Digital Game Development Program

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (15:45): Supplementary: given this Liberal budget's own stated target for this budget was a focus on growth in our creative sectors, particularly industries with strong links to technology such as craft, design, screen, digital platforms and music in the interactive media, why then was the digital game development program cut?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (15:45): The pretty simple answer to that is that the government took a decision that there will be a whole new approach to industry assistance. That new approach was clearly outlined in the budget speech yesterday. We closed down a significant number of the more than 30 industry assistance programs the former government had. We believe that the provision of industry assistance should be in two forms. The first is to reduce the cost of doing business in South Australia for all businesses; so that's the payroll tax cuts, land tax, workers compensation reductions, electricity and water costs.

You have heard me talk about the total range of the cost of doing business in South Australia needing to be nationally and internationally competitive if our businesses are going to compete nationally and internationally. It doesn't matter whether you're a games producer, a creative arts-based industry or whether you're a manufacturing-based industry, your workers compensation costs, your electricity and water costs or your payroll tax costs—a variety of costs—impact on the cost of doing business in South Australia. If you are trying to compete with game producers in other states or countries, then whatever your total costs of doing business in the state are, they are an important part of how you can compete nationally and internationally. That was the first point.

We have been quite explicit about the second point we have made. No-one can criticise this government for not being transparent about this. We said for a year or more prior to the election that we were going to stop the former government's approach of politicians and public servants picking winners so the lucky small number of companies get a million dollar grant or half a million dollar grant or whatever it happens to be. There is a whole range of other businesses and industries competing with that particular business that are not a lucky winner and don't get the funding.

What we have said is that for our industry assistance programs generally—we have reserved the right of course on occasions to provide funding to an individual business or company—our emphasis is going to be on assistance to industry sectors or groups of businesses. A group of businesses might be the provision of support for transport infrastructure, energy infrastructure, water-based infrastructure or a variety of other programs where the benefit will go to a group of businesses or industries, perhaps in a geographic area, or to an industry sector that the government believes, through the provision of some sort of assistance, may well help the industry grow.

In terms of digital games and others, there are three proposed funds. One is an economic and business growth fund, another is the Regional Growth Fund, and the other is the commercialisation of a start-up fund controlled by industry. It may well be that a number of those industry supports for a sector, including digital games, may well be argued as an appropriate form of taxpayer-funded industry assistance for that particular area.

I do not think that we should just conclude that, as a result of a particular individual grant allocation program or scheme, it necessarily means that, if a group of industries or businesses in that particular sector come up with some sort of argument for government provided support that supports more than one industry, that that is not possible. They are the sorts of debates that industry sectors will have to have with the new government, with new ministers, under the new framework that was outlined in the budget yesterday.