HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-06-16 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

APPROPRIATION BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

(Continued from page 3121.)

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (16:15): Budgets have always been an interesting document for me to look at. I am not an economist, and I do not apologise for that. In fact, I think recently someone said that there are two types of economists: those who don't know and those who don't know they don't know. I am not one of them. I am just a humble veterinarian who has run a small business and knows that turnover is vanity and profit is sanity.

I do know that, if your expenditure is greater than your income, you either have to get an overdraft and manage it, or you have to work harder and make the whole business much more efficient. That is what my wife and I had to do when we first started a practice here in South Australia. We were paying 17 per cent on the mortgage and 23 per cent on the overdraft. We lived in a tin shed for 18 months. We certainly did it tough but, the harder you work, the luckier you get.

The realities of life do not seem to come across to state and federal government budgets. I must admit that that is probably on both sides. This is the eighth budget that I have sat through in this house, and it does seem to become more and more of a feat to work out what is going where.

The state has maintained its AAA credit rating, which is great. It is really good but, unfortunately, when you look at what is in the budget, it is, in my opinion, a DDD budget. There is disappointment, debt and delay. The disappointment is that the Labor government has had rivers of gold and windfalls in GST, and other taxation, for nearly eight years, and it does not really have a lot to show for it. We have an underpass—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Two underpasses.

Dr McFETRIDGE: We have two underpasses and we have a few other bits of roadwork on the way. What we do have is a debt. We have a large debt. The government claims that the state debt is about $3 billion. The real figure, when you include the public non-financial operations, is closer to $6.5 billion.

I remember that, when we had other state non-financial operations (such as the State Bank), they had to be included. The state was in massive debt then. The state government now says that it is only the $3 billion of government debt that we really need to worry about. Well, debt is debt is debt; you have to repay it at some stage.

The projects that should have started years ago in the good times are at last now being started, but how are they being started? In many cases, they are being started with federal government bailouts.

The best and clearest explanation of what is now happening in South Australia was by George Megalogenis in The Australian the day after the budget. I will just read some of that column. It states:

The Treasurer's budget speech predictably blamed tumbling GST in state revenues for the deficit...Labor spinners might wish to believe that a revenue slump is driving the $660 million turnaround from the black to the red. But the opposite is the case.

Total revenues for 2009-10 are forecast to be $722 million, or 5.3 per cent, higher than expected this time last year. The deficit is being driven by a much greater jump in spending that will see total expenses $1.382 billion, or 10.4 per cent, higher.

This is Wayne Swan's magic pudding at work.

South Australia, like every other state, is getting more funding from the Rudd government than it is losing on the GST in the year that matters, 2009-10. Commonwealth grants are counted as revenue in state budgets. That's why revenue is rising, not falling, in the recession.

South Australia's own tax collections have, in fact, been revised down by $173 million to $3.526 billion. Federal grants, by contrast, have been increased by $919 million to $8.064 billion.

Canberra has borrowed on behalf of South Australians to allow the Rann government to maintain its spending on infrastructure...The other end of the commonwealth's generosity is that the state can pretend to be better economic managers on paper because they have the equivalent of a federal blank cheque to offset the increased spending.

That puts it very clearly. Even I can understand that. This is a case of having Big Brother come in and bail you out. In my business, you did not have Big Brother: you had the bank. You went into overdraft, but you had to pay it back, and you paid it back at a high interest rate—but you had to pay it back. We will have to pay back the debt.

The government expects us to believe that all will be well, that we should trust it and that the economy is in good hands. What the government would have us believe is that we are going to be going through some of the most astronomical growth rates that this country has ever seen.

Again, I refer to The Australian on Friday 5 June, because it lists them there. Under 'Economy' in South Australia, the actual figure for GSP in 2007-08 was 3.8 per cent. The estimate for 2008-09 is 1 per cent. The forecast for 2009-10 is -0.5 per cent, but the forecast for 2010-11 is 2.25 per cent. This is the bit that defies most experts' opinions. I am far from an expert, but I believe what some of these people are saying. The projection for 2011-12 is 4.25 per cent and, in 2012-13, it is 4.24 per cent.

These growth rates are unheard of. I hope, for the sake of South Australians and all Australians—because this is what the federal government is using as well—that these growth rates are correct. I think the true growth rates will be far less than that.

The government also expects us to trust it to recover the situation, but how it intends to do this is a question about which we heard some discussion in question time. There certainly were no answers. The government is establishing a sustainable budget commission—a razor gang. According to the Treasurer today, it is making hard decisions. But what happens when you ask how they are going to save the predicted $750 million? How will they do that? This will be next year, after the election; do not ask for details or direction, do not ask for where or when or for how long. It is beyond belief that the Treasurer can stand here, when we are to have another inquiry into spending by this government, and say that we have to trust him that it all has to happen in eight or nine months' time. It is something that South Australians will look at very sadly.

This government has let South Australians down very badly. As I said, there have been eight years of boom times, with record income and GST windfalls; $2.7 billion more than this government expected or budgeted on having. We have had property tax windfalls and state tax windfalls, and today the Premier and Treasurer are still trying to talk this up as if it has all been put to good use. Why then is the picture one of us entering into years of debt?

The sad fact is that South Australia is now the highest taxed state in the commonwealth—and that is not just the opposition's opinion or my opinion, that is the opinion of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. Property taxes are up 95 per cent, taxes on insurance are up 52 per cent, taxes on motor vehicles are up 37 per cent, payroll tax is up 52 per cent—and then, at the top of the pile (and it is a huge pile) is land tax, up 292 per cent. I forget the exact number of people now paying land tax—

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

Dr McFETRIDGE: The member for Goyder informs me that it is 188,000 people now paying land tax—and it has gone up 292 per cent under this government. What do we get from the government now? We get 'Trust us, we've got a razor gang' and overly optimistic economic growth predictions; however, what we have is debt. As I said, the federal government has put a lot of money into this budget, so we have state debt and federal debt. The Rudd federal government's $300 billion of borrowings has created a debt of nearly $15,000 per man, woman and child in Australia—that is, $15,000 for everyone in Australia—and the people of South Australia, their children and their grandchildren, will be paying off this debt year after year.

The Premier and the Treasurer may be over the moon about federal funding, but they are ignoring the reality. In reality there is no such thing as federal money and no such thing as state money, it is all taxpayers' money. If you add up the state and federal debt it is about $22,000 per man, woman and child. My children and my grandchildren will be paying off this debt. When it was the State Bank it was the Belgian dentists. Now it is the Chinese government and other investors around the world investing in Australian bonds. However, the debt is there, it is real.

Take away the Rudd federal government's four-year bailout and the picture is quite different. Take away the $1.3 billion for education, the $477 million for housing, the $29 million for road transport, the $294 million for the Gawler rail, the $291 million for the Seaford rail, the $200 million for the new medical research centre. If we also take away the $61 million for the O-Bahn extension the picture is very different from what the Treasurer would have you believe—and in case he does run out of money despite the federal government bailout, the Treasurer has squirreled away in a hollow log a contingency fund of $467 million. That can be used for contingencies or blow-outs—and we have seen plenty of them in infrastructure projects around the place—or it can be used for election promises, and I will be very surprised if the Treasurer does not use all or most of that money on land tax relief. That issue is out there, but we see nothing from this government.

The Liberal opposition had a complete review of the taxation system, and we are still working through all the options there because there are some pretty tough decisions to be made. Other funding areas causing great concern to South Australians, and certainly causing concern to the opposition, are the blow-outs in unfunded superannuation liability. In 2001 it was $3.2 billion, a significant sum.

However, in 2009 it was $9.8 billion. WorkCover liability has blown out as well, from $56 million in 2001 to $1.3 billion in 2009—and that does not include the public sector unfunded liability. If that was added it would be another $400 million or $500 million, a significant sum. If you add it all up it is not a pretty picture for the South Australian taxpayer. However, this government promised reduced WorkCover levies, and we should not forget that.

WorkCover unfunded liabilities are up to $1.3 billion. We had a stoush in this place and with the unions about changing WorkCover, the conduct of the corporation, and the way the legislation was organised it was going to bring down the unfunded liability and bring down industry levy rates. However, the new WorkCover levy rates were in the GovernmentGazette last week and we saw page after page of increases.

They did keep the average at about 3 per cent, but there was everything from fruit growing, sheep farming, aquaculture, milk and cream processing, fruit and vegetable processing, house construction, timber dealing, foreign security systems, motor vehicle new parts, dairy wholesaling, footwear, furniture, household equipment repairs, new motor vehicle dealing, used motor vehicle dealing, automotive fuels, tyre retailing, taxis and other road transport, bread and cake retailing—we see the staples of life here—milk vending, supermarkets and grocery stores, technical and further education, secondary education. All those levy rates have gone up. Certainly in some areas they may have come down, but the areas where they have gone up will hit the pockets of the mums and dads very hard.

It is a disgrace that so much was promised by this government but it has failed to deliver on it—and we are now asked to trust it again. Promises, promises: in the out years we do not have to worry about the money, 'Just trust us, we will fix it.' Well, I for one do not trust the government and I think the people of South Australia are getting very tired of what it is saying.

Some areas in the particular portfolios I have, and which I would like to talk about, are bright lights. One of those bright lights is Professor Tanya Monro at Adelaide University with the photonics research facility there. Through her hard work and lobbying Tanya has, for the university, picked up $5 million for this research facility, a world-leading facility that will advance defence, communications and other areas of light physics not only for South Australians but also for the world. People who do not know Professor Monro should go to see her. She is a very bright young lady and a credit to this state, and the facility deserves all the funding it is getting.

Unfortunately, in the area of information technology, the $3.5 million for broadband has not been spent. I assume the state government now is relying on the Rudd rollout. We have seen some improvement in industrial relations, and some funding for medical panels. However, today I am told that these new medical panels will have to see 1,500 cases a year (that is 30 a week and six a day). I will be waiting to see what happens there. It puts a whole new slant on the term 'bulk billing'. I think it will be a big job for the WorkCover ombudsman to support workers who feel they have been hard done by under this new legislation, and that position has been given some funding.

In the area of Aboriginal affairs and reconciliation, again, a lot of money is coming in from the commonwealth government. I look forward to the housing issues being progressed, and I understand minister Rankine was in the APY lands last week and was well received up there, and I hope that under her ministerial tutelage things will progress. The APY communities, through their executive, are keen to develop new houses and new economies up there. Just last year, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation wrote to the APY chair and executive and congratulated them on what they were doing. He said in a letter to them in December last year:

I understand that AARD officers had a productive meeting with Coffey International. I am pleased that you have indicated a desire to consider development strategies over the short, medium and long term. The South Australian government supports this development, which complements other work that AARD is undertaking in areas such as community governance training.

He continued:

I note the resolutions in your letter regarding leasing of housing sites and service delivery sites and would like to take the opportunity to thank you for your continued support and swift action in these matters.

I wish there was swift action on behalf of the state government. Even just today the APY executive issued a press release headed New Permit System for APY Lands. The APY communities and executive are keen to move forward and develop their communities. They know that things need to change, and there is a significant change being proposed by the APY executive. After discussion with the various communities, I hope that this comes about because it will open up the lands, not only to public servants and contractors but also to many other South Australians who are missing out on a wonderful part of South Australia. That will help develop economies up there.

As for transport and infrastructure, this is where the really big Rudd bucks kick in. I welcome this money, because I am a tram fan. I love my rail, and I am looking forward to seeing the rollout and electrification of the rail upgrades and the new trams and trains that have been promised. The best thing that this government has done is follow what the Liberal Party said it would do, and that is electrify the rail. The debate has been going since 1927, unfortunately. It has come and gone, and there have been stops and starts (no pun intended) on electrifying and upgrading the rail in South Australia. However, I am concerned at what we heard today, that is, some of the extensions are in the out years so we do not need to worry about funding, only about whether the government does what it said it would do.

The federal government put in $63 million for some new electric trains for the Seaford line. On my quick calculations, that means we should be looking at $255 million for the 50 new electric trains that the Premier said the government was ordering when it made its big announcement last year. We are getting four more Bombardier Flexitys which are the same as we have now. That is on top of the six Alstom Citadis that have just been announced. So, if we get the tram trains (and I understand the tram trains may not be coming now), we will have seven different types of rolling stock. We remember what happened to Ansett when it had to cope with trying to maintain all the different types of aircraft it had. It was one of the other big burdens it had to wear.

The question I have is: if you are going to build a new system and spend the money this government is saying it is going to spend, why would you not keep it simple? Why would you not concentrate on one particular type of tram or train that will do the job? They are certainly out there. I have done some research and looked into it, and I have talked to people about it. It is something that is not being handled well by this government.

The north-south corridor is progressing, but I would rather see a plan that is going to do the whole of the corridor, not just underpass by underpass, because the way it is progressing means it will take years. I went and looked at the Northern Expressway the other day, and it is coming along wonderfully. Once again, it is federal government money. The big thing missing is a new northern connector to join the Port River Expressway with the new Northern Expressway. That is not there. It is going to be somewhere in the out years, I understand. We do not know what it will cost. I look forward to the whole thing progressing.

However, the bottom line is this budget is full of promises. We have seen that in the past when we have had promises. Today we have been asked to believe that, although the razor gang will do its job, we should trust the government. We have been asked to believe that the extensions to the rail line, although they are in the out years and there is no funding, will go ahead.

I look forward to getting some answers to my questions during estimates committees. I am looking forward to the estimates committees but I wish the budget position was not one of debt, delays and disappointments, because that is what is in this budget. South Australians deserve better. They could have had better. The money has been there. The rivers of gold have flowed, thanks to the former Liberal government, but this government has failed South Australia.

Time expired.

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen) (16:36): I rise to give a somewhat limited response at this stage to the budget because there simply will not be time for me to traverse all the issues and questions that I have arising from it. I do not want to spend a lot of time going over the ground that has been more than adequately covered by the leader this morning and other speakers since then, except to note a couple of major points. The first is that this budget shows that the government will receive, in total, something of the order of $1 billion more in income this year than it did in the previous year and, therefore, crying poor seems to me to be a little bit unusual, to say the least.

The second thing I would note in general terms about the budget is the government wants us to agree with it that there can be $750 million in savings but it can be trusted to specify those after the election. Having got themselves to the position where they want us to simply accept that there will be $750 million of unspecified savings that they will only tell us about after the election, I trust that will put an end to their asking the opposition for detailed costings on anything that we propose in the lead up to the next election.

The third thing I note in general terms is that parts of this budget seem to bear no relationship to the State Strategic Plan. The most outstanding aspect in that regard is the O-Bahn which has been allocated $61 million, yet in the State Strategic Plan—it has been going for years; since this government came to power—never a mention of the O-Bahn, but there it is as a major announcement. Before we even got the budget, we found out that we were going to get this extension of the O-Bahn that is not even mentioned in the State Strategic Plan.

The other thing in general terms that I note about this budget is not just the debt and so on but the continued centralisation policies of this government, whether that be schools and the abandoning of so many little schools or whether it be police stations. I know that, in my area of Stirling, we now have a police station that operates basically from 8.30 in the morning until 5.30 in the afternoon. It is likely to even be reduced from that, so it will not even be the six days a week that I think it is at the moment. I know McLaren Vale is facing a similar reduction in its police presence, and Unley, I think—any number of police stations around the place. It indicates that this government is still intent upon centralising everything.

The disability sector (in which I used to be involved quite heavily as the shadow for various portfolios—mostly disability and families and communities) has already faced the closure of the Julia Farr Centre, the Independent Living Centre, the Intellectual Disability Services Council, and numerous other small but specialised bodies that provided an enormous service to the various people within that disability sector. All that has gone in favour of a big centralised bureaucracy. I have an economics book at home written (I think) in the 1950s called Small is Beautiful. I actually take a great deal of notice of that book because I think the reality is that the bigger an organisation becomes, generally the less efficient it becomes, and we would do well to learn the lesson that obviously some people had learnt as long ago as the 1950s.

I move especially to the things in the budget that have caught my eye in relation to some of my portfolios—and I doubt that I will have time to even get all the way through my comments in relation to the justice portfolio. However, starting at Budget Paper 3, for instance, the government says:

The budget provides essential resources to maintain the government's focus on law and order and the efficient delivery of justice services.

The first notable thing is that there does not seem to be any money in the budget for the improvement of our general courts' facilities and that strikes me as odd, given that the judges had filed a report indicating that the problems are ongoing—and have been for some time.

I seem to remember discussing them at various estimates committees over the years. For some time, the government has ignored these requests. I can understand that a government might say, 'Well, there are no votes in judges and lawyers.' They certainly take a very antagonistic view of the entire legal profession, and me thinks that the Premier, in particular, and his loyal lieutenant, the Attorney-General, like to attack the legal profession unnecessarily.

But that aside, the fact is that courts are not used just by judges and lawyers. People with many problems, many of them victims, actually go to courts. Many people are in the courts every day and we would do well to listen to the requests of the judges in relation to the need for an improvement in the facilities. In relation to what the government is providing, the government says that it will provide additional resources for DNA testing, but I notice that there is no mention of providing additional resources generally in forensic science so that we could get rid of the long delay that people face in waiting for final death certificates in this state.

I know of this from recent experience with a friend who rang me in absolute shock when his father-in-law died quite suddenly. His father-in-law was out running and he passed away suddenly. Of course, in those circumstances, there has to be an autopsy. However, he was told—and this is very recent, in the last month or so—he would have to expect to wait up to one year to get a final death certificate. That matters to people. I have seen women left financially destitute because they cannot get the final death certificate and, because of that, they cannot proceed with things like probate or getting insurance companies to pay out on insurance that is due to them until there is a final death certificate.

That is something that matters to the community. It matters to the everyday person, yet this government has consistently failed to address the question. Again, the government says it is appointing more special justices of the peace—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You hate that; you opposed it from the start.

Mrs REDMOND: I note that the Attorney keeps insisting that I opposed that. I never did oppose the appointment of special justices of the peace. The people I insulted (as the Attorney says) were people who had no special training to sit on the bench and sat there as justices of the peace without the special training. I absolutely welcome the idea of having special justices who have undertaken the special training to enable them to sit there. Having said that, it is going to appoint those extra people, those special justices—and no doubt the money will be put towards training those people—yet the government only recently announced that it will be reducing the availability of staff in various courts around the country. I seem to remember Ceduna, Kadina and a couple of others.

The registries will only be open on the days that the court is sitting. The Attorney-General never having practised law does not appreciate just how much work a court registry does on non-sitting days and how busy it can be in a registry on a non-sitting day; and how impossible it can be on a sitting day for people to get assistance with the sorts of things that they can attend to on non-sitting days. So, in my view, it is a fundamental mistake of this government to do that.

The government also states that it will provide a new police complex at Yatala in 2010-11, but at the same time it is reducing the police presence in our suburbs, and that is where it matters to people—in your local area.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: In Yalata, not Yatala. You must correct yourself.

Mrs REDMOND: Sorry; I will correct that. The government states that it supports the Office of Consumer and Business Affairs to implement reforms aimed at reducing the costs of regulation for business and consumers and enhancing productivity. However, in reality, it has left the Office of Consumer and Business Affairs as a toothless tiger for years. There are many occasions, and I am sure I am not the only member of parliament—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: That's because Trevor Griffin made it that way.

Mrs REDMOND: Madam Deputy Speaker, will you call the Attorney-General to order so that I can concentrate on my points? He is welcome to make his own speech in due course.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Attorney, I ask you to maintain silence and respect the member's contribution. I refrained from intervening earlier because the member seemed to be soldiering on, for which I commend her.

Mrs REDMOND: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I said, the Office of Consumer and Business Affairs has a valuable role to play, but I suspect that it has been significantly under-resourced and possibly lacks even the legislative teeth to do the job it is meant to do. For example, I spoke to a chap who I think had a quite legitimate complaint. He engaged a firm to do termite treatment on an investment property. He paid the firm regularly to do the work, but a couple of years later the place was riddled with termites.

Understandably, as a consumer of this service, he was pretty upset, yet the Office of Consumer and Business Affairs initially even refused to deal with the complaint. When I finally persuaded it to do so, it could not give this man any redress for what cost him, from memory, in excess of $50,000.

I note that last year's budget was supposed to provide additional resources to update the associations register and ensure compliance with the Associations Incorporations Act; however, in this year's budget we still seem to have the same problems and the same need to address them. So, this is yet another area where the government has said one thing one year but, having done nothing, puts the same thing into the paper the next year. I will talk about other such matters in the arts, if I get there in this contribution. Another issue in this year's budget is the support provided for the early commencement of the operations of the additional courtrooms in Sturt Street. Last year's budget stated:

The budget provides resources for a number of measures to address the backlog and improve efficiency in the court system. These include—

The very first listed is—

reopening the former Sturt Street court facility to provide two additional courtrooms in the District Court and three additional judges with all related operational services.

Last year, that was the very first thing the government said would be done. It has not been done, but this year's budget states that it will support its early commencement.

One of the interesting things I discovered in this budget is the wonderful issue of an increase in services in the Residential Tenancies Tribunal. In particular, the budget document states that there is to be an extension of education, advocacy and financial counselling services for private rental tenants. This initiative is to benefit both tenants and landlords and is to be funded by the introduction of application fees.

The 'introduction of application fees' should be noted. The Treasurer said very carefully in the budget speech that there were no new taxes, but he did not mention 'no new fees'. There is a new fee and, when you look at its detail, from my reading it appears that in 2009-10 these new fees will earn the government $194,000 (according to its budget), and the cost of these new services for education, financial counselling and so on will cost $200,000. In other words, the government must contribute $6,000 to provide this service in the first year.

Guess what? When you move onto the next year, for 2010-11 the budget states that, from the application fees it will impose on our most vulnerable people—those in rental accommodation—the government will earn $401,000. The cost to the government for providing this service is $369,000. In other words, it will make a profit from these poor people in the rental community who need to go to the Residential Tenancies Tribunal for redress. The government will make a profit of $32,000 next year, having had an input of $6,000 this year on top of the fees it earns.

However, it gets worse. In 2011-12, there is an income of $413,000 from the tenants' application fees, with a cost to the government of $378,000; on my calculation, that increases its profit to $35,000. So, the government's profit each year is going up and, indeed, in the final year it goes up to $39,000, with an income from the application fees of $426,000 and the cost of providing the service a mere $387,000, which is nearly $40,000 in excess. As I said, this is money that will come mostly from people who are tenants and who are therefore likely to be some of our most economically vulnerable people.

For years, this organisation operated on the basis that people could go there who had a dispute with their landlord. It is a no costs and no lawyers jurisdiction; there are some exceptions, and I have run cases there. However, most of the time, the tribunal is meant to hear minor disputes between landlords and tenants, with an independent impartial person looking at the evidence, hearing from the people and saying, 'No; you do owe that money. Let's make arrangements for its payment,' or whatever it is.

Now they are going to have to pay a fee to initiate their application to get before the tribunal. It is bad enough that the government, having said there are no new taxes, is going to have new fees; it is bad enough that they are from residents in rental accommodation; but, worst of all, this government is going to make a profit out of them. This government's intention, on its own figures, is to make a profit out of that group of people.

I want to comment quickly on a couple of other things in relation to the justice portfolio before I move onto anything else but, as I said, I doubt I will get much time to move onto other things. There has been a lot of discussion lately about the Magill Training Centre, and the Premier's response today to the question from the member for MacKillop was telling, to say the least, in my view. Members may recall that the member for MacKillop asked whether the Premier agreed with the recommendation of the juvenile justice select committee or with the Treasurer's view, because the Treasurer, of course, on 12 June last week said, 'I have higher priorities.'

The juvenile justice select committee was an independent committee consisting of three Liberal and three eminent, good thinking Labor people, and it was chaired by the Hon. Bob Such. It had three Liberal members and three hard working and good thinking Labor members. The 43 recommendations of that committee were unanimously agreed by the committee, and amongst them was that the committee strongly recommended that the closure of the Magill Training Centre be an immediate priority. Why did we do that? As a committee we went out to that centre and saw what was going on there.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mrs REDMOND: We saw the conditions in that centre and recognised that, no matter what else we did, we had to address those things. This is just one of those 43 recommendations, and the government studiously ignored them until it could no longer ignore them. It then engaged Monsignor David Cappo. If you read his report, you will see that the very first thing he says is, 'I am deeply indebted to the juvenile justice select committee for the work that select committee did,' and he acknowledged that a lot of what he had to say was based on the work of that juvenile justice select committee.

In my view, some of the most valuable work that we do in this parliament is indeed with select committees such as that, which actually look impartially on a nonpartisan basis at issues such as juvenile justice and come to some conclusions that would be for the benefit of all South Australians. The frustration is that a committee like that, having made these 43 recommendations, then finds that they are simply ignored by the government of the day, which puts off making any of the rational decisions that would actually help to address our juvenile justice issues.

I will make one other quick comment, and that is in relation to the criminal jurisdiction of the courts, which increased by some 19 per cent but, with only less than 10 per cent increase in its budget, it is therefore going backwards.

Time expired.

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (16:56): A bit like the member for Goyder, I am a glass half-full person, and I would like to concentrate on the budget that will be good for the electors of Florey. This year's budget reflects the times we have had, where this government's planning in so many areas has put us in a very strong position and ready for the times ahead. We have witnessed in the past few months tumultuous financial times—the worst since the Great Depression. The world has changed, and so too can flexible administrations such as this government to ensure that we can come safely through this current cycle.

I have recently spoken about boom and bust and the impact on working people. We are all working people, from the small business person employing family or a small number of people to medium and large employers who provide employment for a lot of others. South Australia is holding its own in difficult circumstances and defying trends, importantly, in employment, for there is no more important issue for each and every constituent in Florey than the ability to earn an income.

The Rann Labor government has placed enormous importance on retaining the AAA rating and has won it by proving to the harshest of financial agencies that our budget is responsible. This government has invested record sums in key areas such as health, education, transport, police and justice systems and, most crucially, securing water supplies.

In health the plan is to have three major hospitals: the Flinders Medical Centre in the south; the almost totally transformed Lyell McEwin Health Service in the north, now a centre of excellence and serving the people in the north-east; and a brand new, greenfield RAH, a wonderful development that will deliver a great many improvements to the city and health consumers in general. The general hospitals such as Modbury Public Hospital will share in $140 million over four years for increased levels of health services and $60.9 million to improve the operation of emergency departments, with a strong case for securing an acute medical unit which is supervised by a physician to improve outcomes and patient flow.

Infrastructure works will continue and, through collaboration with the Lyell McEwin Health Service, deliver benefits of additional nursing and midwifery positions, an increased focus on gerontology and palliative care as our population ages and a greater role in elective surgery. Modbury Public Hospital has a proud history and, through its wonderful and committed staff, has contributed much to our community. Health demands are increasing and as a state we must recognise that change is necessary. Preventive strategies will become more important, and we must do everything possible to reduce preventable illnesses.

In education, through a good deal of impetus from our government here in South Australia, federal initiatives will see a revolution in school infrastructure and a new major building on every school site in my electorate, major investment in early childhood education programs and, locally in Florey, additional funding for The Heights School, pushing to over $3 million the works that will take place on that site. This has been a great school, which my own children attended, and it will be even greater into the future.

In skills, this budget provides $19.2 million over four years to improve pathways to learning or earning for young people and to assist disadvantaged workers to gain employment. There will also be $155 million over four years in partnership with the commonwealth to address skills shortages by improving training opportunities for job seekers and encouraging people in the workforce to further their education levels. Getting a job, keeping a job, and finding interesting jobs is the focus of the planning that is underpinning this budget and will protect the lifestyle and aspirations of workers in this state.

Transport issues affect us all and this budget recognises that by providing record investments for infrastructure—more than $3 billion over four years. We see a commitment to electrification and extension of public transport infrastructure. Importantly for the north-east, commuters will see $61 million over three years for improvements to the link of the O-Bahn track to the CBD.

Everyone who uses the O-Bahn knows how great it is. As someone who caught the bus in the late seventies from Modbury Heights—initially taking a long walk to Tea Tree Plaza to catch that bus—and enduring a 45 minute trip to the city, I can attest to the difference. New buses will be coming on line and, although I do not often use the bus now, both my adult children commute daily, one to the city and the other to the Flinders Medical Centre, and they keep me well informed on O-Bahn issues.

An upgrade to Montague Road—something I have lobbied for over many years—will happen with funding from federal, state and local governments. The complexities of the site have contributed to the difficulties that it has been necessary to work through and around, and I am confident that the result will provide the amenity so sadly lacking for as long as any resident can remember and assist the traffic flow in the evening peak.

Perhaps the most welcome of all announcements in the transport area is the $42.2 million over four years to fund free travel on public transport during the interpeak period for seniors. In Florey, there is a large number of retirement living housing options and, as the O-Bahn is in the north-east, I know many seniors will be taking advantage of this particular initiative.

The 2009-10 operational budget for SAPOL was around $661 million, an increase of 5.1 per cent over the 2008-09 budget and an astonishing 79 per cent more than the last Liberal government's budget in the year 2001-02. This year, there is $59 million support for the Police Academy redevelopment project with a further $5.4 million in 2009-10. When completed, South Australia's police recruits will have a modern, technically-advanced training facility to see them join the ranks of a police force that has never been better funded or staffed. The benefits of these measures will be seen in every electorate.

In water security, everyone has a concern and interest and, although we have seen some heartening rains lately, we still face ongoing drought conditions and much work is being done to ensure water supply. Desalination is part of a suite of measures being put in place. This budget sees $833 million towards the $1.8 billion 100 gigalitre Adelaide desalination plant set to deliver its first water by December 2010 and a further $164.6 million this year with another $413.7 million over four years to upgrade and expand wastewater treatment and water recycling infrastructure.

As well, over the next four years, the government will invest more than $52 million on projects to increase stormwater re-use. This is crucial. A further $29 million over two years will be made available for rebates to foster rainwater harvesting and reduction of water use in the home. This is where we can all play a part. I know I have changed my water use practices, and I look forward to taking on board ideas about further reducing my dependence on mains water.

This government has many exciting projects on the go and a glance at the State Strategic Plan will show you an overview. I am particularly excited about the measures in objective 4—Fostering Creativity and Innovation—although each of the other objectives will provide an important part of the framework that will, as their titles suggest: Grow Prosperity, Improve Well-Being, Attain Sustainability, Build Communities and Expand Opportunity.

This government is working hard to ensure that all South Australians have a share in the great future that we are all putting our energies into making a reality. Our greatest resource is our people and all our efforts are focused on making sure our people have jobs and the services to ensure the best possible future for our communities.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (17:04): I rise to speak on the eighth state budget of this Labor government and of this Treasurer. The Treasurer, even today in the house in question time, is crowing and saying that he has met his objectives. All I can say to that is that the Treasurer has some pretty strange objectives because South Australia has constantly gone backwards under this government and under this Treasurer. Unfortunately, it is, I think, the Treasurer who must bear the majority of the responsibility for the state that we find ourselves in.

According to the Commonwealth Grants Commission—and I accept its figures and the Treasurer has published them in his budget papers—South Australians are taxed more harshly than any other Australians. I will repeat that: South Australian taxpayers are taxed more harshly than any other taxpayers in any other jurisdiction in this nation.

We ask ourselves: why is that? Is that a sign of a government that has its priorities right? Is that a sign of a government that makes the hard decisions? Is that a sign of a government that is doing the right things by the state's economy and making the right investment decisions? Is that a sign that a government whose latest mantra is 'Action now for the future' has been getting that right? Is that a sign of a government that has been putting in the right actions to build for the future?

The answer to every one of those questions is no. Therein lies the problem. We have had over eight years of inefficient government. We have had ad hoc decision making (hopefully I will have time to come to that in a few moments) and we have seen our position relative to the other jurisdictions in this great nation decline.

South Australia's share of the national population, I think, is a good place to start so that we can compare how we have been going and we can get a little understanding of what has been happening. This is something that is very near and dear to me because I have four children, two of whom, who work as professionals, have never worked in South Australia. Two of my children were educated here in South Australia and got their tertiary qualifications at South Australian tertiary institutions, and both have secured very good professional careers, but neither of my daughters has ever worked in South Australia, much to the chagrin of their mother and the disappointment of their father.

During the term of this government (since 2002) South Australia's share of the nation's population has declined from 7.75 to 7.49 per cent. Again, I pose the question: is that a sign of a state government that is getting things right? The answer to that, obviously, is no.

The Premier talks about us providing educational opportunities. In fact, the Premier used to say that he wanted to be known as the education premier. Well, he has failed miserably in that. I might come back to that later, but the reality is that, even though we are educating people here in South Australia, they get their education and then move to greener pastures, because the other states are doing it better.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: I was educated in Canberra and I came back here.

Mr WILLIAMS: Well, how wonderful that has been for South Australia. The reality is that South Australia's share of the national economy has declined from 7 per cent in 2002 to 6.4 per cent today. That is why our young people are moving interstate, because our share of the national economy is declining. Jobs, particularly in the professions and particularly those which require high level skills and highly educated young South Australians, are not in South Australia. That is a failure of this government.

The share of national private capital expenditure in South Australia has declined from 6.9 per cent in 2002 to 5.9 per cent today. This is in spite of the Premier's continuing mantra about the boom that is going to come to South Australia, particularly through the defence industries and the mining sector. The reality is that any boom we saw, particularly in the mining sector, was driven by world commodity prices. The boom was actually in exploration, it was never in mining, and we are yet to see that translation from exploration to mining.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You will be very disappointed, Mitch, if it happens.

Mr WILLIAMS: I will not be; I will be delighted. The reality is that most of the exploration activity that the Premier has been crowing about has been brownfields exploration in the development of the plan to expand the Olympic Dam mine site. The reality is that there has been much less greenfields exploration in South Australia than the Premier would have us believe. That is why our share of the national private capital expenditure is declining. We have been told something which falls well short of the truth.

The Premier keeps crowing about the unemployment rate in South Australia. In 2002, South Australia had 7.5 per cent of national jobs: 7.5 per cent of people employed in Australia were employed in South Australia. Today that is 7.3 per cent. South Australia's share of national exports has declined from 7.42 per cent to 4.36 per cent today.

I find it very difficult when I go through the figures to find a bright spot for South Australia. As I said, that disappoints me greatly because I have a great interest in what is going to happen in the future. I have a great interest in the ability of my children and grandchildren to live, work and enjoy the lifestyle that has been afforded to me in this state.

We have been presented with a budget which purports to have us on track. I could not believe it when I picked up The Advertiser the morning after the budget was delivered and saw the headline scream, 'Back in the black'. The reality is that we are a long way from being back in the black, and I do not think that we will ever get back into the black whilst this government is in office.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: It's going to be a long time.

Mr WILLIAMS: Well, if that comes to pass, Attorney-General, the reality is that the people of South Australia will suffer much more into the future than they have already. If they continue to re-elect Labor governments in South Australia they will live to rue the day.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Really?

Mr WILLIAMS: They will indeed. One of the reasons the budget claims that we will get back into the black is that it is predicated on getting pretty decent growth rates into the future. It predicts that by the year 2010-11 we will have a growth rate in gross state product of 2¼ per cent; the year after, 4¼ per cent; and the year after that, 4¼ per cent.

I took the opportunity to have a look at what our state's growth rate has been over recent years, and the reality is that, over the last 10 years, we have never achieved a growth rate of 4¼ per cent. So, here we have the 'Back in the black' banner from The Advertiser, claiming that we will get back into the black within a couple of years, predicated on the Treasurer's numbers of having a growth rate which we have never managed to attain in the last 10 years.

As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, these were years which contained at least five or six of the best economic conditions that this state has enjoyed for many a year—I hasten to point out: in spite of this government but probably more likely because of the Howard federal government. The reality is that we did hit 4.2 per cent growth in 2003-04, but the year before that we had 1.2 per cent and the year after 0.09 per cent.

We have been running along over the last 10 years at 2 per cent, 3.7, 4 (one high year), down to 1.2, up to 4.2, down to 0.09, up to 2.3, down to 0.06, back up again to 3.8, and then down again to the current year for which I think the prediction is 1 per cent, then -0.5 per cent, up to 2¼, then to 4¼ and, again, 4¼. These are figures that we have not seen in the last 10 years. Quite frankly, I do not believe that we will see those growth rates in South Australia within two years. That says to me that the foundations of this budget are seriously flawed. That says to me—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You would say that.

Mr WILLIAMS: As the Attorney-General wants to interject regularly, I invite him to put his case to the house as to why he believes we will enjoy growth rates of 4¼ per cent within a couple of years because, quite frankly, I do not.

The other thing that concerns me is that the budget is underpinned by largess from the commonwealth government—$3 billion. That is fair enough if that $3 billion is money that the commonwealth government has, but it is not; it is money that the commonwealth government has to borrow, and it is borrowing it at the expense of not just Australian taxpayers but South Australian taxpayers, because they are one and the same. It is all money that will have to be paid back.

I heard the Treasurer say on radio one day recently, 'This is commonwealth money; we don't have to pay it back.' Certainly, the South Australian government does not have the responsibility of paying it back, but the South Australian taxpayers do, because they have to wear the liability that has been incurred on their behalf by the commonwealth government.

The $300 billion-odd that the commonwealth government is in the process of borrowing will have to be paid back and, in the meantime, it will impact severely on the ability of the private sector to operate and to expand, because every time the government borrows a dollar that is a dollar that is not available for the private sector to borrow. We have to ask ourselves: would that dollar be better in the hands of government or would it be better in the hands of the private sector? That is an ongoing argument. The reality is that it has been proved time and time again that it generally generates a greater level of economic activity in the hands of the private sector.

The other thing that concerns me about the budget is that not only are the figures not believable but the government's promises are not believable, because the government has form. This government continues to come out at budget time and make grandiose promises—$850 million to build a new dam at Mount Bold a few years ago. Then it grew; it was going to be even bigger, and it was going to secure our water supply.

I do not know whether the government ever intended to build that, but I do not think that it ever took the proposal seriously. The government is at last now building a desalination plant, but South Australian households and businesses are going to be saddled with the most expensive water they can possibly get because the government cannot get its policy settings right. Instead of building a desalination plant to provide water security, it is building a desalination plant which will provide over half of Adelaide's water needs.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: So?

Mr WILLIAMS: So, every kilolitre of water that is delivered into South Australia will cost at least a dollar more than it otherwise would because of that desalination plant. The cost of running that desalination plant—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: So, you're against it now?

Mr WILLIAMS: The Attorney-General should listen. He should not just wander off, talk to other people and come back and try to take people's contributions out of context.

Mr Goldsworthy: He doesn't understand much.

Mr WILLIAMS: He doesn't understand much about very much at all. The opposition does support a 50 gigalitre desalination plant, and that would provide water security for South Australia and it would—as we proposed over two years ago—provide a climate independent source of water. However, in South Australia, we have the double problem of lack of water and environmental damage caused by too much water running off our metropolitan roofs and streets and other hard surfaces that has been created on the Adelaide Plains.

We have something like 160 gigalitres of stormwater a year rushing down concrete lined drains into the Sturt Creek system, down the Torrens and out into the sea, out into Gulf St Vincent, causing massive environmental damage. It has been identified by the Adelaide Coastal Waters Study that a significant part of the problem is that we are allowing this stormwater to run into the sea, carrying with it silt, creating turbidity and destroying seagrass beds. The ongoing effect of that is that we have much more activity on our beaches and ongoing costs to ameliorate the damage caused.

This government could have addressed two problems by adopting the second plank of the opposition's water security policy, that is, harvesting stormwater. We can harvest it and we can clean it up, and we have aquifers under the metropolitan area to store it. The technology has been developed here in South Australia. It is a much cheaper option than building the second 50 gigalitre stage of the desal plant.

Instead of creating more environmental risk from brine outfall from the desal plant, it would go a long way towards solving one of the environmental problems that we have. But, yet again, this government cannot get its policy settings right. So, for the next 40 years, South Australians will be stuck with having to purchase the most expensive water possible from SA Water, and we are still going to have to address the environmental problem of stormwater over the next period. So, what are we going to do? Are we just going to ignore the problem of seagrass degradation off our metropolitan beaches for the next 20 or 30 years until our population grows to the point where we can then harvest that stormwater and have a use for it? Alternatively, will we spend lots of money and pipe it well away from the metropolitan coast? I am not quite sure, but I do not believe that the government has thought it through.

However, I can tell the Treasurer one thing: people like Colin Pitman at Salisbury council will continue to do what he does, continue to harvest stormwater. Colin Pitman believes that within 12 months he will be able to harvest 18 gigalitres of stormwater, and he will be in serious competition with SA Water. I was recently down at Onkaparinga council, and that council also believes it can harvest enough stormwater in that area to meet the total water needs of the population of their city—15 gigalitres a year.

We only need two or three councils around the metropolitan area to go down that path and SA Water will find its financial viability severely compromised. This government is putting billions of dollars into building a desalination plant, underpinned by incredible rises in water prices, yet there is a risk that there will not be anyone around to buy the water. That is a huge risk to South Australia. The Treasurer appears not to understand what he is doing, nor does the Premier. By taking ridiculous and very slow options to resolving our water security problems we have placed ourselves in a situation where we will be paying a lot more for water than we need to, as well as facing a significant risk. I would like to talk about a number of other things, but unfortunately time has beaten me.

Time expired.

Mr BIGNELL (Mawson) (17:24): I rise to congratulate the Treasurer on his latest budget, and to commend not only the Treasurer but also the Premier and other cabinet ministers, who have shown great restraint and responsibility in these globally tough economic times. People have realised that not everything on the wish list can be paid for this time around; it is a time for showing fiscal responsibility.

However, this is also a budget that has put money into making sure that South Australia's economy keeps ticking along and, in partnership with our federal colleagues under the Rudd government, we are seeing a lot of investments in infrastructure throughout South Australia in our schools and our transport. However, it is not just in roads but also in our rail infrastructure, and I would like to commend both governments for their commitment to extending the rail line from Noarlunga to Seaford. That will help a lot of people in the electorate of Mawson. The electrification of our metropolitan railway network, beginning with the Noarlunga line, has also been very much welcomed by people in my electorate.

In addition, I have been receiving a lot of emails and phone calls, and congratulations at public events, about the Rann government's move to offer free public transport to people over 60 during off-peak periods—between 9am and 3pm weekdays and all day on weekends and public holidays. This is a very popular initiative, and there has been almost unprecedented communication to my electorate office congratulating the government on this move. Our transport system is getting better all the time after years of underfunding by governments, of both persuasions, and it is great to see money being poured into our rail, bus and tram networks and, in fact, the extension of those networks to cope with the ever-increasing demands placed on them.

In terms of road infrastructure, work continues to remove the bottlenecks from the north-south corridor along South Road. By the end of this year we will see completion of the South Road underpass beneath Anzac Highway, and there is the tramline overpass which will take the trams above South Road. One by one the obstacles that people face along South Road will be removed to create a much better commute for people who live in the northern suburbs and work in the southern suburbs, or vice versa. Freight will also be assisted; businesses in McLaren Vale that need to get their wine or other commodities up to Port Adelaide will no doubt be singing the praises of the government for its foresight in improving those businesses' ability to get their products to port in a much smoother and faster manner.

The Labor government has proven over the past eight years that it is the government to provide the benefits to the community of South Australia in terms of law and order. This government is tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. I would also like to congratulate the police, who are using the resources we are providing, the extra police officers, to provide greater security for people in the southern suburbs. In rural areas such as McLaren Vale, Willunga, McLaren Flat and Blewitt Springs we have had one police officer for the past 15 years. Based in McLaren Vale, Grant Pyatt has done a fantastic job in meeting the needs of the local community but as the area has grown, in terms of increased population, the job has become very difficult for one officer, and we are now to have a police officer based in McLaren Vale—either in the station or walking up and down the main street talking to business people—between the hours of 9 and 5, Monday to Friday. As well, we will have an extra four patrols in the McLaren Vale, McLaren Flat, Willunga and Blewitt Springs area out on the road responding to calls and making sure that there is a deterrent to people in those areas who do the wrong thing or break the law, whether it be through traffic offences, graffiti or other such crimes.

Latest figures show that unemployment levels in the south are lower than in the northern, eastern or western suburbs, and I believe that is a tribute not only to government policy but also to the fantastic local businesses in the south. We do not necessarily have the huge multinational employers that the northern suburbs have but we do have a fantastic group of small to medium sized businesses that are producing cutting edge technology and services and employing a great many people who live in the southern suburbs.

Unemployment is probably one of the greatest risks at the moment in the midst of this global economic crisis and, if we can keep people in work while interest rates and petrol prices are low, I think South Australia, and in particular the southern suburbs of Adelaide, will come through this time in pretty good nick.

In terms of water security, of course, we are seeing a doubling in the output of the desalination plant at the Port Stanvac site, and the first water will come out of that plant by the end of next year. One of the other things that probably has not grabbed the headlines much is the 700 megalitre dam that is under construction at the moment just near the Aldinga Aero Club. I have been a very strong supporter of the building of this dam. It probably could have been built a few months earlier but, nevertheless, it will be open in September this year.

At the moment, 50 per cent of the recycled water that comes into the Christies Beach recycling plant goes out to the ocean and it has a detrimental effect on sea grasses and other marine life. From September this year, that water will go into this 700 megalitre dam that is being constructed and will be used (like all of the summer output from the recycling plant now) to water many of the vineyards of McLaren Vale. We are substituting mains water (Murray water) and freeing it up so it can be used elsewhere in the system or, indeed, not be drawn on at all, so that 700 megalitres of water will remain in the Murray.

One of the aims of the McLaren Vale wine region is to become the most sustainable wine region in Australia, if not the world. We have a great crop of grape growers heading towards that goal and, working together with government and the rest of the community in the McLaren Vale region, we will achieve that. People are looking towards using different and lighter bottles and thinking of new ways to make our area the most sustainable wine region in the world.

One of the ways of reducing your carbon footprint is to reduce the amount of carbon emissions when you transport your wine around the world. Indeed, McLaren Vale wine has won many top international awards during the past few years and is becoming more popular on wine lists the world over, from the US to the UK, and throughout Asia and Russia. However, to get those wines to the markets, of course, we need to put them on ships, and our wine industry is looking to use bottles that are 20 to 30 per cent lighter than the traditional heavy glass bottles. I commend the winemakers and wine companies in the McLaren Vale region that are looking at every opportunity to improve their carbon footprint and make our region more sustainable.

I congratulate the Treasurer and the government on achieving our AAA credit rating. When we look around the world and see national and other state economies here in Australia being marked down by the international credit rating agencies, we understand that it is no small task to achieve a AAA credit rating. I know it has become a bit of a holy grail to our Treasurer, and people who sit around the caucus room have heard the Treasurer speak almost ad nauseam about this AAA credit rating. It was something that this Labor government fought hard to achieve and, having achieved it, it is a wonderful effort to have maintained it during these tough economic times. Again, I congratulate the Treasurer and the Premier and the rest of the cabinet for achieving this goal.

Of course, Labor governments are well known for being the great economic managers, the great education governments and the great health governments and, again, health has been boosted in this budget. At a state level, I commend the health minister, the Hon. John Hill, and the rest of the government on driving forward to create a brand new $1.5 billion hospital for South Australia. This is going to be a great thing for future generations in this state, and more and more people are coming around to the fact that they are going to have a hospital that provides predominantly single bed rooms so that you can be in hospital with some dignity and privacy as you are treated by some of the best doctors in the world right here in Adelaide.

Locally, we are seeing millions more spent on the Flinders Medical Centre and more money being pumped into the Noarlunga Hospital. The Noarlunga health environment does a fantastic job. I was very pleased to see a lot more money in this budget for mental health services at the Noarlunga health facility and Noarlunga Hospital.

To recap, the people of South Australia know that when it comes to jobs, education, health, law and order, and good economic management, no government does it better than a Labor government.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (17:36): I rise to speak to the Appropriation Bill and the government's most recent budget. I do not intend to hold the house long, but I will make some observations in relation to the financial management of the government over an eight year period.

I note that the member for Mawson has just commented on how hard the Labor Party had to work to return the state budget's AAA credit rating. Out of respect for the member for Mawson, I did not laugh, but history will record, and the Auditor-General's reports record, that the state got back the AAA credit rating for two primary reasons: one was that the former Liberal government had the guts to lease the power assets of the state and put that money into debt reduction; and the other reason was that the federal Liberal government had the guts to introduce a GST and quarantine that money to go to the states, which improved revenue flow to the states.

That meant that this government came to power with an inherited reduced debt and, therefore, a reduced interest rate bill, which, from memory, was about $700 million a year in 1999 to 2001 dollars. It inherited fewer outflows of interest payments and greater revenue inflows through the GST, and some months after the 2002 election the AAA credit rating was restored.

It is laughable that the Labor Party claims to have worked hard to restore the AAA credit rating, given that it opposed both those measures. If the Labor Party had had its way, of course, the power assets would still be owned by the state and serviced for capital works and others out of the normal state processes, and the GST revenues would not be flowing to the state. You have to ask yourself where the budget would be if those two measures had been won by the Labor Party and not the Liberal Party.

That is the starting point of where we are. The Labor Party wanted higher debt and to continue to pay higher interest payments and did not want the GST revenues. That was its position in 2001-02. As luck would have it, it negotiated its way into government in 2002 and, since then, has delivered eight budgets. I want to talk about the budgets.

I notice that the government has talked about this budget being 'back in the black' in two years as though we should celebrate and that this is some great achievement of financial wizardry by the Treasurer. I make these points. Over the last eight years, as I have mentioned, the government has had the benefit of reduced debt payments and increased revenue flows. The question is: what has it done with that benefit?

The Liberal Party always said—and I remember the question times—that if we could pay off the debt by the leasing of the power assets, that would allow us to invest in more services. Hansard would record answer after answer in question time, with various ministers saying, 'If we had $700 million a year or $2 million a day, we could employ X more nurses, Y more doctors and Z more police officers.' That was always our argument. Why the Labor Party opposed paying off debt and investing in services was always a mystery to me, but that is what it did.

Having formed government, the Labor Party then set about deciding what its priorities would be. This is why I find this budget, as the leader says, intriguing. The reason I say that is that, during the eight year term of this government, it has employed 16,400 extra public servants above those budgeted. So, not just 16,400 extra public servants, but it has had a budgeted figure of public servants. It has employed all of those—that is, the budgeted number—and then it has employed a further 16,400 public servants whom it never intended to employ, according to the budget. If it had stuck to its budget strategy, we would have 16,400 fewer public servants today.

Clearly, cabinet made the decision that, on the budgeted amount of public servants, they could run the state, otherwise they would have budgeted for more public servants. There has been a lack of discipline within the government over that period to the tune of 16,400 public servants. That is a powerful lot of public servants for whom we are now paying. The government will say—and the Auditor-General's Report supports this—that there has been an improvement in service delivery as a result of 4,400 extra public servants (which is part of that 16,400) into areas such as health—nurses, doctors—and crime fighting—police.

Let us give the government some benefit of the doubt and let us say it deliberately meant to employ those extra 4,400, even though it did not budget for them. Why you would employ them and not budget for them is a mystery to me. If you had meant to employ them, you would have budgeted for them. Let us say it meant to employ those 4,400, that leaves 12,000 public servants who have been employed (although not in the critical areas if you believe the government's numbers) and who were not budgeted for. I understand the total employment cost is somewhere between $70,000 and $75,000 per year, according to quotes by the Treasurer in recent years: 12,000 public servants at $70,000 to $75,000 per year is a total annual payment of around $900 million per year. Therefore, we have a yearly payment of $900 million for 12,000 public servants who were never budgeted for.

You can understand why some on this side of the chamber question the government's capacity to deliver the changes it needs to make the savings post the 2010 election that the government is suggesting it can do. The government is suggesting that, post the 2010 election (if it is re-elected), it can make savings of $750 million through a commission. Today, the Treasurer indicated that just over 50 per cent of that will be savings through control of public sector wages. You would have to have a great leap of faith to believe the government could actually deliver on that.

I say that for this reason. If we look at what the government has said in relation to the Public Service it is an interesting read. In the 2006 election, when Rob Kerin was the leader, he went out and quite honestly said to the public that he thought we could trim 4,000 public service positions and invest that money in better services. As the result of the election shows, the electorate chose to not go down that path.

However, since the 2006 election, what has the government announced in relation to the Public Service? In the 2006-07 budget the government announced a reduction of 1,571 public servants. Just after that, it announced a freeze; that is, there would be cap on public servants, and there was the big Smith review.

In the 2008-09 budget there were cuts of up to 1,000 public servants, and in the Mid-Year Budget Review there were 1,600 public servants. Over that four year period, if you add up the 1,571, the 1,000, and the 1,600, you get a reduction proposed by this government of around 4,200, which is remarkably similar to the number that Rob Kerin suggested could be taken out of the Public Service over the same period of time. That was opposed by the government. It said it would not happen and that there would be no job cuts. The history of this government is that it says one thing in relation to the Public Service and it does another.

I mentioned in amongst those figures the freeze on Public Service numbers. It seems to me that it is obvious that the government promised a freeze, but the reality is that it could not manage it. The number of public servants continued to increase, as I said, over the eight year period, and certainly over the last four year period, to a point where there were 16,400 more public servants than were budgeted for.

I am not against governments budgeting for improved services, employing the Public Service to deliver those services and sticking to the budget. However, to me it is a nonsense for the government to say, 'Aren't we a good government? Trust us; we could be back in the black within two years. We're going to cut $750 million out of service delivery and the budget, and we'll tell you about that after the election.'

When you look at the history of the previous eight years, it cannot control the growth in the Public Service, because ministers will not control their departments. So, we end up having an expenditure built into the system of around $900 million a year above what was budgeted for in relation to Public Service expenses—$900 million a year!

If you take that $900 million a year and compare it with the $750 million over three years that the government wished to cut out of the system, it is pretty obvious to those who have done the most basic accounting courses that, if the government had simply stuck to its budget in relation to Public Service numbers, in actual fact, we would not be going into deficit at all. There would be no great headlines saying, 'We'll be back in the black in two years.' The headline would have been, 'We were good managers and never had to go into deficit.'

This has not been well reported, in my view. The fact that the government has simply taken its eye off the ball in relation to the management of the Public Service has cost the state taxpayer $900 million a year over and above what was budgeted. Because it could not control its Public Service expenditure, it then has to bring in this you beaut budget commission after the election and, some time down the track it will say, 'Trust us, trust us, voter; we're going to make cuts about which you are not going to know at the election.'

You can imagine what would have happened to Rob Kerin at the last election had he delivered all the programs that he promised without explaining that he was going to reduce the Public Service to do so. There would have been huge criticism of him but, for some reason, there is a view amongst commentators that we simply take the government on trust: 'Oh, well; they're going to cut out $750 million some time in the future. Gee, that's good. We'll just believe that.'

Let us look at its track record. This government has a terrible track record in managing the growth of the Public Service. As the Treasurer indicated to the house today, growth in the Public Service and growth in services provided tends to mean growth in the numbers employed. It was not the opposition that set those budgets. The government set the budgets that put limits on the Public Service. It estimated what it needed as far as an employment force was concerned to deliver the services for the budget.

Over these eight years, as I say, 12,000 extra (over and above the police, doctors and nurses) have been employed that were not budgeted for. I say that this government, over eight years, has been a terrible budget manager. You can imagine any business going to a board and saying, 'Well, look, we are going to have to go into deficit this year, but don't worry. I will deliver you a $750 million saving in three years' time.' 'Well, how are you going to do that?' 'Well, we will get some external people to come in and do it.' 'Why didn't you do it the last eight years?' 'Well, we were too busy employing 12,000 extra people that we didn't budget for.' The board would not accept it and neither should South Australians.

It is a nonsense that the ministers have not been able to control their departments and the Public Service's growth to meet the budget. I emphasise that I am not opposed to employing extra public servants to invest in services as long as the ministers hold the government departments to their budget—and they have not done that. I do not have any confidence at all that this government, if re-elected, will be able to deliver the $750 million worth of savings that they suggest. Maybe there will be some more information during estimates that might float that out or expand that for us.

The other issue that I want to touch on very quickly is this budget commission. I wish to make some comments about Mr Cappo's involvement in the budget commission. I have regard for Mr Cappo and some of the work he has done. I have not been a great critic of his in his role as the Commissioner for Social Inclusion. I think some of the work that Mr Cappo has done has been fine work, but I do think he has a conflict on this particular commission.

I say that for this reason: it is one thing to bring in an external person, such as Mr Carmody, who has no axe to grind as far as policy priority goes, no wish list, if you like, of budget priority, and have that external person look at the budget. Mr Cappo, however, has been on a cabinet subcommittee and would have been actively involved in lobbying the government whether that be about more programs for juvenile justice, more programs for crime prevention or more programs for the homeless. Clearly, he comes to the table with an agenda. That is not a direct criticism of him personally; it is a criticism of his appointment because he clearly has a conflict of interest.

That is why there is no minister and no chief executive sitting on the budget commission because they all have priorities that they wish to see implemented. There is no better example than commissioner Cappo out there in the last few days criticising the government for the Magill Training Centre decision: that is, not to build a new one but to give the current one a lick of paint and tell them that they are all being kept humanely.

Commissioner Cappo has been out there saying that that is the wrong decision and that he is going to lobby to change that policy. So, how can he possibly go to the commission with an open mind? He is clearly going to have an agenda and a bias. If the government wishes to have a commission, then do not put someone on there who has a policy agenda.

That is why there is no minister and no chief executive, and that is why Mr Cappo, despite the good work that I think he has done in some areas, should not be there. He should be able to make a presentation to it, like any other chief executive, but it is Caesar judging Caesar. He will come there with his own agenda and other members of the commission will feel pressured into supporting or not supporting his particular view.

I think that Mr Cappo actually has a conflict. It is not of his making; it is of the government's making in putting him on that commission. I say again that this is not a personal criticism of Mr Cappo; it is a criticism of the appointment of someone who is clearly going to have a conflict.

The minister is here in the chamber today. Why should Monsignor Cappo have any more say on the recommendations of government than the minister? The minister would have a wish list, but he does not get to make that the commission's decision. In my view, Monsignor Cappo clearly has a conflict, and the government should simply say to Monsignor Cappo that it has made a mistake and not appoint him to the commission. If the government needs independent people there, the government should appoint someone who is truly independent. With due respect to Monsignor Cappo, he cannot be independent and be the Commissioner for Social Inclusion at the same time: there is a clear conflict.


[Sitting extended beyond 18:00 on motion of Hon. J.W. Weatherill]


The Hon. G.M. GUNN (Stuart) (17:56): I rise to take part in this debate. This will be the last occasion on which I will speak in a budget debate in this place, and I have seen many in my time.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I'm not quite sure, because we had a couple of extra ones thrown in. On this occasion, I want to outline one or two matters which I think are important to my electorate of Stuart and from which those good people who have continued to support me might benefit. The role of state governments is to provide services. One of the things that has happened over time is that governments have tried to do too much for too many and, in some cases, we have neglected what are the core issues of state governments. In my constituency, there is no doubt that it is desirable to provide health care as close as possible to the people who want it, and that is by maintaining hospital services in those small rural communities. This applies also to the provision of education facilities, whereby people can get the best education possible as close to home as possible; and, of course, have access to transport.

In my constituency, which is about 40 per cent of South Australia, we have many small hospitals and many small schools, all of which play a very important role, and those services must be maintained. My role in the future, when I leave this august place, will be looking at this issue from a distance. However, in the time I have left here, I intend to carefully examine what the government has put before us, and I will continue to be an advocate for the people of my electorate. I am sure that the person who has been endorsed by the Liberal Party to follow me will also be a good, effective and strong advocate for the people of that area.

Looking at the Budget Overview, I see that there are a number of interesting investments. It talks about the O-Bahn, which was originally a Liberal Party initiative. It talks about the Seaford line and the Gawler line (and the people of Kapunda will obviously be using that). I know that the member for Schubert wants to see the train services extended to the Barossa, but I do not think he will be successful. The thing that concerns me greatly is that there has not been any real indication of how much money the government will continue to put into the rural road program. One of the success stories of the Howard government was Roads to Recovery. There are bitumen roads being constructed around rural Australia, which a lot of us never thought would ever happen. Roads to Recovery was an outstanding program, and it is a great pity that the state government has not matched the funds.

On the weekend, I went to Marree for the races to support those communities. There are thousands of people travelling in the north. The tourism industry is providing a huge fillip to the northern economy. People are going to see Lake Eyre, and I sincerely hope they continue to do so. What we have to do is make sure that they have the facilities available to ensure that they can enjoy themselves. In that part of the state, there is a need to have the facilities that will attract people to visit those areas. I think it is a great pity that Diana Laidlaw signed off on sealing the road to Marree, and it is still not completed. There are sections that have been done and that is really good. The road to Blinman will be finished by the end of July, and that is good—Roads to Recovery money doing great things for the tourism industry. We want to see the state government continuing to invest in those projects.

If you go to Marree the airstrip is sealed, thanks to the former Liberal government, but the airstrip at William Creek is not. It is unbelievable, with the number of aeroplanes flying in and out of there and the people who want to fly over Lake Eyre, that it is not sealed. The same applies at Innamincka, and the government ought to have found the money to seal those two airstrips and put in power lighting. There would be nothing worse than flying in a group of people, getting a thunderstorm and not being able to get them out for a couple of days. The damage that would do to our credibility would be horrendous.

When we look at the budget we are spending millions of dollars to put the tramline through to the Entertainment Centre. No-one has said to me that they want the trams back in Adelaide. When I went to school in Adelaide—a day or two ago—they were ripping them up. When I was at secondary technical school in Adelaide we had trams, but now they are putting them back at tremendous cost. Are there more important things in which we can invest? In my judgment there are.

My constituents want to see their hospitals and schools maintained and services improved. They want to see roads updated. The Barrier Highway between Hallett and up to Oodlawirra needs a lot of money spent on it as it is deplorable. The roads from Clare and between Spalding and Jamestown, just to mention two in my electorate, do not have any money allocated to them in this budget. I am pleased to see $6 million for the Flying Doctor Service to buy another aeroplane—that is excellent. That is ongoing and that is why we need to seal more airstrips: so that it is far better for the Flying Doctor.

In an earlier part of my life I spent a lot of time flying around the north of South Australia and it was a little bit of experience. I will never again get into a Cessna 210, end up at Yulara that night, and do five or six landings and take-offs—that is all behind me. It was an enjoyable experience. I have some affinity with people who fly and there is a need for it in the vast Outback of South Australia. It is the ideal place to fly, but we need a few services there. I hope the government in its mid-year review will look closely, as the role of government has to be to encourage people to invest, to do things. It should not get in their way but encourage them to go forward and create opportunities.

If we look at some of the opportunities people in the north of the state are taking to improve the tourism industry, we ought to be encouraging these people, and by providing those services we are encouraging them and creating jobs. There are eight people working in the shop at Marree because of people going through, which is really good. The number of four-wheel drives and caravans going north is amazing. I know the Labor Party does not like four-wheel drives for some unknown reason. The trendy lefties want to put extra taxes on them—God knows why. I like four-wheel drives. People are always visiting those communities, and the amount of money they spend in those communities is tremendous and helps the tourism industry there. Services are getting taken.

Only today I received a letter—and I am sure the member for Giles got a copy of the letter-from the Flinders Ranges Council—which is complaining that the bus service has been curtailed. The letter of 10 June, signed by Mayor Max McHugh and the chief executive, states:

The Friday bus service, operated by Yorke Peninsula coaches, commences from Peterborough and travels via Orroroo, Wilmington and Quorn to Port Augusta. Because Quorn is at the end of the run, there are usually around five seats available, which are pre-booked most weeks by clients who have no other method of travel. From Quorn's perspective the service is used every week by one mental and physically handicapped person going to Orana Industries and two regular users from Deakin Court Aged Care Cottages. This bus service is also used by people attending regular medical appointments at Port Augusta Hospital. We should not have to explain to you how important this bus service is to these particular people. The withdrawal of this regular service will no doubt have a devastating effect on their lives.

To withdraw the service for 14 weeks a year (nearly 30 per cent reduction) without any prior warning or consultation is not justifiable.

This letter was sent to the Premier. I agree with their concerns. There is a real need, a real issue, about public transport in the northern parts of the state, because if people do not have a motor car or a family to take them then there are real challenges.

I mentioned earlier about the need for health services. One of the challenging issues is aged care. I think we all agree that aged people, when they have to go into care, want to be in their own community. I received a letter from the Mid North Health Advisory Council. It is dated 19 May and it is a copy of a letter sent to the minister, John Hill. It states:

The Mid North Health Advisory Council was disappointed recently when an application that had been developed by local Country Health SA staff (in consultation with the...executive director aged care), to send to the commonwealth for additional residential...care places at Nalya Lodge—

that is at Peterborough, and it is a great organisation—

was not supported by the chief executive of Country Health SA, and therefore not submitted.

Nalya Lodge is the aged care facility that is next to the Peterborough Hospital, and is operated by CHSA. While it performs a valuable service to the district, it is not able to keep up to demand, and predictions are for this demand to grow. The application sought six additional places, which would not only allow for increased demand, but allow for the enlarged facility to be more viable, and to meet higher standards.

For many years, the previous Peterborough and more recently Mid North Boards were frustrated by the dilemma of running an aged care facility as part of a state entity. It seemed that the federal government did not wish to fund any project as it was a state asset; and the state government did not wish to fund any project as it thought that aged care was the responsibility of the federal government. The HAC was, for a few months, led to believe that there was hope under the new 'whole of country'...approach, and improved federal/state dialogue.

However it seems that little has changed.

The chief executive could not support the application because, despite Nalya Lodge having considerable accrued capital...(over $1 million) would be needed for the building expansion required for the extra places.

If this is not a bureaucratic nonsense, I have not heard one. Just imagine, if the commonwealth was to take over running our hospitals, what sort of bureaucratic nonsense there would be. It is bad enough with insensitive bureaucrats in Adelaide calling the shots. What would happen? It would be an absolute disaster and it would be a sad day for country health.

I bring this to the attention of the house because I think this particular project, which has been forwarded in good faith, is terribly important and there is a need for it. The community of Peterborough has enthusiastically supported this particular project for years and will continue to do so. For goodness sake, Sir Humphrey, put the application in! I say to Mr Belcher: for God's sake, think about the community first and your boffins up in the Health Commission second.

The other matter I wish to raise relating to correspondence that I have received in relation to matters of concern is that we need to encourage exports. We all know that. We want to see the mining industry and we want to see development go forward. For years in this state we have had a very active live sheep trade, which has greatly assisted the grazing industry.

I received a submission from Johnson's at Kapunda, and I will briefly quote from it. I have drawn this matter to the attention of the minister and I am hoping that Flinders Ports will become a bit more reasonable in its approach to having access. The letter states:

Further to our meeting at your Kapunda office on Wednesday 18th...I would like to further detail our company's concern over the future of live sheep trade in South Australia.

Our company...has been supplying...feed for both pre-feeding and loading on vessels for over 40 years. The live trade represents 30 per cent of our total business and contributes...$8 million of local revenue annually.

Recently we have been disappointed with the support of Flinders Ports and their willingness to accommodate vessels calling at Port Adelaide. In 2008 Flinders Ports announced that Outer Harbor berth #1 would no longer be available for live trade. The alternative berth of Inner Harbour #29 was allocated and has been used ever since.

The use of the Inner Harbour berth has restricted the vessels that can be received in Adelaide and therefore restricted the trade for South Australia. Live exporters are requesting load berths in Adelaide, however as the larger vessels cannot navigate the Port River they are turned away as the Outer Harbor berths are deemed unsuitable for live sheep trade.

Live exporters will continue to call eastern Australia for stock however if they are unable to call Adelaide then they will go to Portland, Victoria to load. This obviously results in significant revenue loss for many South Australian businesses in both rural and metropolitan regions.

Our request is that Flinders Ports and the Government of SA find a suitable deep water alternative to accommodate the larger vessels in the short term and in the long term take immediate action to establish a permanent live berth at Port Adelaide.

That is a very reasonable request from Johnson's, and I sincerely hope that Flinders Ports will take a more reasonable approach to these matters. That leads me to mention—and as a shareholder of ABB I declare my interests—that I am concerned about the future of the grain industry and the ports if that Canadian company, which is proposing to take down ABB, gets its way. I have grave concerns about the long-term effect that will have. Why should we allow a Canadian firm to take over and have control of our assets which were put there by the rural community?

There was a group of people, and I do not know what their reasoning was, but if they looked at the history they would know that it took government intervention many years ago to stabilise the grain industry, which it did, and now today you have a situation where it wants to turn the clock back decades. I say that if it is successful and if it gets its way I fear for the future of lots of people involved in the grain industry, because they will be dealing with people who do not have an affinity with and an understanding of local involvement. That is a bad thing and governments in the future will probably have to intervene, and that is something I do not like.

In winding up my comments in relation to this budget, I say that the role of government should be to create opportunities; the role of government should be not to have taxes which are unfair or unreasonable, and we have that currently with land tax. I have mentioned on previous occasions the detrimental effect on some of my constituents of the excessive taxes they have to pay. We want to encourage people to invest and to create opportunities. The future of this state is in creating opportunities and encouraging people with enterprise and enthusiasm and not getting in their way. We need to cut out some of the red tape.

The biggest complaint that I get is about bureaucrats getting in the way of ordinary people on a daily basis. What those people should be doing is encouraging and supporting them and saying, 'We want you to invest. We want you to employ people. We want you to create opportunity.' They should not be putting up fees and—

Mr Goldsworthy: That's right, Gunny; that's right.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: That is what is happening. One successful person creates success around them. If you do not believe me, I say to the member for Giles, just see what Bepi Coro did at Coober Pedy if you want to see a success story. He was someone who went there with virtually nothing, and look what he did for that community and what he did for South Australia. There are other people. That is what we should be doing, not thinking of reasons to let crazy environmentalists get in the way of common sense. We have a situation where they still want to endanger the lives of people with crazy laws to stop them protecting themselves against the ravages of bushfires.

We have money in this budget. We set up committees and they put bureaucrats on them instead of putting practical people with knowledge and experience in these things. The trouble is that the ministers do not know; they take notice of these people and then wonder why the community gets angry.

We have established these natural resources management committees, and they certainly have not turned out to be what people thought they would be. I think we need to have another look at them. There are lots of reports. I know they do not like the parliamentary committee and they are probably not very keen on me. That's all right. I can wear that. I am not going to lose any sleep over it. We put them through their paces; that is what we are there for: to ask them proper questions. Parliamentary committees are not there to be nice: they are there to make people test their evidence and, when they are not doing the right thing, expose them.

In conclusion, it has been an enjoyable experience to be here and take part in the budgets over the last 40 years. I wish the next lot of people here next year the best of luck when considering the budget. I hope they legislate and design a budget to enhance the community and improve the welfare of the citizens of the state.

Mrs PENFOLD (Flinders) (18:15): The Treasurer in his speech stated that 'over the past 12 months, the global economy has faced unprecedented challenges', which is an undeniable fact that he went on at length to discuss without once acknowledging that the state and federal Labor governments did nothing to prepare for it. The Liberal federal government left money in the bank that was the envy of the world. In its first budget, the new Labor federal government originally estimated an underlying surplus of $12.8 billion in 2008-09, rising to $15.3 billion in 2009-10, built on the Liberal government's legacy. The ANZ's report on the May 2008 federal budget noted:

Notwithstanding Treasurer Swan's concerted effort to manage expectations, he, like his immediate predecessor, finds himself in a rather happy position of managing a budget awash with cash.

The federal Labor government has squandered this advantage, leaving a significant budgeted deficit for 2009-10 and no sign of significant new nation-building infrastructure to underpin the future business growth we need. There is no funding for an upgrade of the Thevenard Port or a new port near Port Neill for the mining industries; no Wirrulla to Glendambo Road to open up the north-west for mining and tourism; no assistance for desalination plants outside of Adelaide; and no connection for over 1,000 megawatts of wind energy from Eyre Peninsula into Australia's power grid.

The state Labor government, over seven years, has put no money away for a rainy day, despite unprecedented income from GST distributions; massive hikes in state government fees; taxes including property taxes—an increase of over $11.4 billion (104 per cent), since 2002; $2 billion plus from SA Water since 2002; and the recent direct federal funding boost of $3 billion for schools and hospitals, etc., in the last federal budget. This is taxpayers' money that will have to be repaid by taxpayers. Money has gone into thousands more public servants; populist gimmicks like tiny wind turbines on government buildings; Thinkers in Residence; icons and other non-productive liabilities; consultations; reports; numerous international gestures; plus publications and ongoing very expensive advertisements to sell their spin.

The Auditor-General revealed that the Treasurer had a contingency fund—more commonly called a slush fund—of a whopping $467 million for 2009-10. This unallocated money pays for things like blow-outs in capital works projects, unfunded public servants and increased ministerial staff. There has been an enormous unbudgeted increase in public sector numbers, which have increased to 16,393 under Labor, with 12,000 of these extra public servants not being in health, education and policing where they are desperately needed, but in general administration. The so-called public servant 'fat cats' that this government vowed to reduce when it came into office in 2002—when only 782 were earning over $100,000—have, in fact, bred to disproportionate numbers: a massive 421 per cent increase to 4,073 by June 2008.

Apparently, none of the extra jobs are in regional areas where the public servants at the coal face are short staffed and underfunded. They do not even have the funding for the fuel needed to travel huge distances—let alone an allowance given for the extra time needed for travel—to deliver the services. Regional offices are either being closed altogether or are being closed to the public to reduce the need for front office staffing. Inevitably, the public services that they used to provide to the public have gone with them.

The ill-conceived shared services policy is removing much needed (often part-time) jobs filled by women with children in regional towns to the city—women who, in my experience, often work many more volunteer hours on top of the paid ones to ensure that the job is done. The income they received helped with their social needs as well as their family budgets. Without their jobs, stress builds and families move, sometimes taking much needed professionals back to the cities.

The cost in pain and anxiety experienced by workers and their families in rural areas losing their jobs cannot be measured. The resultant ineffective services to communities is now beginning to come into effect, with businesses and staff not being paid, jobs not being undertaken and convenient methodologies now being inconvenient. Community groups, such as Meals on Wheels, cannot pay their bills because outstanding government accounts have not been paid in a timely manner. A hospital risks having its power cut off because its bill has not been paid, and the list goes on.

The shared services debacle supposedly was implemented to save $250 million. In May 2008, cabinet approved the lease of office space at 77 Grenfell Street to accommodate an additional 1,000 employees transitioned under shared services. However, the Mid-Year Budget Review stated, 'Shared Services SA will no longer require office accommodation at Grenfell Street.'

They are leaving the jobs in the country, but what is happening to these people? Perhaps they are not shifting to the city and their work is not being done—or is being done by over-stretched volunteers? The costs are being incurred with respect to workers, both financial and in terms of trauma, but the benefits are nowhere to be seen.

The Treasurer keeps pointing to the mining sector and talking up exploration, but within the budget there is nothing that I can see to assist mining exploration to become profitable mining ventures. According to recent ABS figures, exploration has dropped significantly by $43.3 million to $36 million in the March quarter of 2009, compared to $79.3 million in the same quarter of 2008. Even then, of the $36 million spent on exploration, only $10.3 million was on new deposits. This is not the makings of the mining boom that this state needs to help pay its debts.

Royalties from existing mines are expected to fall by $6 million in the coming year to $144 million, which is a very miserable amount compared to Western Australia and Queensland, which receive over $3 billion each. The much touted BHP Olympic Dam mine will, I am told, receive more in diesel fuel rebates (estimated to be more than $350 million over five years) from the federal government than it will pay to the state government in royalties over the same period.

The Premier announced that the state would lead Australia in the green industry. However, to reduce Outback diesel fuel usage by mining companies, pastoral companies and communities, and for the state to lead in the green industry, some support in this budget for companies that want to build over 1,000 megawatts of wind energy on the west coast of Eyre Peninsula to connect into the electricity power grid would have been a good start. This green energy could be sent via undersea DC cable directly from the Port Lincoln substation into Adelaide to provide the green energy for the new 100 gigalitre desalination plant at Port Stanvac.

Wind farm companies have the money, they have the land and one at least has the required approvals, and there are obvious immediate needs for the green energy. Does the Labor government really want to create wealth and green industry jobs or just talk about it?

This budget has dropped the $125 million government commitment for the BHP Point Lowly desalination plant in favour of the $1.8 billion for the Port Stanvac desalination plant for Adelaide. However, the River Murray communities and those on Eyre Peninsula, where the aquifers are overdrawn, have not been given any solution to their immediate dire problems.

The $48.5 million pipeline built by SA Water to supply 1.4 gigalitres of water to Kimba on Eyre Peninsula, pumped all the way from Morgan on the ailing River Murray, was built to justify the desalination plant at Point Lowly, but it will never now carry the promised additional 2.3 gigalitres of desalinated water to the region. The cost of interest alone, at 5.5 per cent, would be just under $2 per kilolitre. Adding the pumping costs, maintenance and depreciation, plus interest on the compounded losses over the 70 year life of the pipeline, will result in hundreds of millions of dollars of our money being squandered. All this wasted money could have been much better spent buying back water for the River Murray and compensating farmers and businesses that are suffering so badly.

Water charges are to go up by 36 per cent in 2009-10, with the Treasurer saying that, historically, we have paid too little for water. In fact, the water from the River Murray and from underground aquifers was free to SA Water, and I would argue that, historically, we have paid too much. Water is a necessity of life, as important as food, which is supplied by private enterprise. Other than in wartime, we never suffered from food conservation measures or rationing whereas in all the Labor states water was subject to rationing.

The water on the Upper Eyre Peninsula, as well as being inadequate, is foul. A petition of over 730 signatures has been received from the Ceduna district in the last few weeks imploring the government to investigate measures to improve the quality of water on Eyre Peninsula, including a desalination plant near Ceduna. One constituent wrote on their signed petition, 'We have been having constant grief, frustration and worry…over pipes being blocked.' They go on to say:

The future of grazing looks to be a challenging one. The quantity of water in the region is one thing, but the quality of water is the other. Water is the lifeblood of any region and if it is declining then the sustainability is a concern. Right now the decline is reaching crisis point.

SA Water, being a government-owned monopoly corporation is subject to political interference both in relation to policy and by having 96.5 per cent of its profits—up to $300 million per year, or over $2 billion since this government came to power—ripped off into general revenue instead of being available for reinvestment in its water business. With the government's compliance, it is not subject to any competition to provide new water or re-use waste water, and it facilitates none—despite private suppliers being ready, willing and able to supply water at a competitive price.

Of all the products capable of being produced by our economy, water is the cheapest, and as it can be produced using wind or solar power it would have a virtually zero ecological footprint. What else can be produced and reliably delivered to your house through existing pipelines for about $2 per tonne? The cost and pollution issues of reverse osmosis desalination will be reduced by new nanotechnology membranes being developed in Adelaide; in the meantime, mechanical vapour compression technologies can be used.

Why should it be taxed to reduce consumption? It should be supplied at cost plus a small margin, and that margin used for investment in reliably providing water. It should be remembered that the supply of seawater for desalination is unlimited and the water is totally recycled—unlike almost any other materials we consume. As it has so many benefits, and can be produced with virtually no adverse ecological effects, its use—but not waste—should be encouraged. Water has the least justification for being rationed.

People using a lot of water to maintain the beautiful gardens that are so important to maintain quality of life in a modern community should not be penalised, nor should we be subsidising gimmicks like showerheads to reduce consumption and water tanks to supply very limited quantities of water. Tanks fill only if it rains and the water costs about $5.40 per kilolitre, according to Water Proofing Adelaide, a government organisation. We do not seek out the service station that supplies fuel at three times the cost of other service stations so why, in the case of new houses, do we force the installation of tanks that provide water at three times the cost?

Tanks are an expensive exercise in cost-shifting from governments to the people, as they have to supply and maintain them, along with the gutters and pumps required. Tanks were removed from Housing Trust homes years ago because they were not cost effective, and also because they were a health hazard due to unmonitored problems including toxic mineral dust, dung and rotting flesh. Not only is the water from tanks less hygienic: unless tanks are maintained they breed mosquitoes that can carry Ross River fever, dengue fever and possibly, in future, malaria into modern homes that no longer have flywire on doors and windows to prevent their access.

It results in children with infected mosquito bites that have been scratched and sleepless nights from the buzzing, unless windows are closed, rooms are sprayed and air conditioning is turned on—which have their own environmental problems. We must have adequate water for business and industry to provide jobs for our communities, households and gardens—and even to prevent houses from cracking.

It is well established that vegetation and green spaces reduce crime rates and increase community mental health and fitness and general feelings of wellbeing. Adequate water must be supplied to all communities throughout the state. It is clear from the performance of SA Water, its board and the government that this will not occur with the present SA Water structure. We must enable private enterprise to compete and to supply water into taxpayer-funded SA Water pipelines, which, I understand, have been valued at $7 billion.

In spite of agricultural income from Eyre Peninsula and the western region more than doubling—a whopping $274 million increase, according to figures in the budget—the region is still struggling with drought and facing the threat of climate change. Yet there has been a cut of $1.7 million in agriculture research across the state. This is in addition to the loss of more PIRSA staff from the regions.

There is more debt but nothing new for regional areas in the 2009 state budget. I was stunned to read that the 2008-09 NRM funding of $16 million was reannounced in the 2009-10 budget because this funding was already spent and had disappeared in the new and forward budgets. Regional budget papers show that the reannounced $16 million was complementary state funding, provided to match the $19 million once-off funding from the commonwealth for the Caring for our Country program. This was regional funding provided to NRM for local community groups, councils and others to access in 2008-09 only.

There is actually a decrease in real terms of approximately $35 million, which will have a significant financial impact on regional NRM projects. This comes at a time when the government is clawing back thousands of square kilometres of land from freeholding and coastal protection planning processes. Their initiatives also include huge tracts of land to be included in five proposed nature link corridors across the state, in addition to existing land-based national and conservation parks, but who will manage all the additional conservation land and with what resources?

Marine parks, of which Eyre Peninsula has 10 of the planned 19, have regulations coming in soon to address displaced commercial fishing effort, uses and activities caused by the marine parks, but no funding for compensation for fishers or the policing of the parks can be seen anywhere in this budget or the future estimates.

In Queensland, where the same CEO Chris Thomas oversaw the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, the compensation bill blew out from an original estimate of $500,000 to $2 million (suggested by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority) to more than $200 million. I am advised that this Treasurer has intimated that there will be no money for compensation in this budget or any other budget and that there is no money for implementation, either—only an increase in fines for fishers who do not comply (as set out in the press release last Friday, 12 June). The press release is entitled, 'Demerit penalty scheme to further protect SA fisheries' but who is going to protect the fishers?

As Eyre Peninsula has 80 per cent of the state's mineral exploration and a water crisis looming, I would expect a few dollars of infrastructure funding, at least, going towards roads, ports, power and water needs in order for new mines to come to fruition. Green energy is needed to replace diesel use, where possible, and also for the new Port Stanvac desalination plant. However, not a cent can be seen being spent in the region on these nation building infrastructure needs by this city-centric Labor government.

I liken this Labor government to a farmer who only invests his time and money in the house paddock—doing up the house, painting the fence, providing a ride-on mower to trim the grass and paving the drive for his brand new car—while neglecting the business of farming—the fences, plant and equipment, the roads, crops and livestock—needed to pay the bills on the farm and create wealth and jobs for the nation.

We have a wonderful house paddock in the city of Adelaide, but this Labor government does not give a damn about country regions where most of the real export income that is made is churned in the city. Let the serfs toil to produce 40 per cent of the state's grain, 65 per cent of the state's seafood income and bring to fruition 80 per cent of mineral exploration to mines on Eyre Peninsula and in the regions.

Instead, money is spent on gimmicks such as the $100 million for the tram to the entertainment centre, and handouts. Under its population-based funding policy it has put the money where the most people are—money that, once spent, will leave a compounding debt and interest that are a further drain on the state's economy and all our residents for many years, for no tangible gain. It is a debt that our children and grandchildren will have to bear long after this government has gone, leaving its burdensome legacy for a Liberal government to clean up.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (18:35): I rise to address the 2009-10 budget. It may be no surprise to members that I first want to discuss water, or the lack of it. It is interesting to note that, after many years of posturing and worrying about whether it might rain, the Premier of this state, Mike Rann, suddenly decided to run with a proposal very similar to what the state Liberals had put up in early 2007 for a desalination plant for Adelaide. We put out a policy based on what we had seen in Perth.

Western Australia had been very forward thinking and could see that there were issues with groundwater and seeking a water supply from outside the city, so they took matters into their hands. At that time, Perth built its first desalination plant for $300 million and then needed $87 million to augment that with the appropriate piping infrastructure. We note that the Adelaide plant, because of the dithering on the decision, now will be a $1.4 billion construction and blow out to $1.8 million with the expansion to a 100 gigalitre plant.

It is interesting that the Premier seems to be putting all his eggs in one basket as far as water security is concerned. The river is in dire straits, and I will talk more about that shortly, but it is interesting to note that the Mount Bold reservoir was the centrepiece of the budget two budgets ago. It was a bad policy so I am not unhappy to see it go. That was going to be the saviour of the city. I had a meeting with minister Maywald about the expectation that 95 per cent of the water would have to be pumped from the ailing River Murray and she said, 'No, that is not right.' I requested a briefing about why that was not right, and I am still waiting, 15 or 18 months on, if not longer. That project was to expand Mount Bold from 45 gigalitres to 245 gigalitres of storage. Last year it was announced that the project may not be at Mount Bold but may be in the Mount Lofty Ranges. I have nothing against building a dam in a catchment, as long as it has its own water supply. There is no point putting in structures when you need to pump water from an already ailing river system.

I note that the budget has virtually all federal funding with regard to River Murray issues. It is under the infamous Murray Futures program, and I note that the department of environment still has a report under way to be tabled in October. I do not know how much of the river will be left by then. I note that today they were spreading fine lime on Currency Creek to counter the effects of acidification. It is good to note that the government has finally taken note of what the locals and its own commissioned report indicated back as far as December, that is, bio-remediation is a way out of the acidification issues that were looming with lakes Albert and Alexandrina.

In regard to Lake Albert, much money has been spent on building a bund that took three times the amount of earth to construct at the Narrung Narrows between Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert, pumping about 170 gigalitres of water into that lake from Lake Alexandrina, but it was not until March this year that was there an announcement by the Premier—obviously some bad polling came in for him—that they would actually start purchasing water to substitute for the water they were taking out of Lake Alexandrina. It was just mining and knocking that water out; and, yes, it was a reasonable idea to counter what was happening in Lake Albert but after many tens of millions of dollars has been spent not just by this state but also from the coffers of New South Wales and Victoria, Lake Albert is going to be cut adrift.

I acknowledge that Lake Bonney has been cut adrift as well but Lake Albert, near the end of the river system, will be the first major amputee that this government will preside over in the death of this end of the river. On a recent trip up through the southern Murray-Darling Basin and talking to people up around the Snowy River end and Corryong, I said one night to the group, 'If Lake Albert and Lake Alexandrina were 30 kilometres from Sydney, do you think they would be in the state they are in now?' and the instant reaction from one person was, 'No.' I think that is worth noting, and I think that politically they have just been let go by both the state and federal governments.

In fact, that is exactly what is going to happen with critical water allocation where there is no money allocated in the state budget for essentially permanent plantings. We on this side of the house advocated that there should be money set aside by the government for all irrigators to help them through; in fact, all our water is supposedly high security in South Australia. At least the government came on board finally after many months and said that it would spend $67 million on purchasing water for critical water allocation.

It is interesting because 64 gigalitres, according to the budget papers, was purchased and that helped many irrigators who were suffering throughout the Riverland. I believe that this relates to the figure of $24.359 million that was used to purchase that water. However, on country radio yesterday, a caller from the Riverland asked, 'Where is the rest of the money? Where is the rest of the $67 million?'

The rest of the $67 million is attributed to the money needed to purchase critical human needs water as well, and I refer also to the need for other environmental water, including the 50 gigalitres that Peter Garrett said the government needed to purchase in connection with his approving the Goolwa and Clayton, Currency Creek and Finniss River bunding arrangements.

This gets me back to the 170 gigalitres per annum that was being pumped through to Lake Albert, involving the Wellington weir issue; and, for a structure that the government keeps telling us it does not want to build, it is going a fair way towards building it. Again, I think the government has read the polling and started to see the mood of the electorate and has realised that, environmentally, it would be a disaster for the bottom end of the Lower Lakes and the river system for which I believe they will pay a very high price.

The roads are being built at a cost of about $14 million but, looking at the extra material that will be required for those roads, I just hope that the people involved in tendering have some flexibility to obtain more funding from the government. When you talk to the locals down on either side of the river, you suspect that no-one in the government wants to take local advice that some more fill might be needed here or some matting needed there to build these entrance roads. There are about 20 kilometres of access roads as well as a 1.6 kilometre causeway to the 2.6 kilometre weir site.

They seem to be doing everything to build it, but making out they are not. As I said earlier, this gets back to the 170 gigalitres. If the government can find that water for Lake Alexandrina and complement that with the 50 gigalitres that the federal minister Peter Garrett wanted from them, that gives them the magical 220 gigalitres. That will buy them another winter. When I say 'another winter', I mean the winter of 2010. I believe there is a bit of nervousness on the other side of the house about building that structure which signals the death knell for the river. It just goes to show that this state has not stood up for itself on the national stage or even on the local stage.

In relation to water, earlier this year, the minister had a go at me on the radio. She said that there was no water to purchase. It was interesting to learn the other night that 218 gigalitres have been purchased by the government for various needs and about 100 gigalitres have been purchased by private irrigators. I think that is just an example of some of the inaccurate comments made by the minister, and then to purchase quite a significant amount of water I think demonstrates that many issues concerning the Murray-Darling Basin are just out of control and it should be taken over by the federal government.

I note that the Upper Spencer Gulf desalination plant has disappeared in the budget. There will be no water available for communities on the West Coast, so they will have to rely more and more on River Murray water being pumped hundreds of kilometres. It is a fact that $2.2 billion has been taken out of SA Water and put into general revenue since Labor came to power, yet SA Water's infrastructure is falling apart and it has to go into massive debt to build the desalination plant.

I note that the Langhorne Creek and Currency Creek pipeline project is underway and that most of that is federal funding. It is interesting that, when the parcel of projects was put together in the Murray Futures Plan, Meningie and Narrung managed to get some money for potable pipelines—they were cut off as an irrigation district. However, it looks as though some savings are being made in relation to the big pipeline project—$14.5 million. I believe that should be put straight towards potable pipelines for Point Sturt and the back of Hindmarsh Island.

We need to remember that the Liberals have a broad plan for water security. We support desalination, wastewater re-use and sewer mining. We have set aside $400 million for our stormwater re-use plan, which will capture 89 gigalitres of the 160 gigalitres of Adelaide's stormwater run-off per annum. Instead of putting all your money into one basket, that is, into desalination—we support a 50 gigalitre plant—we believe water security could be handled in a far more diverse way and that there was no need to expand the plant to 100 gigalitres.

The budget confirms the government's lack of interest in rural and regional South Australia. The Rann government's eighth budget confirms that it is totally uninterested in rural and regional South Australia. Regional South Australia was only fleetingly mentioned in the Treasurer's 48 minute speech and, having investigated the budget papers, people know why. The budget papers reveal a real problem in regional development, with total investment down, grants and subsidies stripped, but administration and fees paid to consultants skyrocketing.

While the Rann government has slashed grants and subsidies by $1.7 million—money that makes a difference in regional South Australia—nearly half a million dollars more will be spent on staff costs and consultants in 2009-10. The Rann government will spend 242 per cent more on consultants this year than in 2007-08—more staff to deliver fewer projects. This shows a disappointing and worrying trend—money is being stripped from programs aimed to help regions and redirected to staff costs and consultants.

The Rann government did not even spend all of the Regional Development Infrastructure Fund, with only $2.5 million being allocated to projects in the regions. The RDIF was established in 1999 by the former Liberal government, and was originally funded at $4.5 million. A decade later (seven years of that under the Rann Labor government) the RDIF has been raided by $2 million. In January 2009, Liberal leader Martin Hamilton-Smith pledged an increase in the RDIF to $7 million per annum—an increase of nearly $5 million on its current level. This comment was made at the time:

The Rann government's eighth budget confirms it is more interested in extending the tramline and building a monumental hospital on the North Terrace rail yards while forgetting about those beyond the metropolitan area.

These feelings have been expressed by people who have been affected by the ill-conceived country health care plans—they have had to roll out at least two—and then there have been problems with regional road funding.

However, I will acknowledge that some money has been set aside for regional road funding. The Dukes Highway is having a bit of money spent on it, and, as somebody who lives pretty well on the Dukes Highway, I think it is good to see. It is good to see some common sense with some overtaking lanes being extended in places where they should be on straights instead of on corners. I believe that some of this concern was about trimming a bit of native vegetation. I think sensibilities are starting to take place, where people's lives may be worth more than one or two trees. I am not into whole scale clearing, but there needs to be some common sense for people travelling long distances in the country.

In the bigger picture, the Liberals are committed to having dual lanes on the Dukes Highway all the way to the border of Victoria. That would be something great to see in the future. However, there is an issue with a $200 million deficit in funding, which is still in the budget for state road funding, and that needs to be addressed. I note that there are billions of dollars being spent in city projects, but the country regions seem to miss out again.

With just a few minutes to go I would like to make a few comments about agriculture and the research and development cuts of $1.715 million per year for the next four years and also the administration and operational efficiency cuts of $450,000 per annum over the next four years. This comes at a time when agriculture does not need these cuts. They have had some very tough years out there on the land. I know; I live out there, and I talk to people right across the state. Recently, I was on Eyre Peninsula, and I am in constant touch with people around the state.

As far as cropping is concerned, people have not had any decent income since 2001. Their borrowings increase. People's overdrafts have increased fourfold from what they were, and they are under the pump to pay back that money, but here we have a government that is taking money out of a budget that supports programs to develop ways that farmers can farm better in a sustainable way around the state, developing programs such as no-till farming, developing better varieties. Unfortunately, many jobs are being pulled out of the sector and pulled out of the regions. Apart from the jobs and the worth of the work, that money is vital in helping the sustainability of the regions.

I will note that the exceptional circumstances support is ongoing and that the federal government is supporting $93.6 million of that program, and there is $10.4 million in state funding. It is good to see that our farmers have not been left completely high and dry. It is extremely tough out there. I hope we have a successful year this year, not just the River Murray and the irrigators on that river. I feel for the people who do not know where they are going, with a 2 per cent water allocation coming up. They can use 60 per cent of their carryover water but, after that, they are in no-man's-land. They are in real strife in the Riverland, and they are probably wondering how they are going to get through. It just seems to be that the government has even cut off the electorate of Chaffey in this budget by not allocating money for critical water allocation.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. M.F. O'Brien.


At 18:56 the house adjourned until Wednesday 17 June 2009 at 11:00.


PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT