Bills

Supply Bill 2021

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 12 May 2021.)

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (15:23): I rise to speak on the Supply Bill and indicate that Labor will support the bill. There is one area of government funding that I wish to speak on briefly in my contribution today, and that is an area where I think the government is significantly letting down a number of South Australian people. It is in the area of funding in Aboriginal affairs and services for Aboriginal people.

First, I want to speak briefly about the Marshall government's decision to reduce funding for policing on the APY lands. We know from I think it was the 2019-20 budget that there were savings built into the budget of $1 million per year, a reduction in the funding available for policing on the APY lands. I think it is fair to say that this caused a huge amount of concern for people on the APY lands. I think if you asked nearly anyone would they like to see an increase or a decrease in funding, a decrease is not what people would wish for for policing on the APY lands.

We have seen the original model to bring about those savings modified. We have been briefed and told that the current version of the reduction of funding for the APY lands will result in not the original $1 million estimated but somewhere in between $350,000 and $400,000 a year. This will be brought about, we are informed, by changing the rotational basis for policing the APY lands.

Whereas currently police stationed to the APY lands do two weeks on country on the APY lands and then one week off, this will be changed to one week on the APY lands and two weeks off. So, essentially, where people spent two or three weeks on the APY lands as a police officer, they will now spend only one of three weeks at any given time. Again, I have had a great deal of discussions and representations about this model and if you ask people on the APY lands if they would prefer more consistency of the same police or less, almost universally people prefer more.

I acknowledge that there are, in my experience over a couple of decades, many very dedicated and very good police officers who serve the APY lands communities very well. I have been impressed over the years that many integrate very well with the community. Often it is a proactive policing model, rather than a reactive one, where officers come to understand some of the nuances and relationships in communities on the APY lands and are able to head off trouble before it starts.

To halve the amount of time in each three-week period that officers are on the lands will result in less continuity and that certainly, in representations to me, is the opposite of what people think will work. It has been pointed out to me that police officers in similar jurisdictions across the border in remote Aboriginal communities in the NT and WA are permanently based police officers, not any sort of fly-in fly-out model. As has been pointed out to me, if you look immediately across the highway from the APY lands—literally across the highway—police in Marla are permanently based police officers, not any sort of fly-in fly-out model.

We have been briefed about this and were told that, in fact, on the APY lands, the police stations in Mimili, Pukatja, Kaltjiti and Amata and the headquarters in Umuwa are the only places in South Australia that have a fly-in fly-out model. I know that many people on the APY lands are questioning why a government would move to have even less consistency of officers on the APY lands if they are changing the service model.

Of course, the answer is that it is a result of the Marshall government's directive that the funding be cut. As I said, it was originally budgeted a couple of years ago as a million dollars a year. What we have been told is that this will not achieve all that funding being slashed for police on the APY lands but will achieve somewhere in the order of $350,000 to $400,000 a year.

Upon coming to government, in the area of Aboriginal affairs, we saw the ceasing of both the regional authorities program and the treaty process that had been commenced in South Australia. The incoming Premier, who has responsibility for Aboriginal affairs, called the process a cruel hoax and said his government would focus on practical outcomes over symbolic action.

The very first decision for Aboriginal South Australians was not to appoint a minister for Aboriginal affairs. The very first decision, after coming to government, was that there would no longer be—and for the first time since we have had a minister for Aboriginal affairs in Australia I think we now stand alone in all the commonwealth and the states—a designated minister for Aboriginal affairs, but someone who has responsibility for the acts that are dedicated to a minister for aboriginal affairs rather than having a minister.

What the minister responsible for the acts committed to the minister for Aboriginal affairs, the Premier, did soon after coming to government was to put out a glossy brochure called an Aboriginal Affairs Action Plan. If we are looking for things that could constitute a cruel hoax in Aboriginal affairs, this certainly has to be one of the cruellest hoaxes that has been perpetrated by a government.

The original so-called Aboriginal Affairs Action Plan for South Australia, the 2019-20 version, which is the first—it has had another reincarnation that I will speak about in a moment—had 32 items in the glossy brochure that was released. Of those, more than two-thirds of the items were actually things that departments were doing anyway. Moreover, they were things that the former Labor government had commenced doing. The Premier had rounded them up, put them into a glossy brochure and claimed them as his own items for his action plan.

For example, the Aboriginal Ranger Employment Pathways program was actually created and started in 2012, yet it was deemed an initiative of this government some seven years later and put as an item into a glossy brochure. Reconciliation action plans, which were begun under the previous Labor government, were part of the original so-called Aboriginal Affairs Action Plan, but in reality these went backwards in the December update and were totally left out of the newest Aboriginal Affairs Action Plan.

Another example is the Aboriginal interpreter service, which was funded, from memory, in 2017 by the former Labor government and was included as one of the 32 action items in this new government's Aboriginal Affairs Action Plan. Their Aboriginal Affairs Action Plan includes things that Labor had decided upon and Labor had funded. In relation to this particular part of their action plan, it has not even commenced. They have taken something that a Labor government funded and have not even commenced it, even though the Premier has put it as one of the 32 items in his so-called Aboriginal Affairs Action Plan that he published in his glossy brochure.

We had a progress update in May 2021 that, curiously, had only 28 of the 32 items included. Twelve of those—more than a third—were still incomplete and 16 were claimed to be completed. It should be noted that of those 16 that were claimed to be completed, 11 of them—about two-thirds—were actually initiated by the former Labor government. Four were missing completely and many of them were simply plans to make more plans.

When you do not have anything to say, when you do not even appoint a minister for Aboriginal affairs, what you do is ask departments, 'What are you doing anyway?' You collate all the answers into 32 separate dot points, you put them in a glossy brochure and then you claim you are doing something. That is the cruellest hoax I think any government has perpetrated on Aboriginal South Australians in a long time. When you combine that with the funding cuts for policing on the APY lands, it is not just a cruel hoax, it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what is important and what is necessary.

We saw an update to the Aboriginal Affairs Action Plan for 2021-22. It now has 41 items, so it has expanded. Obviously, the Premier has gone and looked at what departments are already doing anyway and put some more dot points in the glossy brochure. Some of the things that have been included in the glossy brochure are things such as a custody notification service, which both the opposition and the Greens have pushed through the parliament and dragged the government kicking and screaming to do something about.

It is stark that one of the things the government is so proud of that they put it as one of the 41 items in their new glossy brochure is something that they refused to do for years. When they have done it, they have only done it by half measures. It is not the legislation that either myself or the Hon. Tammy Franks had before parliament to legislate for a custody notification service; it is doing it by regulation, which can be removed much more easily.

Some parts of the new action plan are simply ordinary functions of government and more are plans for further plans. While I support the Supply Bill, I note things like cutting funding for policing on the APY lands. To claim that your government cares because they put items that are already ongoing, have already started or are plans to make more plans in a glossy brochure does not constitute providing services and meaningful change for Aboriginal South Australians.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (15:34): I rise today in support of the Supply Bill. According to the 2020-21 state budget, state debt is set to reach $33.1 billion by 2022-23 with debt to revenue of 133 per cent. Debt was doubled by the Marshall Liberal government before the pandemic began. That's right: a doubling of debt before the pandemic began by this Marshall Liberal government. The total of $33.1 billion compares to just $12.9 billion of state debt under the former Labor government.

During a global pandemic or a financial crisis, the notion of increasing the amount of government intervention to stimulate economic activity is not disputed by this side of the council. Those opposite have sought to win elections by running scare campaigns on the Labor Party, saying they will run up huge levels of debt, so the current position of the Liberals is certainly very ironic.

Stimulating the economy via government intervention is sometimes necessary and appropriate, so we on this side of the chamber certainly do not oppose that. Labor understands that jobs and job security are vitally important to society and should be protected, but we expect a return on our investment, an economic uplift from this government intervention. However, while the rest of the national economy seems to be performing reasonably well coming out of the pandemic, ours is by far the worst in the nation, which then begs the question: if the Liberals are increasing our state debt to unprecedented record levels, where is the economic uplift?

We have the highest youth unemployment rate, at 15.1 per cent. We have the second highest unemployment rate of any state and have had the highest unemployment rate in the nation for many recent months. We were the only state—the only state—to lose jobs coming out of the pandemic, with over 10,000 jobs lost since March 2020, whereas Queensland gained 62,500, WA gained 28,100, Tasmania gained 2,800, New South Wales gained 2,700 and even Victoria, with all its lockdowns, gained 2,000 jobs.

Our economic growth is the lowest in the nation, a contraction of 1.4 per cent in 2019-20. Serious questions need to be asked about this state debt that is being accrued in the name of economic stimulus. It seems there are two possible explanations. Either it is not getting out fast enough due to, obviously, incompetence by this government or it is simply being spent in the wrong areas, which are not creating economic growth and not creating jobs, which also, of course, suggests incompetence by this government. The Premier and Treasurer desperately want to give the impression that everything is going swimmingly. This may be politically convenient for them, but self-preservation is not leadership and nor does it serve the interests of South Australians.

An area in which a government does have control to quickly stimulate the economy is infrastructure, but despite much talk about funding which has been allocated to projects and projects which apparently will get underway, government inaction on these projects has seen delay after delay. Significant infrastructure like the new Women's and Children's Hospital, the north-south corridor and the duplication of South Road at Seaford have all been delayed, costing vital jobs and economic activity. The recently released CommSec State of the States report found that construction work in South Australia is now 4.1 per cent below the decade average, with construction work in SA down 8.8 per cent on a year ago and the worst of all states.

One area in particular that I want to address today is the state government's regional plan—or should I say, lack of a plan. While the state government likes to state at any opportunity #RegionsMatter, I think the recent front-page headline in The Border Watch is far more accurate. It said, '#RegionsMatter?' with a big question mark. Why? Because the Marshall Liberal government's recently released Regional Development Strategy was a genuine disappointment to regional South Australians. The Liberal government's new plan for the state's regions has no new funding, no new ideas and in fact no substance whatsoever, raising very serious questions about whether regional South Australia does truly matter to Steven Marshall of Norwood.

The Regional Development Strategy fails to outline any new major infrastructure projects for country South Australia or even invest any new money into the regions. It also claimed credit for numerous projects that were implemented under the former Labor government. I know South-East residents are particularly disappointed at the lack of vision and interest in our region.

The 48-page glossy document features two pages on the Limestone Coast, but it does not include any future funding or major infrastructure projects for the region, despite the South-East being home to the state's second largest city. Residents in the South-East do not want to hear the state government say that they will 'consider, investigate or continue to examine projects'. The Marshall Liberal government has had three years—three years—to consider, investigate and examine potential projects. When will we see the action on these projects? Residents want actual funding for projects in our region.

For example, the state government listed the Green Triangle freight action plan as a future opportunity, but when is the question I would ask. When will we see funding for this plan? Why not now, and why will you not tell us how much you will actually spend to make it happen, or is it what many people in the Limestone Coast suspect—nothing more than lip service? Yet, this government can announce a $700 million city basketball stadium.

The Supply Bill also does very little to add value and assist many of the other important industries in our state, including forestry, agriculture and horticulture, and there is no direct support for the agricultural sector impacted by the China situation. Again it has been all talk, lots of deflection to others and very little action from this government.

In terms of timber and the forestry sector, our state has a very real timber shortage. Nothing has been done in the Supply Bill to address those concerns. Wait times for the construction of a timber-framed house is being felt in the housing industry. I receive regular feedback from key stakeholders who raise these concerns and who feel that they are being ignored by the Marshall Liberal government on this issue.

Kangaroo Island Plantation Timbers (KIPT) has offered the government a very fair and reasonable solution, it seems, to the timber shortage, yet this offer has been ignored. The Marshall Liberal government came to office promising to double the forestry industry by 2050, yet we see consistent years of failure by the government to do anything substantive to grow this sector. In fact, latest data shows that the forest industry is going backwards in terms of economic output.

In terms of business investment in general, according to a recent Deloitte Access Economics report business investment in South Australia is the lowest in the nation. It is going backwards in South Australia despite growth nationally. The report found that the willingness of business to take a punt on extending capacity was a key inhibitor, and this indicates a lack of confidence, despite the Premier and Treasurer telling us that business confidence is supposedly great.

CommSec's State of the States report for April found that equipment investment in South Australia is down 7 per cent on a year earlier, with Victoria recording a decline of only 1.6 per cent. What of our jobless rate and our economy sitting among the worst in the nation. What do we see the government focusing on? Our state debt reaches record levels, hospital ramping continues to spiral out of control, yet the Premier and Treasurer, in the midst of this global pandemic, have chosen to focus their time and energy on fighting our ambos and hospital cleaners.

Our paramedics are considered heroes wherever you go in South Australia, and rightly so. Our cleaners in our hospitals are considered heroes, and rightly so, but the Premier and Treasurer are happy to attack our heroes instead of supporting them in the superb work they do. No doubt they will come to the people of South Australia before the next election claiming to have changed, but it is clear in their actions that they lack the basic empathy and leadership that this state needs.

Whether it is running our economy or our hospital system into ground, or our overworked paramedics into feelings of helplessness, this government lacks vision and a heart, and they will be judged for it. I also urge the Minister for Health to provide certainty to regional South Australia by guaranteeing long-term funding to the community paramedic program, which operates both in Ceduna and in the South-East. This is a program that was previously facing cruel cuts by the Marshall Liberal government, until the community rallied together and pressured the government to reverse their cut.

The minister has told this chamber that funding has only been confirmed until the end of June next year. This creates ongoing uncertainty and concern for local people. It is an excellent service, and I would like to again pay tribute to Dr David Senior, who works from Robe and Lucindale, for the excellent work that he does.

The community paramedic service helps people manage chronic disease at home, provides regular checks on elderly people who are living alone and delivers allied health services that would otherwise need a trip to hospital. So it reduces admissions to hospitals and it eases the pressure on country hospitals. Surely, given the outstanding results of the community paramedic program, both in Robe and in Ceduna, this government should commit longer term funding so that the local community can be confident that the excellent service will continue and enable longer term planning to take place.

We move now to regional development grants. We know that the Marshall Liberal government loves to hand out jobs for the boys. Members probably remember that we saw the member for Unley in the other place excel at this with his questionable appointments to various positions. But now we have seen that regional South Australia fell victim to the Liberal government's captain's picks, which saw former minister Whetstone withdraw regional development grants from recommended projects in Blyth and Kadina in favour of projects of his own personal choosing from the list.

It was not just the opposition calling this out. The Auditor-General was scathing in his assessment of the former minister and his denying of funds to valid projects that had been recommended by the assessment panel. They were recommended to receive the funding but they missed out, and why? We do not really know. There was no documentation recorded as to why minister Whetstone apparently simply made the decision and the projects in Blyth and Kadina just missed out. The Auditor-General also criticised the lack of transparency that this entailed.

The opposition will support the Supply Bill in accordance with tradition, but there are many aspects that have been overlooked, particularly for regional South Australia, and we urge the government to reconsider these and consider what is really required for the future of our state.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (15:46): I rise on behalf of the Greens to support the Supply Bill. It is somewhat of a tradition. Since the constitutional crisis at a federal level, we have seen oppositions and crossbenchers quite loath to oppose supply and security. In a public health pandemic, confidence and security and certainty are things we do need. This Supply Bill will buffer a budget yet to come that we know will be responding to that pandemic.

We have lived through some very interesting times in this past year and a bit. They have been stressful times, they have been difficult times and they have been transformative times. What I have heard said about the pandemic is that, if COVID-19 was the earthquake, then mental health is the tsunami to come. The ramping in our hospitals, and in hospitals across the nation, and the extraordinary number of presentations in regard to mental ill health show that that mental health tsunami is indeed upon us. I guess my question is: will the budget ensure that we are kept safe and secure and given certainty? Will we build back better than we were before the pandemic or will we see people who are the most vulnerable in our community sacrificed after the emergency has had its first flush?

I note that I have spoken in this place many a time about a very small program—a mental health intervention program—called The Jam, The Mix, The Gig. It is with sadness that I note that tomorrow may well be the very last gig for The Jam, The Mix, The Gig at The Parks Recreation and Sports Centre tomorrow afternoon. That music and mental health program that has been funded in the past by the SA Department for Health and Wellbeing, and run by wonderfully enthusiastic and musically inclined participants and peers, may well be presenting its final show. I will be joining them and I suspect the shadow minister for human services will too.

I note that previously in this place, when it was a Weatherill government, this chamber gave resounding support to the continuance of The Jam, The Mix, The Gig. Back then, some of the words expressed in that place noted that this was a very simple mental health intervention. The Jam was a music jam session where you could go and share your music skills with others, try out some ideas, write some songs or just have a go and be part of having a good time with other people with music.

The Mix was a music skills development session and a chance to present those songs or your poetry or whatever it was that you had to share with the group. To get help in developing that confidence and those skills that are so vital in our lives was also part of The Mix. Then there was The Gig, which audience, participant and performer alike would all be quite familiar with. Those participants in the JMG mental health program potentially performed but were also definitely audience members or in various technical roles.

There were various performances over many years that gave great joy to the people involved and, indeed, improved their mental health. Musicians such as Heather Frahn and Chris Finnen have been involved with this program and have lauded it, but I will leave the words of why The Jam, The Mix, The Gig is so important to some of the participants. One notes:

This program contributed to saving mine and many others' lives. It gave me purpose and strength and courage to follow my passions and be the artist that I am today. I believe this would be a great mistake to pull the funding for this amazing program.

That participant, Keith, wrote that the last time The Jam, The Mix, The Gig faced its final curtain under the Weatherill government. Bonnie noted:

Such a worthy cause, music has that feel good vibe, it can bring [you] out of a low moment or take you to your wildest dreams.

Dino noted:

There is no question about the value and therapeutic benefits of music…countless scientific studies can validate that the benefits are enormous! Let's hope that individuals and groups using music for the purposes of healing and promoting optimal states of health and well-being can continue to be supported.

I hope that in the coming weeks and months we will see The Jam, The Mix, The Gig given an encore and funding found. So far, they have been unable to access funding under this current government. They have not found a way for that wellbeing program based on music, which has significant mental health gains and impacts for the positive wellbeing of those participants and those who are in their friend and family groups, to be continued. That is a very sad piece of news and I urge the Minister for Health and Wellbeing to take a second look at this.

I note that in Victoria the importance of mental health has been recognised by that government. A massive injection has been made into building back better by ensuring that, as we weather the tsunami that is to come of mental ill health caused by the uncertainty of this pandemic, they are going to be taxing big business to ensure that the programs, the supports, the professionals and the pathways are in place.

I note, listening to ABC radio, that our Treasurer has said he will not be in the business of taxing big business in his budget, but he has given some assurances that mental health will be a priority. We look forward to holding him to that word. I promise that if there is a massive injection that is going to improve the mental wellbeing of South Australians I will be the first in congratulating him.

This should be something that is non-partisan. We should be, as we have under the pandemic, looking to the science. We should be ensuring that public health outcomes are put first. We should be realising that the world can turn upside down in almost a moment and that we can fix some of the problems that we once thought intractable.

In the first weeks of the pandemic, we saw people who were homeless in this city found homes in hotels. We saw people fed and we saw people who were on welfare support have that welfare support raised to above the level of poverty. In the last few weeks, we have seen them plunged back into poverty and we have seen attempts to make it more difficult to keep secure housing.

Over the course of the last two decades, time and time again we have seen the sell-off of public housing and a lack of investment in social services, and an abrogation of public ownership of public transport, a public transport that is seen as the alternative option rather than the preferred option. We know that public transport should be safe, regular, affordable and the preferred option if we are to build back better and meet our climate targets.

We listened to the science during the pandemic, and South Australia did very well by taking that course. We listened to our public health professionals. It is now time to invest in those scientific professionals across the board and to listen to them on the science, to listen to the public health professionals who tell us about the social determinants of health in this state, the importance of good food, the importance of a clean environment, of clean water, of fresh air that is not polluted, and the importance of healthy homes that people can afford to live in that do not make them sick and that do not plunge them into poverty.

This is the future the Greens look forward to seeing. We hope that the Marshall budget to come will take steps to build back better, but should they not we will be putting that firmly and squarely on the election agenda to come and working with whatever government will give us those values. Those Greens values in government will be what we will be fighting for.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (15:56): I rise to thank honourable members for their indications of support for the second reading of the Supply Bill. As I indicated, this will ensure that our public servants can continue to be paid, which is obviously a shared goal for us all as we wait for the budget to be delivered in June and its eventual passage weeks or months later.

In response to the somewhat bleak picture that some have portrayed as the situation in South Australia, I want to respond briefly on behalf of the government in relation to the state of economic recovery in South Australia. I have referred to that briefly in question time today, so I will not refer to the Single Touch Payroll figures and the fact that we no longer have the highest unemployment rate in the nation.

Other independent commentators—the ANZ bank's regular monthly or quarterly Stateometer index, as they refer to it, released just last week, I think it was, on 20 May—said for South Australia their index was currently at its highest level on record, which is a measure of economic performance. ANZ notes that net population outflow to other states has reversed, largely due to fewer departures, with positive interstate inflow in the final three-quarters of 2020 for the first time since 1991.

For 20 or 30 years we have seen more people fleeing the state, going interstate, than coming in, because of the brain drain and the lack of job opportunities in the state. As I have highlighted before, I think in the last four years of the Labor government there were about 6,000 more people who fled the state than were attracted to come into the state. That has now been reversed and has been noted by ANZ and other economic commentators.

In their analysis of the economy, Deloitte said that South Australia handled COVID superbly and that 'with the virus in check South Australia's economy sprung back to life, getting a lead on its counterparts', but noted that, 'After a fast start out of the blocks, South Australia's economy is now coming back to the pack.' In March, Westpac noted that South Australia's success in controlling the virus has seen a brisk recovery from the COVID recession and that, despite all states seeing slow population growth, South Australia has fared well relative to other jurisdictions.

There are a number of independent reports that point to the relative health, in comparative terms, of the state of economic recovery post COVID in South Australia. The Hon. Ms Scriven, by inference, referred to the construction industry as being in dire straits. I note that ABS data in April showed that the number of housing construction starts in South Australia rose 11 per cent in the December quarter of 2020. The HIA in February forecast dwelling commencements in South Australia to rise by 7.8 per cent in 2021 but to fall in 2021-22—as we see the bringing forward of demand from HomeBuilder, it will inevitably leave some decline post the HomeBuilder impact.

In terms of business confidence and consumer confidence there are two regular measures of that. Business SA this month reported that South Australia's business confidence rebounded substantially in the March quarter, whilst business conditions also rose strongly to be at their highest level since the December quarter of 2007. So business conditions as measured by Business SA in their regular monitor measured at the highest level for almost 14 years.

The other regular monitor is the one done by BankSA. In February of this year, it reported that South Australia's business confidence has reached its highest level since 2005, attributed to success in handling the pandemic. Consumer confidence or household confidence also grew strongly in both metro and regional areas for a variety of reasons.

The issue of confidence is critical in terms of economic recovery. I have spoken about this often before. As we emerge from COVID, businesspeople—those who own and operate or manage businesses—have been through a terrible period and they will need confidence not only to (a) invest in their businesses but (b) create jobs by employing more South Australians. Measures of business confidence in South Australia are important indicators of the potential strength of economic recovery. So all that we do that drives business confidence down acts against the best interests of South Australia and South Australians; all that we do to lift business confidence in the state assists South Australia and South Australians in terms of emerging from COVID-19.

The massive economic stimulus announced late last year, in November, in the budget—a $4 billion economic stimulus over two years, which was determined by the independent commonwealth Parliamentary Budget Office as being pro rata either the strongest or the second strongest of that of all of the state governments—demonstrates that the taxpayers of South Australia are making a significant commitment through their government with significant increases in state debt but in terms of driving economic recovery and economic performance and the creation of jobs over the two-year period of the economic stimulus, which will take late last year, all of this year and part of next year as well.

I turn to the two final points I will make. One is that the Hon. Ms Scriven made some comments in relation to regional development. Having recently visited Mount Gambier for the opening of the new regional airport facility there, the feeling in the South-East was one of warm support for the support that both the federal and state governments had provided in relation to that investment. Through the Local Government Infrastructure Partnership Program we announced as part of the economic stimulus, new infrastructure projects agreed with a number of the local councils in the South-East region were warmly supported by the representatives of local government and the community in the South-East.

The significant number of regional road projects that the commonwealth and state governments are rolling out in regional areas is a complete reversal of the position over almost 20 years of the former government, which essentially worked from a mantra that South Australia stopped at the tollgate. There was precious little interest in anything beyond the tollgate because, with great respect to our political opponents, the regions are represented not by members of the Australian Labor Party, they are represented by non-Labor members, whether they be Liberal members or generally Liberal leaning members in those particular electorates.

There has been a very significant investment by this government in just three years in regional communities in regional development and we stand proudly behind what we have done, what we are doing and what we have committed to do over the coming years should we be fortunate enough to be re-elected in 2022.

As a final point, I place on the record again what I have said publicly, and the Hon. Ms Franks referred to one aspect of what I have said publicly, in relation to the focus of the budget. Not unexpectedly, the focus of our budget will obviously be on jobs—the creation of jobs and secure jobs—and also continuing to reduce the cost of living for households and businesses in South Australia.

We were elected on that commitment in 2018. We have delivered on that commitment over three years and it will remain a focus of this particular budget, which is the reason why I ruled out going down the Labor way, as demonstrated by the Victorian Labor government, of massive increases in state taxes as a response to the COVID pandemic, which is their recipe for economic revival in their state. What I have indicated—and I repeat it again today—is that this government is committed to ongoing significant and further investment in the health portfolio. We have significantly increased taxpayer-funded investment in the health portfolio. We recognise the critical needs in terms of mental health services.

To its credit, the commonwealth government has announced significant new funding for mental health services in its most recent budget, and my colleague the Minister for Health and the government will be in a position to announce significant new initiatives in the mental health service area as one of the key imperatives that will be outlined in the June state budget in South Australia. With that, I thank honourable members again for their indication of support for the second reading of the Supply Bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Bill taken through committee without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (16:09): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.