Bills

Appropriation Bill 2017

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 9 August 2017.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (11:36): I rise on behalf of Liberal members to support the second reading of the Appropriation Bill. In doing so, it is important to point out that this is actually the budget bill, as it is often referred to in media and community discussions about budgets and budget bills. The Appropriation Bill is the bill which authorises the government of the day to continue to pay the bills, and particularly to pay the salaries of the public servants it employs, to pay for the various services it delivers and to undertake its capital works program. So, when there is community and media discussion about budget and budget bills, the Appropriation Bill is the appropriate bill for consideration in that respect.

There is an attached or associated bill, called the Budget Measures Bill, that we will debate over the coming weeks, which seeks to implement various aspects of announcements in the budget or the Appropriation Bill. That will be the subject of separate debate at a later stage. The ability for a government to actually govern is determined directly by the passage, or otherwise, of the Appropriation Bill. If the Appropriation Bill passes both houses of parliament, the government has its authority to continue to operate, to pay the bills and to provide the services that governments need to provide.

After 16 long years, this is the 16^th budget that has been inflicted on the people of South Australia. It is a sad tale to tell, but in South Australia, when one looks at the results of 16 long years of a Labor government, we are in a very sad state indeed. If we look at our economic growth figures over the last five years compared to other jurisdictions and the national figures, our growth rate on average over the last four to five years has been around about half the growth rate of the national economy. This is not an isolated figure here or there—a particular year where you might have a good year or a particular year where you have a bad year. This is a five-year record of achievement, or non-achievement as is the case here, that indicates that our state is languishing in terms of economic growth, which is, obviously, critical to the issue of jobs growth.

I think all the market research tells all the major political players in South Australia that the key issues that confront the people of this state are jobs and cost of living issues, closely followed by health, in particular. Jobs and cost of living issues are the driving influences and the critical issues that we should all be seeking to address. Again, the government's record is a sorry one in relation to that.

We all remember the promise made back in February 2010 that, within six years, a Labor government would deliver 100,000 new jobs. We are already nearly two years over that particular time line of six years but, even with the extra two years, the government is still nowhere near the 100,000 jobs that were promised to be delivered. In fact, just under 27,000 jobs have been created in almost eight years. As I said, the promise was 100,000 jobs in six years.

I think people are rightly bemused when the Labor government is oft wont to talk about broken promises of previous governments when it could very simply look at its own record of broken promises, starting from 2002 and continuing right through to this current budget. The figures demonstrate most of the key areas where this government has clearly, unequivocally broken the key election promises it made prior to each election period.

Looking at jobs growth, if you go back to July 2016, so over the last 12 months, to see how our jobs growth has been going, to be fair, nationally, there have been encouraging economic statistics, particularly jobs growth and growth figures that you would hope would have had some flow-on impact in terms of South Australia. If you look at the last 12 months from July 2016, there has been 2.5 per cent jobs growth nationally, but in South Australia it has been 1.8 per cent. It is good to see that we have a 1.8 per cent jobs growth figure, which is a bit higher than in previous years, but we again sadly languish behind the national jobs growth figures.

There has to be a reason for that. The excuse from the government is always that it is somebody else's fault. It is the federal government's fault, it is the banks' fault, it is always somebody else's fault but, after 16 years, they are still unprepared to accept any degree of responsibility for the appalling economic and jobs growth figures that South Australia currently confronts.

If you look at the trend unemployment figures, we have had the highest trend unemployment rate in South Australia for the last 33 consecutive months. We have had some encouraging figures in the last two to three months, and we will see whether or not they are confirmed this Thursday when the most recent figures are released. We have had some encouraging figures in the last couple of months on the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate, and we can only hope that will continue, but the trend unemployment rate, which economists monitor on a long-term basis to see the relative performance of jurisdictions, shows that, for 33 consecutive months, we have had the worst or highest level of unemployment in the nation.

The other measure that is useful to look at is the underutilisation measure of unemployment because the definition of employment that is used is if you get one hour of work a week, you are actually defined as being employed. Many of us would know of not just young people but primarily young people and others who are desperate for additional hours and additional work, but all they have managed to achieve is a small number of part-time hours. As I said, with as little as one hour a week, you are classified as an employed person and you move out of the unemployment figures.

The underutilisation rate in South Australia is a much higher figure than nationally as well, as you would imagine. The underutilisation rate in August this year showed that 15.1 per cent of the labour force is either unemployed or underemployed. So, 15.1 per cent of the labour force is underutilised; that is, they are either unemployed or they are underemployed. They want to work for longer hours than they are currently able to. That figure, again, is significantly higher than the national figure which is 14 per cent, so we are a full 1.1 per cent higher than the national figure in terms of underutilisation.

Net interstate migration figures are very discouraging in terms of prospects for the future. The most recent figures for the year ended March 2017, show net migration interstate of 6,500 people in that 12-month period. There are more people are leaving our state of South Australia for jobs and employment reasons than there are people coming into South Australia for the same reasons. A number of the figures—again, they go up and down—and the majority of business and consumer confidence surveys, which are conducted by so many organisations these days, show that business and consumer confidence in South Australia is, sadly, at an all-time low, again an indication of the problems we face in South Australia after 16 long years of Labor budgets.

In fiscal terms, the budget figures show that, for the last two budgets for 2015-16 and 2016-17, the government has managed to report a surplus, but both of those budget surpluses—and I think this has been confirmed in the Auditor-General's Report released yesterday—were only created on the back of the privatisation of the Motor Accident Commission, that is, the government was able to book revenue returns sufficiently large to turn what would have been a deficit into a surplus for both of those financial years, 2015-16 and 2016-17.

What we have, after 16 long years, is an arrogant and out of touch government and arrogant out of touch ministers who have been there for too long. The Premier, who has been here through all of the 16 budgets in the 16 years sitting around the cabinet table, still has the gall to stand up and blame everybody else other than himself and the government for the economic and social problems that confront the people of South Australia.

We have seen the claim from the Premier and the Treasurer in this budget that this is supposedly a jobs budget. For those who cannot remember, last year's budget was supposedly a jobs budget, and the budget before it was supposedly a jobs budget, so this is supposedly the third in a row of budgets designated as a jobs budget. Again, the record indicates that that is mere political spin and the government makes the claim, spends the money on publicising it, but never delivers in terms of what is claimed.

The sad fact for the Premier and the Treasurer is that their own Treasury does not agree with them when they say that this is a jobs budget, because in Budget Paper 3, when Treasury is asked to look at the budget and estimate what the impact on jobs growth will be, over the forward estimates period Treasury indicates that their view is that there will be only 1 per cent jobs growth for each year of the forward estimates, which is the lowest estimated jobs growth of any of the other treasuries for any of the other states, and also including the national estimate of jobs growth by federal Treasury as a result of the federal budget.

Whilst our politicians in South Australia claim this is a jobs budget, their own bureaucrats, their own public servants, in particular the Treasury officers, disagree completely with the claim that this is a jobs budget because their figure of jobs growth is so low that it is almost insignificant. It is a reduction on the jobs growth that has been there for the last 12 months, here and particularly nationally as well, yet the government again has the gall to refer to this as a job's budget.

We have seen the claims in this particular budget—Job Accelerator Grants, Future Jobs Fund—and every year this government comes up with some new rebadged jobs program or scheme which it claims will be the solution to the jobs and economic growth problem. I think it is indicative to look at some of the previous programs the government has spun and claimed will turn around the jobs growth figures in South Australia.

In evidence to the Budget and Finance Committee over the last couple of years, we saw the government's much spruiked $50 million Unlocking Capital for Jobs program. When the Under Treasurer was asked how many applications (this was in 2016, after I think it was 18 months or two years) had there been and how many guarantees had been given, there had been only one application and one guarantee given to one firm over that 18-month period. This was the much spruiked $50 million Unlocking Capital for Jobs program—again, a lot of publicity, but it completely missed the mark. It was not addressing the crucial issues that need to be addressed in terms of trying to turn around our state's economy.

There was another $4 million loans program for small business, the small business development loans program, which was part of the deal the government struck with the member for Frome. When we took evidence in 2016, we said, 'How many loans under this fabulous program that you spruiked have you given to small businesses?', and we were told that not a single loan had been given to a business under the $4 million loans for small business program.

We took evidence in relation to the Investment Attraction agency, and in 2016 they reported to the Budget and Finance Committee that they were spending $13.6 million on 40 staff to give $15 million in grants to businesses. They were spending as much money in that two-year period on administration and 40 staff as they were in terms of giving grants to businesses. At that time, after the first 18 months, half the funding had already been allocated to just two businesses.

We have seen the much spruiked Northern Economic Plan, and after I think a 12 or 18-month delay, yesterday I finally got some answers to questions asked last year in relation to the food park, which was a critical part of the Northern Economic Plan. The Leader of the Government in this house has been embarrassed over a period of two years in terms of trying to answer questions in relation to the Northern Economic Plan, the background to its development, whether or not it was supported and who, supposedly, was meant to have supported it, and whether or not it has delivered the claimed number of jobs that were going to be delivered. Again, it has not delivered the jobs that the Leader of the Government and the government generally claimed it would deliver in terms of the Northern Economic Plan. This is now about two years, in terms of its operation.

Yesterday, as I said, we finally got answers in relation to the food park, which was that there was $7 million funding. We had actually asked how many companies had moved into this food park that was announced, proudly, a couple of years ago. The answer we finally got back yesterday was that funding has been made available but that no-one has actually moved into it, but there are currently four well-known and reputable companies in negotiations. How long have we been hearing that particular response? When we ask the question: can the minister indicate when he believes the first jobs will be created from the $9 million investment in the food park? Again, there is no particular answer as to when that is, other than that they are still negotiating with companies.

So, there are just a handful of the jobs programs this government has announced as being the solution. The latest is the Future Jobs Fund, which is the latest example of the government, in essence, rebadging, reannouncing, a new program with a new name with a slightly different sum of money in it, and then spending a lot of money in terms of its advertising and then claiming that this will turn around the jobs figures in South Australia.

The problem with the Weatherill government is that it just does not understand how to create economic growth and jobs growth, and its sorry record of 16 years demonstrates that it has never understood it, and still does not understand it. The sad reality for the people of South Australia is that if we were to be subjected to another four years under this government we would continue to languish in terms of jobs growth and economic growth, because this government just does not get it. It does not understand how the economy works; it does not understand how small businesses operate; it thinks that a brand-new jobs program is the solution to all the problems in terms of economic growth and jobs growth.

Sadly, the other solution the government sees to the state's economic problems is, in essence, to whack another tax on to businesses and the community. This budget is no different. The government sees the solution to the state's economic growth and jobs growth problems as being, 'Let's whack another tax or taxes onto the community and onto businesses in South Australia.' So we see the bank tax being proposed to be inflicted on the South Australian community.

As recent advertising on electronic media indicates, who do people believe will pay for the impact of the bank tax? The reality is that they all know it will be individual businesses, individual customers, individual families who will pay the $100 million a year or so of the bank tax. They do not believe the Premier, they do not believe the Treasurer, they do not believe Weatherill government ministers, who say, 'Look, South Australian families and South Australian businesses will not be impacted in any way by a $100 million plus bank tax.' I suspect that the only people in South Australia who believe that are the Weatherill government ministers and the staff they employ to spin the message.

The bank tax is not the only tax being imposed in this budget. There is a new foreign investor tax being imposed, which comes hot on the heels of a new wagering tax that was introduced by this government, an attempt to introduce a car park tax (which was defeated), and a massive increase in the ESL tax or in ESL bills for South Australian families in the last four years. We have seen other proposals that the Weatherill government and its ministers have sought to impose on South Australians—and still would, if they were to be re-elected. They are supporters of an increase in the level of the GST, and this will certainly be a key part of the election campaign between now and the election.

There will be a clear choice, with a potentially re-elected Weatherill government that supports a massive increase in GST in South Australia. The Premier and the Treasurer are on the public record in terms of having proposed either a massive increase in the rate of GST or an increase in the spread of the GST onto other goods and services in South Australia. Again, if they do that, if the scope of the GST is spread to include, for example, financial services or a variety of other areas that the Weatherill government might support, the people who will pay for it will be individuals, families and small businesses

We have seen the colour of their eyes in relation to GST. They are not to be trusted. Their record is one of every budget looking for a new tax to impose, a new tax to increase. They have already flagged their intentions; that, if re-elected, the Weatherill government will be strongly supporting massive increases either in the rate or in the scope of the GST. That is the key difference, because a Marshall Liberal government, if elected, has always indicated its opposition to the increase in the GST or in the scope of the GST.

The Liberal policy program that is already being comprehensively mapped out by Liberal leader, Steven Marshall, the member for Dunstan, is one that is going to be based unequivocally on a program of creating jobs in South Australia. That can only be done by creating economic growth in our state, recognising what will genuinely impact on that, and also tackling cost of living pressures on individuals, families and small businesses.

It cannot just be in terms of a goal of creating jobs. It cannot just be a position that governments believe that through their programs they are going to be able to create jobs. Ultimately, there has to be a recognition that there needs to be a partnership between the private sector and governments, that the major generator of jobs in South Australia will be small and medium-sized businesses and that partnership is what governments can do to create the right environment to allow those small and medium-sized businesses to create jobs.

Our position, and the one that the member for Dunstan has been prosecuting in particular on our behalf, is that our businesses in South Australia, our small businesses, need to be nationally and internationally competitive. If we are going to have economic growth and jobs growth, the only way that that is going to occur is if our businesses can compete with other small and medium-sized businesses in other states, but increasingly they have to compete internationally in terms of the business that they undertake. For that to occur, the cost of doing business for our small and medium-sized businesses in South Australia has to be nationally and internationally competitive.

Over a period of the short to medium term, what we have to do as a government and as a state is support a package of policies that will reduce the cost of doing business in South Australia, so that our businesses are nationally and internationally competitive. That means not whacking them with new bank taxes that do not exist in any other state and most other international jurisdictions. It means significantly reducing the impost of ESL bills on businesses but also on families. It means trying to reduce the cost of doing business in our state to the degree that we can, to give a competitive advantage to our small and medium-sized businesses.

That is the overarching clear policy difference in a policy package that the Liberal Party, an alternative Liberal government, has put already since the very first policy announcement made back in 2014-15, when we committed to a massive $90 million drop per year in ESL bills in the state, $360 million over four years back into the pockets of families and businesses. That is money that can be spent on businesses in South Australia rather than going into the pockets of Treasury and the government to pay for even more highly paid spin doctors and advisers in ministers' offices, and the sort of waste that we have seen over the last 16 years presided over by government administrations.

There are many other clear policy differences. There will be no accusation, as almost on a two or three daily basis there are front-page stories in the local newspaper, The Advertiser, with a new bold policy proposition from the Liberal Party, an alternative Liberal government, outlining clear policy differences between an alternative Liberal government and a Labor government. Only in the last couple of weeks, we have seen policy announcements in relation to terrorism policies, shoot to kill, regional development spending, front-page prominent media stories, highlighting alternative directions by an alternative Liberal government, clearly different to the policies of a tired, worn-out, out of touch, arrogant Weatherill Labor government.

There are so many key policy differences. The shop trading hours fiasco in South Australia is a clear policy difference. This is a Labor government told by the shoppies union and the power brokers in the shoppies union that they are not allowed to make any changes in relation to this, or they will withdraw their financial support or their support base for the Premier of this state. This is a government that is hamstrung to make any changes in relation to that.

The issue of moving year 7 into high school is a clear policy difference. Sadly, most of our Labor members seem to be out of touch with what is going on in schools at the moment, but I would advise some of the members to actually visit year 7 in some primary schools to see the size and maturity of some of the 12 and 13 year olds in year 7. In every other jurisdiction, those year 7s are in secondary school environments. The national curriculum is structured around that, yet the Weatherill Labor government, supported by the AEU, are trenchantly opposed, for some strange reason, to recognising the reality of what needs to be done.

The bold policy initiative of the use, in limited circumstances, of sniffer dogs in government schools to crack down on the problem and scourge of drugs within our community, and in particular within our schools, is also a clear policy difference between the two parties. The governance structure of our massive, centralised health bureaucracy in South Australia is another clear policy difference, where an alternative Liberal government has outlined a much more decentralised governance structure in health. Having regional health boards with greater powers to manage budgets, employ CEOs, deliver governance and governance reform and reform of health administration is also a massive and significant policy difference between the current government and the alternative Liberal government.

Specific policy initiatives in relation to the Modbury Hospital are a clear indication of the policy differences. We would welcome the new Minister for Health backflipping and supporting our new initiatives in relation to the Modbury Hospital. We have seen so many backflips with the Weatherill Labor government rushing to support some of the new initiatives of the alternative Liberal government. The shoot-to-kill policy is the most recent example, where the Weatherill government is playing catch-up by now indicating their support of the Marshall plan—the alternative Liberal government plan—that was announced a couple of months ago.

We would welcome the Weatherill government acknowledging the destructive power of what they have done over the last few years in terms of gutting key services in the Modbury Hospital and The Queen Elizabeth Hospital and joining with the Liberal Party in recognising that and at least matching the alternative policy packages that we have put forward for the Modbury Hospital and The Queen Elizabeth Hospital. I am sure our shadow minister, Stephen Wade, will have more to say in relation to our commitments to an expanded range of services to be protected in some of the key hospitals in South Australia.

In other key areas a clear policy difference for the people in the South-East of South Australia is a commitment from the alternative Liberal government to protect the critical water resource for the people of the South-East by the moratorium on fracking for a period of 10 years. This is a clear policy difference that the people of the South-East will need to bear in mind when they come to vote.

The proposition of the toxic nuclear waste dump in South Australia will also be a key policy difference between the parties. The Weatherill Labor government, and in particular the Premier, if re-elected, is committed to the siting of a toxic nuclear waste dump in South Australia. The only thing that is holding him back, he says, is that he has not been able to convince the alternative government, the Liberal Party, to support him. But his position is that he wants to see a toxic nuclear waste dump somewhere in South Australia, and if he can get support from other parties sufficient to get legislation through, he is intent on proceeding with that.

The people of South Australia need to be aware, as they go to the election in March next year, that there is a clear policy difference. A Marshall Liberal government is opposed to the toxic nuclear waste dump for the reasons that we have outlined previously and in the report that was tabled yesterday. We do not think the financial claims that were made by the government and others stack up. It is too big a risk, in terms of the finances of the state, to take the particular risk that the Premier, in his desperation, was seeking to have the state undertake.

That is the position of the alternative Liberal government. The clear policy difference is that a re-elected Weatherill Labor government is intent still on having a toxic nuclear waste dump somewhere in South Australia, and the people in the electorates around South Australia will need to bear that in mind when they approach their vote in March of next year.

There are so many other areas. We are strongly opposed to this government's proposal for individual Aboriginal treaties with up to 20 Aboriginal nations in South Australia. The Leader of the Government in this house and the Premier are the two leading proponents for striking individual treaties with nations. There is a commitment from the government to have the first of those treaties done by the end of this year. There is a clear policy difference that we will be campaigning on between now and March of next year to indicate that that is not the approach that an alternative Liberal government will be adopting.

We are more intent on seeking to improve the delivery of critical services to members of our Indigenous communities, whether they be in the APY lands or in urban locations and other locations throughout the state. The tokenism, in our view, of the Weatherill government in terms of trying to strike treaties with up to 20 supposed individual Aboriginal nations in South Australia makes no sense to us, and we will be campaigning on that issue and others in the period leading up to March.

So, there are many, many issues there where there are clear policy differences. There will be no justifiable claim from anyone that in March next year it will be a choice between Tweedledee and Tweedledum. There will be no justification for any claim that there is no policy program or package from the alternative Liberal government. We have been out there since the release of the widely respected 2036 document by the Liberal leader early last year, with the release of a series of policy packages and programs which are continuing as we speak and are significantly different to a tired, arrogant and out-of-touch 16-year-old Labor government.

We have seen with this Labor government and this particular budget a continuation of the massive waste, not only on the particular jobs programs I highlighted earlier, which have been spectacularly unsuccessful: as I said, a $50 million Unlocking Capital program which got one bid and one guarantee. I cannot think of anything more spectacularly unsuccessful other than a small business program which did not loan to any single business in the duration of that particular program, both of those spectacular failures by a Labor government that just does not understand how to create jobs and create economic growth in our state.

The priorities for this government, the Weatherill government, as I said, have been more taxes, jobs programs which they can spruik and then to spend massive amounts of taxpayers' money on government advertising, massive amounts of taxpayers' money which clearly go beyond the grounds of reasonableness which both previous Labor and Liberal governments, I believe, have generally observed, although in recent years it has certainly been abused.

I think, up until the Rann-Weatherill governments, the notion that governments—the Bannon government, the Brown and Olsen governments—would have modest advertising programs after a state budget was relatively accepted by the community and the media as a not unreasonable expenditure of taxpayers' money. However, the Weatherill government has taken it and abused it to such an extent that people are, frankly, shaking their heads at the extent of what this government is prepared to do.

The whole notion that millions can be spent on a taxpayer-funded Jay Weatherill energy plan, where the politician Jay Weatherill is named, the politician Jay Weatherill is part of the television campaign and the radio campaign, both with vision and voice, has been, up until recent times, deemed way beyond the bounds of acceptability in terms of reasonableness, and no government—Labour or Liberal—has been prepared to go too far down that particular path.

What we have seen (and we are getting that information through the Budget and Finance Committee) is that Treasury has confirmed that, in the initial budget for advertising from August-October last year, there was $523,000 spent by the government on an advertising program. Then, between November and June, for the Job Accelerator Grant Scheme, an additional $1.5 million was spent on those commercials. They have continued since July, and we do not know how many hundreds of thousands of dollars, or millions, have been spent since July. We have asked Treasury to provide answers to the extent of the budget. There is at least $2 million that has been spent so far on those two particular programs and, clearly, potentially at least another $1 million continuing to be spent.

The Future Jobs budget is $1.3 million. That is a separate advertising program on the government’s supposed $200 million Future Jobs program, so there is another $1.3 million. We do not know what the budget for JOBEX is but there were JOBEX advertisements being run during the AFL Grand Final. Anyone who talks to advertisers will know that the estimated cost for 30-second and 60-second commercials during an AFL Grand Final is extraordinarily large for each commercial that is run. Whilst it is not anywhere near the commercial rates for the Super Bowl, it is at the highest end of advertising costs. The government needs to outline—and I will ask some questions on this—what the expenditure on JOBEX was and what the individual rate was for JOBEX advertisements during the AFL Grand Final. I will put those questions at the end of my contribution.

We have already seen $2.5 million being spent on what is called the Jay Weatherill energy plan. My colleague the Hon. Stephen Wade says that answers provided to him show that the Transforming Health and NRAH advertising programs have been in the order of $3.5 million to $4 million in terms of advertising. So, in the 12 months so far leading up to the election, we have had nearly $10 million in taxpayer-funded government advertising in the jobs area, the energy area and the health area, and that those sums of money are likely to continue between now and the next election.

Frankly, this is an issue that has to be addressed by the Auditor-General. At the very least, the Auditor-General can get to the bottom of the total costs and expenditure for these particular programs and their compliance or otherwise with existing government communication rules, etc. This is an extraordinary sum of money, unprecedented in its size and unprecedented in its use of vision of the Premier. Even the most recent energy plan advertisements, whilst they now do not have the Premier actually talking, while the presenter speaks to the advertisement there is vision of a smiling Premier in the background on the television set, making it quite clear that it is the Premier’s energy plan that is being spruiked at great cost to taxpayers at the moment.

There are so many other areas of government waste that I have highlighted on previous occasions: the blowouts on the NRAH of $600 million to $700 million, IT projects both in the Treasurer's own area in Health and most other government departments, and the inadequacy of the implementation of Determination 7 in terms of managing terminations within the Public Service. I have already highlighted government waste in jobs programs.

There is so much government waste, mismanagement and negligence that is ripe for a fresh set of eyes, a new government prepared to tackle some of the challenges of actually managing a budget, recognising what will create jobs and economic growth in the state and directing the policies of a government and the public sector towards providing the right environment for small and medium-sized businesses in particular to try to create the jobs and economic growth that our state desperately needs.

Before addressing some questions I am seeking answers to in the committee stage of the debate, let me conclude by saying that, after 16 long years, as I said, of an arrogant, out of touch, incompetent Labor government, and more latterly a Weatherill Labor government, I think people have to accept that whatever it is that the Labor government has been doing for 16 years just is not working. The record is there for everyone to see. It does not matter how much you polish it, the facts are still there for everyone to see. Whatever it is the Labor government has been doing for the last 16 years just is not working.

It is time for a change. It is time for new policies. It is time for an alternative government, a fresh set of eyes, to tackle the challenges that confront the state of South Australia. Certainly, that is the policy program and package that Steven Marshall, on behalf of an alternative Liberal government, has put and will continue to put between now and March next year.

The first question that I put to the minister in charge of the bill to pursue during either the end of the second reading or during the committee stage is that I seek a table of the capital works program for the government in its entirety for the forward estimates period. The government has previously revealed under FOI a four or five-page document that highlights each department.

It does not indicate what each department is going to spend their capital works program on, but it has the total capital works program for the government broken down into each department's share of that program over the forward estimates period. That is a critical part of any budget and budget planning. As I said, the document exists and I seek for that to be tabled or, if it is just statistical, it can be incorporated into Hansard by the minister. We will be pursuing that issue during the committee stage of the debate.

I also seek information in relation to the issue of Determination 7. It is a relatively simple question which the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment should be able to answer. Determination 7 has now been operating I think for almost two years; it has been reviewed. I am asking the government how many public servants have actually been terminated as a result of Determination 7. If there are more than one, I am seeking the particular departments and agencies in which those terminations have occurred.

Can I make it clear that I am not seeking the number of people who might have been nominated as Determination 7 and then have taken a TVSP (targeted voluntary separation package) some way through the Determination 7 process. Determination 7 is a process that this government supports. It says that, after a certain process has been followed, after a 12-month period at the very least, if a public servant no longer has a job in the state public sector, he or she can be terminated. My question is quite simply: how many have reached the end of that process and have been terminated under the powers provided by the government in Determination 7?

I also seek some response through the minister from the Treasurer regarding two consultancies conducted last year by Ernst and Young. One was a post-implementation review of RISTEC. I have not taken the time of the chamber on this occasion but this has been a 10-year saga of mismanagement, a massive blowout in the cost of RISTEC, and a reduction in the scope of what was originally intended to be covered. Treasury has spent $82,000 on Ernst and Young to do what they said was to provide a RISTEC post-implementation review. Was there a report produced by Ernst and Young and is that publicly available? If it is not, can the Treasurer provide a summary of what Ernst and Young reported in terms of the post-implementation review of the RISTEC IT disaster within Treasury?

The second Ernst and Young report which was done was a capability review of the South Australian Department of Treasury and Finance. The government paid $50,356 for that. Is there a copy of that report publicly available? If there is not, can the government outline what the key findings and recommendations of Ernst and Young were in terms of the capability review of the South Australian Department of Treasury and Finance? Fourthly, a simple question: can the minister indicate whether or not since July of this year, ministerial staffers have been provided with any pay rise? The government released in July of this year in the Government Gazette a smaller list of ministerial staffers, those required to be gazetted, those on ministerial contracts.

At that stage, in the seven months between November last year and July this year, there had been no increase in salaries for ministerial staffers in that period. Has there been a pay rise approved and implemented for ministerial staffers since July? If so, what was the extent of that pay rise? Was it equal for all staffers? If not, did certain staffers get higher levels of pay increases and, if so, who were those particular staffers? In relation to that, were those pay rises, if given recently, backdated to 1 July or some other date? Similarly, has there been an increase in salary since July of this year for chief executive officers of government departments? Again, if there has been, what was the level of that increase, and was it consistent across the board for all CEOs? If not, what were the reasons for any differential?

Fifthly, as I outlined earlier, what is the government's budgeted funding for advertising the JOBEX program? Did the government approve advertisements on JOBEX or any other government program being run during the two to three hours of the AFL telecast? If so, what were the individual charge rates for those individual commercials run during the AFL Grand Final for JOBEX, or for any other government advertising, during the AFL Grand Final?

Finally, and there will be an opportunity later on but a specific one in relation to the Auditor-General's role: it is my understanding that the Auditor-General in his reports has highlighted his wish to amend the Public Finance and Audit Act to allow tabling of supplementary reports and others in a more timely fashion than the current process allows. The current process generally, with the exception of the Adelaide Oval reports, is that parliament needs to be sitting, the Auditor-General provides reports to the President and the Speaker, and then they are tabled in the houses at the next sitting day.

Of course, we are coming to a period leading up to the election where the house might get up at the end of November and we might not sit again until May. So, if there were supplementary reports of some importance that the Auditor-General had, it might be in the government's interest for those reports to not see the light of day prior to the March election. On page 117 of the Auditor-General's Report he notes:

Specific and general matters for supplementary reporting include:

the state finances and related matters

the new RAH

a grant to the One Community organisation

Adelaide Riverbank (Festival Plaza) development

various public sector information and communications technology systems

certain public sector infrastructure and other projects

With all of those I am sure that, if the Auditor-General has done the work and has concluded a report, it would be important for that information to be available publicly prior to March of next year.

I understand that the government, when asked to, in essence, amend the Public Finance and Audit Act, has not supported that particular proposition. I seek advice from the government on whether that is correct and what were the reasons for the government not supporting that particular proposition. Can I indicate that, personally, my view is that there would seem to be a good argument for agreeing to the request from the Auditor-General. We are interested to hear what the government's reasons are, if there are any, for opposing it.

I think it is important that, if work is being done on the Adelaide Riverbank development, or a grant to the One Community organisation or the new Royal Adelaide Hospital, that sort of information from the Auditor-General not be hidden by a government that might be embarrassed at the revelations that come from an Auditor-General's Report.

I seek that response from the government. My own personal view is that that sort of information should be available. There are other mechanisms open to the parliament to ensure that that occurs, and certainly from my viewpoint I will have discussions with my colleagues in relation to seeing whether some of those other alternative options might be utilised to ensure that these Auditor-General reports, if they become available after the parliament gets up, are nevertheless still available publicly through some mechanisms or other.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON (12:32): The Budget Measures Bill 2017 puts in place significant initiatives to help South Australian residents and businesses. I will go to a few of those in my speech, one in particular.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: We're on the Appropriation Bill, not the Budget Measures Bill.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Hanson has the floor.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: That's a good start.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: Yes, it is a good start. The bill and the measures it supports go to the heart of the values of this government. This government is the champion of public education, of world-class health services and of systems to ensure the safety and wellbeing of our people in South Australia. This government is also unashamedly in favour of business. This stance is proven by delivery of the largest ever cuts to business taxes and levies in this state's history. The cuts total an estimated $223 million of relief in net terms to businesses this year alone in comparison with fiscal settings at the last election. By the 2021 financial year this relief will approach the $300 million a year mark.

The changes proposed in this bill are essentially in creating the settings that underpin revenue and expenditure, as outlined in the budget papers. The budget papers highlight many initiatives, including, for instance, increasing job accelerator grants for $5,000 for eligible businesses that take on an apprentice or trainee. This will take the grant up to $15,000 for businesses liable for payroll tax, or $9,000 for those below the payroll tax threshold. The Job Accelerator Grant Scheme is proving extremely attractive, with 4,589 businesses and 12,894 jobs registered as at 18 September this year.

There is the creation of the Future Jobs Fund, which includes $120 million being made available as grants or loans to businesses which create jobs in South Australia, and the cutting in half of the stamp duty payable on the purchase of non-residential property, which will be followed by an abolition of stamp duty on non-residential property on 1 July 2018. This is in addition to the abolition of stamp duty on non-real property, and will make South Australia the only jurisdiction in Australia where businesses can purchase commercial property, plant, equipment, IP, goodwill and other matters without the government demanding stamp duty be paid on that transaction.

Furthermore, there is additional funding for the investment attraction agency, and convention bids and major events are also part of this budget. There is retention of the first homeowners grant on new dwellings and, of course, record spending on infrastructure. All these initiatives are designed to ensure that the South Australian economy thrives despite the considerable headwinds we face due to the closure of automotive manufacturing and assembly.

I now move to the issue of the major bank levy, a measure in this bill which seems to have given some of those opposite some dyspepsia. Remarks were made in another place about the major banks and the number of people they employ in this state.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: Dyspepsia means indigestion, for those opposite who are wondering about that.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: That's very good. Why didn't you just say indigestion?

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: Indigestion or dyspepsia could both be used to describe the level of discomfort suffered by some of those opposite about remarks made by the major banks and some of the people they employ in this state.

Fears were raised that the banks would cut jobs. To be clear, the banks' contribution to the South Australian economy, both directly in terms of their own activity and indirectly through finance and investment by South Australian residents and businesses, is very welcome. However, the major bank levy poses no threat whatsoever to the economic contribution by the banks. Whether the banks double their South Australian workforce or indeed halve it, that will not be taken into consideration in calculating their liability under the levy. In fact, it will have no effect on the levy.

The bill specifically prevents the banks from charging a fee to customers to recover the cost of the levy. If they decide to introduce a regional interest rate for South Australia, the major banks will simply be making their own products uncompetitive. There are plenty of other banks, credit unions and other authorised deposit-taking institutions ready, willing and able to take market share away from the big banks. The best suggestion for the banks would be to pay the levy from the extraordinary profits they generate or from the extreme remuneration packages they pay to senior staff and directors, packages which are obscene in the eyes of ordinary Australians who must struggle for every dollar they earn.

The banks have made much of the fact that they do pay large amounts of tax as well as make large profits. Of course, that is true. They pay company tax, payroll tax and other taxes, just as every other business does. However, the banks are treated differently for GST. This means that revenue that would flow to the states from GST is non-existent.

Banks, like other businesses, benefit from the services provided by state governments as well. They share in the efficiency gain of good roads and public transport to get their workers, customers and products from one place to another. They share in the benefits of world-class education facilities, which school young people for careers such as those in the banks. They share in the benefits of hospitals and health services which look after their staff, and they share in the leisure, arts and sports facilities that give their staff the spaces and places to enjoy recreation, which refreshes them for their workplace. The bulk of these services are provided by state governments, so it is only fair that the banks—like every other business—pay their share of the taxes that provide the revenue to deliver these services.

There has been much misinformation peddled in the public arena about the rationale for the major bank levy. It has been suggested that the government is targeting banks because they are successful and profitable, and fears have been raised about which sector will be next. This scare campaign is ill-founded. The rationale for asking the banks to pay their fair share of taxes is because they are at an advantage compared to other businesses due to the different GST treatment that federal government estimates say leave the government coffers short by about $4 billion a year nationally.

The point about the profits is clearly that the banks have plenty of capacity to pay the levy with an absolutely negligible effect on their bottom line. Remember that the levy, of course, only equates to about one-third of 1 per cent of the banks' profits. On a per share basis, the levy equates to an average of 0.9¢ per share on shares worth an average of around about $50 each.

In a shameful display of self-interest, the Australian Bankers' Association has made claims that the major bank levy is an impediment to investment in this state. They claim that it will chase away investors. We know, of course, that that is simply not true. Consider for a moment some of the investment decisions announced since the major bank levy was announced. There has been the sale of Arrium to the GFG Alliance to become Liberty OneSteel and SIMEC Mining; the further investment by GFG Alliance through the purchase of a majority stake in the Adelaide-based ZEN Energy; and the $1.6 billion commercialisation of land services to a consortium led by Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets (MIRA) and its managed funds and the Public Sector Investment Board (PSP investments), one of Canada's largest pension investment managers.

We have also seen SolarReserve's decision to invest $650 million in a solar thermal plant at Port Augusta; Tesla and Neoen investing in a battery co-located within the Hornsdale wind farm; the SkyCity go-ahead on a $330 million upgrade of the Adelaide Casino; OZ Minerals' board decision to invest more than $900 million in the Carrapateena copper mine. We have seen BHP committing $600 million to increase production at Olympic Dam, Tic:Toc deciding to create 200 jobs at a home loan processing centre operated in conjunction with Bendigo and Adelaide Bank, and Strike Energy committing to relocate its headquarters from Sydney to Adelaide.

These are just a few of the investments by businesses that recognise the friendly jurisdiction and tremendous opportunities in this state. Investments such as these are part of the momentum in the economy that has seen the unemployment rate drop to 6.1 per cent on trend in August, compared to 7.9 per cent the same month two years before. Jobs are being created despite the challenging headwinds with the closure of automotive manufacturing. It is estimated that in 2016-17, the gross state product grew by 2.25 per cent, outpacing the national GDP growth of 1.9 per cent. The state final demand was 4 per cent higher in the June quarter of 2017 than in the equivalent quarter in 2016.

This bill will give further impetus to economic growth, but it requires all of the bill's measures to pass. Many years ago, Mr Rob Lucas was the Treasurer, and in introducing his 1998-99 budget, he warned against the 'magic pudding approach to matching a budget'. He railed against the idea that one could simultaneously oppose revenue cuts and advocate for expenditure increases. Mr Lucas opposes the temperate revenue increase proposed by the major bank levy, at the same time as his Liberal Party colleagues are out there chalking up hundreds of millions of dollars in promises.

There is only one party that has the depth of responsibility to deliver sustainable budgets that are packed with economic incentives, budgets such as this one, which puts the books on track for successive surpluses. That one party, of course, is the party in government, the Labor Party. There has been a time-honoured tradition in this parliament, which is one of the foundations, of course, of stable governance. That tradition is that the government's budget will pass. There is no precedent for a government money bill to be blocked, whatever it is called.

I urge all members of this council to give full and proper consideration to the seriousness and significance of their vote on this bill. On the one hand, this council could vote for sensible, stable governance and for the economic stimulus that South Australians will welcome. On the other hand, this council could vote for the chaos and dubious hope that the vote will somehow favour five very wealthy banks that currently do not pay their fair share of tax. That vote would be at the expense of ordinary citizens, small businesses and home buyers. The choice in this place is ours. This side of the council will be voting for stability and prosperity, because it is the right thing to do.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (12:44): I rise to make a contribution to the Appropriation Bill 2017. The 2017-18 budget focuses on jobs, health, education, infrastructure and local communities. It puts South Australians first, unlike the travesty of a budget that the federal Turnbull government handed down this year and unlike those opposite who stand for the interests of the big banks, rather than the community. I will firstly highlight some of the many job creation initiatives in the budget.

On reading the budget, I was pleased to see that the grant accelerator program is expanding to provide opportunities for our young people. The Job Accelerator Grant Scheme established in last year's budget has already helped create around 10,000 jobs. The Job Accelerator Grant will now offer employers an additional $5,000 for each new apprentice or trainee they take on. Coupled with the existing grant, the total grant on offer is up to $15,000. It is estimated that the $8.1 million additional funding will support 2,000 jobs.

I am sure that all honourable members are aware that the South Australian economy is changing. South Australia needs to keep looking to, and striving for, the jobs of the future. The state government is working to help build new industries and support growth sectors to create jobs by establishing a $200 million Future Jobs Fund. The fund will focus on the following industries, amongst others: shipbuilding and defence, renewable energy and mining, food and wine, health and biomedical research and IT, and advanced manufacturing. An amount of $120 million is available in grants and low-interest loans to support businesses and create jobs.

The fund will also provide $60 million to the Economic Investment Fund (EIF), which encourages businesses to set up shop in Adelaide. The EIF was established in the 2015-16 budget and has attracted new projects and jobs to South Australia. Boeing is a notable business that has set up an office in Adelaide, creating approximately 250 jobs.

The state government is also helping to create jobs by continuing to invest in the ever-growing tourism industry. Previous investment in the tourism sector has seen the visitor economy increase by 30 per cent since 2013 to a record of $6.3 billion. It has also helped create an additional 5,000 jobs in the tourism industry since 2014. This is a great result, but the government wants to see even more growth, which is why the Future Jobs Fund allocates a combined $14.5 million over four years to the Convention Bid Fund and the Major Events Bidding Fund to help secure major events and business conventions.

The convention and major events funds have resulted in South Australia attracting some of the biggest conventions and events in our state's history. The Convention Bid Fund has secured more than 60 conventions, including the 68^th International Astronautical Congress that occurred recently. I was told that about 3,500 delegates attended and that the economic benefit to the state was about $18 million. The Major Events Bidding Fund has seen South Australia secure more than 35 events, bringing visitors from interstate and overseas, as well as generating further economic benefits through the international promotion of South Australia.

The events secured also include the Pacific School Games of 2015 and 2017, which attracted more than 8,900 participants, officials and visitors. The organisers reported economic benefits of more than $13 million to the state's economy.

The Mundine versus Green 2 boxing match was held earlier this year at Adelaide Oval before a crowd of 26,940, with 30 per cent of tickets being purchased outside of South Australia. Even though the result was a bit controversial, the event not only had a direct economic benefit of approximately $4 million, it also had quite a bit of media coverage, with an estimated PR value of $36.2 million Australia-wide.

A basic premise of any budget, even a personal budget, is revenue and expenditure. To pay for the Future Jobs Fund, which as I mentioned earlier contains initiatives to increase jobs, the budget introduced the bank levy. It is estimated the levy will bring—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: It's a tax.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: It's a levy. It will bring about $370 million over four years, which is less than $100 million a year. I know those on the opposite side of the chamber have gone into bat for the big banks despite the fact that the banks make $30 billion profit a year. The Turnbull government is already collecting a bank levy, estimated to be worth $6.2 billion over the four years when it was introduced earlier this year. It just shows the hypocrisy of the state opposition. Where was the opposition leader when the federal government introduced the bank levy? They went very quiet.

Although those opposite try to persuade businesses otherwise, South Australia is a great place to do business and will continue to be under this budget. The budget extends and locks in small business payroll tax cuts at a cost of $45.1 million over four years. A 2.5 per cent rate will apply to small businesses with payrolls between $600,000 and $1 million, phasing up to the general rate of 4.95 per cent for businesses with payrolls above $1.5 million. It has been estimated that a further 1,300 employers will benefit from this initiative. Medium and large businesses already pay lower payroll tax than in almost any other state and territory.

Through this budget the state government is funding $9.5 billion over four years for a number of large infrastructure projects that will benefit the South Australian community. Today, I have time only to mention a few. Key projects include $15 million over two years to build new multilevel park-and-ride facilities at the Tea Tree Plaza and Klemzig interchanges. This will help even more people take advantage of the O-Bahn extension. I am sure that one of my staff, who uses the O-Bahn when she goes to work, will be glad that there are additional parking facilities for her and her family.

The state government is also investing $250 million into The Queen Elizabeth Hospital—on my side of town—constructing a new clinical building which will include the emergency department, outpatient services, operating theatres and clinical support, as well as brain and spinal injury services that are currently provided at Hampstead Rehabilitation Centre. I have been advocating for more car parks at The QEH for a long time, so I was glad to see that the government has also committed to additional parking spaces. I was also glad to hear that the shadow minister for health, the Hon. Stephen Wade, has, I believe, stated his support for those additional car parks and the extension of The QEH. I also hope the Hon. Mr Wade will continue to support this project if he happens to be the minister for health after the election.

Whilst these and other large projects are important, the state government also understands the value of smaller community-based projects. That is why the government has put $40 million over two years into Fund My Neighbourhood programs. Earlier this year, this initiative gave South Australians the opportunity to nominate project ideas to improve their neighbourhoods. Many South Australians from across the state took this opportunity, with over 2,400 applications received. A wide range of ideas were submitted, with the most popular categories being open space, sport and recreation, as well as health, wellbeing and inclusion.

From today onward from 12pm until 20 November the power will again be with the community as South Australians will have the opportunity to vote for which projects they would like to be funded. I have already logged on and checked out a few of my favourite projects that I have been keeping an eye on, so I am hoping that some of the projects that I support will get up once the—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: You’ll sit on your computer all day and night.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. T.T. NGO: Well, yes, as long as the community benefits from me sitting on the computer then I will be very happy.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Put your computer on auto.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Will the Hon. Mr Ngo please ignore any interjections from the Hon. Mr Brokenshire; and the Hon. Mr Brokenshire, please allow Mr Ngo to finish his speech without interjection.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: Why not, Mr President. These are just a few of the initiatives that put South Australia first in the budget, and I commend this bill to the chamber.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (12:56): I will actually cut my speech short on this one. I could have talked about the budget bill for hours, even longer than the Hon. Rob Lucas but, given the time, I will be brief. There are three or four key points with this budget bill. The first is to reinforce to the community the truth about the budget. The budget is not back in the black. In fact, if they had not flogged off so many assets then the reality is that—

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

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Thank you, sir, for your protection. The reality is that had they not flogged off so many assets that they put into the recurrent budget—I just cannot believe you would put core assets into a recurrent budget—then there would be a huge hole, a massive deficit in the recurrent budget as well as the massive core deficit that the state has now encountered under a Labor government.

Just have a look at the Auditor-General’s Report yesterday and look at the MAC, the windfall there of about $2.5 billion. First, MAC should never have been sold; secondly, it never came before the parliament; and thirdly, the money from MAC has gone into the recurrent budget, or the Highways Fund, which is effectively offsetting other budget pressures in the recurrent budget.

The final point—and I have said quite a bit about this in the past—is that this government promised in 2002 with a pledge card that there would be no privatisations and there would be no new taxes. Surprise, surprise—in the last budget we had the car park tax, and that had to be rejected by the Legislative Council, and now we have a brand-new tax called the South Australian bank tax. The reality is that that may well be rejected as one aspect of the budget bill in the Legislative Council.

There is a precedent that the state government acknowledged, on behalf of the people, through the Legislative Council, that the car park tax should have gone down, and they did the honourable thing and accepted it. If the bank tax goes back to the lower house with a recommendation that it also be thrown out, then I would expect the state government to do the honourable thing on behalf of the Legislative Council and the people of South Australia and remove that one tax that will inhibit growth and development and will hurt every mum and dad, every family, every pensioner, every small business and every farmer in this state.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.A. Franks.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:18.