Bills

Appropriation Bill 2018

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 6 November 2018.)

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (11:28): I rise today to provide my full support for the Appropriation Bill 2018. I am pleased to see a Treasurer hand down a budget which addresses key issues that I have spoken about for years in this place. South Australian families are no longer burdened by a government which views them as a way to increase the state's revenue. Instead, this budget aims to improve efficiencies to allow for reductions in the cost of living while providing the business environment which will enable our economy to grow well into the future.

For 16 years we were faced with sell-offs of state assets and tax hikes as a means to balance the budget and bring about false surpluses. I am happy to see a budget which aims to return this state to a sustainable position, one which does not sell the farm for glittering showpieces to distract from successive years of financial incompetence.

The rising cost of living has been a continuing issue which has plagued most South Australians. By alleviating these pressures from households, a Marshall Liberal government is not only providing budget relief to South Australians but strengthening our own economic future. Less taxes means more money in the household budget which in turn will flow into increased purchasing power and greater consumer confidence.

Households are already seeing how a Marshall Liberal government's approach to managing the budget can alleviate the cost of living. The emergency services levy has been reduced, as per our election promise. This has provided homeowners with substantial relief on their bill, a tangible piece of our plan for South Australia's future already in their hands.

Furthermore, families and businesses will soon see their electricity bills start to come down. South Australia has some of the highest electricity costs in the world. This has come about through the previous government's experimentation with unreliable power generation, leaving the people of this state to be used as guinea pigs. Not only does this deter business investment and slow down our economy but it hurts the average South Australian.

When households are unable to afford skyrocketing prices and are forced to forgo cooling their homes in the height of summer in a state so resource rich, something is clearly wrong. A Marshall Liberal government aims to reduce this trend and is committed to lowering costs for South Australians. This budget is squarely focused on reducing the cost of energy for households and businesses and delivering the government's energy solution.

Our election commitments will also see tax relief for small businesses through the removal of payroll tax. With an exemption for businesses with payrolls below $1.5 million annually, small businesses will be free of unnecessary taxes and red tape which held back many from employing more South Australians in their businesses. This will allow employers to move costs associated with payroll tax into further employment or increasing the wages of their employees—no longer charging them for wanting to grow and hire more staff. By exempting them from this tax, we will not only provide better business conditions in this state but also increase our growth rate. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, and by removing red tape and barriers in operating a business we can give these hardworking people the right environment in which to grow and prosper.

As this place knows well, the veterans' community is an area in which I take a keen interest. In particular, the Headstone Project is an initiative which I have been a great supporter of, and I was honoured to unveil the first in this state. Last year, I was honoured to be present in Port Pirie where Archibald John Kenneth McVicar was able to receive a proper final resting place. That is why I am pleased to see the announcement of $10,000 per annum for three years to provide headstones for unmarked graves of World War I veterans who so valiantly served our nation.

Finally, I would like to note funding made available for our regions. Long ignored by Labor, these communities will begin to see long overdue investment in local infrastructure. From major road projects such as the Port Wakefield overpass to blackspot funding and CFS station upgrades, it is fantastic to see our vitally important regional areas receive the attention they deserve. The end result of this budget will see a return to a true surplus, strong investment in key growth areas and benefits to families and businesses from major tax reforms.

After 16 years of financial mismanagement, I am proud to see a Marshall Liberal government delivering a strong budget, which delivers on our election commitments and secures South Australia's future. We are tailoring an environment which gives South Australians the opportunity to succeed. I for one am excited to see what this will bring.

In concluding, I wish to pass on my heartiest congratulations to our outstanding Treasurer, the Hon. Rob Lucas. It has been a little while coming but I am so proud to support him and his outstanding budget.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (11:33): I rise to speak on the first Appropriation Bill of the new Marshall Liberal government. After that lame attempt by the Hon. Terry Stephens, I will try to put some of the truth about the situation onto the record. And what a bill it is. The bill seeks to appropriate $14,486,285,000 to ensure the proper functioning of government—if only. This is more than $500 million higher than was appropriated in 2017, and compared to the Appropriation Act 2017 there are significant increases in the appropriations of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and the Department of Treasury and Finance, but guess where the cuts are?

The South Australian Tourism Commission, for example, is among the agencies which have less funding appropriated by the parliament—in this case, some $200 million less—but, I repeat, there are increases for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and the Department of Treasury and Finance. Of course, the opposition will be supporting the Appropriation Bill. We do not want to stop salaries being paid to the hardworking public servants who serve our state. But it is incredibly important that South Australians understand the complexity of what this Liberal government is doing to the state and what lies behind the big numbers and is buried in the line items.

The bill before us represents an important opportunity to scrutinise the ways in which the government spends these huge sums of money, and I will take a little time of the council now to have a look at some of those expenditure items. It is also important that we remember the deep impacts that this four-page bill will have on the community. Public servants fully understand the importance of this bill: teachers, doctors, nurses, police and so many other front-line staff form part of our state's largest employer, the state Public Service, and they rely on the passage of this legislation to get their well-deserved pay. They understand the importance of public funding, unlike the government.

The South Australian Public Service covers critical areas of our society: education, health, environment, and of course more. It supports the economy, it supports the finance sectors, the trade and energy sectors and all the rest of our state. The public servants who need to be paid know the importance of this bill not just to them but for our whole state, and so do all stakeholders who engage with government, the people who rely on those front-line public services and the businesses for whom government is a major customer.

We, in the Legislative Council, understand, too, that this bill is very important for the future economic benefit of our state. However, the bill cannot properly be assessed without reference to the 2018-19 state budget which outlines the government's planned expenditure and which was alluded to in the Hon. Terry Stephens' lame defence of this government's agenda. The budget allocates funds to those public servants, those services and programs that these stakeholders rely upon. The budget from the Marshall Liberal government revealed their true priorities for all of us to see. They delivered cuts to education, cuts to health care, cuts to the environment department, cuts to climate change programs, to job creation programs, to the arts, to public transport and more.

The budget marked a turning point: gone was the ability for the new government to hide behind their poorly-costed election promises, inexperience and incompetence, particularly the health minister, because on 4 September the game was up. This government was forced to show themselves for what they are—vindictive and mean-spirited. This is a budget not unlike the Treasurer's last budget, 16 years ago, a classic South Australian Liberal budget of cruel cuts, closures and privatisations.

In 2001-02, the Treasurer smashed TAFE with a 10 per cent funding cut. In 2018-19, he smashed TAFE again by closing seven campuses. In 2001-02, the Treasurer cut essential funding from our public education system. In 2018-19, he scrapped healthy eating programs. South Australians rejected your 2001-02 budget, they have rejected this one and they will reject your privatisation agenda at the next election.

I have spoken previously in this place about what I believe to be one of the most disgraceful cuts in the budget. HIV remains a significant problem in our community and those who live with it face a complex array of health challenges, social pressure and stigma. It is spreading beyond the gay community, where it was first found in the early eighties, and is spreading beyond the cities into our remote and rural areas, particularly amongst our Indigenous populations and those living in regional towns.

That is why it is shameful that this budget, handed down on World Sexual Health Day, slashed funding for critical services targeted at the prevention of HIV and at supporting those who are already living with HIV—yet more brutal budget cuts, slashing services that people rely on. The Treasurer and the Minister for Health have cut funding for HIV and STI prevention programs through Shine SA, slashed funding for other bloodborne virus and STI prevention programs, and axed funding to Centacare for the Cheltenham Place HIV refuge.

The minister announced these cuts in a budget day media release headlined 'Sustainable, efficient health services'. He attempted to justify the cuts his government was making but, unfortunately, the minister does not appear to have all of his facts quite right. The minister's media release characterises the services provided by Centacare as being 'largely focused on supporting homeless individuals with HIV'. He states that 'the issue of homelessness support can be'—they are words I inserted—'better managed by more appropriate agencies'. Had the minister bothered to consult with Centacare in the first place he may not have issued that release in those terms, and he may not have made the $411,000 a year cut.

In an opinion piece in The Advertiser Centacare director Dale West has one word for that characterisation of the organisation service—wrong. Mr West describes the varied life experiences of those who rely on the Cheltenham Place centre for support with their HIV diagnoses: people who have experienced mental illness, who have grappled with substance abuse challenges, people with disabilities and others.

He also outlines the experiences of his organisation and its staff in supporting people who experience homelessness. In his words, 'It is offensive to suggest there are more appropriate agencies better placed than Centacare (with its 20-year track record in the sector) to provide specialist support services to people living with HIV and to their carers.'

HIV treatments, although far more effective now than they have been in the past, remain complex. The right combination of medication taken at the right times and in the right conditions is vital for HIV-positive people in maintaining their health. That is why centres such as Cheltenham Place are so important, particularly for those dealing with other challenges in their lives at the same time. Of course, as I said before, they actually put downward pressure on the budget by keeping people well and taking their medication in appropriate circumstances, and not appearing in the emergency departments of our public hospitals and driving up the cost of the health system. But that understanding is beyond our current health minister and his Treasurer.

The problem is clear: a government eager to make cuts to the budget, unfazed by ending services that vulnerable people rely on and unwilling to consult with the very agencies whose funding they are slashing. This is a textbook example of government done badly, of government done by the Liberal Party. It is a textbook example of a government unrepentant about cutting the front-line services relied upon by vulnerable members of our community. Despite the media attention this issue has attracted, despite the advocacy of Mr West and Centacare, and despite the ongoing efforts of the opposition, the minister and the Treasurer persist with these cuts. They are unmoved.

Much of this is true of the deep cuts to Shine SA. Shine will be well-known to members in this place. Since 1970, it has delivered education and health services focused on sexual and relationship health. It has partnered with the government, with schools and with community organisations to provide quality education services to many young South Australians. It provides professional development to medical staff and community workers across the state, and it provides front-line sexual health services to thousands in our community.

This is an organisation with an outstanding reputation and a record of delivering outstanding outcomes for our state. It is the first organisation that many South Australians would think of when seeking sexual health services, yet the same media release from the Minister for Health touts the slashing of funding for targeted HIV and STI prevention programs for non-government sexual health services. They do not care about the evidence that can be offered up about how this saves government money. They do not care about the reputation of our state and, most of all, they do not care about disadvantaged South Australians.

Nowhere is this more clear than in housing and homelessness programs, where the Treasurer and the Minister for Human Services have conspired to inflict a massive rent hike on thousands of Housing Trust SA tenants. The effects of this rent hike will be felt through the not-for-profit housing sector and even into the private market. Those of us on this side of the chamber know that public housing does not just help those who rely on public housing for a roof over their heads, it also puts downward pressure on the private rental market rents. It is a win-win for working families and public housing and those without permanent or stable employment, which is exactly why this government does not believe in public housing.

In the weeks since the budget, we have heard distressing stories from Housing Trust tenants who say that these rent increases are the difference between being able to put food on the table or having critical medication. They have to choose between the two. These rent increases are the difference between running the air conditioner on a 40˚ day or sweltering in the heat and risking hospitalisation.

I do not know what it is like for Liberal government members who swan around at the Adelaide Club but, out in the real world, a $10 rent increase will push hundreds of South Australians further into poverty. What about those South Australians who rely on public transport to get to and from work, to their medical appointments or to the local shops? The Liberals have cuts for them, too, slashing public transport funding, axing bus routes and delaying the construction of essential park-and-ride upgrades.

They did not just stop there. They did not spare the arts sector either. Arts SA, the peak government arts organisation that works across the entire art and cultural sector in South Australia, has been dismantled. Gone is the key organisation that enhanced the cultural vibrancy of our state and capitalised on the economic opportunities and jobs created by our arts sector, replaced instead by a small slush fund and ill-defined artist schemes.

South Australia has always had a proud arts community, inclusive of the young and the old, the traditional and the modern, the local and the international, and the bold and the thought-provoking—and sometimes the controversial. What an absolute disgrace and disappointment it is for all South Australians to see the funding for arts pulled in this budget, especially for those involved in local workshops and classes, dance groups and local productions.

Arts SA reaches every part of our state—or it used to—and provided specialised programs to introduce the arts to children. We have seen the Windmill and Patch theatre companies palmed off by this government. They have slashed Carclew's youth arts, which has provided an outlet for young people to get involved in the arts for the last 40 years, and which brought like-minded and different-minded people, all with a passion for creating and performing, together into one effective community.

Where will these teenagers and young people go to now if they have an interest in the arts or if they are being attracted to these arts programs, which are keeping them out of other situations we do not really want them to be in? Carclew provided essential grants to arts communities and artists to pursue the arts and their projects, some of which received international recognition. To those opposite it is not Carclew, it is 'Carc-you-can-go-and-get-stuffed'.

For a government that likes to ramble on incessantly about the country, we have seen Country Arts SA smashed to bits. Thousands of rural South Australian artists and those who love the arts will be denied this essential support. Countless artists around the state outside the city of Adelaide could not have followed their careers in the arts if not for the grants they received from Country Arts SA. What is the point of a new art gallery space if there are no artists left to exhibit in it?

It astounds me that a government could cut Arts SA, Country Arts SA and a stack of other cultural funds and programs but does not even bother to consult those people most affected by those decisions. In opposition all they talked about was consulting, but we have had stakeholders right across South Australia upset not just at these severe and swinging cuts but at the total lack of input the arts community has had in this decision and the total lack of consultation about what the impact might be on these communities.

How can we have a vibrant arts sector—the same sector that gives us the Adelaide Festival, the Fringe, the Cabaret Festival and a plethora of internationally recognised productions and institutions—if they are not even involved in the significant restructuring discussions and decisions that the government is about to undertake? A well-resourced arts sector is not just a cultural good, it also provides significant economic opportunities for South Australians.

The 2017 Adelaide Fringe alone made $16.2 million just through ticket sales. The Adelaide Festival also brings a large amount of money into the state, estimated to be in the vicinity of $76 million in 2018. On the back of all that economic information we have about how important the arts are to South Australia, just a month ago there was the news that this government decided to no longer fund the Hopgood Theatre in Adelaide's south.

This news sent shock waves through the southern suburbs, and it took only a few weeks to get more than 7,000 signatures onto a petition opposing the defunding. The Hopgood Theatre is important to southern communities, hosting countless local school productions, interstate and even international artists. Then there is Fowlers Live, another venue that announced it would be forced to close due to lack of government support into the future.

However, this is no surprise. This is exactly the plan we saw implemented in New South Wales, where budget cuts to the arts under the Liberal government there saw many productions with no choice but to cancel their shows, and we are seeing that here too. This especially impacted regional towns in New South Wales, and it will especially impact regional towns and cities in South Australia as well.

It is quite simple. Without a well-funded and resourced arts sector our global reputation as a festival state is at risk. It is a risk this government is prepared to take, and throw our arts culture and community to the wolves. The next generation of actors, singers, performers and comedians will not have a place to explore their craft, learn new ideas, and discover their communities, supporters and followers. Our economy will take a hit, and we will see a reduction in inbound tourism because of this Liberal government's antipathy to arts and culture.

The most striking thing is that these cuts are cruel cuts, these closures are cruel closures, and the privatisations, they say, are a matter of their choice—but they are avoidable. They are not necessarily locked into stone. The Liberal government can change its mind, if it were only to listen to the community.

Despite having the most obstructionist opposition in living memory, the Rann and Weatherill governments left South Australia in a much better position than when we inherited it from the Liberals in 2002, even though the Liberal opposition at the time was the most obstructionist in history. Despite going through the GFC and having to weather the storm of the federal Liberal-induced closure of Holden when they were dared to leave the country by the federal Liberal treasurer at the time, we kept state debt under control and put our economy and our state on a path to prosperity.

We did not make easy promises to reduce tax without offsets and we were not beset with rivers of gold, but we made the tough, mature decisions necessary to guarantee a good future for South Australians—a future with new innovative jobs in renewable energy, high-tech manufacturing and education; a future with a more efficient healthcare system, constantly ranked better than our interstate counterparts but called inefficient by these Liberals who want to run it like a business and not a healthcare service; and a future where South Australians spend less time in traffic and more time with their families because we invested in critical infrastructure like electrifying the Noarlunga line, expanding and upgrading the O-Bahn, extending the tramline, duplicating major roads like the Southern Expressway, investing in the north-south corridor, bringing commuters one step closer to a drive from Seaford to Barossa without a single set of traffic lights.

We did all this. The Labor government did all this. Yet, we still left the Marshall government with a budget surplus—a surplus they have turned into a deficit in a few short months. Their own budget papers predict a massive windfall from new taxes: payroll tax, up $149 million over the forward estimates, up $38 million in 2018-19; gambling taxes, up $22 million over the forward estimates, up $13 million in 2018-19; motor vehicle taxes, up $57 million over the forward estimates, up $17 million in 2018-19; insurance taxes, up $59 million over the forward estimates, up $14 million in 2018-19; and total taxation, up $540 million over the forward estimates, and that is an increase of $30 million in 2018-19.

Their budget forecasts total revenue up to $1.474 billion over the forward estimates; that is, $1.47 billion over the forward estimates. So when the Treasurer stands up and tells this place that he and his party are effective economic managers, we all know the truth. It is a tax and waste government: increase taxes, increase charges, cut essential services, close TAFE SA centres, privatise prisons, take a surplus and turn it into a deficit. This is all because they want to hand out gifts and lollies to their mates in big business, their multinational mates, their merchant bankers and their donors.

Once again, we have a Liberal government who talk about the regions, about jobs, about public transport and infrastructure, but when it comes to it, they just do not believe in funding these public goods. The government has before us a bill which appropriates significantly more funding than the previous Appropriation Act did, yet their budget shows that they are slashing critical programs and directing funding to all the wrong places. They must truly hate South Australians.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (11:52): I take this opportunity to speak on this bill to provide a response to the Liberal government's first budget in 16 years. Cuts, closures, privatisations, these would be the best way to describe it. Premier Steven Marshall promised the people of South Australia better services, now he is closing Service SA centres, TAFEs, discontinuing metro bus routes and hiking Housing Trust rents. The Liberal state government have made all these cuts yet have not fulfilled their promise to map out a road to pay off debt. Net debt is actually projected to increase over the forward estimates.

So let us focus on some of these Liberal cuts. Most South Australians, particularly older South Australians and those without internet access, rely on Service SA centres to access essential services such as renewing their driver's licence and car registration. Closing Service SA centres just makes life harder for everyday South Australians.

Before the election, Premier Marshall did not say anything about closing Service SA centres, yet offices at Prospect, Mitcham and Modbury are all being closed down. The opposition has run a campaign against these closures, led by our leader, Mr Peter Malinauskas. So far, we have collected close to 8,000 signatures for a petition, which has been displayed outside the centres to be closed as well as online.

As a long-term resident of Kilburn, I am particularly aware of the importance of the Prospect Service SA centre, which services residents of suburbs like Kilburn, Enfield and Blair Athol. Many residents of these suburbs either cannot afford or do not know how to use the internet. Then there are the elderly, many of whom have never used the internet. I wonder if any Liberal member of this government has bothered to get out to one of these Service SA centres and get some feedback on these pending closures from the average punter.

I can report to the chamber that from Prospect there has been complete disillusionment, given the long lines and waiting times there. Many believe the government should be looking to expand the service rather than shutting it down. What is all the more galling is that there has been no clear explanation from the government as to why these closures are necessary.

This leads me to the next set of closures that have been announced, relating to various TAFE sites across South Australia, including Tea Tree Gully, Urrbrae, Parafield, Roxby Downs, Coober Pedy, Wudinna and Port Adelaide. I want to focus on Port Adelaide, which I have already written to the Treasurer, the Hon. Rob Lucas, about.

It seems odd that the state Liberal government would announce Port Adelaide TAFE's closure when there has been a clear focus from all levels of government to renew and rejuvenate the Port. Only a couple of weeks ago in this place, I acknowledged the bipartisan support at the state level for the newly awarded submarines contract at the Osborne shipyards. This work will require a skilled workforce. Currently, defence-related courses are not being offered at the Port Adelaide TAFE, but it would seem logical that those courses should be offered at Port Adelaide, given its close proximity to the shipyards. This could have further harnessed collaborations in the defence sector between the educational and industrial sectors.

I note that, recently, TAFE SA became an accredited partner of the Naval Shipbuilding College, with a welding course to be offered at the Regency TAFE and 12 virtual welding simulators purchased for the site. While it is great that this will be at Regency, surely it could have been at Port Adelaide. It is hardly like the Port Adelaide TAFE is a ghost town. My understanding is that there are currently 430 students enrolled there at the moment. Students are studying courses, such as business administration, complementary health, financial services, government, mental health and drug education, nursing, pathology, and wellbeing—many worthwhile courses.

What I am most concerned about is the discontinuation of the short courses that are offered at the campus. These courses are geared to assist the various ethnic and Aboriginal communities of the western suburbs with their literacy and numeracy. Some of these students would be particularly disadvantaged. Spare a thought for a new arrival who has been settled around the Port Adelaide area, is trying to learn the language and is then told that he or she will have to somehow be able to find a TAFE further away then what we currently have at Port Adelaide.

On 12 September 2018, the Portside Weekly Messenger reported the stories of students at the Port Adelaide campus Shantala Rider and Pamela Carroll, who were devastated at the closure, describing it as 'a kick in the guts'. Both women are studying a Certificate III in Women's Education. Pamela Carroll's daughter Georgia also studies at the Port campus. Georgia suffers from severe anxiety and has previously felt overwhelmed at bigger TAFE sites.

According to Pamela and Shantala, the Port Adelaide TAFE is easy to get to with public transport and had free parking and support services, such as child care. The state Liberal government needs to give a proper explanation as to why the Port Adelaide TAFE campus is being shut down.

We are also still being left none the wiser as to which bus routes the Minister for Transport, the Hon. Stephan Knoll, intends to cut. The government thought they were being clever by leaking the cost of bus routes to the Sunday Mail, which followed with a story on 15 September this year entitled 'The SA bus rides that are costing taxpayers $100 a head'. It was reported that some bus rides can cost as much as $100 a passenger, but the government will not reveal the exact costs of the most expensive bus routes. Clearly, this is a tactic from this government to try to justify cuts to bus services across the state.

I would argue that some of the least patronised and more expensive services are more valuable to retain, if this government has its priorities right. For example, what about the many shift workers, such as nurses and retail and hospitality workers, who finish their shifts late at night? Like many shift workers, they would rely on these services to get to and from work. The safety of women at these hours of night should be a priority when it comes to the provision of bus services. Public transport is about providing a service to these people, not about turning a profit. Before the election, we never heard the Premier say that he would be cutting bus services.

With our state's Housing Trust, the government has decided to increase rent to 25 per cent of household income for tenants in bedsits and one-bedroom cottages. This will increase these tenants' rent by an average of $25 a week and up to $50 a week. Then, for those tenants on moderate incomes earning $500 a week before tax, their rent will increase to 30 per cent of their income, so potentially they have to find an extra $25 a week for rent.

All these cuts form part of over $1 billion worth of savings over the next four years, yet what does that mean for our state's financial position? Even though the government has $539 million more in taxation revenue coming into the state's coffers over the next four years, and more than $939 million extra coming through in GST payments from the commonwealth over the same period, amazingly this government is increasing the state debt.

General government sector net debt is expected to increase over the forward estimates from $5.3 billion as at 30 June 2018 to $8.7 billion at 30 June 2022. After the mantra about paying off the state's debt and cleaning up the mess, this government is actually telling the South Australian people that it will increase our state's debt up until the next state election. Surely, this is a broken promise. With that in mind, I conclude my remarks on this bill.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (12:06): The budgetary process provides the government with an opportunity to lay the foundation of the values it strives to achieve. It is a foundation based on priorities to foster key industries, grow jobs and provide opportunities for future generations. It is the bill that will shape and support your government's agenda and should be a document cabinet members can be very proud of. We all hope it will provide a strong foundation for South Australia to continue to prosper, both as a community and, of course, economically.

However, this state budget has cracks in its foundation, cracks resulting in communities being weakened by a relatively inexperienced government led by a Treasurer who is determined to finish what he started 16 years ago. It is a budget that sets out the clear and unmistakable signature of a Liberal government: cuts, closures and privatisations. This is a budget based on a soundtrack stuck on loop, and that loop is not Working Class Man. It is named after the very man who wrote the self-titled soundtrack, 'business suit and sensible shoes'.

After 16 years of prosperity under a Labor government, the Treasurer in the business suit and sensible shoes has picked up from where he finished, with an agenda to cut and privatise South Australian services and jobs. The Treasurer may have felt that the past 16 years were 16 very long years, but many in the community, particularly some of the most vulnerable, already feel it has been eight very long months. In his speech, the Treasurer said:

This budget will seek to provide better services by placing as much emphasis on productivity outcomes and outputs, rather than just relying on inputs and how much we spend on a service.

Perhaps the Treasurer needs to explain this not only to the communities in Prospect, Modbury and Mitcham but to his very own cabinet colleagues. The member for Adelaide stated, in a leaked document, her personal disappointment in the government's decision to cut the Prospect Service SA centre.

The Prospect Service SA centre served 105,000 customers in the last financial year and 104,000 in the year before. The Mitcham Service SA centre served 83,000 customers in the last financial year and 78,000 in the year 2016-17. The Modbury Service SA centre served 104,000 customers in the last financial year and 103,000 in the year 2016-17.

There seems to be a pattern with these centres, that is, the number of customers from the 2016-17 financial year to the last financial year increased. How can the closures of these three centres be about productivity outcomes when Prospect and Modbury were the third and fourth busiest centres last year, not to mention the impact that these three centres closing will have on the remaining Service SA centres?

When Mitcham closes, the Mitcham community may go to Marion, the second busiest Service SA centre last year. When Modbury closes, the Modbury community may go to Elizabeth, the busiest service centre last year; and when Prospect closes, the Prospect community may go to Regency Park or to the city. How are these remaining centres going to cope with the extra 292,000 customers who would have gone to Prospect, Mitcham or Modbury?

The impact of these closures will reach far beyond the doors of the three Service SA centres. By removing a service from the community, local businesses, residents and workers will bear the brunt of the social and economic cost. It leaves little wonder as to why the phones on level 2 are running hot about this issue, and over 8,000 people have already signed the petition to keep the doors open.

Again, the Liberal's cruel cuts will impact those most vulnerable in our community, with many who rely on public transport not being able to access their local service provider. All of this is despite the Premier's and Treasurer's reassurance that there would be no blaming of circumstances crafted to excuse the introduction of cuts, closures and privatisations, resulting in a blame game—but what a game they are playing. Despite unexpected increases in GST revenue of around $300 million per annum and payroll tax flooding in through the door in the 2017-18 financial year, we have a government calling bluff in the ultimate card game of cheat. Whilst I would prefer to use the alternative name for this game, perhaps I will leave that out.

Like the card game, the government is playing a game of deception. We are now told, contrary to what was promised in the election campaign, that the government's election commitments would now be made possible thanks to the flood of unexpected extra revenue, but we are told to believe additional savings are still required—savings they attribute to the previous Labor government, the very same Labor government that delivered nine budgets in surplus and steered the state through one of the most challenging employment periods South Australia has faced, only to now have more people in jobs and one of Australia's fastest growing economies.

We are not playing with Monopoly money; this is the money of hardworking South Australians, and when a government decides to play politics with the money of South Australians they have every right to call it out. In the government's first three months they went on a spending spree and spent nearly an extra $270 million in the 2017-18 financial year. The impact of the government's fiscal mismanagement resulted in a deficit of almost $400 million—a move to ramp up debt and increase interest repayments. It did not stop there. In a move to create an illusion of financial pressure, money was transferred from portfolios and prepayments were made from the 2017-18 financial year out of the general government sector, all to create a calculated political point, a point that cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in real money.

It was a manufactured deficit delivered by a Treasurer who has never delivered a budget in surplus in this state despite the Liberal government's self-proclaimed fiscal management. All sides of the Liberal fiscal dice are covered in three statements: cuts, privatisations and closures. The Monopoly board certainly looks a little different under a Liberal government: gaol privatised, train services cut, electricity services privatised. South Australians are still paying the price for the Treasurer's last stint at the wheel when he sold ETSA.

Now the course has been reset by the Premier and the Treasurer to privatise, cut and close. This is despite South Australians being repeatedly told by the Premier that there would be no privatisation under his watch. Before the election he said, 'We do not have a privatisation agenda.' He also said, 'We have ruled out privatisation.' After the state election he said, 'We made it clear in the lead-up to the election that we have no plans for asset sales or privatisation in South Australia.'

How does the Treasurer justify the Liberal Party misleading the community with political spin? The Treasurer said in his budget day address that this government, prior to the election, made a specific commitment when asked to commit to not privatising, outsourcing or commercialising any public sector asset and services. Our commitment was not to privatise SA Water. The following two sentences were apparently made available to an organisation:

There are many current examples under the Labor government where public services are being successfully delivered by private or non-government suppliers. We have a responsibility to consider such options where it is clearly in the public interest to do so.

In other words, unless punters were reading the fine print of two sentences available through Liberal Party propaganda to an organisation, they missed the big green light to say that the Liberal Party had an agenda to privatise—services like the Adelaide Remand Centre and privatisation plans for SA Pathology and Imaging Services. So much is the Treasurer's addiction to privatisation that he has established the Commercial and Economics Unit, which has been tasked with the job of seeking opportunities for commercialisation and outsourcing of public services. What will be next: schools, hospitals or the roads?

Perhaps hidden in even smaller print was the Liberal Party's promise to cut bus and train services, close Service SA centres, close TAFE campuses, increase Housing Trust rents and cut 880 SA Health workers. Let's take a look at some of the finer print to see what the Liberal government's budget actually means. It means that the Adelaide Remand Centre is being privatised. It means $46 million has been cut from public transport which will hurt working families, the elderly, and those with disability the most, resulting in longer travel times, increased traffic and inconvenience for thousands of South Australians daily.

It means putting profits before the health and wellbeing of South Australians by privatising vital health services like SA Pathology and SA Medical Imaging if they do not reach their savings targets, a move that could pass on higher out-of-pocket costs for patients and longer processing times which could mean life-threatening delays.

It means that TAFE SA campuses are being closed, leaving students and staff at seven TAFEs across the state, including Tea Tree Gully, Port Adelaide, Urrbrae, Roxby Downs and Coober Pedy, in limbo. It means jacking up Housing Trust rents for thousands of low-income tenants, leaving thousands of households worse off by slugging some tenants an extra $50 per week in rent, or more than $2,500 per year. There is no justification for taking money from those most vulnerable in our community and increasing the cost of living for thousands of South Australians.

In addition to these cuts, privatisations and closures, there is $1.25 billion of unidentified savings that need to be delivered by this government over the next four years. My maiden speech was based on the social and economic value of a strong community, and perhaps this was also the foundation of the program Fund My Neighbourhood, a program that gave the power to communities to decide what is best to improve their neighbourhood. Fund My Neighbourhood was not just about new funds for communities, it was about bringing people together.

The Liberal government's decision to cut the popular Fund My Neighbourhood program—where over 120,000 votes were cast by 33,000 South Australians in just the space of four weeks—is an incredible blow to the confidence of our community. Over 200 projects across South Australia were funded by round 1 of Fund My Neighbourhood, delivering not only new facilities and programs in the streets of local communities but local job opportunities. Round 2 of Fund My Neighbourhood was fully funded and was set to commence in May 2018. It is a great shame that the state Liberal government has cut the allocated $20 million for South Australian communities, preventing people like Judith Shanahan from saving a much-loved local icon, Unley Uniting Church, where Judith runs the oldest kindergym in Australia.

When Judith discovered that the structure of the church bell tower was threatening the closure of the church, she went on a search for funding to save the oldest kindergym in Australia. It was not until Judith discovered Fund My Neighbourhood that she found a glimpse of hope. With the will of the 500 children who visit the Unley Kindergym every week, Judith hit the neighbouring pavements to save the church, and she did just that.

Judith brought the community together, and together they saved the Unley Uniting Church and the home of kindergym. The next time you are driving down Unley Road, you will see the church bell tower covered in scaffolding with workers busily working on a project fought for and won by the community. Judith summed the program up perfectly:

Without Fund My Neighbourhood we wouldn't still be standing here today. The beauty of the grant was that the community was able to decide what was important to them.

Judith has every right, as she is doing, to ask why the government has taken the power away from communities to decide how and where to allocate government funds in their neighbourhood. Fund My Neighbourhood was so successful that Victoria and New South Wales are now adopting South Australia's model to empower their communities. I wish them all the best with this fantastic program and hope one day South Australian residents will enjoy the benefits of Fund My Neighbourhood again.

One of my favourite Liberal Party claims is hashtag #RegionsMatter. Not even in a drought can farmers in South Australia count on a Liberal government, with new costs being imposed and cuts to programs like the regional community fund, which gave $500,000 in annual funding to regional communities for equipment to better protect themselves from the impact of extreme weather, including fires and floods. This cut may save the government a measly sum, but it will have a huge impact on regional communities, particularly as we face a sweltering summer.

This is a flimsy, mismanaged budget that targets the most vulnerable in our community and will put a handbrake on the job growth of South Australia by cutting the very 29 job-creating programs that have set the state up to hold its head high and take on the challenges set by the closure of Holden. I will finish with the Treasurer's closing remarks:

I would like to thank all of my ministerial colleagues in particular for the cheerful and willing way they have participated in and supported the budget process. They have all assured me that they will be right behind me.

It is there in black and white that this cabinet is cheerfully and willingly backing in cuts, closures and privatisations that punish those who are most vulnerable in our community: Housing Trust tenants, AIDS sufferers, public school kids, TAFE students, Crime Stoppers victims, women in sport, bus and train commuters, Service SA workers and customers, prison officers, doctors, TAFE teachers, community groups and advocates, and health consumers.

Honestly, I could stand here and list many South Australians who will be impacted by the great work of the Liberal cabinet team. I will wrap it up there because I am sure they are incredibly proud of their first budget in 16 years, and I am sure the community will be very wary of their next budget.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (12:23): I rise today to add my contribution to the Appropriation Bill. On 4 September, the Marshall government handed down its first state budget—a budget founded on cruel cuts, closures and privatisations, a budget that provided no vision, no vision at all, for the future of this state's economy. No South Australian will be spared from the impact of the Marshall budget, with passengers, patients and housing tenants all bearing the brunt after Steven Marshall let his Treasurer loose on the state's most vulnerable.

There are cuts of more than 4,000 jobs in the Public Service. There are cuts of $38 million from the operational police budget. There are cuts of almost 900 jobs in Health. There are cuts of 29 job creation, transition and support services. Many of these cruel cuts are within my shadow portfolio, and I will address these in more detail shortly.

Closures include bus routes across Adelaide while delaying the Modbury and Klemzig park-and-ride projects with no start date in sight. There are closures of seven TAFE campuses that were providing courses to many students. There are closures of Service SA centres at Modbury, at Mitcham and at Prospect. Privatisations include SA Pathology and the Adelaide Remand Centre, along with the health minister confirming he is going to market to look at privatising patient transfers between Modbury Hospital and the Lyell McEwin Hospital.

South Australians were promised a Marshall government that would deliver more jobs, better services and lower costs, but the reality is that the Liberals are cutting jobs, cutting services and increasing costs. Labor will stand with everyday South Australians in denouncing this budget. The budget has failed to seize upon the economic growth that the former Labor government had overseen.

The Liberals inherited a budget in surplus, a growing economy and a falling unemployment rate. With the closure of Holdens and the resultant impact on the automotive supply chain, predictions were for double-digit unemployment in this state; what we have seen instead is an unemployment rate of 5.6 to 5.7 per cent. This better-than-expected result is because of the huge amount of work done by the previous Labor government with companies and individuals in the affected industries to enable transition into other employment and other industries.

The economic forecast demonstrates that despite the former government leaving the Liberal government a strong economy, going forward state final demand is expected to drop from 3 per cent to 2.5 per cent in 2018-19 and then drop further to 2.25 per cent from 2019-20 onwards. Employment growth hit a high of 2.1 per cent in 2017-18 but is expected to drop to 1.5 per cent in 2018-19 and then 1 per cent from 2019-20 onwards.

South Australia is experiencing strong jobs growth, with 18,200 jobs created over the past year on trend estimates. The unemployment rate in South Australia for July was 5.6 per cent (trend) and 5.7 per cent (seasonally adjusted), with 1,700 jobs created for the month of July (seasonally adjusted). Let me say again: this is not the work of the new Marshall Liberal government but evidence of the strong economic foundations left by the previous Labor government.

To make matters worse, the Marshall Liberal government has put the handbrake on job creation programs, career transition and support services in South Australia. Programs and services that have been cut, to name just a few, include: the Economic Development Board; the Investment Attraction advisory board; the health industries' advisory board and grants program; TechInSA; the Fund My Neighbourhood program; Northern Connections; Southern Connections; the Unlocking Capital for Jobs fund; the Economic Investment Fund; the Small Business Development Fund; the SA Early Commercialisation Fund; and the digital Game Development Fund.

You might think, Mr President, that I am through the list, but in fact I am only halfway. Also included are the Advanced Food Manufacturing Grants program; the SA Premium Food and Wine Credentials Grant Program; the Mining and Petroleum Services Centre of Excellence grants program; the Premier's Research and Industry Fund; the Strategic Industry Development Fund; and the Future Jobs Fund.

What was even more concerning was listening to the Minister for Industry and Skills in the other place stumble his way through estimates a few weeks ago, trying to avoid questions about why some of these programs have been cut. He made the most of Dorothy Dix questions—that is, questions from his own side—to use up time to avoid answering valid and important questions about the cruel cuts made in his area, cuts that are extremely short-sighted, cuts to programs that had high levels of employment outcomes, cuts to programs that do not have an equivalent federal government program (despite multiple statements made by both the minister and the Treasurer that they did), and cuts, it would appear, that were made without any attention whatsoever to the results those programs had been achieving.

There was one facet of his long answers to Dorothy Dixers, however, that apparently had some benefit. I am told it enabled a continuation of the 'I am a Tradie' bingo game. I am told this is a game that those within the department play by counting the number of times the minister mentions, in a single speech, that he used to be a tradie. Do not get me wrong, I am sincerely pleased that there is someone on the Liberal side who has been a tradie; sadly, far too often those opposite look down on people who work with their hands as well as those who work in retail, for example, and other sectors.

The Hon. J.E. Hanson: Who cares about them?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Who cares about them is unfortunately the view of those opposite. I am simply echoing the observation that so many others have made which is it appears every speech by the Minister for Industry and Skills must include around 10 mentions of his tradie background. For those who are wondering, I have not made a personal tally myself, I am told that the record in one speech so far for 'I was a tradie' bingo is 37.

The Hon. J.E. Hanson: 37? How long was the speech?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: 37, so I am told. I do not know how long the speech was.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: 40 words in total.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: 40 words in total, it could be. Over the past five months, my office has been inundated with contact from organisations which have had their funding cut by the Marshall Liberal government. What is even more concerning is the trend that has emerged where the Minister for Industry and Skills has cut funding with little or even sometimes no notice. Also, the minister has commonly refused to meet with organisations to allow them the opportunity to make their case to the minister about the benefits of their program.

I want to speak about one particular program which I believe speaks volumes about the way the Marshall Liberal government has treated South Australian workers. Earlier this year, the Marshall Liberal government announced that they had cut the Retrenched Workers Program. This program was introduced by the previous Labor government to assist retrenched workers in retraining so that they could move quickly to other jobs after retrenchment.

A commitment was made and the department of state development, as it was at the time, started the process of assisting workers with funding. But as soon as the Marshall Liberal government came to office, they slashed the support package and subsequently played games with these workers' situation.

On 16 August, when this Liberal cut was in the media, the Treasurer was asked during a press conference if workers at Castalloy would receive any federal support to which the Treasurer responded:

They will not be left on their own. The Liberal government's been committed to a program of a $200 million investment in skills and training packages, so anyone who is unemployed, Castalloy or anybody else, will have the opportunity for further training opportunities.

Then on 6 September, I asked the Treasurer during question time what type of support would be given to workers at Castalloy, as previously had been promised, to which he responded:

There is a range of commonwealth funded programs which have been provided and which have been made available.

In fact, there were no commonwealth funded support packages available for these retrenched workers. These workers have indeed been left on their own, because of the Marshall Liberal government's cruel cuts, and totally misled by the Treasurer's statement. The clear pattern that has emerged as a result of the state budget, in particular within Industry and Skills, are of cuts that have been made without consultation and with nothing to replace those cut programs.

As the economy transitions, and areas in our economy such as the manufacturing industry adapt and experience job losses, there are no support mechanisms in place to support workers who do not fit into the path of participating in the Skilling South Australia program, which is the sole program that the Minister for Industry and Skills seems to be interested in. Again, I fully support promoting apprenticeships and traineeships but the minister's narrow vision which means that everything else is ignored, everything else except apprenticeships and traineeships, and abandons other workers. Other workers are abandoned, especially older workers who are not going to be for the most part pursuing apprenticeships.

Another remarkable discovery exposed during the Industry and Skills estimates session is the Marshall Liberal government's rhetoric around apprenticeships in South Australia as opposed to the reality. In the lead-up to the election, and in the months since the Marshall Liberal government took office, they have been talking about the 20,800 new apprenticeships they are going to deliver. It is not just the Minister for Industry and Skills who is going around spruiking this figure. It is the Premier, the Treasurer and a number of other government ministers.

During estimates, the Minister for Industry and Skills was asked if the 20,800 new apprenticeships and traineeships were going to be completions—in other words, apprentices who complete their apprenticeship—or people who start it for a period but fail to complete it. Minister Pisoni's response was, 'I am advised that the figure refers to commencements.' It is all well and good to have a large number of commencements but what is needed is a large number of completions. This figure of 20,800 sounds very good but the reality is that this is about commencements and not about completions. This explains why the minister at every opportunity so far has failed to advise how these figures will be achieved, how they will be monitored, and it explains why he will not set targets for each year.

When the opposition asked the government for details around the Skilling South Australia agreement it has in place with the commonwealth—what the details around the agreement for this funding are—the minister could not answer. Here is a key agreement with the commonwealth government and, when asked some specific details that are central to this agreement, the Minister for Industry and Skills could not answer, instead promising to bring back some information.

The Hon. J.E. Hanson: Cover-up.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The Hon. Mr Hanson says perhaps it is a cover-up. Perhaps it is, or perhaps it is incompetence on the behalf of the minister. Certainly, that is one of the questions that those opposite might be asking themselves: why we have a minister in place who does not know key information about one of their key policies.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: There is a $203 million agreement, half of which is state funds appropriation, yet the minister does not know key details about it. It really is not surprising that those in the minister's own party are asking questions—perhaps not the Hon. Dennis Hood, as he says, but perhaps others in the party are asking questions about the minister's competence and ability as a minister.

Of course, there are many other areas of cuts to this budget. Arts SA has been dismantled and is a shell of its former self. The executive director role has been removed, with no indication of when a new permanent executive director will be appointed. During estimates, the Premier said a new leader of Arts SA will be appointed in the new year after a review of the staffing structure. He dodged so many other questions about the arts.

The best the Premier could offer on the future of arts in South Australia was that it was subject to a review. In the meantime, the entire arts sector is left waiting in limbo until the government gets around to finishing its review. The negative impacts of this are damaging to an industry that provides many millions of dollars in economic benefit to this state every year.

In terms of arts funding, the government is trumpeting $1 million of funding for three regional theatres: the Chaffey Theatre in Renmark, the Northern Festival Centre in Port Pirie and the Sir Robert Helpmann Theatre in Mount Gambier. As a regional member, I was initially delighted to hear that these regional theatres would have investment, especially, of course, the Sir Robert Helpmann in my hometown of Mount Gambier.

Then the truth came out: in reality, that money is for what is pretty routine maintenance to ensure these theatres do not fall foul of fire safety regulations. It is hardly an investment in the arts to simply stopping buildings from being shut down or perhaps burning to the ground. If that is the government's idea of investment in arts, I shudder for the future of the sector.

This government is giving with one hand and taking much, much more with the other. There is a $1 million increase in grant funding for artists across the state, yet the arts are facing savings targets, which are of course simply cuts, of $4.9 million in this year alone. All the while, the government claims to be refocusing Arts SA. In total, there will be cost savings of $31.9 million over the forward estimates. It appears that refocusing Arts SA is simply code for slashing the guts out of Arts SA.

The Hon. J.E. Hanson: Make sure it doesn't catch fire or something.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: But it won't catch fire, the Hon. Mr Hanson says, at least we know that. Arts SA has previously provided high levels of support to artists and art institutions that were seeking grant funding. The specifics of how the removal of these high levels of support will affect regional artists is currently unknown, but I am sure that we can all agree that it cannot be good.

What we do know is that, even before the budget was handed down, artists living on the west coast of Eyre Peninsula had lost their arts officer, based at the District Council of Streaky Bay. The council's arts officer provided services in conjunction with Country Arts SA across the west coast of Eyre Peninsula. Artists living in isolated communities, ranging from Elliston, Wudinna, Streaky Bay, Ceduna and Aboriginal communities and settlements further west, were supported by this position.

The loss of the arts officer means that these west coast communities now have no direct link with Country Arts SA. The arts officer had previously put together assistance programs and packages for these communities and their resident artists. Regional South Australia is home to many artists. Now who will provide these assistance programs and services to artists living in these wonderful but sometimes isolated communities? With Arts SA no longer providing grant assistance and some regional artists losing their connections to Country Arts SA, who will be left to assist and foster the arts in our regions? More to the point, does this Liberal government care?

The Hon. J.E. Hanson: No.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Absolutely not, as the Hon. Mr Hanson comments. The Regional Galleries Association of South Australia recently wrote to the Premier following cuts to their funding. The Regional Galleries Association of South Australia is the peak body for not-for-profit visual art space in regional South Australia. As the peak body, they play an important leadership role and collect valuable data on the visual arts sector for regional SA.

As a result of their work in this area there is now a proposed partnership with Museums Galleries Australia. The association is looking to roll out its data collection and mapping across the state's public galleries and museum sector. This is important work. It will provide a full picture to the arts sector and government of all visitors, collections, resourcing, volunteers and public programs in regional SA for the very first time.

On top of that, the Regional Galleries Association is doing this on the smell of an oily rag. This important work is being undertaken by a project officer employed at just 0.2 FTE and a volunteer executive. Unfortunately, this valuable work is on the cusp of being lost. Country Arts SA recently advised the Regional Galleries Association that, due to their own funding cuts, they could no longer provide funding for the 0.2 FTE position.

Cutting this funding, though it is a small amount, will nevertheless have wideranging ramifications for the entire visual arts sector. It will put at risk the Regional Galleries Association's capacity to contribute to the national sector-wide data collection and benchmarking projects. This will result in a significant under-representation of South Australia and the South Australian regions from national reporting in the visual arts sector.

The Regional Galleries Association wrote to the Premier asking that he consider a matched funding proposal in conjunction with the local government sector. I urge the Premier not to forget our regions and not to turn his back on the important arts communities within our regions. These cuts to services in our regions may sound small, but the roles that these people fulfil play a vital part in connecting artists and communities and promoting arts across South Australia. When you add each of the cuts together, it is clear the arts in the regions are facing death by a thousand cuts. Contrary to the Liberal party's hashtag before the election, clearly regions do not matter to the Liberals.

I know that, prior to the budget, the Arts Industry Council of South Australia had made numerous representations to the Premier for a meeting, but those requests fell on deaf ears. The Premier has been in hiding from the arts sector, and that is a shame. Why is the Premier hiding from the arts sector? Because he had nothing but bad news—nothing at all, except bad news. He could not bring himself to face the sector that he was about to unleash these cuts on.

In the words of the chair of the Arts Industry Council of South Australia, Gail Kovatseff, 'Sadly, the government has given with one hand and taken away with the other.' These cuts are as much a loss for artists in metropolitan Adelaide as they are for those in our regions. I hope that the Regional Galleries Association has better luck getting a response from the Premier than the Arts Industry Council of SA did prior to the budget.

Another cut that the Marshall Liberal government has bestowed on the people of South Australia is the commissioner for Kangaroo Island. The people of Kangaroo Island are very upset about the new government's decision to get rid of the commissioner for the island. The member for Finniss, Leon Bignell, has been fighting this cut since it was announced.

The Hon. D.G.E. Hood: He's the member for Mawson.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My apologies; the member for Mawson.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I do not know the names—names that have changed. The position of commissioner is an incredible position, and it is probably the first time anywhere in Australia that a position like this has been established. It was established by the former Labor government because Kangaroo Island is a place with 4½ thousand people and 4½ thousand square kilometres, which of course has its own challenges. There is a great, resilient community there, both the business community and the wider community, which gets on and gets the job done despite the tyranny of distance and the water crossing.

However, they did need a hand in terms of having their voices heard at a state and indeed a federal level so, after a great deal of consultation, the Kangaroo Island commissioner was established. The Premier made a commitment to consult further with the island's industry associations before proceeding with changes; however, no such discussions have taken place. I received a letter from a member of the Kangaroo Island Industry and Brand Alliance which describes the value of the commissioner perfectly:

The Office of the Commissioner of Kangaroo Island is not another layer of bureaucracy, but the knife that slices through and gets things done.

I repeat that. The Kangaroo Island commissioner 'is not another layer of bureaucracy, but the knife that slices through and gets things done.' The letter continues:

The Act has been helping us to liaise with governmental departments, with outcomes and actions that we could only dream of previously.

Kangaroo Island has been in the midst of an economic transition assessed in 2015 to be over $171 million of planned and approved projects expected on the island over a period of three to five years. Some of these projects have been finalised, such as the Kangaroo Island airport, and progress through the state government decision-making process has moved for a number of other projects.

It has been predicted that these projects are expected to require over 300 new full-time positions in the construction phases and over 500 new employees when all projects are completed. This growth is reflected in Kangaroo Island's recent population statistics, which show a growth rate strengthening to 1.6 per cent in 2016. This growth rate exceeds the South Australian average of 0.9 per cent and is partly attributable to a declining trend in outward migrant departures since 2012-13. This is testimony to the opportunity that businesses and the community see in the island's future. It is worth noting that many of our regional areas do not have that sort of growth rate by any means. It is very much an asset to the island that that is the kind of rates they are experiencing.

Tourism on Kangaroo Island has also seen significant growth over recent years, with 214,000 annual visitors in the 2016-17 year, an increase of almost 8,000 people from the previous year, or 3.9 per cent. Cruise ship visitation is also having major economic impacts on the island. In 2015-16, nine cruise ships visited the island, which resulted in an estimated $2 million of direct expenditure on KI. Sixteen ships visited Kangaroo Island in 2016-17 and 21 in the 2017-18 season, which presented significant benefits for local businesses and the tourism industry. In the 2018-19 season, 30 ships are anticipated to visit the island.

In 2017-18, around 27,000 passengers and crew visited the island, and it is expected that in the coming year, with the additional cruise ships, visits to the island will rise to 40,000. In June last year, Qantas announced new services to Kangaroo Island, with direct flights from Melbourne commencing in December 2017. QantasLink has three services in the off-season to the island via Adelaide. During 2018, negotiations occurred for a second year of QantasLink flights.

The Commissioner for Kangaroo Island has played a key role in assisting developers to navigate the developmental approval processes with local and state agencies, while also working with the community to ensure adequate access to information on projects and associated consultations. Yet, this is a position that this Marshall Liberal government is going to cut, despite the demonstrated benefits to the people of Kangaroo Island and to the economy of South Australia.

The Liberals have plunged the budget into deficit and unleashed cruel cuts, closures and privatisations. Each of these is whittling away our opportunity as South Australians for a better future. This budget is a cruel budget. This budget is about cuts; this budget is about closures; this budget is about privatisations. As such, it should not have the support of any right-minded people.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON (12:47): I rise to speak on this bill. I have mentioned previously in this place the federal Productivity Commission draft report, which indicated a number of possible scenarios which may have an impact on our GST. The report outlines scenarios of equalising to the second highest or average level, which would, if implemented, cost the state in the vicinity of $250 million per annum. If the full range of scenarios were implemented, it could cost South Australia up to $500 million per annum. If the state average equalisation model was implemented, this figure would further expand and the cost to South Australia could be over $2 billion.

It is pleasing for me to be able to note that since I last spoke on the supply related items in this place there has been some acknowledgement by our state government of what was said by myself and others from the opposition in regard to the status of our GST. While it was very humorous to hear Labor Treasury spokesman Chris Bowen state that it was pretty difficult to unite the states and territories on GST distribution, but Mr Morrison and Mr Frydenberg had somehow managed to do so, this also really underlines what the critical problem that we may be facing is, going forward on the GST.

Labor has said consistently that the flaw, particularly in relation to Western Australia, should be legislated—'make the flaw the law', as we have said. It is clear that Labor supports the principle of legislating this, but it remains worrying that Scott Morrison and Josh Frydenberg of the federal Liberal Party have said simply that no state will be worse off, but they are not prepared to put that guarantee in writing in the law.

They should possibly heed the outcome of the local by-election which took place in Mayo, where their candidate seemed to have a lack of understanding of the importance of this issue to South Australians. It is also pleasing for me to be able to report that the federal electorate decided to punish the candidate who could not bring herself to openly put the interests of her state ahead of other possible ambitions she may have had.

The Hon. C.M. Scriven: Perhaps she didn't see it as her state.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: 'Perhaps she didn't see it as her state,' the Hon. Ms Scriven states. Perhaps she has gone back to her state. Possibly somewhat worrying for the South Australian Liberal Party, though, is that the same candidate is seeking to run again in that same electorate and has not yet sought to change her position on this very defining issue. One hopes that she has changed her home address. It has been pleasing to see that our Treasurer has not followed the candidate for Mayo's poor example and has sought, along with all other state treasurers, to enforce the demands of our federal Labor opposition in regard to making sure all states, including South Australia, get their fair share going forward.

There should be a good understanding from everyone in this chamber that such an outcome would be appalling for our state, no matter what your political stripe, as it has never been more important that we have to be focused on the best manner of solving the problems that face our state. I hope to see this bipartisan approach across all state treasurers, including our own, to continue working with any federal opposition, as we all hope, I am sure, to keep seeing the federal government kept to account, possibly all the way into opposition.

While South Australia doubtlessly has some significant challenges ahead of it, no matter the stripe of those who may occupy the Treasury benches, contrasting with the economic and social warning signs we continue to see on our East Coast, we saw in the lead-up to the last election a heightened level of growing business and public confidence that had been occurring for over the best part of a decade in our state. When the Labor Party left the Treasury benches, Adelaide had been consistently rated in The Economist as the fifth most livable city in the world for six years running. It also ranked highly in the Lonely Planet guide and other international magazines which promote healthy living and tourism.

Right up until the last election, in fact, confidence in the South Australian economy was the best it had been in eight years—a not unsurprising number—with almost one in three businesses directly aware of the opportunities provided by the previous state government administration to assist them. However, it is true that the Labor Party, despite how I may feel about this, is no longer in government.

This is something that no doubt those opposite are very happy to remind me and others on my side of the chamber of. This of course promotes another truth, which those opposite seem less able or perhaps willing to grasp; that is, they are now in government. Endlessly, in question time and through press releases, they seek to blame their troubles on a government that is now almost a Christmas behind them. It is not something that the people of this state are looking for in their leaders.

The Liberal Party must start treating the passing of the Treasurer's first budget since 2001 as a line in the sand. From this point onward, the Marshall Liberal government must take full responsibility for its actions and can no longer blame the opposition for their inability to effectively govern or manage the finances of our state. Rather than seeking to take the solid foundations of a strong and growing economy that was left to them, the Marshall Liberal government seems hell-bent on destroying South Australia's economy through slashing jobs, closing vital community and health services and cutting programs that underpin South Australia's vibrant economy.

It seems to me that the Treasurer's budget is borne on the frustrations of many years of electoral defeat and a feeling of unfinished ideological business since 2001. The Marshall Liberal government has missed an opportunity in this budget to support the South Australian economy in the post-Holden manufacturing era. Co-investment into sectors of the economy to drive private investment and micro-economic reform had been a hallmark of economic growth in South Australia since the Labor government first came to office in the early 2000s. Labor supported the economy through co-investment, with jobs being our main focus, and we saw the benefits of this, like for instance the $50 billion submarine contract at Osborne.

This contract created thousands of defence jobs in South Australia, pumping millions of dollars into the local economy and having flow-on effects to other small businesses and contractors along the supply chain. It is what you get when you invest. Labor focused on supporting the South Australian economy after the closure of Holden's and the impact it had on many of its suppliers to support its workforce with training programs.

As the Hon. Ms Scriven has already said, this government is undermining the South Australian economy and attacking the manufacturing industry by cutting many programs, including the automotive suppliers diversification program that assisted automotive supply chain manufacturing workers impacted by the closure of Holden's. As has also already been foreshadowed by the Hon. Ms Scriven, it even refused to help those at Castalloy, who had done nothing more than be subject to international whims beyond their control.

Whilst this government likes to trumpet its business tax cuts and taking its hands off the economic wheel, it fails to recognise that not all sectors of our economy are winners or that the state government has infrastructure responsibilities. I have noted in this place previously that the Labor government's commitment to and, more critically, the Liberal government's failure to deliver for regional SA has not escaped the notice of those regional voters. Electors in Giles resoundingly returned Labor again. The Liberal Party lost Frome again and we saw Labor retain the seat of Mawson even though it includes the very regional voters of Kangaroo Island, who now exist, as the Hon. Ms Scriven has said, without their commissioner.

Those voters knew, at the last election, the value of electing truly local members who believe in driving economic reform through strong public co-investment. It certainly did not escape the notice of electors, at the last federal election, in the federal seat of Grey when they reduced the margin to the lowest it has been in over three decades, let alone what we saw in Mayo. It really is a worry or at least the Liberal Party should be worried about its regional voting base that has seen them lose four of their supposed regional seat strongholds to Labor or Independents. It was very nearly five, if a few hundred votes in Heysen had gone the other way.

It should be clear to this government that regional investment is needed, not further deregulation that hurts regional interests. When in government Labor fought for regional jobs and investment. While the Treasurer may not fully support the ongoing operations of Nyrstar through his most recent negative and, I would argue, politically opportunistic comments in this place—

The Hon. C.M. Scriven interjecting:

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: Not our Treasurer; our Treasurer would not be that politically opportunistic, would he, the Hon. Ms Scriven? I would not think so. While his comments seem politically opportunistic, we stood with regional communities through our investment when in government as we helped to protect the jobs at the Whyalla steelworks through the sale of Arrium and future investments in renewable energy being made by the GFG Alliance and the Gupta family and the metal processing jobs at Port Pirie by investing in the redevelopment of Nyrstar. Instead, this government is maintaining its hands-off-the-wheel approach to public investment in our regions that started with Arrium and appears to be continuing with its comments and negative attitude to Nyrstar.

The question that this government should be asking itself is: what would have happened if we did not make these investments? What would be the state's liabilities in a town with no work, in a Whyalla with no work, in a Port Pirie with no work, in a regional South Australia with no work? It is vital that this government look to the farmers suffering from significant drought, to farmers and small retailers who are being squeezed by the large end of town in terms of pricing and supply, and to those less fortunate in our regional communities who now face cuts to their local public services, the closure of their TAFEs or increases to their Housing Trust rents.

In more specific metropolitan areas, the Marshall Liberal government has declared war on the north-east voters of King, Newland, Florey and Wright by closing their Tea Tree Gully TAFE campus, jeopardising the future career prospects of 226 students; closing Service SA at Modbury; closing bus routes, or at least axing them subject to some whim; and park-and-rides which have been delayed; not to mention privatising health services at Modbury Hospital and selling off SA Pathology.

As has been said by many members on my side of the chamber, Labor will stand shoulder to shoulder with everyday South Australians in opposition to this budget, those who will be negatively impacted by its cruel cuts, closures and privatisations. We will stand with the automotive supply chain workers, we will stand with the more than 4,000 public servants who are now facing unemployment, we will stand with the 900 health industry workers, we will stand with those TAFE lecturers and students from the Tea Tree Gully, Port Adelaide, Wudinna, Roxby Downs, Coober Pedy, Urrbrae and Parafield campuses, and we will stand with the members of our community who rely on their Service SA centres at Modbury, Prospect and Mitcham.

The structure of our federation means that states and territories are actually responsible for the regulation and delivery of most economic and social infrastructure services. I seek leave to conclude my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:15.