Supply Bill 2018

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 30 May 2018.)

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (15:36): I rise to support this bill. I have, I suppose, the unique opportunity to once again support a Supply Bill presented to this house by the Hon. Rob Lucas as Treasurer. I am the only person who has ever had that privilege before and I am delighted to once again have that privilege, even though it has been a long time between drinks, so to speak.

As members would be aware, in the absence of special arrangements in the performance of supply acts there would be no parliamentary authority for expenditure between the commencement of the new financial year and the day on which assent is given to the main Appropriation Bill. Obviously that is going to be longer this year because of a later budget, which also results from the changeover of government at the March election. I remember such delayed budgets when the Labor Party was first elected; in fact, on one occasion they had a much later budget in midstream of their tenure. I cannot remember the reason given, but the opposition whip is nodding his head so I think his memory and mine coincide, even if we cannot remember the reason for the delayed budget.

This bill is for a figure of $6.631 billion, necessary for the continuation of funds to ensure the work of the government and its agencies and, of course, the employment of the staff of all those bodies. It is also crucial to the ability of the government to advance its relationships with many other groups in the community, including non-government organisations as well as many others.

With that in mind, I am pleased to note a media release issued by the South Australian Law Reform Institute last Friday. It is entitled 'Law Reform Institute to probe surrogacy laws'. I quote:

The South Australian Law Reform Institute (SALRI) is seeking feedback from the community as part of its comprehensive review of the state's surrogacy laws. The independent law reform body, which is based at the University of Adelaide Law School, had been asked to consider an appropriate regulatory framework for surrogacy arrangements in South Australia by former attorney-general John Rau, with current Attorney-General Vickie Chapman also supporting the review.

'This is an area of great interest to many South Australians—especially those who, through no fault of their own, are unable to have a child,' Ms Chapman said.

'SALRI is considering how South Australia's surrogacy laws work in practice, and any future reforms which may be required.

'Given the strong views this can elicit in the community, I am pleased to see SALRI take the initiative and seek feedback from all South Australians with a view on this important subject.

Professor John Williams and Senior Policy Officer Sarah Moulds, from SALRI based at the University of Adelaide, encouraged South Australians to have their say.

'We're pleased to be undertaking this topical and important reference, to consider the role and operation of the current law in South Australia,' Professor Williams said.

'It's a complex area of law, which raises difficult ethical and legal questions. SALRI looks forward to hearing the views and comments of all with an interest in this area,' Ms Moulds said.

Professor Williams said commercial surrogacy is illegal in South Australia, and SALRI would not be considering any change to that aspect of the law.

Both Professor Williams and Ms Chapman thanked Legislative Council Member John Dawkins for his ongoing commitment to pursuing reform to the state's surrogacy laws, saying he had been instrumental in driving the debate.

The institute has prepared a range of fact sheets on key issues relating to South Australia's surrogacy laws, as well as an online survey that interested South Australians can take part in.

To review these materials, take part in the survey, or make a written submission, go to the YourSay website.

As the person who has previously done all the work, with support from many in this chamber and across the parliament, as well as my very small staff and parliamentary counsel, for well over a decade, I am delighted that the South Australian Law Reform Institute will be doing this work. As it says in the media release, it is a complex area of law which raises difficult ethical and legal questions. There is no doubt that in more recent times more of those legal questions have been raised, and they are questions that need to be addressed across the whole of this commonwealth, as well as by state legislation.

I think many of us are keen that that can be dealt with nationally. I have been told for many years about things that the then standing committee of attorneys-general and, subsequently, the Council of Australian Governments were going to do in this area. I have not seen much progress from either, I must say, but I think generally governments are starting to turn their minds towards this very important issue. It is an issue that, in just about every other jurisdiction that I am aware of, has been handled by a government rather than a mug backbencher who has very few resources.

I welcome the fact that this is happening. I welcome it as long as it brings back legislation that we get through this year, because the delays for those who wish to access surrogacy have been very long and very frustrating. The Hon. Mr Hunter chaired the Social Development Committee that looked at the first bill that I brought in, which I think was in about 2007, so we have been dealing with this stuff for a long time. We passed the first bill in 2009 after a very long delay of 14 months in the House of Assembly.

Subsequently, I brought in further legislation in 2015 as a response to the baby Gammy issue and the reports of baby factories in India. That act, which actually passed the parliament without division, unfortunately was never operated by the previous attorney-general and there are differing views about why that was the case. I still believe very strongly that the bill was one that would operate—that the act that still sits there today would operate. However, there were enough naysayers—and some of those, I would say, came out of the Attorney-General's Department—that the attorney-general of the day did not operate the act.

After some delays, the Hon. Mr Hunter was of great assistance to me in getting the attorney-general of the day to the table to agree to a compromise, so we did come up with a compromise bill. The attorney-general allowed some resources to assist me in the preparation of that bill. He was very keen that we got it through this 'terrible chamber, which caused a lot of difficulty'. He worried that I would not get it through quickly enough and I said, 'You leave this chamber to me. We are actually pretty sensible on these sorts of issues.' And we did get it through quickly and we got it through without any division or opposition.

Unfortunately, it was the old story in the House of Assembly, where I was promised faithfully that it would go through. I was promised that by the then attorney and the then premier who, of course, was very proud of what had been done with the addition of same-sex couples to the surrogacy legislation, as it was to many other pieces of legislation. He was so proud about that and I said, 'Well, you do realise that it's actually not happening because the act hasn't been operated. People are not prepared to take a chance on that.'

Once again, people in this state who were very keen to make use of our legislation were not able to because—and it was not at five minutes to midnight; it was well after midnight, I think, on the last sitting day late in November last year—despite my entreaties to make sure that this got through, other initiatives of the then government got in the way. Those other initiatives got in the way of a lot of other good legislation that had come out of this place, and my compromise surrogacy bill was one such piece of legislation.

Certain members of the then government withdrew their numbers from the House of Assembly to ensure that the debate could not happen in the early hours of that Friday morning. I think that was a disgrace. I certainly do not blame many members of the Labor Party, who have supported me very strongly with surrogacy, but there were certainly some members who were mischievous in their intent in delaying and trying to stop surrogacy at every level.

However, we have moved on. I have probably provided more history on that than I intended to. I am delighted that, given the changing nature of legal procedures in relation to family law and other matters, it is appropriate that SALRI put their shoulder to the wheel on this, and I support them. I am sure that any other members of this chamber who have views about the development of further legislation should provide that to SALRI in the manner that has been indicated.

I have made it clear to the Attorney and to Professor Williams that I am very happy to support that as long as we get some legislation back into this chamber. I think it is going to start in the other chamber, and I have asked for that. The Attorney will introduce it. It will be a conscience matter, but it will be introduced and will be handled in government time. Let us hope that we get something back through the parliament and that we do not see another Christmas with this in limbo land for people who just want to access something that is part of South Australian law and is available to people in most parts of this country and the world. With great respect, there are a lot of women who want to access that because their biological clock is ticking. The people who have delayed this for so long should take note of that.

On another issue that is close to my heart, I was delighted that the federal member for Grey, Mr Rowan Ramsey, who is also the Government Whip—as a past whip, I will always have great respect for anybody who holds that position—moved a motion in the House of Representatives on 21 May this year. I will read it in part:

That this House:

(1) expresses its support for continued trials into suicide prevention in rural and regional Australia;

(2) recognises:

(a) the huge toll suicide takes on regional communities;

It also goes on further:

(4) supports funding into mental health research and trials in electoral divisions across regional Australia, such as those conducted in Whyalla, Port Augusta, Port Pirie, Port Lincoln and Yorke Peninsula, in the electoral division of Grey.

In speaking to his motion, the member for Grey said this:

Through the Country SA Primary Health Care Network, the 'question, persuade and refer' training program is being offered to around 1,000 community members within the National Suicide Prevention Trial regions, including Port Lincoln, Whyalla, Port Augusta, Port Pirie and the Yorke Peninsula. The program is designed to equip everyday people with three simple steps to help save a life: ask a question, try to persuade the person to seek help and then refer that person to the appropriate assistance. Like all pilot programs, we can never be sure of the results, but it's fair to say that we have not arrived at this point by accident. The program is being implemented on the best advice. We recognise the value of the community knowing how to assist and hopefully one day save a life.

Five suicide prevention groups in Grey have been awarded grants through the National Suicide Prevention Strategy to continue to work to reduce the number of suicides. These are the Empowering Lower Eyre Suicide Prevention Network, the Port Lincoln's suicide prevention network—

which I interpose is known as Lincoln Alive—

Stamp Out Suicide Copper Coast, Stamp Out Suicide Yorke Peninsula and the Whyalla Suicide Prevention Network. As part of this strategy, the government is also extending support for Roses in the Ocean training for community members with a lived experience of suicide, which has been accessing data from regional community suicide prevention forums and the online survey to help identify the key priorities in the trial region. Strong themes have emerged during the regional suicide prevention networks' work.

I am also pleased to report that John Dawkins, MLC, has been appointed as chair of the Premier's Council on Suicide Prevention, a state government initiative tasked with reducing SA's suicide rate. Mr Dawkins, who has for more than a decade been a passionate advocate for suicide prevention, will act as the Premier's Advocate for Suicide Prevention. I have already spoken to John about the links between the SA and federal governments, and I look forward to working closely with him.

I welcome that cooperation with the federal programs. There is not necessarily a difference of politics between governments. I think that over a lot of my lifetime I have seen, sometimes, federal programs and state programs operating without talking to each other or communicating with each other as well as they could.

There are obviously differences and, generally, as the Hon. Mr Hunter and others would know, the feds have a lot more money in their pocket than do state programs, but there is a benefit in this work that is being done in South Australia now working with those state-run or state-initiated networks. I have seen great value.

In the last six days, I have had the privilege of speaking at three significant suicide prevention/mental health events, ranging from Glencoe in the South-East last Thursday to Port Lincoln yesterday, and in between one that was conducted at the University of South Australia's east campus in Adelaide on Tuesday. Certainly, I think the collaboration between state and federal, between universities and a lot of other community groups, is important in this mental health space, particularly with suicide prevention. So I commend all these bodies for that work.

As I move forward in my work as the Premier's advocate in suicide prevention, I see that one of the key roles is in harvesting the opportunities that we can get from working, particularly in this state, with the primary health network, Country SA, which is doing really good work in the area.

I welcome the fact that I have great support in this role from right across the political divide. That was highlighted the other night when I did an interview with Paul and Laureen Newsham on 1079 Life on their program called Sunday Night Talk. The fact is that the awareness is there, but the community is growing in its capability and its ability to say, 'Let's do stuff in this area, and let's not let the stigma get in the way, as it has over many generations.'

So they are just a couple of areas in which I think the money provided through this Supply Bill can aid state government agencies. All of us who are paid from the state coffers can do more in the areas of both suicide prevention and reform of surrogacy legislation. With those remarks, I support the bill.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (15:59): I rise to make a few remarks in relation to this bill, which, of course, as a government member I will be supporting. Members in this place would be well aware how imperative its passage is, given that it will appropriate the $6.6 billion necessary to enable the newly elected Marshall Liberal government to carry on the business of government until the budget is delivered in the next financial year.

As I have indicated in this place previously, I am excited to be part of a team that seeks to govern with fiscal conservatism, allocating taxpayers' money wisely and with careful consideration in order to fulfil its election commitments in line with community expectation. I firmly believe the implementation of the Marshall Liberal government's policy commitments will prove to be in the best interests of all South Australians.

Many of these initiatives will no doubt serve to revitalise our state's economy after far too many years of overtaxing and overspending by the previous government. Having long advocated for lower taxation, I anticipate the Marshall Liberal government's removal and reduction of an array of taxes will provide the relief to industry and individuals that is required to transform our state into a far more attractive place in which to live, work, invest and conduct business.

It is not sustainable to rely on increased taxes and new levies in conjunction with selling off valuable government assets in a futile attempt to keep up with overexpenditure. If I reflect on my own past, prior to my entry into politics, I recall for those members who are not aware that, whilst living in Adelaide, my particular role was based in Sydney and I would commute to Sydney on a weekly basis.

I had a number of work colleagues who became friends in Sydney and we would often talk about the differences between living in Sydney and living in Adelaide. I would always be a staunch defender of Adelaide and South Australia, but I think it is fair to say that over the period of time there, the esteem in which our state was held started to decline amongst my work colleagues, whether they were senior or junior to me, and it was seen as a less desirable place to live.

When I pointed out the relative cheapness—if that is the right word—in the price of housing relative to Sydney, for example, that did create some interest, but there was always the standard question, 'Well, what would I do there? What would my career look like? What opportunities would I have? What opportunities would my children have?' Really, I think that is the crux of it. We need a state economy that is thriving to create opportunities for people to genuinely want to stay and invest and develop a career here for themselves, their children and their families. That is really the crux, I think, of good economic management.

In many ways, perception is important, but the reality of being able to develop an interesting career, interesting work that pays well, of course, and being able to provide well for their families is ultimately what the overwhelming majority of people are seeking. That is fundamentally what I would see as the real essence of government: to create the environment in which those conditions can flourish.

Obviously, over many decades there has been a great debate amongst various economists and within political circles about what that looks like. What is the best way to achieve that outcome? Some would argue, for example, that we should provide a higher tax regime, that government knows best, that government can use that money to invest wisely in various industries that will benefit from that investment and that that will create further employment opportunities and ultimately create wealth for individuals and for society as a whole, which of course means better health care and all the spin-offs that improving or growing wealth creates.

I am not of that school. I do not believe that government knows best. In fact, in my experience, government often manages to find a way to mess these things up. Government, in my view, is best, where possible, where appropriate and where probable, to get out of the way. I am not suggesting that we do not have government, of course—I am not an extremist—but I do believe that the best governments are small governments. The best governments are governments that have a limited vision of intervention. They intervene only where necessary and only when necessary.

That is something that I think we have neglected in this state. We have had a philosophy of overintervention from government, in my view, for many years under the previous government. I do not say this necessarily as any direct criticism of the government. That was their view and they acted on their view. They were entitled to do that; they were in government. But my personal view is very different to that and aligns much more with what is now the Marshall Liberal government's philosophy: to intervene only when necessary and only where necessary, and that taxes should be lower.

In my view, the bottom line is that the private sector knows how to spend that money. Ultimately, it is their money. The money is generated by the private sector and therefore best spent by the private sector. There is a very simple saying and I often say it to people around me: no-one spends your own money as wisely as you do and no-one will look after your own money as wisely as you will. That applies at the individual level but it also applies at the corporate level, whether it be small businesses, very small businesses, from sole operators right up to very large organisations.

Ultimately, private enterprise has to return a profit to exist for any sustained period. That is the ultimate driver. The so-called profit motive drives, in my view, the most appropriate decisions and the wisest and usually the most frugal decisions. Governments, of course, are not usually bound by that discipline. Governments can run deficits for an extended period, and we see that at a federal level. In my view, that is not a long-term sustainable position that is in the best interests of the population. It is possible but it is not in the best interests of the population.

Looking at the specifics of the Marshall government plan, I think the removal of payroll tax to small businesses is certainly one of the most vital keys in achieving some of the objectives that I have just outlined and one that I have advocated for since I walked into this place just over 12 years ago. There are more than 143,000 small businesses in South Australia that employ fewer than 20 people each, and they comprise some 98 per cent of all businesses operating in our state. Given that these businesses provide employment to fully one-third of our workforce, I am sure members would agree that we cannot afford to have any of these businesses at risk of closure simply because payroll tax encumbrances have rendered their operations unviable or at least increasingly difficult.

I note the previous government had a growth rate target for small business in South Australia of 5 per cent and that recent figures for the last financial year reveal that it fell well short of that with an actual growth rate of 1.6 per cent. This is not at all surprising given that we have, unfortunately, had the lowest payroll tax threshold of almost every state; that is, the lowest level at which business is required to pay payroll tax. I do not know how the former government could have expected any other outcome under these circumstances. Increasing our employment rate is an obvious priority and a greater focus on ensuring the success of all our small businesses is a vital part of this process.

Those are fairly generic statements and I am sure everyone would agree with them. The disagreement is about how you achieve that objective. As I said, I am very much in the 'limited government' camp—not 'no government'. There is a role for government but I am very much in the limited government camp as my experience in the private sector says to me that government made things harder for industry usually and very rarely made it easier. They also almost always made it more expensive and almost always created barriers to private enterprise success.

In addition to the reduction of further imposts such as the emergency services levy, land tax and the natural resources management levy, I am pleased with another initiative of the Marshall Liberal government that will benefit both business as well as households—the development of a new strategy centring on reliability and affordability. Unfortunately, South Australia's energy security has been one of the topics that has been highly questionable and has often received even ridicule from other states and certainly from other governments within our country.

One of the reasons for that, in my view, is that we were striving, under the previous government, to meet self-imposed and unrealistic clean energy targets, causing an unwarranted preoccupation with unreliable and heavily subsidised renewable technologies. I am not saying there is no role for this technology—of course there is and, indeed, I believe it genuinely is the way of the future. The question is the rate of uptake: how quickly do we go down that path? I think that is where the disagreement lies.

My view is that we have been rushing down that path for largely ideological reasons, which have their place. Again, I am not completely opposed to these sorts of technologies; indeed, I can see the advantages of them. The question is: how quickly do we adopt their uptake? I am certainly not a supporter of unnecessary subsidies to these industries. There is a place and time for these sorts of things with genuinely new technology, but not at the expense of existing technology that has served us well for a very long time.

The failure to consider and invest more in other power sources was at least partly responsible for the statewide blackout in 2016 and further blackouts in 2017, which put our emergency services at risk, cost businesses over $365 million—it is widely accepted—and resulted in devastating losses and difficulties, even at hospitals and medical facilities. Needless to say, I was surprised when it was announced at the last election that the policy of the previous government, seeking to be re-elected, was to further increase its renewable energy target to 75 per cent by 2025. I think that was an ideologically driven target and, in my mind, the adoption of setting that target and achieving those levels was simply too quick to meet the practical needs of our energy requirements.

If the Liberal Party was not successful in winning the last election and forming government, South Australians would, I expect, have been paying even higher prices, under a regime of 75 per cent renewable energy, than we are at the moment. The Marshall Liberal government is committed to ensuring South Australia's energy grid is secure and generating sufficient base load power without the need for excessive subsidisation.

For too long, we have ignored the experts who have repeatedly said that another interconnector was necessary for the security of the South Australian electricity network. Now, under the new government, a $200 million interconnector fund is finally being created, with the delivery of an interconnector between our state and New South Wales as a high priority. This undertaking is just one of the government's numerous solutions to safeguard and lower the cost of our power supply, as vital as it is.

Moving on to a different issue, I have always believed in choice in education and for families to have access to schools that best suit their needs and circumstances. The new Liberal government will take a new approach to non-government schools by treating them as partners in providing our next generation of South Australians the best possible start and fostering cooperation and collaboration to prevent any perception that they are in competition with government schools.

It will continue with budgeted recurrent funding, up to 22 per cent of the schooling resource standard, improving state funding from the lowest in Australia up to the national average. It will also maintain the budgeted introduction of capital grants to non-government schools in the way of an indexed minimum $5.5 million per sector and is continuing the tender process that was underway prior to the election for improved internet services at schools.

I believe firmly in choice in education. It is very important that parents have the right to send their children to a school that appropriately reflects the values those children are taught at home, and I respect that that will be different things for different people. We have what I believe is a very good public education system in South Australia, but we also have a very good private education system and I, for one, am pleased that, in discussions I have had with the education minister and the government more broadly on this issue, there is a genuine desire to support the private sector and not have a situation where it is seen as almost in competition for the same students.

The situation should be one of choice and parents should be free to make that choice where possible. There are obviously restrictions on that; it is harder in regional areas to have genuine choice and it can be harder for financial reasons for people to have genuine choice. However, to the extent that government can, I am pleased that this government—and to be fair, the previous government to some extent—has placed a priority on allowing parents, and indeed assisting parents, to have genuine choice in choosing schooling for their children. It is one of the most important decisions a parent makes.

Whilst many of us in this chamber will be in the fortunate position of being able to have broad choice for our children in terms of where we choose to educate them, this is not always the case, as I have outlined. However, the principle here, and the most important thing in my view, is that choice is paramount. The parent should ultimately have the right to decide where to send their children and they should not be coerced into a decision one way or another.

Another focus of the Marshall Liberal government pertaining to education is the creation of more opportunities and flexible pathways for our young people to enter the workforce. This will be achieved through committing $100 million to support over 20,800 traineeships and apprenticeships. Future growth industries, sectors experiencing skills shortages, defence, trades, and rural and regional areas are receiving particular attention under this government.

The formation of at least one new technical college, the re-establishment of industry skills councils and a review of current SACE requirements to determine best practice will proceed, and I am proud to say that. This investment into our youth is critical in preventing our best and brightest from relocating interstate or overseas in order to fulfil their career and vocational aspirations. South Australia has traditionally been notorious for the exodus of our younger workers, and every possible avenue to prevent this should be engaged.

Indeed, one of the great things this government is focused on is to stop the exodus, the so-called brain drain, of our youngest and brightest and our well-developed professionals who see greener pastures and potentially higher salaries and, most commonly, more opportunity in some of the Eastern States. I believe it is incumbent on any government, and it is one of the priorities of this government, to stop that brain drain.

Many people have left South Australia over the years because the opportunities look brighter elsewhere. One of the great things about this government that I am excited about is the determination to put a stop to that brain drain and give an opportunity to our young people through investing in the things I have just outlined, in the specific industry sectors that I have just outlined, as a way of giving greater opportunity to our young people in particular.

As honourable members might recall, my former colleague in this place the Hon. Robert Brokenshire and I fought hard to expose the previous government's decision to close the Repatriation General Hospital. It was an issue that was of particular importance to me, given my father is a returned serviceman and our family has an appreciation for the significance of the Repat within the veteran community. It is something my dad has spoken about often and very fondly. Indeed, he has had a number of occasions to be treated in that facility.

I am proud to be part of a team that sees the value in re-opening this facility as a health precinct which is being recommissioned to reduce elective surgery waiting lists; provide access to a hydrotherapy pool, which is already open; and offer mental health accommodation for the elderly—all whilst maintaining the familiar culture of the Repat which is so important to our returned service men and women.

On that note, I commend the Marshall Liberal government's commitment to fund a defence industry employment program for ex-service personnel to facilitate their return to civilian employment. This effort to support our veterans and recognise their invaluable contribution is worthy of energy and finances. Again, this shows a level of respect for people who have put everything on the line for our nation, and I believe we should repay them in spades. Nothing we can do is enough, given what our veterans have put on the line and risked for us.

In regard to our state's infrastructure, South Australians deserve a forward-thinking state government that sets into motion long-term systemic plans that go beyond this current term of office. The Marshall Liberal government is taking this very approach, prioritising people before politics by establishing Infrastructure South Australia, an independent body that will combine public and private sector expertise to develop South Australia's first 20-year State Infrastructure Strategy. This innovative method of planning is long overdue.

We simply cannot afford to continue responding to the community's needs with ad hoc building projects and maintenance that is undertaken primarily to garner the favour of voters in strategic areas, often in marginal seats. I await with interest to see how this new body plans and provides for South Australians by enhancing our state's economic productivity and preparing for our anticipated and much needed population growth.

Further to this, the Marshall Liberal government is taking significant steps towards ensuring South Australian businesses are supported in their efforts to participate in government procurement for the provision of services through a range of reforms. One obvious means of ensuring public money is injected back into our economy is by encouraging local enterprise to compete for government contracts that can deliver the same or better outcomes than their interstate or foreign counterparts. Why wouldn't we keep the money in this state?

Providing targeted assistance to small and medium businesses in their preparation of tenders and ensuring at least one local business is involved in every tender are just two of this government's simple yet effective strategies to foster growth and prosperity across various private industries. Often the simple plans are those that work best. I am excited about what the potential is for this initiative. Of course, there are many other policy initiatives I could mention which the Marshall Liberal government intends to undertake, or at least commence, in the immediate future warranting the passage of this bill.

I mentioned just a few of those in my contribution today but there are many others which will make a substantial difference to the business and commerce environment in our state. It is my firm view that that will flow through to more affordable living expenses for families and, ultimately, we will see our state thrive under this new leadership. I commend the bill to the council with every confidence the funds sought by our government will be used prudently and with the best interests and welfare of South Australians at heart.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (16:20): I rise to indicate my support for the Supply Bill, which seeks approval for the appropriation of $6.631 billion for the Public Service of this state. A Supply Bill is necessary until the budget has passed through the parliamentary stages for the appropriation of money from the Consolidated Account.

In indicating my support, I note that the bill will enable delivery of a number of obligations preserved in the government's first 100 days election commitments whilst the 2018-19 budget is being finalised. The 2018-19 budget will be a landmark document for the Marshall Liberal government because, in the first instance, its focus will be the implementation of our election commitments and will pave the way for the development of a sustainable budget position for the future.

Under the leadership of the Premier, the Hon. Steven Marshall, and the Treasurer, the Hon. Rob Lucas, we will have a sustainable budget position for South Australia. One thing is certain: the Liberal government will apply prudent, accountable and realistic measures that will be entirely different and distinct from the smoke and mirrors that South Australia has been subject to for the last 16 years under a Labor government.

I would like to take a moment to congratulate our federal government on some of the key decisions made in the recent federal budget that will impact South Australia. South Australia is in better shape when the Liberal state government is working hand in hand with the federal government. In 2018-19, the commonwealth will provide South Australia with $10.8 billion in general revenue assistance and payments for specific purposes. This includes general revenue assistance from the GST of $6.9 billion next financial year, about $270 million more than estimated in the state's 2017-18 Mid-Year Budget Review.

South Australia is reaping the rewards of a strong working relationship between the Marshall state government and the Turnbull federal government. The federal budget will provide $1.8 billion in funding for major new transport projects in South Australia—this funding is in addition to the commonwealth's investment of $1.3 billion to build the new shipyard and submarine yard at Osborne—and almost $800 million on other defence infrastructure across South Australia. The Marshall Liberal government has a strong plan to grow jobs and expand the defence capabilities in South Australia. Unlike the 2017-18 federal budget, the former state government, under Labor, was unable to secure any new commonwealth money for South Australia in transport infrastructure.

I take this opportunity to highlight some of the election commitments that the Marshall Liberal government will be prioritising to effectively create a more competitive place to do business in South Australia through a range of initiatives such as scrapping payroll tax for small businesses, deregulating shop trading hours to allow businesses to remain open, and cutting land tax. South Australian businesses are doing it tough, operating under some of the highest cost structures in Australia. Our Treasurer recognises this, the Liberal bench recognises this, and that is why the Marshall Liberal government will scrap payroll tax for all small businesses in South Australia.

We will do this by exempting businesses with taxable payrolls of up to $1.5 million from paying any payroll tax. I am a strong advocate for many small to medium-sized businesses in South Australia, and I am very pleased that this government will remove the payroll tax, making South Australia a more attractive place in which to invest and grow business. I am very encouraged by the direct feedback received from the business community that they welcome the Liberal government's approach to supporting small businesses.

The biggest impost that has increased year on year is state government rates, fees and charges. Cost of living is a huge issue for South Australians—it really is. When I am out and about talking to individuals from diverse communities, the number one complaint is the increase in cost of living and how expensive it is to live in South Australia.

Capping council rates; participating in affordable and reliable energy strategies; reopening the Repat as a genuine health precinct, which is so important to our community; and a comprehensive program to improve literacy and numeracy outcomes for all students are just some of the election agenda items that we, the state government, will pursue in the 2018-19 state budget. Thanks to the diligent work of the Minister for Health and Wellbeing, the Hon. Stephen Wade, and all the Liberal MPs advocating for our communities, the vandalism of Transforming Health has come to an end.

The health minister inherited the mess and problems from Labor, but he is determined, with the state government, to fix all these problems. Those opposite should be ashamed of themselves because, when they ask questions of the Minister for Health about the problems created by the former Labor government, they should be providing the answers, too, because they did not have answers. It is the Minister for Health who inherited these problems.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: They have erased it from their memory.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: That is right. A further feature of the first 100 days is the delivery of a reduction to emergency services levy bills for South Australians. It is worth remembering that the emergency services levy impacts not just households but also sporting clubs, community groups, multicultural clubs, churches, temples and independent schools. The Liberal Party made a commitment to reinstate the remission and, in doing so, reduce the cost of living for thousands of South Australians.

Today, we welcome the announcement made by the Premier, the Hon. Steven Marshall, and our Treasurer, the Hon. Rob Lucas, in delivering on the promised ESL bill savings. We are putting money back into the pockets of households and businesses and delivering on a key election commitment to lower costs in South Australia.

The focus of the 2018-19 state budget, which is going to be handed down in September, will be the implementation of the new Marshall government's commitments, as well as developing in the long term a sustainable budget position. I remind honourable members that it is Liberal governments that deliver sensible and responsible budgets. It is Liberal governments that always fix up Labor's mess. It is not hard to reflect on political history and the State Bank disaster. It was a Brown-Olsen-Kerin government that fixed up South Australia's mess after those dark days of crisis under Labor.

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: Remember the ETSA privatisation; that disaster?

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: We had to fix up your mess.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. J.S. LEE: Federally, it was the Howard-Costello strong management that got Australia's finances back on track after the Hawke-Keating fiasco. It is this Marshall Liberal government that, over time—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. J.S. LEE: —will be the government that is asked to repair this state's fortunes after it inherited all this mess, debt and deficits over the last 16 years of Labor. It will be the Marshall Liberal government that will restore confidence for all South Australians. This is a government that I am proud to be a part of. This government is entrusted by the people of South Australia to deliver more jobs, better services and lower the cost of living and the cost of doing business.

I am incredibly excited about the space industry as well. Growing a space industry and capturing the opportunities in this sector is a key priority for the state government. Our Premier has already had discussions with the Prime Minister, the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull; the defence industry minister, Christopher Pyne; defence minister, Marise Payne; and innovation minister, Michaelia Cash. He has also met with a number of key stakeholders, including Adelaide-born astronaut Dr Andy Thomas, to put South Australia on the front foot to grow a space industry.

I had the pleasure of meeting the dynamic Andrea Boyd, a South Australian who graduated from Adelaide University who currently works with the International Space Station as a flight controller for the European Space Agency. We need to create excellent platforms to support young and talented people to stay in South Australia.

I am indeed very pleased that there is a bipartisan bid to host a national space agency in Adelaide that will lead to a multibillion dollar industry. Having the space agency here will be a springboard for private investment, and South Australia is in a prime position because of our booming defence industry. Furthermore, South Australia has a vibrant space industry ecosystem, with more than 60 South Australian-based organisations involved in commercial space activities. Our government is proud to provide new scholarships for up-and-coming space entrepreneurs because we believe in retaining the best and brightest in South Australia.

I am equally excited that our government has launched the Regional Visitor Strategy through the Hon. David Ridgway, Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. This important strategy outlines opportunities to grow South Australia's regional visitor economy by $1 billion and create 1,000 new jobs. This government is committed to more jobs for South Australians. As I said, I am very happy to be supporting this bill. The budget is just one way in which we will meet our election commitments. I look forward to the coming months, especially September, to support the vision of our Treasurer, the Hon. Rob Lucas, in delivering responsible measures for the people of South Australia.

Since the March state election, Deloitte Access Economics has released its first quarter Business Outlook for the nation and has found that South Australia may soon take over the other states and be given the title of fastest growth in the nation. I am optimistic for the future of South Australia. When the Liberal Party is on the Treasury benches, both federally and in South Australia, our citizens can breathe a little easier. We can sleep a bit better because we understand the importance of supporting families, we understand the importance of supporting small businesses, and we understand the importance of supporting our regions and communities.

The 2018 budget will be the first step on the long road back for South Australia's financial state of affairs with the restoration of the accountability promised by this government. With those words, I endorse the passage of the Supply Bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.