Legislative Council Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2) 53 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time State Economy State Economy The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council State Economy The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (15:19): I seek leave to make a brief explanation— The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Brokenshire has the floor. Members interjecting: The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I am not sure whether the Leader of Government Business thinks he is the President or the Leader of Government Business, but he does make your job difficult. The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: The honourable Leader of the Government gets a little bit excited now and again. The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Leader of Government Business a question regarding South Australia's economy. Leave granted. The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: In June 2017, the University of Adelaide South Australian Centre for Economic Studies put out an economic briefing report. In the executive summary, the report says: The businesses that can deliver this growth, small, medium and large, are in the main acclimatised to operating in an open economy and now have a relatively low reliance on protective trade policies. This means they will need to compete directly with overseas suppliers for markets and for investment. It then says in the final sentence: In that competition, the South Australian cost structure is an important influence on the decisions that ultimately are taken, and policy makers— meaning particularly the government of the day— need to avoid undue impositions on those costs. Given that the minister could not rule out his big new bad bank tax being passed on to every mum and dad, every pensioner, every young person trying to buy a car or get ahead, every business and every farmer, does he now agree that, in light of this report and those key points raised, structural increases in tax will be an impost on businesses trying to survive and grow in South Australia? The Hon. K.J. MAHER Legislative Council Minister for Employment, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Science and Information Economy 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) (15:22): I thank the honourable member for his question. I can say that I completely and utterly disagree with the premise behind his statement and his questions. Members interjecting: The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: Order! I think the only arrogant one here at the moment is the Leader of the Opposition. The minister is on his feet trying to answer a question by the Hon. Mr Brokenshire, and I don't think it is appropriate that the two of you are interjecting while he is trying to answer it. The honourable minister, continue. The Hon. K.J. MAHER Legislative Council The Hon. K.J. MAHER: What the honourable member has indicated in his question is exactly support for the measures this government is taking. It is exactly support for the measure this government has taken. He has spoken of the importance of small and medium business, but what the former Family First, now the Australian Conservatives, prefer to do, like the Liberal opposition in South Australia, is protect the top end of town. They want to protect the $30 billion in profit, the $4 billion in undertaxation from the big banks, in preference—let me make this very clear—to support for small and medium business in South Australia. That's what the Hon. Robert Brokenshire wants to do; that's what he wants to do. It is his choice, and I think voters will judge accordingly at the next election whether they think it is a good idea to be supporting and protecting the $30 billion in profits that the banks make or putting money towards supporting small and medium-sized enterprises in this state, measures like the $200 million Future Jobs Fund. Even before that, we have seen about a $220 million decrease in workers compensation fees for businesses, a very significant competitive advantage for business in this state. We have seen payroll tax decrease. We have seen the abolition of stamp duty on business transactions. This government has introduced very significant concessions to help business in this state, and we have introduced further support for small and medium-sized business in this state: a $200 million Future Jobs Fund. What the Hon. Robert Brokenshire wants to do is support the big banks, the top end of town. That's his view: let's protect the super profits that banks make. Don't worry about small and medium-sized business in this state; his whole question was geared towards supporting what this government is doing. I welcome the support that he has given, unwittingly, in the explanation to his question, but I utterly reject the conclusion that he somehow drew, after supporting, with his premises, what we are doing for South Australia.