workforce with a job, and this number is on the rise. South Australia is meant to be a free market economy.

The further we decline into government-provided work, the closer we go to being a planned economy—the word 'economy' being purely academic in that case, as a planned economy is not economic at all. This, of course, is the socialist way, and the Labor Party, under Premier Weatherill, is moving further and further to a European social democratic style where there is no freedom in terms of the economy, no freedom in terms of faith, and no freedom in terms of expressions of conscience.

A planned economy is a false one. It is the macroeconomic equivalent of robbing Peter to pay Paul. The government gives a citizen a job and pays his salary; it then levies taxes in order to pay the wages of the same citizen. It is utterly farcical. What is not mentioned is that, because of union influence within both the public sector and the Labor government itself, wages are around 17 per cent higher than the private sector. This statistic, coupled with the generous entitlements which are part and parcel of public sector enterprise bargaining agreements, lead to a far more attractive package to a prospective employee.

Many graduates choose the cushy and secure public sector path over the far riskier private sector when it comes to their initial employment choice, and who could blame them? Public sector wages and entitlements is an area which really should be looked at in terms of revitalising the South Australian economy to ensure true competition within the workforce. For every graduate employed in the public sector, it is one that the private sector loses. It is a bright mind that could provide the spark in a company or organisation desperate to innovate. To suggest that innovation can occur in the Public Service when it is largely at the whims of its political masters and is stifled by its bureaucratic culture and life tenure is nothing but a pipe dream.

Is it really necessary to have a public sector this large? I have just outlined why having higher wages and better benefits vis-a-vis the private sector is bad for the economy. However, what is just as harmful is the duplication of services. If a private enterprise or NGO provides a service, why then is it necessary for a government department or enterprise to provide the same or similar service in direct competition? It is an abject waste of public money which could be redirected elsewhere: to hospitals and schools, for instance.

By extension, if the private sector can offer the same service under contract, then the government should farm out these very services. It only makes sense not to do this in the case of natural monopolies or public good, such as road infrastructure, where privatising would actually be less efficient and therefore worse for the citizen consumer. To further answer the question, more investigation should be done on an annual basis, auditing the necessity of each and every position within the Public Service. This is done in all types of organisations to ensure funds are spent as efficiently as possible, but also to prevent bureaucratic clogging of the decision-making process and subsequent outcomes. These types of audits can then identify areas which are deficient throughout the government and a reallocation of resources can occur to ensure that public moneys are spent where they are needed most and we no longer have waste.

The member for Schubert from another place is looking into many instances of government waste, and one example was actually on the front page of The Advertiser on Tuesday 24 May in an article entitled 'Money to burn', where the former chief of the Metropolitan Fire Service was offered a redundancy package under the guise of the ill-fated plan to merge all emergency services under one government department—a brainchild of the former minister, the member for Light, Mr Tony Piccolo.

Greg Crossman was hired to replace Grant Lupton only two weeks after Mr Lupton was made redundant. As the member for Schubert pointed out, if the position is truly redundant, then they cannot and should not be replaced, and obviously the government then saves about $290,000 in salary. The carelessness for waste and efficiency is astounding and angers not only us on this side of the chamber but most South Australians.

To an entirely unrelated issue but one close to my heart, the City of Whyalla is on the brink of some tough times and I welcome any temporary support that the government can offer. The loan scheme for supporting business and industries is commendable and has been well received. Unfortunately, Arrium's situation has been caused by poor commodity prices, in addition to imprudent management during more favourable operating conditions. A good example of this is the negotiations for the most recent enterprise bargaining agreement with the appropriate unions which led to above-award wages, overly generous leave entitlements, tenure for almost all positions and many other benefits which were above market and irresponsible considering the troubled times the industry was heading into.

However, my major criticism on the Arrium issue is reserved for the Weatherill Labor government and the Treasurer in that we have had major infrastructure projects completed in recent years without any guarantees of local steel or other materials until well after those projects have been started and/or completed. How much local steel was used at Adelaide Oval? How much has been used in the new Royal Adelaide Hospital? How much has been used in the O-Bahn project? How much will be used for the north-south corridor projects? The government has failed to answer these questions accurately. The reality is that prioritising the use of local materials is an indirect stimulus for local businesses, and if more of this was done by government in the beginning then there would be no need for bailouts at the backend.

Bailouts are a crude use of taxpayer funds to prop up failing businesses purely for the sake of keeping people in jobs which are by and large redundant or at the very least unsustainable. However, I am sure that the Arrium case will be well made in the end and it will be a longstanding viable businesses. A good example of what happens when governments do not prioritise local merchants is the case of KW Wholesaler Stationers, who I have mentioned a few times in this place. KW has many sizeable contracts with the education department but due to a knee-jerk reaction to the 'cartridgegate' scandal a few years ago, all government contracts were to be centralised through one office which led to the contracting of overseas giant, Staples, taking over a majority of government stationery contracts.

All this did was take tax dollars from these local stationers and give them to a large overseas giant who had already been pricing them out of the market. Prior to this at least some of their tax dollars were returned in the form of government contracts. However, it was a genuine transaction and not a subsidy. In making this knee-jerk reaction, the Weatherill government was putting dozens out of work (in fact, it was nearly hundreds) and making it very difficult for local businesses purely because of the bad press it was copping over the 'cartridgegate' scandal. This example, like many, demonstrates just how Labor is no longer the party of the worker.

Moving to Aboriginal affairs now, one issue that has been prominent of late is the servicing of renal dialysis patients on homelands. Currently, the government pays for Aboriginal dialysis patients living remotely to travel to regional centres and remain there whilst receiving dialysis treatment. This leads to patients having to remain off their homelands and away from family and support groups. On top of this, according to the Northern Territory government, it is actually more expensive than providing dialysis treatment on homelands either through a third-party provider such as Purple House or through self-administered dialysis with portable units. In such a case where the preferred and more innovative option is also the cheapest then it must be implemented. Only a special kind of bureaucracy would prevent progress such as this.

I will leave my contribution here, but to summarise it is clear that overall there are too many mistakes being made by the Weatherill Labor government. There is far too much money being wasted and it is being spent in the wrong areas. This government is tired and I fear for the future of this state if they continue past 2018. This state needs true revitalisation; the status quo will not do. By convention we allow this bill to pass, but we do so reluctantly.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (16:18): I rise today to support the second reading of this bill which provides, I understand, some $3.444 billion to ensure the payment of public servants and the continuation of state government services from 1 July until the Appropriation Bill passes both houses. As we know, the Supply Bill gives parliamentary authority to the government of the day to continue delivering services via pubic expenditure and the government is entitled to continue delivering these services in accordance with the general approved priorities—that is, the priorities of the last 12 months—until the Appropriation Bill is passed. Before making some comments on one area in particular and, more generally, on two other areas, I note that the use of the money is for the work of public servants to service the constituents and residents of South Australia.

I want to particularly refer today to the regional development portfolio. I note that I have had a long time interest and, I suppose, responsibility at different times in that area. Before I became a member of parliament, certainly, as the chair of the Liberal Party's rural and regional council, I conducted a piece of work on the future of rural communities. Once I was elected, I was asked by the then deputy premier, the Hon. Rob Kerin, to continue that work here in the parliament with the development of a rural communities task force. In subsequent years, I have served in that portfolio as shadow parliamentary secretary and shadow minister for regional development.

I have always had a close relationship with, initially, the 13 regional development boards and, more recently, of course, the Regional Development Australia boards that now exist across the state of which one, rather bizarrely, includes the metropolitan area. I want to specifically refer to the Brock agreement, the so-called 'Brockument' which was tabled by the government on 6 May 2014, just over two years ago. It was an agreement between the Hon. Geoff Brock MP, who had become minister for local—

The Hon. K.J. Maher: You've called points of order on others for getting completely off the topic, Mr Dawkins.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: On what?

The PRESIDENT: I will determine whether or not they are on topic—

The Hon. T.J. Stephens interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: —and the Hon. Mr Dawkins can continue.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: I'm not sure what the minister's objection was because he was mumbling it, sir, so I did not hear. I referred to the Hon. Geoff Brock and his correct title.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Dawkins, I don't think it was appropriate to call the honourable minister 'an idiot', if that's what you called him.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: I didn't. I didn't use the word.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: No, that was me, Mr President, by interjection. I'm sorry.

The PRESIDENT: You said it?

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: I think I did.

The PRESIDENT: Just be careful of those sort of—

The Hon. K.J. Maher: The Hon. John Dawkins is far too polite; he's a country gentleman.

The PRESIDENT: He is; that's what I thought. The Hon. Mr Dawkins, continue.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: I have been accused of things I did not do, sir. I did stand to talk about the agreement between the Hon. Geoff Brock—and I used his correct title—who had become the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Regional Development and who is, of course, the member for Frome. That agreement with the government, amongst other things, increased the Regional Development Fund from $1.6 million per annum to $15 million per annum over four years to establish a once-off $10 million Jobs Accelerator Fund in 2014-15, to guarantee greater interaction between the government and the regions and to provide the state's seven RDAs with $3 million in annual funding over three years.

On that particular matter, I remember with some displeasure actually learning of the protracted, frustrating process that the good people who run those RDAs went through with the minister and the department in trying to secure that funding. In fact, I well remember a meeting of what was then known as the Murray-Mallee local government association at Pinnaroo in October 2014. The minister and some of his officers attended that meeting to answer questions about this issue from some very passionate local government people who were also involved in regional development.

It will remain in my memory that the minister was unable to answer any of the questions. He had to refer to his officers to be able to answer anything. It was a stark performance. Many of the people in the meeting that day were strong supporters of the Hon. Mr Brock; they thought it was wonderful that a local councillor, who had then become mayor at short notice, had gone on to be an Independent and was now minister for their portfolio, and they thought they would have a wonderful advocate. What happened that day in the Pinnaroo Institute indicated that it was anything but that case. I will move on.

Since this agreement, the 2014-15 Auditor-General's annual report has shown that Regions SA expenditure in its major programs to be as follows: for Regional Development Australia, the budget for 2014-15 was $3 million, actual spending was $2.768 million, so a shortfall of $232,000; the Regional Development Fund for 2014-15 had a budget of $15 million, the actual spend was $2.232 million, so a shortfall of $12.768 million; and, the Jobs Accelerator Fund, the budget figure was $10 million, the amount spent was $200,000. So, of the $10 million budgeted $9.8 million was left.

This agreement also, as we know, made the member for Frome the Minister for Local Government and Minister for Regional Development. Whilst we have had one piece of legislation through the parliament in the minister's term as Minister for Local Government, no acts are committed to the Minister for Regional Development in the administrative arrangements order of this government.

To move to the 2015-16 picture of the Regional Development Fund: last week the Minister for Regional Development heralded the increased Regional Development Fund, which he demanded in the document as critical to job creation and economic development in the regions, and that this had been reinforced by an analysis done by Ernst & Young. However, the $33 million in expenditure now benefiting the regions was actually the policy of the Liberal Party at the last state election. It is interesting that the minister tries to claim credit for what he thinks is a wondrous achievement, the one successful element of his demands to form government with the Labor Party. Let us wait and see whether the performance is similar to what I have just highlighted.

The South Australian Regional Loans Scheme was also part of the so-called Brockument, and that demanded $4 million for a taxpayer-funded loan scheme to regional businesses as part of the Jobs Accelerator Fund. It is listed on the government's promised tracking website as delivered for SA. It is included as part of the promised $10 million Jobs Accelerator Fund. However, it was revealed in an article in The Advertiser on 19 April this year that the program had been abolished after failing to find a single taker.

Whilst $2 million of the funding apparently was spent on the Upper Spencer Gulf & Outback Futures Program, the details of where the other $2 million has gone, and where it will be spent for the benefit of regional South Australia, seems to be very grey at best. The minister has simply stated that half the fund 'remains committed to funding projects aimed at creating jobs in the regions'. I could spend some time going over and comparing this record with many of the commitments made to the regions by the Liberal Party prior to the last election. I will not delay the house, because there is a very long list, but certainly the Regional Development Fund was something that was significantly different to what we have seen; RDA funding was $1.8 million more than what was part of the Brockument, and was over three years rather than four years. There are many other areas of commitment that we have yet to see the government come forward with.

Another area that I wish to touch upon today, and one that the Leader of the Government is very familiar with, because he knows I have raised it a number of times, relates to the Northern Economic Plan. We have seen this year the announcement and the publication of the government's Northern Economic Plan entitled Look North. On the surface, it appears to be a partnership between the state government and the cities of Salisbury, Playford and Port Adelaide Enfield, with buy-in from business.

Besides the fact that I have become aware that the word 'partnership' may be overselling the relationship between the parties, due to the government's control of the process—the fact that I think certain decisions taken through the process, or claimed by the government to have been signed off by the three mayors—we have certainly had some disputation about the manner in which they participated in the process, there seems to be little that has been achieved by Look North since the rather glitzy launch of the plan. I have been eagerly looking to see some of the benefits of that.

In addition, I, along with many who are familiar with the northern suburbs and the immediate inner Lower North of the regional areas, am puzzled as to why the Town of Gawler was not invited to the table. As the very good Mayor of Gawler, Ms Karen Redman, told me recently, there are as many Holden workers who live in the Town of Gawler as there are in the City of Port Adelaide Enfield. Why Gawler was excluded remains a mystery. The minister and I have discussed this on a number of occasions, and, whilst I respect the fact that it has been concentrated on those three larger cities, I do not think he has ever come up with a proper reason as to why Gawler was excluded from it.

I do hope that perhaps further consideration can be given to the inclusion of the Town of Gawler in that program. I understand that you cannot go to every local government area, and certainly there are a number of others where there are people who work at Holdens, and also in associated industries, and certainly you could think of any number of any other councils: Light, Mallala, Adelaide Hills, a number of others, Tea Tree Gully, in close proximity. My understanding is that the numbers in Gawler are as concentrated as they are in Port Adelaide Enfield. Anyway, I will look forward to having those further discussions with the minister in due course.

I was invited earlier by a member of the government to elaborate on my passion for suicide prevention and work in mental health areas in this speech. It had not been a plan of mine to do that, and I am not going to delay the house very long. I do want to indicate another area that I have seen the development of in recent years, which is the great emphasis on people who have a lived experience with mental health issues, generally, or with suicide attempts.

There was an article in The Advertiser last Saturday 21 May by Lauren Novak that highlighted the area of self-harm. I give Ms Novak great credit for writing a very good article. Where do you actually draw the line between an attempted suicide and an act of self-harm? In many cases it is very hard to determine the difference. That is where, I think, the work that is being done by the Office of the Chief Psychiatrist with the development of not only the networks around this state, but the assistance and encouragement to other bodies to get involved in this area, is crucial.

I am delighted that there are many more people getting involved. There are more aspects of the government involved. I was pleased recently that the Minister for Police brought back a response which indicated that there is some considerable work within police on this matter, because it is not that long ago that SAPOL and many other facets of government were almost saying, 'We don't have that problem.' So I am pleased to have seen those changes. I do commend the article in the paper last Saturday for people to have a look at.

I also indicate that I am delighted that we have had a change of minister for mental health. I think it is important that the Hon. Leesa Vlahos is supported, as certainly there are members across this chamber from all sides of politics and across the parliament who have supported me over the years. I think a lot of that came to me because the previous minister for mental health was not interested, and was completely not interested in suicide prevention. We have had a change of minister and I would suggest that those who have come to me—and I have had a member of the Labor Party come to me today for advice about setting up a network—while I am happy to continue to provide that, we now have a minister who is interested and I urge all members to include the new minister in their work in this area.

With those remarks, I am very pleased to support this bill. I again indicate its importance because it provides that $3.444 billion that enables the work of public servants in their service to South Australia to continue until the Appropriation Bill passes both houses. I support the bill.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (16:38): I rise today to also make a contribution on the Supply Bill. The Supply Bill 2016, as we know, is for the appropriation of money from the consolidated account for 2016. The government is asking for approximately $3.4 billion of taxpayers' money to enable the continued payment of public servants and public services. As a standard procedure here, we will always support it because it is important that provisions are made for the ongoing delivery of important public services in South Australia.

I congratulate the state Liberal leader, Steven Marshall in the other place; shadow treasurer, the Hon. Rob Lucas; the opposition leader in the upper house, the Hon. David Ridgway; the Hon. Terry Stephens; and the Hon. John Dawkins for their significant contribution in highlighting the many important issues facing South Australia.

They highlighted the wrong priorities of this Labor Weatherill government, and they demonstrated how the people of South Australia have been let down by an incompetent and tired 14-year-old government. Everywhere we look, whether it is in metropolitan Adelaide or regional South Australia, the Labor government is not putting the right policy setting in place to encourage growth or pave the way for a bright future for South Australians. Our economy is stagnant. After 14 years of Labor, South Australia is at the bottom of the ladder in key performance indicators in comparison to other states in Australia. The release of ABS April labour force statistics on 19 May last week marked 17 months—

There being a disturbance in the gallery:

The PRESIDENT: Could I just remind members in the gallery that the Hon. Ms Lee is giving a very important speech. I think she should be respected and allowed to do that in silence.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: Thank you, Mr President, for that wise counsel and those words of support for me. The release of ABS April labour force statistics on 19 May, which was last week, marked 17 consecutive months when South Australia has had the highest unemployment rate in the country. Not only do we have a very high unemployment rate but there has been a sustained fall in full-time employment in South Australia, with the loss of 6,700 full-time positions since April 2015. Indeed, there are currently fewer South Australians in full-time employment than there were in April 2013. After 14 years, South Australia is becoming a part-time employment state.

South Australia has tens of thousands of individuals and families desperately searching for jobs. Some of the most disadvantaged groups of people in underemployment come from the culturally and linguistically diverse community. Some of these people are highly skilled and qualified, but due to the state's poor economic conditions and job prospects they are facing great difficulties in finding jobs. It is not a laughing matter that South Australia is facing a number of economic challenges. The Labor government has no plans for job creation. It relies heavily on the work of our industries, and it relies on the federal Liberal Coalition government to come up with solutions.

The state Liberals very much welcome the announcement from our federal Liberal Coalition government that 12 submarines will be built in South Australia, along with the previous commitments to build offshore patrol vessels and future frigates. Australia's next generation of submarines will be critical to our nation's defence capabilities and for employment opportunities in South Australia. The quarterly survey of 1,000 small and medium-sized businesses found that South Australia had the lowest level of confidence in the nation and that this negative mood was infecting businesses in Adelaide and the regions.

A total of 45 per cent of businesses believe that the economy is slowing, compared to just 6 per cent that believe that the economy is growing. Confidence amongst Adelaide businesses plummeted 14 points in the March quarter, which is far behind the national average of plus 35. South Australia deserves much better. It deserves a clear vision, strong leadership and capable government to fully represent the entire state. The state Liberals recognise that South Australia is a small and medium-sized business economy. Our small businesses and exporters are key drivers of our economy. I believe that the Marshall Liberal team is best placed to support small to medium sized businesses. The Marshall '2036 It starts now' document provides the important framework of getting the right economic and social settings in place to chart a course back to prosperity and wellbeing for all South Australians.

Abandoning the Weatherill government's plan to raise payroll taxes, amounting to a $22 million investment in job creation over two years, will be a game-changer for the state, and we encourage this government to look at it very seriously. We, the Liberals, believe in lowering costs and lowering taxes on business. We believe in reducing regulations and red tape. We believe in investing in long-range productive infrastructure for our state. The Labor government, on the other hand, is the total opposite. It believes in increased taxes and increased fees and charges, and burdens people with increased regulations. The culmination of bad management by a Labor government over 14 years has meant that people are struggling to see a future in our state.

The lack of opportunities for many hardworking South Australians has resulted in a constant flow of people migrating interstate. Such migration is really hurting our economy with more than 3,000 people on average annually moving interstate over the past decade. As shadow parliamentary secretary for trade and investment, I deal with businesspeople and exporters on a daily basis and it is very alarming to see the serious decline in the export market.

Can I highlight some of these figures to the honourable members in this chamber. The export footprint in South Australia is at 4.7 per cent. We are really going backwards. We are going backwards on a national scale. The government argues that its trade missions overseas are building up all these important trade relationships with our trading partners such as China, but let's look at the KPMG report about Chinese investment that came out recently.

It shows that Chinese investors in Australia are quite confident in other Australian states. For example, New South Wales, where 49 per cent of Chinese investment is done. This is closely followed by Victoria, Western Australia, Queensland—even the Northern Territory which is at 4 per cent—but when it comes to South Australia, the Chinese only invest a mere 3 per cent here. The Premier Jay Weatherill has taken trade missions with ministers overseas to create all these opportunities but that does not really improve the percentage points of investment from China into South Australia at all: we see it is only at 3 per cent.

In terms of export opportunities, when we look at the export markets that this Labor Weatherill government talks about—the trading partners of China and India—let's look at some of the statistics. In 12 months China exports are down $536 million; Japan is down $57 million; Malaysia is down $53 million; Hong Kong is down $48 million; and the Middle East is down $37 million. With the India and China strategy, India—which is another shining light for the government and where the minister is spending lots of time—is actually down by $25 million. This is not good at all.

When we look at the state of South Australian small business, there is not enough support for small business. I am very pleased to say, though, that the good news is that the federal budget has given the state government lots of room to move in terms of economic stimulation. The Hon. Rob Lucas, our shadow treasurer, has tracked down some of the figures. Total federal payments to South Australia next year will actually be $1,137 million more than this year and by 2018-19 total payments will be $1,756 million more than this year.

We encourage the government to access this funding—more money coming into our state—and to spend it very wisely. With those remarks, I support the passage of the bill in this council.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Employment, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Science and Information Economy) (16:49): I simply thank all honourable members for their contributions and their speeches on matters that are important to them and look forward to the swift passage of the Supply Bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Bill taken through committee without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Employment, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Science and Information Economy) (16:51): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.