Bills

Appropriation Bill 2018

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

The Hon. J.E. HANSON (15:29): I am sounding somewhat disjointed, but I was talking about the structure of federation, in relation to this bill. The structure of federation means that states and territories are responsible for the regulation and delivery of most economic and social infrastructure services. The Treasurer must know this as he joined with other state treasurers on the GST, as I mentioned way back at the start of my speech this morning. Simply saying that this government wants more money in the GST, only to then hand it back in tax cuts while not adequately funding our much-needed social and economic infrastructure, undermines the very argument the states are making to the federal government about their need for GST to fund their responsibilities.

This state government has to embrace its duty entrusted to it as part of the federation and continue to provide delivery of economic and social infrastructure. While it is important to have settings that protect the growth that we have seem recently in this state, it is also important to create conditions that continue to sustain this growth in a way that is positive for our community. Having a focus for the infrastructure in our economy that is both community and efficient will enable our state to generate more from our vast natural resources in regional South Australia, and our highly-skilled workforce located regionally and in the metropolitan area. I have mentioned previously in this place the outstanding figures that show South Australians produce roughly twice what they once produced in the 1970s.

The great result of this productivity outcome, of course, is that we also now earn roughly twice the level of income. While this sounds like a laudable outcome, and it is, the story should not and cannot end there. It is the state government's role to continue to facilitate this ongoing push towards better productivity, and to make sure that all South Australians are given an opportunity to participate in it, by making sure that it does not lose focus on assisting individuals and businesses by providing an environment that supports innovation, increasing education levels, new technologies and investment in trade.

This budget essentially achieves none of this. This is a budget of small tax cuts and large social ones. It is a budget that allocates $20 million to ill thought out infrastructure boondoggle plans like GlobeLink or right-hand tram turns while cutting bus routes it claims not enough people use, Service SAs it says people do not deserve, and TAFEs that it thinks they do not need. I encourage all members to vote against this budget.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (15:32): I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill 2018 and talk about the 2018-19 state budget—the first of this government—and specifically to address the cuts that will have a significant impact on several sectors, not the least of which is the not-for-profit sector and the many non-government organisations that assist the most vulnerable in our communities.

I want to put on the record that there are aspects of the budget that we do support, namely a valuable health initiative in the budget consisting of $45 million to reduce elective surgery and colonoscopy waiting lists in public hospitals. The need for this additional funding is absolutely vital, given that South Australia has the longest waiting times in the country for colonoscopies, with some people having to wait 12 months, which can often be too late for somebody who requires treatment.

Across Australia, the average waiting time for a colonoscopy is six months. These delays are totally unacceptable, given that bowel cancer is the second most common cancer in both men and women in Australia, and it is estimated that about 16,000 Australians each year will be diagnosed with bowel cancer and over 4,000 of those will lose their lives to the disease each year. It is an issue our federal colleagues, Centre Alliance, have long campaigned on. In February this year, Senator Patrick moved a motion on behalf of Senator Griff on the issue of colonoscopy waiting times.

Regular screening is important because you can have bowel cancer without any noticeable symptoms, and early detection of bowel cancer is crucial to the survival rates of sufferers. If detected early, 90 per cent of bowel cancer cases can be successfully treated. Delays are only putting South Australians at risk and SA-Best expects to see a marked difference in reduced waiting times for colonoscopies, and we will hold the government to account if this is not achieved in the next year.

The government has also committed $16 million to increased palliative care support and this is also welcome, but I am afraid that it does not go far enough. Palliative care in South Australia is in the worst condition it has been in since 1980 when it was first implemented in the South Australian health system. Presently, the number of people wishing to die at home with the support of community-based palliative care services far exceeds the availability of that care, particularly for those with illnesses other than cancer. For many, access to community-based palliative care is determined by where a person lives rather than where they prefer to die. A postcode should not determine the level and quality of palliative care that a dying person receives.

Palliative Care Australia, the peak body, estimates that whilst 70 per cent of Australians wish to die at home only around 14 per cent do—and that is a shocking indictment on how we care for those at the end of their life. Sadly, South Australia lags behind the other states with three out of four South Australians not getting access to palliative care—and that is totally unacceptable. This is an issue that we in SA-Best have long campaigned for in terms of increased and better funding for palliative care support.

We developed a strong policy in the area working in conjunction with Palliative Care SA that included $24.5 million a year recurrent funding to increase access to palliative care services; $14 million a year on properly diagnosed community palliative care services, to give an additional 5,600 people the choice of where they wish, including their own home; increasing palliative care services to provide access around the clock; allocating $6 million a year to integrating palliative care into chronic care pathways; and allocating $400,000 towards a community information campaign to advise families of the palliative care services available.

Whilst I note the $16 million provided to palliative care in the budget honours a pre-election commitment made by the Liberal government and is welcome, we still have a long way to go in the area of palliative care. There are just 213 palliative care specialists across all of Australia—that is just one palliative care specialist for every 704 deaths in Australia. That should shock everybody in this place; it is simply not good enough for a country like ours. Inadequate funding of palliative care services only furthers the pain and stress that terminally ill patients and their families are forced to endure.

Many families feel that they have to go it alone in the last few weeks and months to ensure that their loved ones have help to use the bathroom or wash, something that causes an enormous amount of strain at an already stressful time. It is also traumatic for families to see their loved ones dying before their very eyes without access to adequate care and support.

In May, my colleague the Hon. Frank Pangallo moved a motion which urged the federal government to make palliative care a health priority and to appoint a national palliative commissioner. That motion was agreed to unanimously in July this year and it is an issue that our federal counterpart, Stirling Griff of Centre Alliance, has also been advocating for federally. SA-Best will continue to push for more funding to fully support the development of a comprehensive, statewide, standards-based palliative care system that supports all South Australians facing death and bereavement, to live, die and grieve with dignity and compassion.

With those positive measures in the budget there are equally some callous measures that will hurt the most vulnerable in our community. In June 2018, in relation to the upcoming budget, the Premier said, 'You won't be seeing any nasty surprises from us.' Well, that is not true. Housing SA tenants did get a nasty surprise in the form of increased rents of up to $50 per week for those living in bedsits and one-bedroom cottage flats.

South Australians living in those properties are for the most part pensioners and vulnerable people who are already socially isolated, and this measure will only compound the social isolation on those who can least afford it. Increased social housing rents for the disenfranchised in our community will only serve to push them further on the fringes of society and into homelessness. In addition, over 100 full-time employees will be slashed from the Housing Trust, which will only serve to lengthen waiting times, slow maintenance and cause angst for those doing it tough.

The 7.30 program on the ABC this year has run a series of stories about what it is like to be on Newstart's $40 per day. One story broadcast in July featured Tracey Phillips of Adelaide. She is 50 years of age, underemployed in a casual job, on a Newstart top-up and living in social housing. Tracey goes dumpster diving. For those who are not familiar with that term, it means raiding the garbage bins at supermarkets for food and groceries. Tracey does not go dumpster diving for the fun of it and she does not go because she enjoys it, she does it to survive and to keep the cost of her food bill down.

The broadcast also featured Jaieyre Lewis, 26 years old, from Adelaide, who has been on and off Newstart for a couple of years now. When that story aired, Jaieyre had applied for 160 jobs over two to three months—160 jobs! Jaieyre loves to cook but cannot afford meat because it is simply too expensive. Instead, he will buy a chicken carcass for about $2.50 to make soups because they are cheap and nutritious. Jaieyre would like to turn his passion for food into full-time work, but said hospitality jobs in Adelaide are in short supply. Achingly, Jaieyre said during the report:

I don't like to think of myself as a welfare or dole bludger. I like to think of myself as a person first who would like to survive and exist.

Everyone in social housing has the right to be treated as people and the opportunity to survive and exist. This hard-hearted measure by the government will only serve to put pressure on non-government organisations like Anglicare and others to provide the safety net for those affected so that they do not end up homeless. Next year, when many of us will take part in the Walk a Mile in my Boots for people experiencing homelessness, both major parties should reflect on the policies they have implemented that have pushed many disadvantaged South Australians into living some sort of half life on the streets.

On top of this measure was the announcement of a massive cut of $1.2 million in funding to the Legal Services Commission. This organisation provides more than 120,000 legal assistance services to South Australians every year, including matters relating to family law, domestic law, elder abuse and criminal cases. The cuts have forced the commission to shed 25 jobs since the state government reduced its funding by 5 per cent per year in its 2018-19 budget, with redundancies already offered to staff. This decision will result in a massive cut of $6 million over five years.

The government's pursuit of savings has certainly come at the cost of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable in our community and will affect women fleeing from violence. The cuts have resulted in the commission being forced to shut down its Mount Barker office in Walker Street by the end of the year, short-changing residents in the Hills with an outreach service instead. The most vulnerable in our community, who are in need of these free legal services, will be denied equal access to justice and basic legal assistance.

I remind the government that they have instituted important legal reforms to protect women fleeing from violence and who rely on services provided by the Legal Services Commission. Indeed, the Attorney-General, Vickie Chapman, has said that she was disappointed legal aid services will be diminished. You have to wonder what sway the Attorney-General has if she could not protect the Legal Services Commission from such savage cuts. These cuts to the commission will not help women who need legal assistance in parenting matters or advice regarding violent ex-partners.

Instead, the burden will again shift to our community legal assistance centres, like JusticeNet, who do not even get a single cent from the government. The Attorney-General knows only too well the importance of free legal services in ensuring access to justice for those experiencing disadvantage.

My colleague, the Hon. Frank Pangallo, moved a motion earlier this year calling on the government to provide recurrent funding for JusticeNet for the small amount of $120,000 per year to cover admin costs. When that motion is brought to a vote next year, it is hoped that the Attorney-General can convince our Treasurer to provide the much-needed funds for JusticeNet to be able to continue its much-needed services that will only further be stretched by the flow on effects from the budget cuts to the Legal Services Commission.

What I cannot understand is the shortsightedness of some of these measures. Surely this government, our Treasurer, must recognise that in the long run it will cost the government more to provide services because, if organisations like JusticeNet pull the plug, if they cannot commit to helping our most vulnerable, then those people who rely on those services will inevitably end up knocking on the government's door for assistance—the doors of the very agencies that are having their funding cut.

I move to the announced closure of seven TAFE campuses across the state and savings that will be sought from those that remain open. If you are a trainee or apprentice, this budget announcement is a kick in the guts as far as training and education goes. The decision to close Urrbrae TAFE is most perplexing, given the healthy number of enrolments in that campus alone. I believe there are between 400 and 600 student enrolments at that campus.

Urrbrae TAFE is particularly significant and unique because of its setting alongside Urrbrae Agricultural High School and the Urrbrae Wetland. I recently visited the grounds myself and was completely blown away by the significance of the site with its composition of flora designed as a living, breathing outdoor school providing the highest quality horticultural education.

The campus offers courses in horticulture, landscaping, arboriculture, turf irrigation, conservation and land management and garden design. It also has a golf green and specialist irrigation and landscaping areas, as well as shared resources with Urrbrae Agricultural High School, such as a vineyard and olive groves. The site was purpose-built to complement the course work and cannot be replicated anywhere else to the same high standard, again, at least not without a huge injection of funds.

Students at the campus are worried about the quality of their studies when they are moved from the Urrbrae campus, and these fears have not been allayed by anything the Minister for Education has said publicly. In fact, if anything, his statements have only caused further uncertainty. Nursery and Garden Industry SA (NGISA) is up in arms about the decision and rightly so. Urrbrae TAFE is responsible for training staff who go on to work in the nursery and garden sector in South Australia. More than 2,500 people have signed a petition protesting the closure of Urrbrae TAFE, and I will soon be tabling that petition before the end of this parliamentary year.

I recently asked the Minister for Education on radio if he could confirm whether there were any moves to shift courses from Urrbrae to Roseworthy, and I have to say I was not completely convinced by his response. Nor was I convinced that the Urrbrae campus is safe from closure—far from it. I think we have had confirmation that that site is one that is up for closure. The minister also told me that there was going to be a nine-month consultation process with Urrbrae TAFE taking place. That is very different from the feedback I have received from people who work and study at Urrbrae TAFE.

I am advised that those impacted by the changes, including teaching staff at the high school and Urrbrae TAFE, have been completely blindsided by the government's announcement. I am advised that they are still none the wiser as to the proposal and cannot get details of future plans from the TAFE executive. Worse still, I am advised that teaching staff are too frightened to speak out about the changes that they do know of and those that they do not know of, and too frightened to ask any questions publicly because of an apparent and convenient gag clause in their employment contracts. During the ABC radio interview the Minister for Education said:

There were seven campuses identified where it was felt that there was a level of underutilisation and that the money that was currently invested in paying for cleaning contracts, sweeping corridors, cleaning toilets and paying for electricity bills at those campuses could be better reinvested in other parts of training

He went on to say:

Urrbrae is one of [the given] campuses that is scheduled for closure in the 19-20 years, so we've got about 18 months to work out all of the details.

The minister then conceded that Urrbrae is probably a bit different to some of the others in that Urrbrae is co-located with the agricultural high school. There is a range of specialist facilities in that location—the arboretum, the wetlands and other things related to horticulture—that are critical for training, and which TAFE will continue to use.

I commend the efforts of Urrbrae horticultural student Ellie Potter, in particular, who has come to see me. Ellie has also established an online campaign, being run on the petition website change.org, which was started about four weeks ago and which already has thousands of signatures in favour of Urrbrae TAFE remaining at its present site and offering the courses it offers now into the future. I will be seeking to table that petition in this chamber in due course.

I will make one other comment about the Urrbrae campus before moving to the next topic. There are a number of other concerns that have been raised, particularly in the context of the high school co-located on the same site as the TAFE, and the apparent need for that high school to expand, and to expand apparently by the same number of classrooms that are currently occupied by the TAFE. There is also the minister's reluctance, on radio, to rule out any moves in terms of the sale of that land. These are issues that are concerning the teaching staff and the students at Urrbrae, and I believe it is only fair they be involved in any consultation and discussions about the future of that site.

The cuts to Arts SA is particularly ridiculous for South Australia, a state that has always prided itself on its vibrant arts sector. A playwright wrote to me recently concerned about the cuts to arts funding. He is concerned with the lack of consultation with the wider arts community—again, another example of the lack of consultation—and that there has been inadequate consideration of the impact this will have on South Australia.

Disruptions to program funding and restructuring Arts SA will result in disruptions throughout the arts calendar. This particular playwright plans projects up to 12 months in advance and, without certainty around the funding models or processes, the work needed to prepare for these is lost, and with it forthcoming projects that bring vitality to South Australia are lost. So when those in the government attend glittering events for the Adelaide Festival next year, they need to think long and hard about how the cuts to the arts will affect budding and established artists.

There are, of course, many other areas I could speak to at length. I could have touched on measures such as cuts to several Service SA branches and the impact this will have on residents in those areas, as well as cuts to Crime Stoppers and the cessation of certain regional bus routes. However, the bottom line is this: we cannot keep this up.

During a radio interview very recently I was made aware that we do not even have a public transport system that runs from Virginia to Adelaide. I did not know that until this person made it known on air. There is no bus. That means if you live in that area you have to travel probably 30 minutes or so in order to access public transport to get into the city. This is Virginia, Mr President. It is not that far away. If we cannot provide that sort of basic service we know something is wrong.

The cuts to laptops in the secondary schools program will only serve to deny students in the North the ability to learn and thrive in an electronic age. Every child in this state deserves the same opportunities, no matter their postcode. We say that time and time again in terms of several measures that are being proposed. It does not matter where you live, the same opportunities should be afforded to you. Many of these issues have been covered at length by others in this place, so I will not go into them today and I close with these words, Mr President.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (15:55): I thank all honourable members for their contribution to the second reading debate of the Appropriation Bill. As members have highlighted, there are two major bills in terms of ensuring we have the dollars to pay public servants. We have a Supply Bill, which pays the bills through until around about November, and this Appropriation Bill allows us to pay the bills for public servants and public services from the end of November, December, through to the end of the financial year. So it is obviously essential in terms of being able to continue to deliver whatever level of service ultimately the government of the day determines.

I will not delay the consideration of the second reading by going into point by point scoring about the budget. I appreciate the different views members have about the difficult decisions that any government confronts in terms of priorities, and on this occasion it is the new government. I accept the fact that many will have different priorities to those established by the new government.

However, as the government indicated, we went to the election with a clear statement or mantra about fixing the mess by keeping our promises and establishing a foundation for the future. We made specific promises in particular areas such as emergency services levy bill cuts, payroll tax, land tax and a range of other areas. This budget is implementing the promises we made to the people of South Australia in the period leading up to the election.

However, there are three or four issues that I want to respond to in the broad. The first one is the vexed issue of consultation. The Hon. Ms Bonaros and a number of other speakers have raised this particular issue. I understand the issue that is raised by those who say, 'Hey, we were not consulted about this particular cut.' Can I just say to the Hon. Ms Bonaros and other members that the issue is that, at budget time, any government—and we had a Labor government for 16 years and they had the same issues, and we have the same issues—makes difficult decisions about funding priorities; that is, they will fund one particular priority but another one they will not fund.

It is impossible in the context of a budget to individually consult on a cut to particular services in every portfolio when you announce all of the budget on a particular day. The example highlighted was about a particular funding component of the arts portfolio being cut or reduced—so was the claim—and someone says, 'Well, we weren't consulted about that particular cut.' That is true, but that is an inevitable consequence of governments having to make budget decisions. You cannot go through a process of individually consulting on every particular decision that you are going to implement in your budget.

The budget goes through a confidential cabinet process. It is ultimately approved by cabinet and very soon after it is revealed by the Treasurer to the parliament and community. The government, the Treasurer, has to be judged, and judged accordingly, and that is fair enough. Whilst it is an easy response, it will never stop it, I know; that is, 'We weren't consulted about this particular decision, or not.' Ultimately, that is just impossible in constructing a budget. Whilst I understand the concerns some have expressed, it is an inevitable consequence of the budget.

The second point I want to respond to is about a number of claims by Labor members that the former government left the new government with a budget in surplus. I just want to place again on the public record evidence I placed in the budget speech itself and further expanded on since. On page 2 of the budget speech, I refer to the monthly financial monetary report prepared by Treasury for January 2018. At the end of January 2018, just prior to the state election in March, the former government and the former treasurer were given a confidential summary of the state of the budget for 2017-18. The quote that I included in the budget speech was as follows:

Projected total deterioration in the net operating budget of $193.7 million means that the budget is clearly in deficit in 2017-18.

That was the advice the former government and the former treasurer received in the weeks just before the state election. It is a furphy; to say that the former government left a budget in surplus to the new government are claims made without any substance or evidence.

As I said, the independent confidential advice that the former treasurer and former government received only weeks before the election, and I have just quoted aspects of that, make that quite clear. The other claim that the Hon. Emily Bourke, and I think one or two other members, made is that the former government had presided over nine surplus budgets. I refer the Hon. Emily Bourke and her advisers to page 12 of the Budget Paper 3: Budget Statement document. This is a budget paper prepared by Treasury.

In that, figure 1.1 is the budget surplus or deficit; it is a net operating balance measure. There is a graph there that clearly shows that, of the last 10 budgets, seven of the 10 budgets were actually in deficit. Of the three that were in surplus, one of them was as a result of one-off payments from the Motor Accident Commission, which do not continue, of course, which turned the deficit into a surplus, and another one in 2009-10 was on the back of the global financial crisis bailout that the federal government gave to the states, where billions of dollars were given to all the states to try to assist national economic growth in the wake of the global financial crisis.

Even if you accept those for those particular reasons, contrary to the claim made by the Hon. Ms Bourke that the former government was some sort of economic nirvana in terms of delivering surplus budgets, I would challenge the Hon. Ms Bourke and her advisers to produce any evidence that indicates that. Indeed, page 12 of the Budget Statement makes it quite clear that seven out of the 10 budgets under the last government were actually in deficit. In two cases, the annual deficit was over $1 billion, in 2012-13 and 2013-14. They were annual deficits of in and around $1 billion for those two particular financial years. The evidence is there for anyone who is prepared to have a look at it. Certainly, the claims being made that the former government delivered nine surplus budgets is economic fantasy land.

The final point that I wanted to respond to was in relation to the Hon. Tung Ngo's claim that because net debt levels in this budget had increased, that was a clear broken promise made by the government. Again, that is a statement that is not correct. In the document '2036' and in subsequent statements leading up to the election, the Liberal government made it quite clear that its commitments were to do two things in relation to the budget. One was to produce annual surpluses; that is, to spend no more than we earn on an annual basis, and this budget forecasts that we will do that.

What we said in relation to debt was that, because we had inherited such a very significant level of debt from the former Labor government, any reduction in debt would be a medium to long-term proposal. We did not promise, we did not propose, any reduction of debt over the four-year period of this parliamentary term. Indeed on a couple of occasions, when asked, I indicated that moderate increases in net debt, if it was for productive infrastructure, would be supported by an incoming Liberal government.

So contrary to the claim made by the Hon. Mr Ngo we certainly made no commitment or promise to reduce the state's net debt. We have essentially said the debt that we inherited from Labor is Labor's debt, and we might support a moderate increase in that debt, which we are prepared to accept responsibility for, and that is an increase of about $1.5 billion by the end of the forward estimates period, as long as it is debt incurred in the pursuit of productive economic infrastructure for the state in terms of growing the economy and growing jobs.

With that, I thank honourable members for their contributions. As I said, I am not going to engage in point by point argument with members about competing priorities. We have done that previously, and we can do that on other occasions. I thank honourable members for their contributions to the second reading of the Appropriation Bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Bill taken through committee without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (16:07): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.