Appropriation Bill 2017

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 18 October 2017.)

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (12:05): I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill 2017. When this budget was handed down by the Treasurer in the other place, it faced immediate scrutiny and justifiable criticism, ably articulated by our leader, Steven Marshall (member for Dunstan), but equally vocal have been our constituents and South Australian businesses.

South Australians are rightfully doubtful about the ability of this government to properly address the alarming economic situation this state finds itself in after 16 years of an incompetent Labor government. This budget presents more of the same Labor tactics that we have become familiar with, so I find it disappointing that my colleagues and I have had to repeatedly address the same issues year after year. Issues including poor economic growth, unemployment and rising costs of living, far from being resolved are in fact becoming worse under this tired government.

Labor's high taxes and overspending has not and will not work. It is ordinary South Australians who are suffering and will continue to suffer. This is the third consecutive jobs budget—and I say, so-called jobs budget—that we have seen from Labor, yet little improvement to economic growth or employment has been achieved. We need drastic change to pull this state out of the economic decline that Labor has created with years of poor management. This state has the potential for prosperity. South Australians should not have to put up with more Labor excuses. There is no reason why our state cannot thrive with economic activity, innovation and industry.

This state has endured such low economic growth over the past few years that the government continually reduces growth targets, and yet we still cannot meet them. We continue to fall behind. South Australia's economic growth over the past five years has averaged less than half of the national figure. Forecasts predict growth at only a third of the national rate for 2017-18.

South Australia's export performance currently sits at $11.6 billion, well below the government's target of $18 billion that was set in 2014. The government refuses to take responsibility for South Australia's poor economic situation, failing to deliver the strong economic leadership our state so desperately needs.

The government has presented $2 billion of new spending in this budget over the next four years but has introduced no new savings measures to counter this spending. The Treasurer's surplus has suffered because of the government's nonsensical commitment to investing in short-term solutions and inefficient spending. This is simply bad government.

The budget raises nearly $420 million worth of new taxes. A complete structural change to the budget is needed. Sustained reductions in government spending and an adherence to efficient, smarter spending is what our state requires. With controlled government spending, taxes can be reduced and vital, productive projects funded. This will address our poor economic growth and unemployment.

It is extremely disappointing to see the disastrous impact that Labor's failed economic strategy has had on our state. We have experienced a huge population exodus of 7,000 people in the past year to other states. These figures have prompted the government to abandon yet another of its targets: to increase South Australia's population to two million by 2027. It is no wonder we are losing so many people interstate when job prospects in our state are so dismal. It is obvious from the fact that we will soon have our lowest level of federal representation since 1954 that South Australia is going backwards. Sadly, this government's so-called jobs budget does little to fix the problems they have created.

Earlier this month, the government was quick to congratulate itself on our unemployment figures, but in reality these numbers were in part due to the uptake of the government's latest wage subsidy program. The government cannot continue to subsidise jobs in the private sector in order to create these misleading employment figures.

Short-sighted grants and schemes will do little in the long term to build our economy. Conveniently, the government failed to address the decline in the participation rate or the fact that for the 33^rd month in a row South Australia has the highest trend unemployment. I am particularly concerned with our appalling rate of youth unemployment, which is at 15.8 per cent. With these figures, more and more of our home-grown talent, entrepreneurs and bright young minds will be forced to leave the state for work.

The government needs to realise that economic growth, and hence new jobs, will only come with substantial tax relief for all businesses. With lower taxes South Australian businesses would be able to employ more people and our economy would grow. Real jobs growth will flow from a flourishing private sector. The most important thing the government can do is facilitate the right economic environment for business. This brings me to the issue of our budget's payroll tax cuts for small business, just another inadequate plan of the government to try to create jobs.

I do support taxation relief for South Australians, but these cuts are simply not sufficient to address the issues that this state is facing. Over the next four years, the revenue the government expects to receive from payroll tax is almost $5 billion. Business creates jobs and payroll tax is just another way in which this government is hindering job creation. Using the revenue from payroll tax to create a $200 million future jobs fund makes little sense. Instead, we should be cutting payroll tax for businesses of all sizes as well as reducing unnecessary red tape and regulation, which would create jobs and increase productivity.

We need efficient taxes in this state, something the government has given up trying to achieve. Payroll tax is simply not efficient and does more harm in stifling job creation than good in generating revenue for the government. We need to raise revenue at the lowest cost to the economy and an aggressive payroll tax is not the way to do this. The government's answer to everything is to increase taxes, but in this budget they went even further.

The proposed bank tax is another unnecessary and inequitable tax which has been widely condemned by experts and major industry groups, feedback that this arrogant Labor government is intent on blindly disregarding. The government failed to even consult with their own Investment Attraction agency. Approximately 145,000 South Australians own bank shares. It is naïve of the government to expect that this tax will have no negative repercussions for the people of South Australia. This tax will harm employment and economic growth at a time when we must do everything in our power to attract investment in our state.

The reality is that South Australians cannot afford to pay another Labor tax. The government expects that it will collect $370 million of revenue from this bank tax, money that the government could have easily generated from other sources had it managed to control its own spending. South Australians do not deserve to have another tax imposed on them due to this government's irresponsibility and carelessness when it comes to managing its budget. Our state needs stability and strength in its economy to attract investment, and a random and thoughtless tax like this one will only deter it.

As the government introduces a new cash grab in its bank tax, it is appalling to see just how irresponsibly the government is spending its money. The budget has seen a huge increase in money spent by the government, but not in places where it is really needed. The pork-barrelling we observe from this government is disgraceful and shows how Labor has lost touch with reality and the community. Our regions have been severely neglected in this budget.

Regions make up almost a third of our state's population and contribute over $25 billion to our GSP, yet the government ignores their desperate need for investment in health and road infrastructure. Less than 11 per cent of budget spending on new operating initiatives is being invested in regional South Australia. Our regions are facing serious issues of unemployment and population loss, yet the government is apathetic, focusing on metropolitan areas to satisfy their political agenda. We must provide access to safe roads and decent health care for all, not just those in marginal seats. It is disgraceful that Labor has chosen to ignore our regional areas when many of the issues they face are the product of the government's failed policies, which are only getting worse.

I cannot conclude without highlighting one of the government's most costly failures: its management of our health system. Transforming Health is just another example of how much wastage the government has created when it comes to public spending. The new RAH is costing taxpayers over $1 million a day, yet our hospital system remains in crisis, with ramping and overcrowding. EPAS is overdue, overbudget and consistently failing. It is, at best, counterintuitive and, at worst, putting patient safety at risk. It is understandable why South Australians are fed up. Even the government is trying to belatedly distance itself from Transforming Health, acknowledging how disastrous it has been.

Anyone can tell from this budget that an election is looming next year. The government is clearly distracted and negligent about the issues that matter to our state. We need to prioritise lower taxes to drive investment and jobs growth. The only way for South Australians to achieve the prosperity it deserves is to elect a Liberal government in March next year.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (12:15): I rise as a Greens member in this place to speak to the Appropriation Bill. It will come as no surprise that the Greens will be supporting the bank levy—we are not afraid of calling it a bank tax—indeed, taxes and levies are the same thing when you boil it down. They are the way that we pay for the things that we need. The Greens know that the economy must work for the benefit of society and not the other way around. This is the hallmark of a progressive taxation system.

We are now in the middle of Anti-Poverty Week, a week that we should not have to mark each year, but the growing inequality in Australia and the growing levels of poverty are, to all of our shame in parliament, happening across this country. This is a time when we should be envisaging a society that is free of poverty and, preferably, free of greed, and working for the benefit of all, not the benefit of the few, where poverty has been eradicated and where a level playing field and opportunities exist.

The work of this parliament is crucial in removing poverty and hardship and it is our job to show leadership. Supporting a levy or a tax on the banks is the right thing to do. The Greens are a party that will stand up for what matters in the face of even the extensive public campaign being waged by the Australian Bankers’ Association in opposition to this tax. Supporting a tax on the banks is the right thing to do and that is what we will do.

Everyone should contribute and those who can afford to pay should pay, raising revenue for where it is needed: health, education and, of course, our future. Australia’s banking sector is amongst the most concentrated in the world. Our big banks are the most profitable in the world. Meanwhile, state governments in particular struggle to raise revenue; money that is needed for the public good. The Greens have called for a tax on the banks at a federal level for many years and so, of course, welcome this policy at a state level.

Since the global financial crisis, the big four banks have benefited from an implicit, too-big-to-fail policy, as the IMF has made clear. Other industries would love the luxury of being underwritten in the same fashion as the banks are by the federal government. Benefiting from this leg-up, the banks then go on to post record profits, with the big banks, of course, dominating the market. In fact, earlier this year, The Sydney Morning Herald reported that half-year profits of the big four banks combined were likely to exceed $15 billion and, indeed, that they are undertaxed by $4 billion. It is therefore not unreasonable to expect the banks to be paying their fair share.

I note that the original figure cited was some $370 million and that that has risen slightly since the Treasurer introduced this legislation. Imagine what we could do with that money. If this bill fails, if it is defeated and this money is not there, imagine what we will have to choose not to do with this money. Budget documents and appropriations are choices that we make. Politics is about opportunities, challenges and choices.

This week we will see a 50-year history of automotive manufacturing close a chapter in the story of our state. That should not be the end of the story. We should go on to do better and look to the future. My sympathies are with those Holden workers and the on-flow that will come with the loss of the Holden factory and, of course, all of the flow-on. However, here in this place we should be looking to the future and creating a future. We should be seeing the challenges of a crumbling manufacturing base and grasping the opportunities.

Senator Nick Xenophon, throwing his hat into the ring for this parliament, just a few short weeks ago stated that we are at a crossroads. That was where I agreed with Senator Xenophon's statement that day when he declared that he will be coming and contesting the seat of Hartley. What I do not agree with is the choices he intends to make. Senator Xenophon, of course, has indicated that he opposes this bank tax. Well, I think Senator Xenophon then needs to indicate which services he wishes to cut, which opportunities he does not wish to see in this state.

I want to go through and make note of a few key points of this budget. The Gonski money in this state Appropriation Bill is guaranteed, despite the federal cuts. The Greens support that; we stand by the full and original Gonski. We believe our schools should be funded to need, not greed. We believe that our kids deserve the best education in this country that we can provide for them, and we should be making sure that we do that by providing the funding that is needed.

The government has also indicated here, on a much smaller level, that there is a Fund My Community project, where neighbours and communities can identify good projects that should be funded, and there will be a voting system. I believe the acting president may well have already had his vote on the interweb, casting his support for his particular favoured communities, but I urge the Weatherill government to reflect on the fact that in June 2013 the Premier provided formal notice to the Adelaide city council that the Adelaide city skate park was to be closed. It is now four years and four months since that notice was given.

For a year the skate park lived in limbo, and that is a project that I considered putting forward to Fund My Community: it is because this Weatherill government has left that particular project languishing for four years and four months. Of course, the skate park had to go at the time. We have seen the building of the cancer research centre and that whole health and biomedical precinct established on North Terrace. It is a fine thing, it is a wonderful thing: I welcome that initiative. What I do not welcome is the complete absence of care for, particularly, the kids who used that skate park and certainly the community that used that skate park. They are still limping along with a second-rate solution, down in the East Parklands, of a temporary space that is not fit for purpose, that creates more problems than it sought to solve, and that shows that there was no care for that particular part of our community.

In the state election in 2014, the candidate for Labor, David O'Loughlin, promised that only Labor would fund a new skate park. Unfortunately, his promise has not come to fruition. I urge the Labor Party to get their skates on and to ensure that we fund that skating community and honour the promise the Premier made, when he launched the biomedical precinct build, that it would be replaced and it would be replaced with a permanent skate park. It is a very small matter, but if you cannot get the small things right that is an indication that your care for community is perhaps lacking, and all the polls and internet surveys in the world will not fix that particular motivational problem.

So, this bill is about those challenges, those opportunities, and the choices we make. We are, of course, at the end of the line in this state when it comes to our water, to the Murray-Darling Basin. We are, of course, at the end of the line when it comes to our power supply, and we are often ridiculed when it comes to our Prime Minister.

A question in the parliament by the member for Mayo about power outages in her electorate resulted in the Prime Minister dubbing us a socialist paradise—an odd response from a Prime Minister to what was an emergency situation, a situation where one would think statesman-like attitudes should be shown rather than political pointscoring.

When this state faced that major statewide blackout and the lights went out, just over a year ago, on 28 September—which was not the subject of the member for Mayo's question by the way—at that time, our state pulled together. At that time, we had a statewide crisis. That night, the community came to the fore. That night, not a single person died as a result of that emergency situation. I think that is to be commended. It shows the spirit of South Australians, that when we are faced with challenges we will rise to them.

I note that on that night, with the power out, it took a few hours for most people to get home on their commute from their workplaces or places of education. I would note that that is pretty much the regular commute for most people living in either the outer suburbs or the regional areas of Melbourne and Sydney. So, for one night we sucked that particular aspect up, but what we will not stomach is the attitude of a federal Liberal government that blames us for situations that have been created, not through our choices here in South Australia but, indeed, through choices made at a federal level of contempt for our state.

We have a challenge here in terms of creating new industries, and that challenge means that we have to recognise that many of the blue-collar jobs that we once were very proud to have here need to become new-colour jobs. We need to look to the future, we need to retool and we need to reimagine what it is that our employment will look like in this state. One opportunity the Greens have certainly been very strongly in support of is medicinal cannabis and industrial hemp, and I welcome the office that is charged with responsibilities for those two portfolios and simply remark yet again that there is a great financial opportunity, a great employment opportunity here for South Australia.

In the US, if a Hershey's chocolate factory can be retooled to become a medicinal cannabis manufacturing plant, then surely we can do similar work in South Australia—and I cannot help but remark that, of course, I think we should keep the chocolate factories as well. Indeed, over in the US there is what they are calling the green rush—not the goldrush, but the green rush. With medicinal cannabis and industrial hemp, there is a great economic opportunity here for South Australia, and we should be seizing it.

Even if we just look to our health budget and savings, and if we look to the area of pain and palliative care, health economist Professor Simon Eckermann has shown that in the first year alone we would save $730 million a year on pain and palliative care costs alone, with that figure quickly rising into the billions in the next few years. Yet, when we talk about pain and palliative care in this place, we do not talk about that unless the topic of voluntary euthanasia comes before this place. That is a choice we have seen made too many times in this place. The Greens flag that we will be putting the issues of pain and palliative care onto the state election agenda, and we welcome all parties to work with us in addressing that.

The final area of health that I wish to address is again a matter of choice. This week, I attended an art auction at Tarnanthi. That auction raised almost $170,000 to kickstart Western Desert Dialysis providing on-community dialysis in the Pukatja community. It will start on 1 July next year. It will start without a single cent being allocated in this Appropriation Bill towards that. I hope that in future appropriation bills to see the state government come to the party and to support those people who need dialysis, to stay on their homelands in their country, with their community, and not to have to make an awful choice of whether to die without health treatment, or to die alone in Adelaide or Alice Springs.

With those few words, I say that we have some choices to make here. The Greens have clearly shown what our choices will be. We will put community first, we will fight against inequality, we will support community wherever we can, and we will stand up against the bullies. The Australian Bankers' Association have certainly declared a major campaign to defeat this tax.

They have picked their preferred Premier, with the poll that the Australian Bankers Association commissioned that was released yesterday—in fact, I heard it was leaked but if that is a leak then we are all in Yes, Prime Minister territory right now. The Australian Bankers Association own-commissioned poll said that Nick Xenophon is the preferred premier at 41 per cent; coincidentally, Nick Xenophon also supports opposition to the bank tax that will pay for the services we need, so it is no surprise who they have picked to be their winner come March next year.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (12:30): I rise to speak to the Appropriation Bill 2017. I will start my remarks with a quote from Raymond Spencer, the chair of the Economic Development Board. I put on the record that I know Raymond quite well; our sons are together at school and I have had a quite extensive interaction with Raymond over the years. I think it is important to look at a speech he made about three and half years ago. He said:

I believe that South Australia is at a pivotal time in its history. This is the decade when it will be decided whether it's a new dawn or approaching dusk, whether South Australia continues to be a glowing example of one of the world's greatest places to live or a 2030 Harvard case study entitled 'Lost Opportunity'.

it is three and half years later, and when we look back I think we have lost a fair opportunity in those three and half years. Other members of the Economic Development Board I have spoken to—not Raymond, other members—have been frustrated, and I know that Steven Marshall and our team have also been quite frustrated. You have a high-quality bunch of people providing good advice to the government but our economic standing in the community is sliding, with higher unemployment, lower productivity, lower exports. Look at all the indicators. Exports are dropping, even our tourism numbers—although our tourism minister would claim we are growing, we are actually shrinking in the national pie.

I said to one of the members of the Economic Development Board, 'Either you guys are giving them really bad advice or they’re not listening.' His response was that he could not quite work it out but it was either that they had an incompetent bureaucracy or an incompetent government that does not listen. These people are frustrated. They have been providing high level advice on how they think we can get this state back on track, yet on every indicator the state's economy is declining.

The government's response to most of its crises is to tax more. We have the state bank tax that members have been addressing—I heard the previous speaker speak a little about the state bank tax—and the removal of the emergency services remissions, which is really just another tax on property owners, and there is the car park tax that was defeated after the last election. Again, just another tax is the solution. There are the NRM levies and a whole range of other levies, which are effectively taxes on people, especially our primary producers. We have seen this over the last nearly 16 years now.

We had a River Murray levy earlier in the piece. The solution to any problem is that they will just tax it. Well, as you know, Mr President, you cannot tax yourself back into recovery. If you look at Raymond Spencer's words regarding a new dawn or an approaching dusk, this is an approaching dusk that has pretty much been led by a very incompetent government whose only solution is to tax more.

It beggars belief some of things they have been spending money on. We have seen a massive increase in government advertising, we have seen a massive increase in waste. In passing you meet various people who work in different government agencies, and they comment on the waste they see in their particular areas. It is a common thread, the waste of money and resources. It will be an interesting journey for whoever wins the next election, because we will either go down a path of 20 years of this incompetent mismanagement or we will have the potential, as Raymond Spencer says, for a new dawn and an opportunity to reset the state's economy.

You only have to look at the biggest issue that is facing South Australians, namely, electricity. The Hon. Gail Gago, the Hon. Tom Koutsantonis and I were on the ERD committee some 15 years ago when we were warned by Lew Owens that if you had too much renewable energy you could risk your network security and drive the cost of electricity up. It is interesting to note some facts the Treasurer put on the table. This is in response to a Dorothy Dixer question in the House of Assembly on Tuesday 14 February. I think the question was from Mr Eddie Hughes:

My question is to the Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy. Minister, can you explain to the house the operation of the state-based renewable energy target and its commonwealth equivalent?

So, that was the nature of the question. In his answer he talked about renewable energy and said:

…this government set South Australia's renewable energy target at 50 per cent of power generation by 2025, subject to the commonwealth government retaining its renewable energy policy.

He then went on to say, and I think this is one of the most important facts I have yet seen in this whole debate:

More than $7 billion—

that is $7,000 million—

has been invested in renewable energy projects in South Australia, with about 41 per cent of that in regional South Australia.

That is from renewable energy: wind and solar. In the last 10 to 12 years, we have had $7 billion invested in renewable energy in South Australia, yet we have one of the world's most unreliable networks, as we saw with the events that unfolded last year, and one of the most expensive. This is all at a time when we have had this $7 billion—not necessarily of government money but from superannuation funds and private companies—and mums and dads putting solar panels on their roof because they thought it was a good thing to do. We now have this $7 billion investment. You would assume that with a $7 billion investment you would get a good outcome, not one where prices are going up and the security is unreliable.

Of course, we have seen the government allow the Northern power station to be bulldozed. I always have a simple view of these things: if you own South Australia or if you were a responsible government trying to make sure that their flock of 1.7 million people was going to be well catered for and not put at risk, and if you were going to take a big part of the energy supply out of the equation, you would make sure that you had a guarantee that it was there somewhere else. However, with this government we have seen that it is not. After $7 billion of private investment in the renewable energy sector over the last decade, or a bit more, we still have an insecure and unreliable system.

There are now two different options on the table. We have the Liberals' option for energy security. The three things that are most important to the Liberal Party are to make electricity affordable, reliable and secure. That is why one of the major planks of our policy will be a $200 million interconnection fund to provide for an interconnector to New South Wales.

It is interesting that, when you look around the world, every country that has a large amount of renewable energy and a large penetration of renewable energy is interconnected. There are some examples in Europe where parts of some countries have 120 or 130 per cent of their actual daily use available from renewable sources. However, when the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine, they are 100 per cent interconnected to another country that has either a nuclear power station or a coal power station.

So, the only way that really works is to have high-level interconnectivity, yet we have seen this government saying, 'No, we want to go it alone and build our own power station.' If you actually look at some of the facts, it is expected to operate in a one in 10-year event by 2019-20. It is a huge investment in something that we may never use. It is a bit like the desal plant: we have to have it because we need to be secure. We needed a 50-gigalitre plant; we did not need a 100-gigalitre plant for water, and exactly the same could be said.

We needed to keep the Northern power station open until we had a better, more sensible, secure supply of energy. We have $500 million being spent by both political parties in response to the fact that we no longer have a Northern power station. For $24 million, you could have kept it open for another three years, and you may well have been able to keep it open for a year or two longer if you had needed to, but you could have had a proper exit strategy for that power station to not leave the 1.7 million people, the flock of South Australians, exposed.

From a farming analogy, if you had a flock of 1.7 million sheep and you wanted to make sure that you could provide water for them and you had an old coal-fired pump that was pumping water and you had a whole bunch of new windmills, you would not bulldoze the coal-fired pump just on the view that you thought the windmills would be pumping water. You would not ever take the risk that you would leave your flock, the people of South Australia, exposed and at risk, which this government has done.

Of course, you see the exposure as mums and dads are paying much more for their electricity. Earlier this week we saw in the newspaper 102,000 people getting food because they cannot afford to pay their food bills and their electricity; elderly people not being able to pay their electricity bills; businesses having to shut on a regular basis because they simply cannot afford their energy bills. Only a couple of days ago I was talking to one brand-new small business that said their electricity bills had gone up. They budgeted on $30,000 a year, which I thought was excessive. It is now well over $50,000 a year and they are not sure if they can keep the doors open.

For many of the small businesses around the state that the government has given money to, whether it is regional development fund money or some of the other grant programs, I wonder whether there is a clawback provision if they shut their doors. Maybe that is a question for question time and not the budget speech, because I doubt whether the minister will have it. But I am aware that for some of these grants you actually have to commit to milestones and you get funding as you employ people. I am told that if you do not complete what you say or you shut your doors, you have to pay the money back. If you have had to shut the doors because electricity is too high so you cannot afford to pay that bill, is the government clawing back money from those small businesses? That is maybe a question for another day.

Mr Acting President, I am aware of the time. I have quite a significant amount more to go. I am just wondering whether I can seek leave to conclude.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: How much more?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I did want to speak a lot more, but I am aware of the time. I will just make a couple more quick comments then, Mr Acting President, on a couple of the areas that I am responsible for.

I am the shadow minister for tourism, agriculture and regional development. On tourism, it is interesting that minister Bignell and the government claim they are getting growing numbers. We are growing but at a much lower rate than the rest of the nation. Last December, China Southern Airlines announced three flights a week to Adelaide. In the same week, they announced three flights a day to Melbourne and Sydney. So, while we have some growth, we do not have enough growth.

We have just seen the opening of the Convention Centre. It is a wonderful, wonderful facility. That is why the opposition was very happy to commit $40 million over the next four years to the events and convention bid fund to attract more people to Adelaide and to the Convention Centre. Again, I come back to the simple view that, if you owned it and it was your own private investment—the Convention Centre is probably worth $1 billion now with the last $300-odd million that has been spent—you would actually be out there marketing and selling it.

We had the International Astronautical Congress here with a bit over 4,000 delegates. You almost want one of them a month. You want that place humming every month of the year. It was a great event. My understanding is an approach was made nine years ago and then the last four years have been the build-up to have that here.

These things do not happen overnight. You have to have money and effort in the marketplace to go out and promote them. That is why we were very happy to commit to a $40 million fund to attract conventions and events to South Australia. We are very surprised that that is some $19.5 million more than the government; it is almost double. I find it almost unbelievable that the government would do that after investing that money. Only Labor would spend all that money and then not go out and market it. It is a bit like the field of dreams: build it and they will come. Well, it is a very competitive marketplace.

New South Wales is out of the market, with building Barangaroo. Sydney is out of the space a bit at the moment, so there is a little bit of a vacuum that we could try to fill, but sadly, that has not happened. I do hope that the government come to their senses during the election campaign and up that offering, because whoever wins the next election, the taxpayers of South Australia need that Convention Centre full every day of the year, if it can be. We know the impact of jobs in our hotels and restaurants, the benefit of having tourists here and growing that market. There are some wonderful opportunities.

Just quickly, in agriculture, I think we have a wonderful opportunity to grow that sector. The government largely relies on what drops out of the sky, and if we have a good year they go out and brag about the great season we have had, when Mr Bignell and his team have had absolutely nothing to do with it.

We see what is happening with the Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme. They are putting water on the market that is more expensive than the existing system and they wonder why there is no uptake from farmers. It does not make sense that you would try to almost gouge farmers, and I am told that was just SA Water's initial offer. They are the only supplier of water. Why would they go out with an initial offer and then go and negotiate it back? Why would they not just come up with a price that is fair and equitable?

These farmers are going to compete against other farmers in other parts of the nation, in Werribee and other parts. You have to compare apples with apples. They are using recycled effluent. We have to make sure we are competitive, but this government does not understand that. It beggars belief that SA Water would say, 'Oh well, we will go back and make another offer.' I cannot believe that minister Hunter would actually think that was a sensible way to do it, except that, as I said at the start of my comments about taxing, it is just another way of grabbing revenue out of hardworking Australians, especially that group, where we have huge opportunities to expand our horticultural sector.

We have seen some of the things that Sundrop is doing up in Port Augusta and D'VineRipe in Virginia. I am not sure when they are going to make the formal announcement, but I know that Sundrop is about to start the construction of the strawberry and blueberry operation in Millicent at the back of Kimberly-Clark, using the effluent water from Kimberly-Clark. That is a really great thing to do, to take that effluent water and turn it into strawberries and blueberries.

If you think about it, you have tomatoes and high-value products being grown at Port Augusta right the way down across our climate zone, right to Mount Gambier and almost to Millicent. The opportunities are immense if we get the right settings there. That is one of the reasons we have proposed the Globe Link proposal, and in the long term an international freight airport, because we cannot just flood the market and drive the price down locally. We have to make sure that if we have this produce we have an access to market.

I will conclude my remarks by repeating Raymond Spencer's words, that I think at this next election we are either going to have a new dawn or we are going to stay in the same dark, dusky old place that South Australia is in. South Australians will have a clear choice next election: if they want change and they want a new dawn, they should vote for a Marshall Liberal government.

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) (12:48): I thank honourable members for their contributions on this bill. I also want to acknowledge that the Hon. Rob Lucas, as he said, is always helpful. They are his words, not mine. We were going to respond to some questions he raised when we were doing the Budget Measures Bill, but I have a couple of very quick responses. It will take about two minutes to respond to his questions now. His first question was: can we table the capital works program for the government in its entirety for the forward estimates? I seek leave to table the table that the Hon. Rob Lucas requested.

Leave granted.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The Hon. Rob Lucas asked how many public servants had actually been terminated as a result of Determination 7. My advice is the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment has advised that no employees have been declared excess pursuant to Commissioner's Determination 7: Management of Excess Employees—Redeployment, Retraining and Redundancy.

The third question asked for details of consultancies from the EY post-implementation review of RISTEC and capability review of DTF. I have been advised that, in relation to RISTEC, this is a lessons learnt review to ensure good processes in any future projects. The report is not yet complete. In relation to the capability review, this review considered the leadership, strategy and delivery of DTF. The EY review found DTF was well placed on all measures except shared commitment to sound delivery, where some improvements could be made.

Question 4 was: since July of this year, have ministerial staff been provided with any pay rise? My advice is that there has been no general pay rise approved for executives or ministerial contract staff since 1 July 2017.

Question 5 was in relation to budget funding for advertising the JOBEX program. My advice is that the planned marketing communications investment for JOBEX, South Australia's largest free employment and careers exhibition, is currently $840,000. This investment includes the associated costs of developing the marketing communications campaign. All advertising was approved, and the individual media rates are commercial in confidence.

Finally, the Hon. Rob Lucas asked for the position on amending the Public Finance and Audit Act to empower the Auditor-General to publish reports independently of the parliamentary sitting calendar. My advice is that the government has initiated work to update the Treasurer's Instructions under the Public Finance and Audit Act. That work has identified that a need may exist to also update the Public Finance and Audit Act. Any changes to the Auditor-General's reporting requirements would be considered in the context of this broader work. With that, I commend this bill to the chamber.

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) (12:53): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

Sitting suspended from 12:54 to 14:17.