Bills

Appropriation Bill 2019

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 10 September 2019.)

The Hon. C. BONAROS (15:24): I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill 2019. I am extremely disappointed with what the budget offers or, more precisely, does not offer South Australians. It is a budget that fails to deliver to some of the most vulnerable people in our state, on whose behalf many of us have been advocating for many years.

There is a lot to be critical of in my analysis of the budget, the second for this government. We could talk about the extra taxes, fees and charges that are hitting everyday South Australians, or the many cuts to organisations that are left to fill in the gaps left by government, but I am going to focus today on areas close to my heart that I will continue to advocate for.

Regrettably, this year's state budget failed to make any provision for a garment subsidy scheme and/or dedicated treatment services for lymphoedema sufferers. There is absolutely nothing in the budget for lymphoedema sufferers—zero. They remain disadvantaged. The fact that SA remains the only, and indeed the last, jurisdiction in Australia that does not have a garment subsidy scheme nor dedicated support services for sufferers is completely and utterly intolerable.

The failure to make provision for both a garment subsidy scheme and dedicated treatment services in the budget comes despite a business case having been completed on the issue and despite the lobbying of many, as I understand, members of the government's own backbench. There was widespread support for a garment subsidy scheme and better services, and a personal plea to the health minister from the president and vice-president of the Lymphoedema Support Group SA (LSGSA), Monique Bareham and Alison Nelson, at the round table convened by me on 10 May, which the minister kindly attended. You cannot be unmoved by the stories like those of Monique, president of the LSGSA. Here is part of her story:

I have lymphoedema and am a breast cancer survivor of 10 years. At 37 I was in the swing of a busy life juggling a challenging career, with plans to start a family when I found a lump. Within a week I became a 'cancer patient' and my life would never be the same. I underwent many months of demanding life-saving treatment including taxane based chemotherapy, extended radiotherapy, hormone therapy and surgery which included a complete axilla dissection in my right armpit where all 28 lymph nodes were removed to halt the spread of my cancer.

I am profoundly grateful to the doctors who cured me of my cancer—but the cost to me of that cure is that I now live with an incurable, condition. This is because each of these life-saving treatments came with the risk of developing the chronic and progressive condition of lymphoedema. The combined effect of all my treatments put me at very high risk of developing it. Yet this was barely mentioned to me—I was not monitored or given any information about it. Sadly—I hear similar accounts from consumers time and time again.

Only weeks into my cancer treatment regime I experienced distressing and painful symptoms of chronic swelling in my arm, heaviness, cording and loss of mobility. I became one of the 20% of breast cancer survivors to be diagnosed with 'severe early stage lymphoedema'.

At that time I had private health insurance, sick leave and savings to fall back on so was able to access intensive, costly private lymphoedema therapy consisting of months of bandaging, massage and laser therapy and compression.

Once my symptoms were stable, I settled into a daily care routine, regular therapy and 24/7 compression which, for me includes Class II flat knit gloves and sleeves for daytime wear and specialised night compression garments.

Many, many others who find themselves in similar situations are not so fortunate—their lymphoedema simply goes untreated.

I was able to keep this up for 2 years before my savings ran out as lymphoedema prevented me from returning to paid employment. It was then I fully grasped the inequity suffered by so many here. I searched for public lymphoedema services and found that although I live close to a leading hospital (FMC) in metropolitan Adelaide, there was nothing available. FMC's lymphoedema clinic had closed its doors in 2011. I was even more shocked to learn that SA is the only state without a compression therapy subsidy. All that is available to us is the 'Chronic Disease Management Plan' which is not designed to address lymphoedema so is inadequate and completely unfit for this purpose.

Now, as a 47 y/o longer term cancer survivor with limited financial resources—my situation is only getting worse. I do what we all do—self-manage, make my garments last longer and go without treatment. I have already experienced the potentially life-threatening infection of cellulitis, my arm has developed fibrosis, is getting bigger and I am constantly unwell and suffering fatigue. The ongoing emotional, physical and financial toll this has taken on myself and my family is enormous.

And I am not alone—since becoming President of the LSGSA, I have become more and more aware of the amount of people here who are affected and are suffering in silence. Not always cancer survivors, some have developed lymphoedema through infections, some from soft tissue injuries or surgery and some were born with it. With nowhere to go, the reality for many is their condition progresses to such a degree that they end up presenting to an emergency department with leaky limbs and/or cellulitis, resulting in a lengthy, stressful and costly hospital stay. But—even then, their lymphoedema is often ignored and once they can be discharged they are left on their own again. They can end up living a miserable life—isolated, in pain, house bound and literally waiting for their next trip to the ER department.

But what really, really continues to amaze me is this—all of this can so easily be avoided AND with the added benefit of cost savings to the public purse. International and Australian evidence based clinical guidelines recommend early intervention, monitoring and assessment and the provision of relatively low-cost conservative treatments and self-management education to greatly improve the quality of life for those living with lymphoedema. When these guidelines are adopted the rates of severe long term lymphoedema and the known comorbidities reduce which means consumers are more likely to stay in the workforce and importantly out of hospital. A small investment in this area will save so much.

All other states/territories recognise this and have guidelines in place. It is clear that the SA lymphoedema community desperately needs dedicated public lymphoedema services staffed by appropriately trained specialist lymphoedema therapists and a compression therapy subsidy.

And this is Lachlan's story:

Hi all. I am a young 23 year old man living with chronic Lymphoedema of the lower legs which was diagnosed by a paediatrician at Womens and Childrens Hospital. I now have frequent bouts of cellulitis. I am currently having issues with my GP who has told me twice now that my cellulitis is 'just Lymphoedema', despite the fact that I'm ending up in hospital (RAH) for days at a time almost every time. This has gone on for 14 months now and is having a significant impact on my physical and emotional wellbeing, as I am missing out on normal activities including my job and being able to go on holidays. Thus, I am desperately searching for a GP who will effectively manage my condition, and am wondering if anyone has found any good doctors for the management of Lymphoedema and cellulitis.

It angers me that South Australia continues to be the only jurisdiction in Australia without a garment subsidy scheme. It is completely unacceptable that lymphoedema sufferers in this state are discriminated against merely because of the state in which they live. As a result of the lack of available support in South Australia, many lymphoedema sufferers cannot afford the necessary treatment to relieve their symptoms.

While I note the Coalition government announced, prior to the federal election, $10 million in funding over the next five years to provide a national compression garment scheme for lymphoedema, it appears to only offer assistance to those suffering lymphoedema after breast cancer. We certainly welcome this announcement; however, the absence of any detail surrounding the funding is extremely frustrating not only for me but of course for those people who are impacted by this condition.

Further, while approximately 20 per cent of breast cancer sufferers will develop lymphoedema as a result of removed or damaged lymph nodes, the condition also affects men after treatment for conditions, including cancer. Head and neck surgeries and other tissue damage can also trigger lymphoedema. The Australasian Lymphology Association estimates that one in every 6,000 people are living with primary lymphoedema as a result of a congenital condition.

However, the $10 million of federal funding that was announced appears to only assist breast cancer survivors who later develop lymphoedema. Lymphoedema sufferers in our state deserve a better quality of life and better support, the same as sufferers in other state benefit from. In recent correspondence I reiterated again my call on the Marshall government to implement a garment subsidy scheme to benefit all South Australians living with lymphoedema, and to provide dedicated services as a matter of urgency.

Sadly, and most unfairly, there is also no money for a much-needed donor conception register in South Australia— again, one of the last states not to have one. This is despite a comprehensive review into the assisted reproductive technology bill by the esteemed Dr Sonia Allan in 2017, making a strong case for a register as a matter of urgency.

Just this morning, I met with two astonishing donor-conceived people, and was overwhelmed by their plight and struggles to obtain vital information about who they are and where they came from. I will have more to say on that when I take my bill on the issue to a vote during the next week of sitting. I challenge anyone to sit down with these two individuals and not be moved by their stories.

The wonderful organisation that is JusticeNet is also another victim of the Marshall government's Ebenezer Scrooge budget. They could not even provide a meagre $120,000 a year to look after its operating costs. JusticeNet is such a vital organisation that provides free legal services for civil claims to the poorest in our community, and feels the chasm left by the Legal Services Commission, which itself is severely underfunded and not able to provide assistance for civil law disputes.

As a result, JusticeNet was recently forced to make the difficult decision to close its state court self-representation service later this month as it diverts its self-raised funds into maintaining its core business. The self-representation service, which was run by volunteers, by some of Adelaide's most prominent law firms, has operated for the past six years, providing free legal advice and a task assistance to thousands of people facing serious civil law problems but who cannot afford legal representation.

JusticeNet's executive director, Tim Graham, estimates that the service provided around $241,500 in annual savings to the government through reduced court operating costs, not to mention, of course, the more than $400,000 that volunteer lawyers contribute pro bono, providing more than 1,200 hours of free legal help to the service in the last financial year.

The Treasurer and the Attorney-General should do the maths on that one, while hanging their heads in shame. Our Attorney-General knows only too well that unrepresented litigants are a heavy burden on the legal system. Adequate public funding ought to be a key priority, if for nothing else but to increase court efficiency, but not for this government.

The Marshall Liberal government has prioritised that short-term cost cutting takes precedence over long-term investment in improvements in court efficiency. And, wow, hasn't the Attorney-General's view changed now that her party is in government! In Opposition, she said, 'We have no intention of cutting them off.' But, now in government the Attorney-General has been swift to do just that, refusing further funding requests for programs or core operations since taking office, a stance that has already seen the closure of a separate service offering free legal help for refugees and asylum seekers.

Then, there is the ill-conceived land tax reforms policy in the budget that has had to undergo numerous revisions to appease an increasingly disgruntled backbench facing political oblivion at the next election. The changes have done little to quell—

The Hon. D.G.E. Hood: Look in the polls.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: —the discontent from the broader—I think if you ask them, the Hon. Dennis Hood, they may have a different opinion. The changes have done little to quell the discontent from the broader business community and leading economists. I mention again that this is what is making front-line news every day, the Hon. Dennis Hood, and leading economists warn the changes will adversely affect the property market in South Australia and threaten the state's economy.

The Marshall Liberal government cannot even get its numbers right—and I challenge you to challenge me on that one, the Hon. Dennis Hood. In the state budget, as we know, the Treasurer estimated that changes would raise $40 million when the real number has since been revealed to be $118 million. The latest plan will apparently raise $86 million—and this from a government that came to power promising accountability and transparency. I say to our Treasurer again: release your land tax modelling.

What is crystal clear is that the Premier and the Treasurer have made an absolute mess of the proposed land tax reforms. It is an absolute shemozzle. It is policy on the run, making it up as they go and attempting to put bandaids where the haemorrhaging has started. SA-Best has been clear—crystal clear, in fact—about where we stand on the changes since the budget announcement, standing with the business community and the mum-and-dad investors who will cop it heavily in their hip pockets if the Marshall Liberal government's proposed reforms are successful.

Already this year, the Marshall government has alienated farmers over its mining bill. The four Liberals who crossed the floor over that bill could all run as Independents at the next election if pushed into a corner any further, and they have every chance of retaining their seats. Now the government is facing an unprecedented, potent, cashed-up revolt from its own rock-solid base, property developers and investors, over its ill-conceived and ill-considered land tax overhaul. I guess time will tell how much this policy will hurt the government.

In closing, I am absolutely astounded by the incoherent agenda of the Marshall Liberal government and the lack of decisive direction it has for South Australia. The Premier, in opposition, said that the Liberals do not have a privatisation agenda, when clearly they do, with the privatisation of the Adelaide Remand Centre and the proposed privatisation of our trams and trains and back-up power stations. I say this to the Marshall Liberal government: lie to South Australians at your peril.

Budgets are about priorities. They are full of choices, sometimes difficult choices, but choices that show the priorities of government. Propping up the state's ailing racing industry to the tune of $24 million—an industry that exists for one reason and one reason only, gambling—and an anticompetitive loan of some $40 million to the Stadium Management Authority for a fancy hotel at Adelaide Oval perfectly illustrate the priorities of this Marshall Liberal government. Time will tell if these budget decisions come back to haunt them.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (15:42): I rise today to indicate that Labor will support this bill but, as the previous speaker did, we have grave concerns about the direction of this government and what it means for South Australia. The Premier, Steven Marshall, and his hapless, under-pressure Treasurer continue to break election promises.

The Premier did not really give the full story to the people of South Australia when he said that he did not have a privatisation agenda. It took the government only until its second budget to announce the sell-off of the rail system in South Australia. This comes after massive cuts to bus services that have left many workers without an adequate means of getting to work, especially for jobs that start early and finish late.

The government claimed it will maintain control over scheduling and ticketing, but example after example overseas shows that, inevitably, when the profit motive is introduced the operatives will come back to the government and demand more public money, higher ticket prices or a reduction in services—in this case, probably all of them.

When the now Premier said that they did not have a privatisation agenda before the last election, he must have forgotten about his Treasurer. For 16 years, 16 long years, the Treasurer has been waiting in opposition after he sold off our power network, after he closed down a record number of schools, after he sold off our buses, after he privatised health care at Modbury. For 16 years he and his Liberal mates have been waiting to get back onto the Treasury benches to continue the project they started.

He was champing at the bit to come after the rail system, SA Pathology, Service SA, hospital car parking, and who knows what else is next. This government does not just have a privatisation agenda, they will sell off everything they can. It is pretty clear the Treasurer wants to get it all sold off by the time he retires in 2022 and goes off to tend to his ponies full time so he can claim the credit for having sold it all but does not have to stick around to clean up the inevitable mess that will follow.

When this government is not selling off public services and assets, they are picking them apart. Two champions of South Australian manufacturing and produce, Brand SA and the I Choose SA campaign, were unceremoniously defunded and closed down, showing this government fails to spend money in supporting South Australian businesses. A key Liberal election commitment to all South Australians is that they would have lower taxes. Since then, we have seen not one change to land tax, not two, but we are currently up to the third iteration, with possibly a fourth to come. This is a broken promise. This is so far. This is land tax 3.0, heading into land tax 4.0, with who knows how many iterations to come.

The government's changes to the aggregation of land tax are opposed by none other than the Property Council, the Urban Development Institute of Australia and the Master Builders Association. This is because some investors will be forced to pay thousands upon thousands upon thousands of dollars more in land tax while at the same time reducing the land tax bill for many big corporations by tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Not only that, not only do the representatives of the building industry fiercely oppose what the government is doing, they have had their own backbenchers lining up to criticise the aggregation changes. We have seen recently reported in the media that the members for Waite and Davenport and in our own chamber the Hon. Dennis Hood and the Hon. Terry Stephens were quoted as saying that they now support this, after having concerns about the land tax regime before. I think that is a factual representation of what the media has recently said.

We have seen unnamed Liberals saying that this is a train wreck. I do not know which of the ones who have now changed their mind were the unnamed sources but it seems likely that it was one of those who is now referred to as having changed their mind who has been backgrounding against this government. In question time on 10 September, the Treasurer said that, despite the consultation on land tax being open until 2 October, aggregation is non-negotiable, the rate is non-negotiable, the threshold is non-negotiable, but they are having consultation.

This is the Liberal way of doing consultation. Some of the technical elements of the bill: where a comma is, whether there should be a semicolon, what the numbers or the title are, maybe that is what is meant by negotiation by this decide-and-defend government. This cynical, ham-fisted excuse for consultation has meant that the Treasurer has not been able to outline anything of substance to date over the last months since the budget on this bill.

At land tax 3.0, they announced that they were out by tens of millions of dollars in their revenue forecast. Their aggregation measures are set to raise $118 million. What did the Treasurer come into this chamber and say before the winter break? That there was modelling done, that there were estimates, and, of course, 'I'm a financial expert.' I think he actually said to me at one stage, 'You may have a law degree but you are no economics expert.'

I have an economics degree as well, but the Treasurer would not notice that because he does not read the names after people on some of the sheets that go out. But he is the financial guru. He is the absolute financial guru who claimed that estimates are modelling. They were his exact words: 'estimates are modelling'. The Treasurer, as a financial guru, also gave us the definition of privatisation that was well in conflict with the OECD definition, but no, the Treasurer knows better than the OECD.

We have seen other outrageously cruel cuts in this budget, such as cutting $3.6 million from the Victim Support Service. For 40 years, the Victim Support Service (VSS) has been helping South Australians recover from crime, whether it is domestic or family violence, home invasions, road crashes, sexual offences or murder. More than 50,000 victims each year rely on this service. This is not simply a cost saving measure, it is a government kicking victims in South Australia when they are down. Not only does it show a lack of compassion and contempt, it shows that they do not value the critical work done by those who support victims.

I move on to the area for which I hold the shadow portfolio, Aboriginal affairs. As I noted yesterday when speaking, it is a portfolio I hold and, sadly, there is not a portfolio holder in the Liberal government. It has been noted by people such as Labor Senator and respected elder Patrick Dodson that South Australia is the only jurisdiction in the nation that now does not have a minister for Aboriginal affairs. We do not have anyone as the minister for Aboriginal affairs. When the ministry was sworn in, for those four or five days when there were only three ministers, one of them was the minister for Aboriginal affairs, but there is not anyone with that title anymore.

We saw the furore when Tony Abbott was prime minister over the fact that there was not a minister for science, and he quickly fixed that. Despite the Aboriginal community being up in arms that no-one has been given the portfolio of minister for Aboriginal affairs, there is no-one as minister for Aboriginal affairs. There is no-one who has that dedicated title to be at the cabinet table to support the hopes and aspirations of Aboriginal people because the Premier thinks it is not worthy.

If the Premier acts as someone who has the title committed to him and he does not have the decency, the time or the enthusiasm to call himself minister for Aboriginal affairs, then I would welcome him giving it to someone in his cabinet who does. I am sure there are some—and there certainly have been in the past—members of the Liberal Party who have the enthusiasm and would make a good minister for Aboriginal affairs.

The Hon. John Dawkins is chair of the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee, and I am sure if the Premier owned up and said, 'I don't have the time. I don't have the interest. The Hon. John Dawkins, would you be my minister for Aboriginal affairs?', I think the Hon. John Dawkins, or the Hon. Terry Stephens, would do it. I know the Hon. Terry Stephens takes a great interest in this area and has the enthusiasm, time and interest to actually do a good job of this.

The former member for Morphett, Dr Duncan McFetridge, was a very, very good shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs. We sat down on numerous occasions, even effectively jointly drafting legislation, because I think that is how it is supposed to work. The Aboriginal community around South Australia has noticed that there is no dedicated minister and has noticed that there is no-one looking after their interests within this government.

If we look at NAIDOC Week this year, the Premier, who apparently has the responsibility but refuses to take on the title of minister for Aboriginal affairs, did not turn up to one event during the whole of NAIDOC Week. He was even absent from the Premier's own NAIDOC Awards—not a single event for the whole of NAIDOC Week.

What we do see from this government is a glossy brochure entitled: Aboriginal Affairs Action Plan. During estimates, we not only had an admission from the Premier that we could not have estimates with the minister for Aboriginal affairs because there is not one, we had an admission from the Premier that the pages of this much-hyped document were mostly Labor initiatives that were already developed. Their action plan was a fraud: a repackaged, glossy document filled with mostly recycled items—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: Is that why you criticised it at the time?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I certainly did—that the Premier knew were in place, commenced or completed by the former government. There were good programs in this glossy document. The problem was they were not the Liberal government's, they were not the Premier's, and one thing we can be sure of is that they were not those of the Liberal minister for Aboriginal affairs because there is not one.

It was a repackaged, glossy document that restated many Labor programs. Take, for example, the government's employment industry cluster program. I have a government document right here with me that says, 'Since 2010, the Clusters have supported over 1,000 Aboriginal people in training and transitioned over 600 Aboriginal people into employment.' Guess what? This was one of the things in the so-called Liberal government's Aboriginal Affairs Action Plan—restating something that dates back to press releases from 2010.

This is just one example of this great new deal for Aboriginal people that the Premier has talked about. There are many others: interpreter services, housing programs, employment programs, reconciliation action programs, health programs, that the Premier has claimed, in his glossy document that he has packaged together, as Liberal initiatives that are nothing of the sort.

They are things that the departments were doing anyway but have just been put in there and characterised as a new plan. In fact, a series of FOIs and other things that the opposition has lodged show that. They show that this plan was basically a call to the department saying, 'What are you doing?' and the department came back and said, 'This is what we are doing,' and then they were packaged up into a glossy brochure. That is the substitute for Aboriginal affairs policy.

Probably the most galling and outrageous one of these, stated in this plan as something that this government is doing as part of the Aboriginal Affairs Action Plan, is the Buthera Agreement with the Narungga Nation. This was the first agreement in Australia signed on the way to treaty. This was an agreement as part of the treaty negotiations, the very thing that the Premier scrapped. He scrapped the treaty negotiations, the treaty discussions with Aboriginal nations, yet the Premier has the hide to claim that in his glossy brochure: a treaty agreement, after scrapping the treaty process that was supported by over 80 per cent of Aboriginal South Australians during the biggest consultation with Aboriginal South Australia that any state government has ever undertaken.

He is claiming this as a great thing in this document. Someone did not proofread it because he is claiming treaty, which he has now scrapped and which many Aboriginal leaders around South Australia are devastated about. I guess that is why so many wish that we actually had a minister for Aboriginal affairs in this state—at least one person sitting around the cabinet table who can speak up and say, 'Hey, let's look at the interests of Aboriginal people. Let's not claim things that we are ardently opposed to, such as treaty, and let's not claim them in the program.'

This government still has no idea of how to govern. Nearly two years in, they are making mistakes and making enemies. Quite frankly, as we have seen with land tax, they are just making it up. In light of the Aboriginal Affairs Action Plan, I have written—after spending a couple of weeks on the APY lands recently, meeting with community councils, community leaders and service providers—to a range of ministers about some of the problems I have encountered.

I did note that the Premier—not the minister for Aboriginal affairs, because there is not one—popped up for two days. He went into Alice Springs to open an art exhibition. He went to a couple of art centres—which I congratulate him on; the art centres on the APY lands are truly amazing and are hubs of our community—and then had a picture taken at a football game. I welcome people like Steven Marshall flying in and flying out or turning off the highway and going to an art centre. It is good to get a glimpse but, quite frankly, someone who should be representing Aboriginal people in South Australia cannot just fly in and fly out of communities once a year to have an understanding of the challenges that are faced. It is not good enough, it does not cut the mustard and people are noticing.

The time has come to stop telling Aboriginal South Australians, from the heights of the State Administration Centre, what is right for them, but rather to spend some time listening. As I said, the Hon. John Dawkins or the Hon. Terry Stephens would make fine Aboriginal affairs ministers, and I would love to work with one of them in this portfolio area because it is important. It is something that is important. If you do not have the time, effort or inclination to do the job properly, do not do it.

There are job opportunities for young people, water quality issues, policing issues, overcrowding in housing, better access to telecommunications and health issues that you just do not understand from a photo opportunity in Alice Springs or in the centre of Australia at a football game. Would it not be an amazing thing if we could, in some way, remove the man in the middle and have issues like this raised directly with the Parliament of South Australia—something like a direct voice to parliament for Aboriginal people? Do you know what? There is a model for that. It was proposed in September 2017, when 250 Aboriginal delegates from around Australia came together and delivered the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

One of the three main things in that statement was a voice to parliament. It was immediately dismissed by Malcolm Turnbull and also Scott Morrison. It was something that was wholeheartedly embraced, I am very proud to say, by the then Bill Shorten opposition. A voice to parliament, treaty and truth telling were the three principles that came out of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. As Patrick Dodson said, 'We will work with the government but we won't wait for them,' and that is the case here.

In South Australia, we have decided that we are not going to wait for a federal government, and we are certainly not going to wait for a state government that does not even have a dedicated minister for Aboriginal affairs. We have announced as an opposition that if we win the next election we will implement a state-based form of the Uluru Statement from the Heart: truth, treaty, voice.

We are proud of our record in terms of starting treaty discussions and signing the Buthera Agreement, which the Liberal Party is ironically claiming credit for in their glossy mix-up brochure. We are proud of the regional plans that we had with Aboriginal nations. We are proud of our Stolen Generations Reparations Scheme. It is a shame that this Liberal government does not have someone sitting around the cabinet table with the time, interest and energy to continue them.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (16:00): I rise today to speak on the Appropriation Bill 2019, and I note that the opposition will not be opposing the bill, of course, but it is a good opportunity to review the Marshall Liberal government's performance and their intentions over the next 12 months. Others have examined the debacle that is land tax in our state, and that fiasco continues. Prior to the election, the Marshall Liberal government promised lower costs and better services, but after 18 months of a Marshall Liberal government you really cannot blame voters who backed the Marshall Liberal government at the last state election for feeling very dudded after its performance so far.

The Marshall Liberal government committed to delivering lower costs for the people of South Australia, but what we have seen instead are increases: increases to car registrations, up by 5 per cent; driver's licence renewals up by 4 per cent; increases to hospital car parking by a whopping 20 per cent; increases to public transport costs; individual contractor licences have risen by 10 per cent; and registration fees for tradies have increased also by 10 per cent.

On top of this, small businesses in this state in the entertainment and hospitality industry will be hit with what has been labelled an entertainment tax, where small businesses are facing increases of up to 500 per cent in fees and charges. As I am sure members can imagine, it would be incredibly difficult for these businesses to sustain such large increases, and they have little choice but to pass on those increases to consumers.

Of course, these taxes do not only affect metropolitan Adelaide. This tax will continue to have disastrous consequences, for example, for regional bottle shops. Bottle shops in regional towns near me, such as Mount Burr and Nangwarry, are facing crippling fees in state government licence increases. George Copelin owns the Mount Burr bottle shop and he faces an increase in his annual fees and charges from $805 to $2,800 over the next 12 months. The Nangwarry bottle shop will increase to $1,800. These are small businesses that cannot possibly cope with these sorts of increases.

Kevin Dinnison, who has operated the Nangwarry general store for over 20 years, has spoken about this crippling tax. He told TheSouth Eastern Times recently:

The Liberal Party is supposed to be for small business, but the Premier only seems to be interested in the money.

That is certainly the feeling with many small business owners, from the country to the city, that the Liberals claim to be for small business but offer very little support to back this up. Mr Dinnison goes on to say that he does not understand why the licence has risen and that there has been no justification. The Marshall Liberal government needs to seriously reconsider this policy, as it is hurting small bottle shop owners all across regional South Australia. A government spokesperson recently stated:

The state government has proposed a new fee structure, striking a balance between supporting a vibrant hospitality industry and protecting the public by encouraging a safe drinking culture.

This response does absolutely nothing to help George Copelin from Mount Burr or Kevin Dinnison from Nangwarry. For these and many other small bottle shops it is about providing a service to people in the community, people who would otherwise have to travel distances to make a purchase.

It is also about sustaining small businesses in regional townships that are already struggling to survive. These kinds of increases and these huge hikes in taxation cannot possibly help these small townships and these small businesses. This huge increase needs to be reviewed. I would also like to commend The South Eastern Times journalist, Fred Smith, for his research and interest in this matter. He has done a great job covering this issue.

All the increases that I listed are well above CPI, and these increases are evidence of yet another broken promise by this Marshall Liberal government. The Marshall Liberal government promised better services, and South Australians are rightly asking, 'Well, where are they?' South Australians are also asking, 'Where are they?' when it comes to the huge increase that was supposedly going to eventuate in traineeships and apprenticeships. Under minister Pisoni's watch, we have seen very little improvement in the way of commencements, despite a lot of taxpayer money being spent through the Skilling South Australia experiment.

So the Marshall Liberals went to the election promising an additional 20,800 additional apprenticeships and traineeships in South Australia on top of the baseline figure. It has now been 18 months since they have been in office, and how many additional apprenticeships and traineeships have been created? A hundred and fifteen. Not 20,800, not even a quarter of that, on the way to that four-year target. Not 5,200, which would be a quarter. One hundred and fifteen.

The data from the independent National Centre for Vocational Education Research is clear: 115 additional apprenticeships and traineeships have been created at a cost of $34 million so far. That equates to just over $295,000 for every additional apprenticeship and traineeship under this Marshall Liberal government. One has to ask: is that value for the taxpayer? What the data also reveals is that the Marshall Liberal government needs to create an additional 20,685 new apprenticeships in the next three years if they are going to avoid breaking yet another election commitment.

What is more concerning is the way that apprenticeships and traineeships are being reported. The figures that I have just quoted are from the National Centre for Vocational Education Research. This is an independent centre with independent data, and yet what we get is fudging of the figures from minister Pisoni. For anyone undertaking an apprenticeship you would think that is generally a four-year trade qualification. A traineeship is generally one year or, in some circumstances, two. So what do we get from minister Pisoni when he is talking about apprenticeships and traineeships?

It was recently revealed that the figures that he uses include pre-apprenticeships, pre-traineeships, higher apprenticeships and no end of other 'ships'. I could actually pronounce it a different way, which might be a little bit closer to what it really is—'bull-ships'. It is really outrageous that courses that last as little as four weeks are being counted in figures and claimed as being apprenticeships and traineeships. This is the sort of fudging that we are seeing from this minister.

It was also revealed that reporting apprenticeship and traineeship target figures (20,800) will include all the commencements but take no account of cancellations or withdrawals. To put it simply, someone could commence a traineeship today and decide to withdraw in a few weeks, but minister Pisoni would still count that towards his figure of 20,800.

On top of the withdrawals, under the Marshall Liberal government we are continuing to see skyrocketing cancellations and withdrawals. The number of cancellations and withdrawals in trade apprenticeships increased from 1,770 to 2,095. Completion of apprenticeships and traineeships are down 16 per cent from 5,425 to 4,560. Of course, as I mentioned, there has been only a very small increase of 115 additional commencements over the past 12 months, despite spending $34 million.

When the Skilling South Australia contract was signed, we saw the Premier beaming like a Cheshire cat. He said that the signing of this contract will result in a tsunami of jobs when it comes to apprenticeships and traineeships in this state, and yet what we see 18 months in is 115 additional numbers. Minister Pisoni recently signed off on a departmental brief prepared for him which stated, 'South Australia's in-training figure as at 31 December 2018 is the second lowest figure on record since 31 December 1997.'

The second lowest figure on record—but what was minister Pisoni's response to this information? He issued a media release on 9 June claiming, 'SA hits training targets under Skills National Partnership,' and claiming, 'We've reached an early milestone.' This is just nine days after signing off on a brief that advised that the in-training figure was the second lowest on record since 1997. Who was in government in 1997? Oh, that's right, it was the Liberals again.

How can anyone believe the minister in the future when he claims apprenticeship numbers are improving, when he makes such claims as that, when he includes four-week courses in his apprenticeship and traineeship numbers, when he claims a figure as achieving an early milestone and a great success, when he knows that it is the second lowest on record?

We have continued to see the Marshall Liberal government callously cut vital services. This year, we have seen a reduction in funding of the Adult Community Education service, sometimes known as ACE, which will affect many users of this important service and programs. Over the next four years, $3 million has been cut from the budget of the Adult Community Education services. The sum of $3 million is a huge amount to an organisation that already runs, one might say, on the smell of an oily rag, which already does a huge amount on very limited funds.

Their courses include a diverse range, from developing foundation skills in language, literacy and numeracy to computing and development skills. Adult Community Education programs are run throughout South Australia in both metropolitan and regional areas and have played a significant role in assisting people to transition, some into study and some into jobs in the workforce. These cuts will disadvantage the many people who use these services for reskilling and for foundation courses. It is leading to uncertainty in the sector and it also follows on from minister Pisoni's callous cuts last year to various employment programs.

I, like many others, was shocked to discover in the recent state budget that the state's single biggest employer, small business, had no funding allocations to it, had no additional funding whatsoever in this state budget, despite the Liberals claiming to be for small business, despite the fact that small business is the biggest single employer in the state.

There was also no new spending identified in the Minister for Innovation and Skills' department budget, which indicated, again, the unlikelihood of any additional support for small business. His department has also undergone huge cuts, which must raise the question of how likely it is that there will be anything forthcoming that will really support small business in this state, particularly those very small businesses, the micro businesses, which struggle so often to maintain their presence and yet are such a source of innovation and initiative in our state.

Sadly, this lack of commitment to small business is representative of the lack of commitment of this government overall. They are not committed to services, they are not committed to keeping their promises, and they are not committed to the people of South Australia.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (16:12): More jobs, lower costs, better services—it is a great initiative, really. I think we can all agree that these are reasonable objectives for any government. They are, I am sure, the objectives we all aspire to achieve when entering this place. We know these objectives are not just catchy lines. They are key concerns of every South Australian. Whether you are living in the leafy streets or on the street, these three issues are a priority.

One could argue that not one of these objectives can be achieved without the other. More jobs stimulate the economy, and when we stimulate the economy we have better services, and when we have better services we have lower costs. This all seems reasonably basic. The words we bounce around in this chamber should strive to improve the living conditions for households around South Australia and for those without a home.

When politicians use words to make promises that suggest they will go in to bat for South Australians' concerns by lowering costs, creating more jobs and creating better services, they are rightfully playing into the hopes of every South Australian. But what happens when these are just words? The Premier has recently moved to using new words to sell his Liberal government policies, such as 'let's be clear' and 'supporting mums and dads'.

In the Premier's very own words, let's be clear. The Marshall Liberal government's promises to create more jobs, lower costs and deliver better services were just pre-election words. For months, if not years, leading into the last election, the Marshall opposition boasted how they would lower costs by removing the ESL. Any relief given to South Australians through the removal of the ESL has been completely washed away with a tsunami of higher taxes and charges hitting the hip pockets of every South Australian, including their new favourite phrase, their mums and dads, since this Liberal government came into power.

This budget is imposing an unprecedented $350 million hike in taxes, fees and charges. Taxes will be increased way above the inflation rate of 1.3 per cent and will impact the cost of living of every South Australian in some way. Very few enjoy dragging the wheelie bin out once a week for collection, including myself, but this Liberal government has chucked an extra weight of unpleasantness into the common wheelie bin. A 40 per cent tax on solid waste rubbish has been chucked in by the Liberal government, increasing council rates and financial pressures on local councils to deliver important community projects.

When you open the wheelie bin, what will you find? A bin full of broken promises—more costs, cuts to services and cuts to jobs. You will see crammed into the wheelie bin of broken promises hikes to motor registration, up 5 per cent, and driver's licence renewal, up 4.5 per cent. If you rifle past the registration fee hikes, you will find more hikes for public transport fares, up 2 per cent, the axing of the two-section card costing some commuters $849 more, and the Metrocards now costing $5 each.

Lying amongst the broken promises is a hike in car parking fees, up $725 per year for nurses, cleaners and other staff, while patients, their families and friends will pay 20 per cent more to visit their loved ones. Free two-hour parking at The QEH has been axed. Ambulance fees are up 5 per cent, meaning it will now cost more than $1,000 to catch an ambulance, only to experience the worst ambulance ramping in the history of this state. As I said, this is a bin crammed full of broken promises. When you dig a little deeper you will find a 70 per cent hike in mining taxes, massive taxes worth thousands of dollars on pubs and bars and the taxing of major events with a police rent tax.

Next to the discarded knives in the bin you will find the Liberal government's new plans for the land tax reform. The land tax reform was not discussed as a pre-election commitment. I wonder why. Chucked in amongst the pages of the budget papers was a reform to land tax. The Premier and Treasurer estimated in June that the changes would raise $40 million, when the real number was $118 million. After months of intense internal divisions within the Liberal Party and the community, especially the business community, we are now up to, I believe, the third version of the Liberal government's tax changes. The latest plan will raise $86 million. The Treasurer, the Hon. Rob Lucas, made it clear he did not undertake detailed modelling before the budget because he did not have time.

In fact, we know the Treasurer is not a fan of economic modelling. He has made that very clear in this chamber before, particularly in regard to the deregulation of shop trading hours. I am sure the Treasurer now regrets this slap-dash approach to tackling such a reform with little to no consultation and modelling and throwing any integrity the party had left into the crammed wheelie bin. The Premier would be absolutely correct in saying, 'Let's be clear: we are making this up as we go.'

At the bottom of the wheelie bin is a sticky mess that no garbage truck driver will be able to shake out of the bin in their lifetime: a record debt of more than $21 billion. Every time South Australians drive their car, jump on public transport, visit family at the hospital, go to a small bar, call an ambulance or put out the wheelie bin, they will be paying the price of a Marshall Liberal government's higher costs.

When it comes to more jobs, as the Premier would say, 'Let's make it clear: there's no problem with unemployment in South Australia, none whatsoever.' This is despite South Australia's unemployment rate being 6.9 per cent, the highest in Australia. Jobs should be the number one priority for any government. A job for one South Australian will go on to create another job for another South Australian. It is astonishing that the Premier of this state sees no problem whatsoever with having the worst unemployment rate in the country. More than 62,000 South Australians are unemployed, with this number increasing by more than 13,000 since the Marshall Liberal government was elected.

The previous Labor government faced some of the most economically challenging times faced by this state in many, many years, with the closure of Mitsubishi and Holden. Despite these adversities, Labor steered the state through these challenges by investing in job creation. The member for Dunstan, the Premier of this state, Steven Marshall, promised, while opposition leader, that he would deliver more jobs. Now he has no problem whatsoever with having the worst unemployment rate in the entire country.

We have fewer people in jobs, and our economy is paying the price. South Australia's economy has gone backwards for two consecutive quarters, which the member for Dunstan has previously defined as a recession. Figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics released last week revealed state final demand declined .2 per cent in the June quarter, following a .2 per cent decline in the March quarter. South Australia was the only state in Australia that went backwards.

Just this week, we have seen moves to cut nursing positions, with some 1,100 planned job cuts from across SA Health. This is in addition to recent announcements of mass job cuts across the RAH, The QEH and the Women's and Children's Hospital, including doctors and nurses. I ask: how will cutting jobs in SA Health help in situations such as we saw on Monday of this week, when 19 patients waited over 24 hours for a bed across our emergency departments?

Let us make it clear: there is a problem, and the problem is the Marshall Liberal government. They promised more jobs and they have failed. They promised lower costs and they have failed. They promised better services and, no surprise, they have failed. The Liberal Party went to the election promising better services and that they do not have a privatisation agenda. Well, haven't you guys kicked that out of the park! Three of the busiest Service SA centres are set to close as a result of those opposite: the Liberal government. A Public Service that provides a valuable, face-to-face service to over 300,000 South Australians every year—you are closing them.

SA Pathology: a front-line public health service that provides a diagnosis to our medical professionals to literally save lives. They are the only ones who will do the testing for the complex diagnoses that we need to save lives, and you are potentially going to privatise that service. Then there are our trams and trains. We all remember ETSA, and we are all still paying the price for Rob Lucas' last experience as Treasurer. But this time, the Treasurer even took the Labor Party by surprise, which is—

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: Point of order: the Hon. Emily Bourke should be referring to the Hon. Rob Lucas by his correct title. If you are going to mention the Premier as Steven Marshall, he should be called the Hon. Steven Marshall—you should know better.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Bourke, the Hon. Mr Stephens is correct; please use the correct titles.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I will do; I do apologise. But this time, the Treasurer even took the Labor Party by surprise, by yet again privatising essential public services, including our trams and trains. On 1 July this year, the Marshall Liberal government announced that it would privatise Adelaide Metro tram and train services. Similar to the announcement of the land tax reform, the Marshall Liberal government forgot to do its homework before announcing its latest plans to cut public services, claiming that the UK and Victoria were good examples of a privatised train service. In fact, the UK has seen higher fares, older trains and a bigger hit to the hip pocket for taxpayers, with train companies diverting profits to shareholders with hardly any investments.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: You want to go over and see what they're doing in the UK at the moment. I think it's a little bit different to that.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: You can believe what you want to believe. The privatisation of the London Underground resulted in such poor service for commuters that the government had to buy back—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I would leave the chamber too, if I were you, to be honest. The government had to buy back services at great cost to the community. As for Victoria, in 2015—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Point of order, Mr President: I think the Hon. John Dawkins was on his feet walking on the floor interjecting. I wonder whether that is something that ought to be done.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: It is out of order. The Hon. Mr Dawkins is unlikely to cause us any difficulty at the moment. The Hon. Ms Bourke, please continue.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: Thank you, Mr President. As for Victoria, in 2015 it was found that more than 15 trains a day were turned into express trains to avoid paying millions of dollars in fines for late services, leaving thousands of commuters stranded each week. So when the Marshall Liberal government says, 'Let's be clear: we'll set service level requirements and expect an increase in service levels,' you can see why South Australian commuters are more than a little cynical.

For the past 18 months Labor has been standing at train stations and in front of Service SA centres and SA Pathology labs, and the message is loud and clear: public services should remain in public hands. During the winter break we have been holding a number of community forums, and I have to say that you never know whether you are going to be the only one standing in the hall when you send out an invite for a community forum, especially when you are holding it on a Tuesday night. However, to our surprise the rooms have been filled.

You know you are in the wrong when people come out on a Tuesday night to hang out with pollies to tell them how frustrated they are with the government, because you have got it wrong. Hundreds of people are coming out, giving up their Tuesday nights, to tell you, via us, that you have got it wrong. These are their public services, this is how they get to their work in the morning, this is how they get to the hospital every day. You are taking that service away from them.

History certainly tells us many things about our future. History told us a Liberal government cannot be trusted. The Premier is picking up from where the Treasurer left his privatisation agenda after privatising ETSA and the bus network and closing close to 50 public schools. The public has every right to be worried about what is next. I ask the Premier, the Hon. Steven Marshall: will you be leaving this place better than you found it? Will you deliver on the promises to create more jobs, better services and lower costs or will they remain just broken promises?

The Hon. T.T. NGO (16:28): About 18 months ago the Marshall Liberal government was making promises to all South Australians, commitments that they would deliver more jobs, better services and lower costs. Before I turn to this bill and to the 2019-20 budget schemed by the Treasurer and trumpeted by the Marshall government I want to review what is, in my opinion, the most significant and crucial promise the Liberal government made to South Australians; that is, more jobs.

While this bill was in the other place, our state was experiencing the highest seasonally adjusted unemployment rate across the country. We learned from Australian Bureau of Statistics reporting that South Australia had the highest seasonally adjusted unemployment rate in Australia. At 6.9 per cent, our state was reported to have the highest unemployment rate across the nation by a significant half a per cent, a figure well above the unemployment rate reported around the close of the Weatherill government.

I want to remind this chamber that in the month the Labor government left office South Australia had the third lowest seasonally adjusted unemployment rate across the country. By my calculation, that is 1.3 per cent lower than this Marshall government's recent July figure. While Premier Marshall has reportedly claimed there is no problem here, these figures suggest a different story, and the lack of interest Marshall's federal counterparts have in increasing Newstart payments for those who can access commonwealth unemployment assistance makes this story's ending even unhappier.

As I review the Hon. Rob Lucas's plan for the Marshall government's allocation and spending of our public money, I see more broken promises. I see a plan that increases the cost of living for households and makes it harder for South Australians to get ahead. I compare the Liberal's commitment to lower costs against how the Hon. Rob Lucas is balancing our state budget, and the scales are not weighted in the community's favour.

I understand this Liberal government plans to gather a further $350 million from South Australians through increased taxes, fees and charges. Just shy of 18 months of running the state, this government is asking our community to reach deeper into our pockets and pitch in some more. Notably, the lower costs promised to South Australians have been negated by the absurd 40 per cent increase to the solid waste levy. How can the basic cost of keeping South Australians clean increase by close to half from one budget to the next? How does jacking up costs fix our waste management problem?

As a member of the Environment, Resources and Development Committee, I understand the importance of finding sustainable solutions to recycling and waste management, especially considering the China National Sword Policy. In my view, the money accumulated from increases in the waste levy would be best spent as incentives for councils and businesses to boost waste industry innovations and seek sustainable solutions. This makes more sense than implementing a ridiculous fee increase, which leaves our significant waste problems unresolved and will likely negatively impact the household costs of hardworking South Australians.

I predict that the increased fees will hit every ratepayer in our state. This seems to already be playing out in local governments, as I understand that some councils are increasing their rates and saying it is because of this levy rise, and who can blame them? The Hon. Rob Lucas is asking us to pay more for simply going about our daily lives. Increases in car registrations, renewing our driver's licence and catching public transport will increase the cost of going to work, going to the shops, taking our kids to school and kindy, and visiting our families.

Further, I understand public hospital workers and visitors are not escaping Premier Marshall and the Liberal government's broken promises, with increased charges at metropolitan hospital car parks a cruel blow to South Australians who simply wish to visit sick loved ones or receive treatment themselves. Earlier this week, my colleague in the chamber, the Hon. Russell Wortley, told us this budget is setting new heights for South Australia's debt record. As it is difficult for me to comprehend, it must also confuse the community as to why they are being asked stretch their household budgets further while the state is borrowing more.

The Marshall government also promised to deliver better services as they asked South Australians to back them at the ballot box. However, to me, this commitment is compromised as we witness the dark creep of privatisation seeping further into state assets. I understand plans are afoot to privatise our trains and trams. Who knows how this move might impact on services and costs for South Australian households, after the Hon. Rob Lucas has already upped our ticket prices?

As for Service SA, we see the Liberals wanting to cut services and close offices. While the Hon. Mr Lucas tells us how much more we can expect to pay for our car registrations and licence renewals, who knows what is around the corner? We do not yet know the costs of fewer services and decreased access, but we do know Premier Marshall's promise of better services is looking shaky.

As I meet with new South Australians among our multicultural communities, I see their hardship and their hopes for a better life here. However, it pains me to explain to these people who have often already struggled so much that it is getting more expensive to live in South Australia and that their state government is to blame.

Premier Marshall's Liberal government is not delivering what it promised to South Australians 18 months ago. This Appropriation Bill and state budget entrench broken promises and higher tax regimes. If Premier Marshall and his team think they are making good on their promises of more jobs, lower costs and better services, then I fear for what else they have in store for South Australians.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (16:36): I thank honourable members for their contribution to the debate. I have to say that I have not heard so much drivel, dribble and figments of a fevered imagination in many a decade, but I will not delay the proceedings of the chamber long enough to delay the welcome support for the second reading of the Appropriation Bill. I thank members for their indication to vote for the second reading.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Bill taken through committee without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (16:39): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.