HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-09-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

APPROPRIATION BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (16:44): I commence my contribution on this bill by congratulating the leader, the shadow minister, the shadow treasurer, the deputy leader and all the speakers on this side of the house on their outstandingly accurate assessment of this budget. In terms of assessing the budget, let us just look at some of the issues that we need to highlight. As the leader, the shadow treasurer and other speakers have mentioned previously, this state is the highest taxed state in the country. This budget has delivered even more debt—over $1 billion of increased taxes, public sector job losses and fewer services. It is a slash, burn and tax approach, hurting the hip pockets of South Australians.

I have highlighted this issue before, and I will keep on highlighting it while I am still in this place—and I can assure you that will be for many years to come. It is a hallmark of Labor governments, both state and federal, that they are high taxing and high spending. We witnessed this way back, probably 40 years ago, if not more. It started off in the Whitlam federal government, then the Hawke government, the Keating government. High taxing, high spending governments started in the 1970s, and this government is no different, and it has been a hallmark of the way Labor governments, both state and federal, run the economy and the budget.

We also see public debt of $7.1 billion, and a $389 million deficit in 2010-11, which means—as the leader pointed out earlier this morning—that South Australians will soon be paying almost $2 million a day in interest payments on that debt. By anybody's assessment, we are in trouble. We are in financial trouble here in South Australia as a consequence of this government.

Other key issues that we need to highlight in relation to the budget, in terms of the slash and burn approach, are that almost 4,000 Public Service jobs will be cut and the cuts and increased revenue measures of $2.5 billion. This is an issue I want to actually spend a couple of minutes talking about. We might remember that it was only a few weeks ago that the shadow treasurer, the member for Davenport, asked a question of the Treasurer about projected savings of about $2.2 billion—well and truly above the $750 million savings target that the Treasurer had previously announced. We got some information that came the way of the opposition and showed that the government was in far greater strife with its budget and that, in terms of having to find savings of $750 million, it actually had to look at savings of $2.2 billion.

The budget has revealed that that figure is at $2.5 billion, so there was obviously some real accuracy in the questions we asked; from memory, at the time, the Treasurer refuted it. He said that they were looking at a range of options, that the Sustainable Budget Commission were putting up a suite of alternatives and that they would go through and select the ones they thought were necessary to implement. However, the facts are out there at the moment for everybody to see, and the figure is at $2.5 billion in terms of cuts and increased revenue measures.

We also see mining royalties up, and this is a significant issue. As previously highlighted by the leader and other speakers, there was no mention of that before the budget or that the Olympic Dam project could be viewed as being in jeopardy.

The hospital costs of the new proposed rail yards hospital are still undisclosed. There is no mention of that in the budget. There was an initial figure of $1.7 billion put on that in relation to the build. Well, I would be surprised if it does not blow out to well over $2 billion or higher than that. That was a key plank of the government's policy platform that it took to the election. What do we see? No mention of it in this budget.

Now that poses a question of how they are going to fund the construction of the hospital. Is it going to be a PPP so that it will be off balance sheet or not? We have heard conflicting messages from the government over a number of years since they first announced the construction of the rail yards hospital. The Minister for Health said it was going to be a government build, then they change their mind and now they are still out there in limbo land in terms of how they are going to fund what is a key plank in their policy platform.

Obviously, on this side of the house, we say that it is a waste of money. We can build a new hospital on the current site, saving at least $1 billion which will then be directed into the critical area of health services in this state. That is where the money should go—into other areas within the health portfolio. We get contacted by constituents on a regular basis in our electorate offices about the demands and the unmet needs currently within the health services.

I also point out the spending blowouts and how that will cause job cuts. We have been saying on this side of the house for a number of years—if memory serves me correctly it goes back to 2006-07, so it is three or four years that we have been highlighting this point—that the government has not had (and does not have) a revenue problem nor does it have an income problem. It has an expenditure problem, and spending blowouts (not falls in revenue) are the main reason the government has cut jobs in order to save its budget. Government spending has blown out by $616 million in 2009-10 and $1.2 billion in 2010-11 respectively above those budgeted in the 2009-10 budget for those years.

In each of its eight budgets the Rann government has relied on revenue above budget to balance spending above budget. Despite record revenue growth, spending blowouts have caused the budget to plunge into deficit. As I said, we have been highlighting that point for a number of years now. It is not a revenue problem that the government has: it is an expenditure problem.

Let's have a look at the revenue side of things because, as the deputy leader highlighted in his contribution, we need to look at both sides of the ledger. You need to look at your revenue and obviously your expenditure. It is basic bookkeeping. From 2002-03 to 2009-10 this government will have collected a massive $5 billion more than they expected, and these revenue windfalls—actual receipts above budgeted receipts—are masking unbudgeted increases in expenses, as noted by the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General's Report for 2008-09 in part C at page 12 states:

Over the past six years the State has received large amounts of unbudgeted revenues that enabled net operating surpluses...

There you have it, Madam Deputy Speaker, in black and white from the Auditor-General. It is proof that we were correct in our claims that the government has an expenditure problem, not a revenue problem, and it is over budgeted revenue that we receive that has kept the budget in the black. If we had not had that, we would be plunging further into the red with this budget.

In relation to revenue, specifically revenue issues in terms of taxation, over the forward estimates in this budget the government will collect over $1 billion in additional taxes. It is now official, as I said earlier, that under the Rann Labor government this state has become the highest taxed state in the nation. We have not made this up; it has been confirmed by two independent reports, one from the Commonwealth Grants Commission and the other from the Institute of Public Affairs. Tax revenue has increased by 76 per cent since the Rann government came into office, as demonstrated by some information that we are holding.

I would like to make a point in relation to statements made by the Treasurer concerning the global financial crisis and the effects that has had on the state budget, and I want to contrast those statements with what the federal Treasurer has said in relation to the effects of the GFC. The federal Treasurer has said that the federal government's policy initiatives—its stimulus package and BER and all the economic activity that it has supposedly created—has shielded the country and insulated the nation and the states from the effects of the GFC. It is the federal Labor Treasurer who made those statements, but we have a state Labor Treasurer who says that the GFC has impacted on this budget. You have one Labor Treasurer walking one side of the street and another Labor Treasurer walking the other side of the street. You cannot have it both ways; one is either right or wrong.

I think the public can see through the spin that is perpetuated by this government. The shadow treasurer has highlighted that even though the Treasurer claims that the GFC has supposedly had an impact on this budget, we have actually received more income, more revenue, than was budgeted for, so I think the spin can be 'unspun', if you like; the reality of that is certainly highlighted.

I also want to touch on the issue of our AAA credit rating. The Treasurer continually bangs on about how he has been able to deliver eight or nine budgets, or however many it might be, and preserve the AAA credit rating. It is an interesting point—and it has been highlighted out there in public comments—that the AAA rating was provided by two rating agencies that the government engages and pays. The government pays for that advice, pays for that rating. The agency that it does not engage with, whose services the government does not avail itself of, gives the state a AA+ rating.

Mr Marshall: They don't pay them.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: That is right. The member for Norwood highlights a very interesting point: they do not pay them. It rates the government at AA+, and the agencies that the government pays give a AAA rating. I just wanted to make that point, and I know those issues have also been highlighted out there in the community as well.

I now want to focus my remarks on how this budget will affect matters within my electorate. The member for Unley, the shadow minister for education, has highlighted this in his contribution, and I will have the opportunity to speak at greater length when we come to the other parts of the contributions we make on the budget. I want to focus my remarks on the announcement made by the Minister for Education and Children's Services in relation to the amalgamation of Birdwood High School with Birdwood Primary School. This announcement is a bolt out of the blue for those two school communities. They had no idea: there was no prior notification, no prior consultation, no indication at all from the government until, I think, the Friday following the budget, that the decision had been made to amalgamate the two schools.

I just want to highlight something in relation to this announcement. I have spoken at length about the extremely poor manner in which this government goes about its community consultation. The minister himself, the Minister for Education, if he was quoted correctly, highlighted the deficiencies that this government has, in an article in a Saturday Advertiser about how it goes about its community consultation. He was critical of how the government announces and defends its initiatives.

I do not know what else this could be other than an announce and defend scenario of the Birdwood Primary School having to amalgamate with the Birdwood High School. With the very portfolio responsibilities that the minister has, that he was critical of his own government about, he has done exactly the same thing in announcing that the Birdwood Primary School will have to amalgamate with the Birdwood High School. I had a meeting with representatives of those two schools' communities, representatives of the governing councils, and I can tell you that they are extremely concerned about the negative outcomes of this amalgamation.

The principal has just been recently appointed to Birdwood High. I have a brochure from the high school, and it concerns an 'Academy of Middle Schooling: a Community of Thinking '. This is a groundbreaking initiative that the principal was looking to introduce to Birdwood High. This is going to take considerable resources, considerable time and energy, to put this in place, and it is groundbreaking stuff. I understand that the principal has briefed some of the chief executives and other senior bureaucrats on the initiative.

However, this initiative will stagnate, because the school communities will be consumed with the amalgamation process. There will be enormous time, effort and energy put into the amalgamation process of the two schools. That will have the effect of stagnating this groundbreaking initiative in relation to implementing this academy of middle schooling. It is new stuff.

It is new—educational initiatives—and I understand from what the governing council representatives tell me that the minister wants to know about it, and there is to be a briefing organised for him. The effect of it is that it will have the potential to stagnate and push to one side these new learning initiatives, because there is a significant amount of work involved in it. In contrast to that, there will be a significant amount of work in amalgamating the two schools, and I will be having more to say about that in the future.

I want to also talk about the real need for a special school at Mt Barker. In closing, this is a bad budget which clearly highlights the fact that this is a bad government.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (17:05): This year's 2010-11 state budget—delivered four months late—is a clear indication to the people of South Australia that the Rann Labor government has failed all of them. Not only has it spent all the money: it has gone into horrendous debt, we are taxed to the hilt (the highest ever), and just about anything that is not nailed down has been or will be sold.

Members might recall last year that the Treasurer tried to sell things he did not even own, but now we are back here again and there is not much left. We are at the bottom of the barrel—a bitter pill for South Australians, particularly those who have so little. The Treasurer, under the protection of his Sustainable Budget Commission's recommendations, has had the audacity—the cruelty—to continue to harvest from the pensioners, the disabled and those who are living in circumstances which people in this room do not have to face on a daily basis.

He has seen fit to go through and even butcher the services to the most needy in our community. If ever there was an example of how ruthless this budget is, it is the government's decision to close and sell off the Parks Community Centre. The Treasurer shouts from the rooftops the need for him to be fiscally conservative and responsible, but he needs to understand that the people of South Australia will not put up with his plan to spend over $45 million to rehouse (and create a film hub for) the South Australian Film Corporation from one area of Adelaide to another—which happens to be in the middle of the site of the premier psychiatric hospital in South Australia—when he has the audacity to say to the people in the western suburbs, 'You can't have a Parks Community Centre.'

That is why it is such a bitter pill for the people who use these very services in the western suburbs. Even in an earlier life (allegedly now reincarnated), the Premier described a proposed closure of service in the western suburbs as a 'fundamental attack on the western suburbs'. That is what he described a proposed initiative of a previous government, yet in this budget he has allowed his Treasurer to include in it this cost-saving measure (to use his words).

In 1990, the Premier supported services being kept at the Parks. He made it quite clear that he would act to protect them and now, of course, he is slashing them. Despite the Premier's pathetic attempt today suggesting that this decision is in some way coming to the rescue, the Parks community, having been consulted on this matter, has been ignored.

Some three years ago (I am told by someone who attended a consultation process by the government) meetings were held to discuss the future of the Parks area. The buildings we have been talking about on this site (allegedly so derelict, says the government) were erected in 1976. The local community was invited to attend meetings. They were given paper on which to write down what they wanted to happen with the Parks. It was spelt out that they did not want any of the existing services to be closed.

Further, at that time they did not want a proposed Woolworths supermarket brought in at the expense of other services that were currently provided. They expressly did not wish the pool, and most of the other services that were in constant use, to be closed. He claims, and I quote from his letter:

The bullshit about the buildings being in disrepair is, as far as I can see, a complete distortion of the truth...We were then left alone whilst they deliberated what we wanted. Next they formed a community committee which was one of our board members as a member. I think this idea was placed in the control of one Monsignor Crappo—

that is his description, but I think he is referring to Monsignor Cappo—

whom we have all come to love down here because of his social inclusion project which is the greatest social failure in our history.

He goes on to talk about a number of services in the Parks area (which I have visited both as a former shadow housing minister and now as the current shadow housing minister) and his concern about whether the traditional owners of the Kaurna lands, that is, the Kaurna people, have actually been consulted about this at all. He says that for seven years, each time they met at the Parks, they would announce at the commencement of the meeting the recognition of the traditional Kaurna people as the original owners of the land, yet it is his understanding that there has not been consultation with them about the closure of services—which, incidentally, included specific Aboriginal services at the Parks centre. In conclusion he says, 'the Third Reich [he is referring to the Rann government] in their usual clubfooted way' have just progressed ahead.

So, there was consultation but, obviously, they have been completely ignored. The government's nonsense today suggesting that it has been in consultation and listened, both before and after the election, clearly has not translated into any reasonable recognition of what the local people want.

The second aspect I raise about this is that, today, the Premier came in to say that he had some breaking news about how he was going to give them $5 million back. Let me tell members what the leaked budget submission from the Sustainable Budget Commission, which has been well publicised, said. At page 291 of that report, under the title 'Closure and sale of the Parks Community Centre'—which, indeed, the commission had put as a low priority idea but it seems the government decided it was going to grab it and run with it—the commission said the following:

The bid seeks to create savings through the closure of the Parks Community Centre (Parks). It is proposed that the closure would result in $4 million recurrent savings and $17 million investing revenue from the sale of the land.

The bid also seeks to build a new customer service centre using part of the sale proceeds to accommodate the existing 73 FTEs based at the Parks.

The Department for Families and Communities proposes to provide a $5 million non-recourse grant in 2011-12 to the City of Port Adelaide Enfield in lieu of the approximately $1.8 million annual grant currently provided for cultural, community and recreational services.

The bid also reflects reduced revenue from canteen operations and rent revenue from commercial tenants who currently occupy the Parks.

It details the amount they are going to save.

But here is the truth of the matter which is disclosed in the rest of this document. It goes on to tell us that, in fact, the $5 million once-off grant, which is DFC's proposed payment to the City of Port Adelaide and Enfield to compensate for the loss of annual grant funding of approximately $1.8 million, is already in there—it is recognised. The Premier came in here today and said that he will announce that they will get $5 million back but, clearly, his own government has decided to pocket the $17 million from the proceeds of sale. Under the pressure today—guilt money—he has had to come back and say, 'We are going to give them $5 million,' which is already in here; and, clearly, if he is honest today, he has not provided for it in the budget already, even though that was clearly in the recommendation.

Here is the real aspect which everyone who works for DFC should be aware of, especially the 73 FTEs that are about to be debunked out of the Parks Community Centre. It says:

It is unclear whether the services to be provided in the proposed CSC could be provided from existing service centres at Port Adelaide and Woodville. No business case has been provided to support the new CSC.

Quite clearly, the government is keeping open the option as to whether it is just going to park these people in existing offices. They may not even get a new facility. The other matter I raise is that this document also discloses that:

Proceeds from the sale of the land are projected to be $17 million; however proceeds could be in the order of $23 million. Two existing valuations obtained by DFC have differed materially and a second independent valuation has been sought.

Of course, the government has chosen to just give us the $17 million figure, has it not? All of this is concealed in the budget under 'improving government service delivery'. What utter rot. What has been disclosed is that the government is prepared to do and say anything to strip the most impoverished people in the community of a very basic asset. It has purported to have consulted but that has been completely ignored. It is prepared to continue even in the wake of outcry and protest.

The Premier should have been out there today listening to the Mayor of Port Adelaide who made it quite clear that he was not going to be dumped with part of a property which has been left in a state of disrepair and be expected to pick up the mess as a result of the state government abandoning its responsibility. The government has plenty of money to spend on a state swimming pool at Marion but not $1 dollar to keep open that facility. It does not even have the decency to say, 'Let us work out how we are going to provide the service in the western districts local area before we close this.' No, flog it off and who cares about the people. I do not know what the local member said, the Attorney-General in this parliament, but we have not heard a squeak out of him about what has happened. It is very concerning.

The second matter I bring to the attention of the house is that it is not bad enough that they are going to strip the most basic assets from the western area, the government has announced that it is going to increase the South Australian Housing Trust rent review for pensioners. That is not only a despicable act when they are prepared to spend tens of millions of dollars for a new home for their pet project at the Film Corporation, but, in this instance, the Premier had committed—and this is even acknowledged in the leaked document—to excluding the commonwealth once-off pension increase in ongoing public house rent assessments.

No time frame for this exemption was prescribed. This is a saving of $9 million. The government is going to rip off $9 million from pensioners who are living in Housing Trust homes to help pay for its extravagance. Even the recommendation that they cut down its ministry from 15 to 12 is ignored, but the pensioners have to pay. The Premier made this commitment in his own press release on 20 May 2009. The press release states:

Rann promises to quarantine pension increases. Premier Mike Rann will this week write to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd promising to quarantine the Federal Government's pension increases from State housing rents…It would not be in the spirit of the initiative to see some of the money flow through to the States.

What empty hollow words. Here we are a year later and the Sustainable Budget Commission is saying, 'Look, you did promise this, Premier, but that doesn't matter. You didn't put a time limit on it, so you can say it one year and then break that promise the next year', because they say they are in such desperate financial circumstances and/or have to show some fiscal responsibility.

The Premier cannot have it both ways. He cannot be building his own Taj Mahal (the Rann memorial) in the middle of the Glenside Hospital, and then expect the people who are pensioners to have another $9 million raped and pillaged from their pockets just to pay for his excesses. That is completely unacceptable and it clearly indicates that, whatever the Premier says, whatever he writes to the Prime Minister, is not worth the paper it is written on.

There are a number of other initiatives in the Sustainable Budget Commission report. The final one was very interesting, because that says that we need to have another review. After spending $2.5 million, this one cannot actually make final decisions. We have all these leaked initiatives from which the government has cherrypicked a few. Goodness knows when the others are going to come. The Sustainable Budget Commission's final report tabled by the Treasurer in the parliament the other day, along with his budget, says that, in relation to families and communities initiatives, we need to have another review, an independent review. I ask minister Rankine who is she going to appoint? Who is left to do a review in this state? How many reviews do we need to have?

We have had the Layton Report, which was very comprehensive. We have had millions of dollars for the Ted Mullighan inquiry into child sexual abuse. We have had a restructure of the Housing Trust and housing in South Australia. We have had a restructure of the Department for Families and Communities. Every year since I have been here I have picked up a budget and seen $3 million, $4 million, $5 million dollars being spent to refit new offices when the department changes offices.

How many more reviews do we have to have? What is that going to cost? What about the people who have been not just abandoned but mortally wounded in this budget when the care factor of this government is clearly zero? It is very concerning because the increasing rent payable by pensioners is not the only revenue-raising measure the government has approved. Minister Rankine has now also announced that she will be charging people in public housing, who have children who earn income, extra rent: a revenue-raising measure that is not even in the budget. She was on radio today saying that.

Commissioner Cappo signed the agreement. He picked up his share, in the sense of it being his job to do the Sustainable Budget Commission inquiry. He is the one who has signed up to these recommendations and look at what has happened. When the public went absolutely ballistic about it, Commissioner Cappo came out today and said that he was going to beg the Premier to reverse the decision. How absolutely pathetic!

We pay this man $120,000 for six months of the year under his contract. He is on all these other advisory boards and is a man of significant opportunity and influence in this state. What happens? He signs up to a Sustainable Budget Commission, he approves these things and, when the public spits the dummy and says, 'We're not putting up with this,' out comes Commissioner Cappo saying, 'I will beg the Premier to reverse this decision.' How absolutely pathetic!

The people will not forget this and the absolute insult they have been delivered by this budget. This is not something that has been confined just to the western suburbs or the Parks; pensioners live in Housing Trust properties all around the state and they are struggling. When the government says, 'We need to tighten our belts because we need to be fiscally responsible and manage,' they know what it is about because they know how tough it is.

However, what they will not tolerate is the government sitting there with its fat ministry and doing nothing about it but, at the same time, expecting them to eat even one less meal, to have one less opportunity for an outing, to pay less on their electricity bill or, for goodness' sake—what will now be a bank loan—to pay their water bill. It is unacceptable, it is unconscionable and it is a circumstance about which the Premier should hang his head in shame.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (17:23) There is no doubt that we are going to hear a lot of words over the next few days when it comes to the presentation of the budget by the Treasurer on 16 September. There will be a lot of people who will speak on this side, who are quite angry about aspects of it, and they will vent their spleen in no uncertain way about the frustrations and the feelings in their communities, or about the portfolios that they represent or aspects of interest to them or people in the community who have been disadvantaged in some way by this budget, and no doubt there will be members from the government side who will stand and loudly cheer aspects that they think are fantastic, too, while not necessarily having the courage to say the things they are frustrated about.

However, regrettably—being on the left-hand side of the Speaker—we have the opportunity to look at both. I say 'regrettably' because of the negative aspects of it. I will be magnanimous enough, later in my speech, to recognise a few things that I think are quite reasonable, and I commend the government on the support that it has provided for those. However, there are many areas in this budget which concern me and which I am quite angry about.

I want to, initially, acknowledge the contribution by the Leader of the Opposition. I think she made an excellent speech this morning, for some 55 minutes or so. She certainly defined the difference between the Labor Party and the Liberal Party, when it comes to philosophies, areas of support, and, indeed, her vision. In two key projects, of course, being the Adelaide Oval redevelopment and the Royal Adelaide Hospital rebuild, she defined where the differences are and the philosophies that take place there.

I must admit, the nine months or so that I had the opportunity to be somewhat involved in treasury issues for the opposition allowed me to develop a greater knowledge of the complications involved in the preparation of a budget that is responsible for the expenditure, in this financial year, of a figure approaching $16 billion. It is true to say that, no matter what level of resource is available to you, there will never be enough dollars to actually provide for every person's need—that is a frustration that governments of all sizes, persuasions and nationalities live with. They represent a large number of people, and they are elected to expend the funds that are received from the taxpayer in the most appropriate way. There will indeed be differences of opinion on where the priorities should be for that, but there will never truly be enough dollars to provide what the community needs in every person's eye.

However, I do live with some level of frustration about the apathetic relationship that the community has with politics. It frustrates me because people seem to think that politics is only an issue that influences them in the month or so before an election. When they sit at home, they might talk to their partner or their children and consider how they intend to vote. Then, for some vast number of people, something like 20 per cent, it will be the decision they make on the day of the election.

To me that is an absolute disgrace, because people across our state and our nation need to recognise that politics impacts on their lives every day, in some way, through the provision of a service or an infrastructure they make use of. The political process drives the availability of that and allows for the revenue to be received to have built that, or to have built something else that they might consider to be a waste or a folly. So, that is where the community at large need to actually engage themselves in the process.

In the last generation, or two generations, we have seen the complete removal of political involvement. Both major parties have suffered terribly when it comes to membership bases. There is certainly a hard core of people who will never give up the fight for the principles they hold true to, but the majority of people sit in the middle now. They are the ones who determine who will fight, and who will sit on the right hand side of the Speaker and have control of the treasury benches. However, sometimes people make very poor and uninformed decisions. Sadly, I think 20 March this year was one of those, but history will reflect that the government won the majority of the seats.

Since 2002, it has been interesting to me to review the budgets that have been put in place by treasurer Foley, and to recognise that he has had a variety of saving measures put there. He has had the Smith review. He has required efficiency dividends and direct dollar savings. Some of these have been associated with targeted voluntary separation packages. Some of these have been dollar requirements that CEOs of departments have been required to meet.

It has been obvious to me that those requirements are not actually reported in any format, so it is impossible to verify that they have been met. We now know, from the budget presented by the Treasurer a few weeks ago, that there is historically some $500 million in unmet savings requirements, which are now still demanded of the departments. They will have an enormous challenge to meet that, in addition to meeting the other $1.5 billion in savings, over the next four years, of structural efficiencies that the Treasurer is demanding. Indeed, there must be a lot of people in senior positions within departments and ministerial staff, who are thinking, 'How the hell can we actually deliver upon this?' It is easy to put the figures down on paper, but how do you actually ensure that it creates and it happens.

Regrettably, in reviewing the budget, I think that some crazy decisions have been made in relation to efficiencies and reduced expenditure, and I intend to go into some detail on a few of those that affect regional South Australia, because that is where my greatest concerns lie. I have looked at it, recognising of course that for some number of years there has been a regional statement prepared as part of the budget process—this year there is not. Our side of the parliament think it is probably out of an embarrassment level, for the fact that there is very little in the budget for the people in the regions, and they found it easier not to report on that in any particular format.

Again, how do we get it right? When the Sustainable Budget Commission was announced by the Treasurer, when he presented his budget in June of last year, it was interesting that, as the shadow treasurer has talked about, there was $150 million in the first year, $250 million in the second year and $350 million in the third, to create efficiencies of $750 million. However, in questioning, as part of the Auditor-General's Report, it was really identified that if future public sector wage increases could be kept to a reasonable level—and the Treasurer was quoting 2.5 per cent—then that would actually create some $290 million in savings in that third year. I tried to get the Treasurer to identify, as part of the Auditor-General's Report—indeed, from the enterprise bargaining agreements that were in place at that time—what level of future savings was to be achieved so that there could be some level of reporting against that figure, because it was always going to be a key issue in my eyes as to what the eventual savings target beyond wage restraint was going to be.

All of us now, of course, know that the Treasurer has sold the people of South Australia a pup. There is absolutely no doubt about that. He said out there publicly $750 million in savings. He has now delivered a figure that is nearly three times as large as that. If the people of South Australia had any comprehension of what the plan was going to be, I am confident that they would have revolted against it, because in the fullness of time, as programs are cut, as funding agreements finish and there is no renewal of those, there will be an enormous effect upon the people.

There is going to be a lot of pain felt by the people of South Australia over the next few years. The Treasurer will say that it is because he is the one that is prepared to stand up and make the hard decisions. I also think it is because he is the one who is prepared not to be honest with the people of South Australia and to give them some level of knowledge about what his thoughts are. He has to look at himself in the mirror. I was in a radio station one day with him when he talked about abusing himself in front of the mirror, and it was quite interesting when he said that.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Piccolo): Member for Goyder, keep it clean.

Mr GRIFFITHS: It is clean. Others had a different connotation from what he actually meant by that. Mr Bevan, Mr Abraham and the Treasurer saw one side of it; I tried to see another version of it, but we had to go to an ad break very quickly when that comment was made. He has a lot of pressure.

The targeted voluntary separation packages in themselves will be interesting. There is a quantum of money available as part of this budget to fund 3,750 people taking those TVSPs. We know that, as part of the Mid-Year Budget Review in previous years, there has been a requirement of some 1,600 people leaving over a three-year period, 1,200 of those in the first year. They are funded to a certain level. Now you have these variations in packages available, so it will be interesting to see whether the quantum of dollars available at a maximum level for people as part of the first 1,600 is different from what is available for the 3,750, and my understanding is that some component of the 400 who are left over from the 1,600 will be assimilated into the new 4,000, but it is something we have to get right.

I am a person who actually tries to look at the future, but I do review the past, because I think it is important that we understand our history to be informed enough to make decisions for the future. However, I am really concerned about the future of regional South Australia. Simply put, it appears as though there is a perception from far too many influential members of the government that, because it has rained in South Australia—and thank God it has and everybody looks like reaping some wonderful crops this year and there is going to be a return to some economic buoyancy in the regions—it is not necessary to keep funding going into services and infrastructure in regional South Australia.

We, of course, know that the high Australian dollar is going to affect the true value of those commodities. Even Mr Peter White, President of the South Australian Farmers Federation, this morning, when I heard him on radio, talked about the fact that he would love to see a drop in the Australian dollar from the current figure of about $US0.95 or $US0.96 to about $US0.80. I do remember when it was a lot less than that and a farmer in my electorate telling me that every cent increase in the Australia dollar costs them $4 per tonne in what they got for their crop.

So the impact of that is, yes, commodity prices for the grains are high at the moment, but what happens with the Australian dollar is really going to have an effect on that. I reinforce the fact that there are concerns out there still, and coming out of a drought is as hard as living through it. You want to build up your stock levels again, you want to invest in your property and your business, you want to ensure that you have confidence in the community in which you live and do business, and that is where government support is really critical.

There are a few issues that I want to take up in my remaining 10 minutes or so. I have extreme levels of frustration with the decision made about the community hospitals. It has been mentioned in the chamber already that it affects the Moonta, Ardrossan, Keith and Glenelg community hospitals. I am proud to represent the Moonta and Ardrossan communities in this place, and I have spoken to both of those hospitals. I have visited their CEOs and spoke to several of the board members of the Ardrossan hospital the day after the budget was delivered, and those two facilities are very fearful about the future and what it holds for them. Ardrossan is based primarily around an aged-care service, as is Moonta, but Ardrossan provides a very important accident and emergency facility which helps in ensuring it fills its clinical care beds.

The A&E provision at Ardrossan Hospital does get some level of financial support from the government based on a commitment that the Liberal Party made going into the 2006 election. The Labor Party agreed to provide, in the first instance, some $110,000 to support that hospital. That has been increased fractionally, but we now have a situation where the withdrawal of that sum from 30 June 2011 will place the future of the Ardrossan Hospital in grave jeopardy.

They have invested heavily in aged-care facilities; they have significant debt. They look after a hell of a lot of people, good people, who have contributed to the community there for decades and they just want to make sure they have a future. They are really fearful that the withdrawal of this $130,000 is going to put that future in doubt. It has to be reviewed.

The Moonta Hospital equally must be reviewed. I visited them last Friday. That is a facility that has 14 hospital beds and 60 combination high and low care beds. Their aged-care facility operates quite viably. They do receive some level of financial support, but I believe it is only a small figure of about $5,000 for the A&E provision they provide even though they have several thousand people per year who visit their facility for A&E treatment.

Of their 14 beds, some eight of those are available to accept people from the public system. This is a case where I think the government has made a disgraceful decision. I am advised that, for each of those beds when occupied, the hospital receives $120.05 per day. It seems to me that that is a very cheap cost for the high level of care provided and it is far less than it would be in the public hospital system.

Again, in meeting with this hospital last Friday, they told me that the ramifications of this are terrible. Potentially, they have some 20 staff who will have to leave the hospital. These are long-term people who have been dedicated for a long time. Those people have to be paid redundancy payments. While long service leave costs are provisioned, there is no fund to pay for their accrued annual leave or any other entitlements that come from their enterprise bargaining agreement as in years of service and the period of weeks that they get for each year of that service.

It forces the Moonta Hospital into a decision probably at the end of the first quarter of 2011, and that is not fair because the Copper Coast community is a growing one. People who are making lifestyle choices are going to Moonta, Moonta Bay and Port Hughes; it is the classic baby boomer situation of making a sea change. The population projection for those three communities, which are basically now are interlinked, is to go from 4,000 people to 16,000 people by 2020. The provision of a health service with some level of government support and the previous financial year cost, which I believe is $280,000, depending upon occupancy could go up to close to half a million dollars. To suddenly take that away and put the future viability of that hospital at very grave risk is a disgraceful decision, and it is one that I could never support. It is one that I know the community is going to rally against.

Country Health version mark 1 in 2008 really demonstrated to me that people are passionate about things that are important to them, and health is one of the most basic principles. It has to get better. We have to make sure we get this right. We have to recognise the commitment that the communities in those areas have put into their community-run private hospitals for decades, often working long hours in fundraising events to try to ensure the hospital remained open and that they had the best care available.

I wish to talk also about some of the small schools. Living in a community with a lot of small towns, I have a vast number of primary schools in my electorate. Yes, I have a couple of high schools and some areas schools, but the majority of my kids go to small schools. I am heartened by the comments of the minister when he talks about $200 million additional and recurrent funding going into small schools, but I am very fearful of the impact the loss of a $30,000 grant to a small school is going to have.

If anybody in this chamber has been involved in a governing council in schools, they will recognise that there are very few discretionary dollars available for a school to use to ensure that the curriculum opportunities and the support that students need are the best that they possibly can be. This $30,000 will make an enormous difference. It is closure by stealth. I know the shadow minister for education has told me that there are some 68 targeted schools where there is going to be an effort to bring that back to some 34 schools. My communities all have a distance factor. Young kids are already forced to go on buses. Bussing them a greater distance, if there is an amalgamation or a shared administration, is not going to be a good situation. This is an area where, again, I urge the government to review its position. It is a relatively small number of dollars—$12 million over four years—and it needs to be fixed.

I wish to talk now a bit about some of the business opportunities that exist in the region and the importance of actually supporting them. I was so frustrated when I read in the budget about the government support to Regional Development Australia, which involves institutions that were formalised a bit over a year ago from the amalgamation of old regional development board structures. These institutions look like they will lose all their financial support by June 2013, the intention being that they actually become self-sufficient. I do not know how that is practical. I do not know how there is going to be the ability to provide a service that supports small business in the regions without having to increase costs so much that it will make it impossible for small business to be able to afford to use the service.

Again, it identifies the fact that, because it has rained, the government thinks it is not necessary to support the regions any more. You need more support coming out of a drought than you do through it. There will be opportunities here, but we have to make sure that there is support for small businesses and some structure in place with Regional Development Australia, which has wonderful contacts and dedicated people who have worked there for years, in some cases. These people know their communities and they know every key person within that community to speak to about turning an opportunity into reality. If you lose those people because they have to seek other opportunities amid fears of continuing funding, it will be a crisis.

It is a bit similar to what is happening in business enterprise centres. As a matter of fact, today, Mr Ron Watts, who is the general manager of the Business Enterprise Centre of Australia, met with the member for Waite and myself. He told us about the fact that the government has again made a decision to withdraw some $1.3 million provided to eight business enterprise centres that exist in South Australia. These eight BECs have contact with 70,000 small businesses. If the South Australian economy is driven by opportunities that exist within small business, why take that money away from those groups that really focus on the start-up businesses or those that employ fewer than four or five people? That is where the opportunity exists to grow our economy.

It is even worse when you consider that, by taking away that $1.3 million per year from July next year, the government puts at risk a further $2.5 million per year that comes from the federal government. To me, it again demonstrates a complete lack of respect for the regions and for small business in both metropolitan and regional areas. It is a disgrace that the Office of Small Business has itself had a 16 per cent cut. This is a focus area of our economy that needs more support. It needs assistance coming out of the difficulties of the global financial crisis and, unless we get it right very soon, we will see tremendous levels of concern within those businesses.

The 70,000 calls that those businesses make on a regular basis to business enterprise centres will not be answered and their problem will not be solved, and they will suddenly start to think, 'Who is out there to help me? The government that I fund through my taxpayer dollars doesn't do it. I need to make sure that I've got it, otherwise I don't have a future in my business.' It needs to happen, because we are a family business orientated state.


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


Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite) (17:43): I rise to lament that this budget strikes firmly at the future in a most negative way and hits at Labor's credibility and trustworthiness for reasons that I will explain. First, let me start with the very budget process itself. I must say that I think we have it wrong in this state. The budget is released on a Thursday of budget week. The parliament immediately adjourns for a week, leaving the government free to foray with the media on the budget detail without any response from the opposition. It leaves the opposition and the Independent members of the house in a very difficult position, trying to get their head above the fence while the government has completely dominated the space.

The opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition to respond formally comes nearly two weeks later—today—on the Tuesday of the next week of sitting. I think this is completely wrong, and it is a disservice to the people of South Australia. A much more preferable model would be that used federally, where the budget is generally delivered on a Tuesday or early in the week, and the opposition leader gets the opportunity to respond on the last day of sitting that week. That means that the budget and its response is kept to the parliament rather than in the media.

In many respects it is quite offensive for MPs to have to go to the media to find out what is in the budget which, essentially, is the situation we have now. The opposition is given a copy of the budget papers perhaps an hour or an hour and a half before the Treasurer rises, and its members have to go upstairs and read them almost while the Treasurer is giving his address. The media have been in a lock-up all day, virtually having a fair go to ask questions and so on, and they come out of that lock-up ready to report. Frankly, the media reports of what is in the budget are out there for MPs to hear about before they have even heard the Treasurer complete his address. I think that is a disgrace. It is an affront to the house and it needs to be taken up by the house, and I draw it to your attention, Madam Speaker, for that reason. I will certainly encourage members to consider whether or not something should be brought forward on this matter, because I think it is wrong.

The government's response might well be to say that, when the opposition was in government, the Olsen government did it that way. Well, I am not particularly fussed about what happened back in the 1990s; I am more fussed about what is happening now. I think the system needs to change, and I would very much like to see next year's budget given on Tuesday with an opportunity for the opposition to respond on Thursday. I think that is a matter that the parliament, the media and the people of South Australia should pick up and fix.

Let me move on to the substance of the budget. I will not repeat all the detail and fiscal information that the leader so eloquently covered earlier today, along with the Treasurer and my colleagues who have already spoken, but I will highlight what I think are a few main points. First, I note that the budget is in deficit on all three known accounting measures—net lending, cash deficit, and net operating deficit—a shocking state of affairs after eight years of Labor. I also note that the state's 2009-10 revenues increased by $1.1 billion over budget. That is an unbudgeted revenue windfall, a gift from the sky. Spending also increased by $660 million—what a commentary on Labor's efforts to make savings.

I also note that, despite the financial downturn, revenues have increased significantly by $1.6 billion from 2008-09 to 2010-11, largely due to bailouts from the federal Labor government. Talk about having friends in Canberra; if it were not for that, this state would be in the most dire of circumstances, so mismanaged have the accounts been by this Treasurer and Premier.

Importantly, during its eight years in office this government has been unable to control spending, going over budget (as I mentioned) by $3.5 billion since 2002-03. In eight out of eight budgets so far, actual spending has exceeded budget spending, and that says something in itself. Any business that ran that way would be out of business. Spending blowouts—not falls in revenue—are the main reason that the government's budget has slumped into deficit. This point has been made budget after budget, year after year, by me and others: this government has a spending problem, not an income problem; it has been consistently unable to contain its expenses.

If one looks at the facts one sees a pattern of unbudgeted spending culminating, as I said, in this figure of $3.472 billion, and this record of unbudgeted revenue to $5.033 billion—$1.087 billion last year alone. It is disgraceful.

I will not go on about public sector cuts; I think the dishonesty of those decisions is apparent to all South Australians, and they have been on the steps of parliament demonstrating about it today. I simply say that if the government had managed things correctly since 2002 it would not be in a position where it needed to cut back; it would have managed the workforce more effectively from the outset. I will come back to that point later.

I want to go to taxation revenue because I think this is a matter that affects small business. I can tell you that, as someone who employed 120 people in six businesses in two states, it really hurts small business. First, we have to worry about WorkCover, then we have to worry about superannuation, then we have to worry about all the other red tape imposts—licence fees, registration fees and so on that come at us from state and federal governments—and then you have got the tax take.

Payroll tax is up by 55 per cent in Labor's eight years in office. Taxes on property are up 131 per cent—an absolute disgrace. Small businesses that own properties are carrying this burden. Taxes on gaming are by 32 per cent up; on insurance, 58 per cent; on motor vehicles, 47 per cent (something that really hurts the Motor Trader Association's members); and then there is a raft of other fees and charges from government over hundreds of categories all going up smothering small business. It is a massive impost.

The average South Australian business land tax liability is 69 per cent above the national average and a massive 536 per cent above the land tax liabilities in Western Australia. It is little wonder that companies are coming here, civil engineers and contractors, and bidding for work on the Northern Expressway and other public works with their earthmoving companies, plant and equipment companies, and underbidding South Australia businesses that are struggling to keep their costs down under the regime set in place by the Rann and Foley Labor governments. It is criminal.

I could talk about the windfall in GST revenues that this government has received, the GST that it opposed, but to do so simply underlines my earlier point that the government is awash with cash. It has had income rushing at it but, sadly, as quickly as the cash from Canberra has fallen across the counter and buried them, they have let out their belt. They have swallowed the cash and let their expenses run out of control. It is like Billy Bunter: swallow the cash and get fat, and that is what this Treasurer and this Premier have been doing.

The points have been made by my colleagues on the desalination plant and certain other capital works projects running over, so I will not dwell on those. However, I want to make this important point: apart from the fact that the government's desalination plant, which it did not want, has blown out to a massive $2.2 billion from the $400 million that it cost the Western Australians to build, the budget reveals that since 2002-03 the total this government has stripped from the pockets of South Australians in taxes and charges from SA Water—which they call a dividend or a return—is $2.4 billion. So, 30 to 40 per cent of everybody's water bill is going straight to the government as a dividend. That is more than it is costing to build the desalination plant. If that money had been invested in infrastructure instead of spent into general revenue to fatten up the government, we would not need to lift water charges to pay for a desalination plant. The money would all be there. What the government wants SA Water users to do is to pay twice.

I am particularly glad that the leader-in-waiting for the Labor Party, the Minister for Education, is here listening to my address because he is the bloke who could probably sort this mess out. He is the one, I can tell you on this side of the house, we do not want to be the leader. He is the one we probably worry about—give us Kevin, please, we love Kevin—but we actually do not want him because he might fix some of these problems. The talent is on the left, but the numbers are on the right so it may never occur. I am sure he would privately agree with a lot of what I am pointing out to the house.

I want to get back to the question of the size of government and this observation that the leader and other of my colleagues have made. It is in our formal response to the budget that the size of the Public Service under this government has grown by a massive 18,105 employees in the life of this government, in eight years or thereabouts; of these, only around 5,580 or so are nurses, teachers, doctors and police officers.

Here is the lie that we have been told now for eight years: 'Of course we are growing the size of the government because we are hiring doctors, teachers and nurses.' Well, what a load of waffle! What has been exposed is that 12,000 of those positions are additional public servants not in those key roles, the job descriptions of which remain undetermined and unknown. It is just the fattening up of government at large.

Of course, it is this uncontrolled growth in the size of the public sector that the Treasurer and the Premier now find themselves having to reverse. Had they not fattened themselves up, let out their belt, they would not be needing to try to unscramble the egg, turn the clock back, and cut back on the number of people they hired. That was their mistake: giving hardworking public servants the promise of a job only to find later on that through their own mismanagement they have to go and sack those people because they over-hired. Why build up people's expectations in the first place?

I draw to the attention of the house that, of an average cost of around $75,000 per full-time equivalent, those 12,000 people are costing $900 million to the state budget per annum. If you take that back to 2002, arguably somewhere between $5 billion to $7.2 billion over the period could have been saved had we not fattened government up from the outset—and I will talk more about that later on—but therein lies the government's problem.

My colleagues and the leader have made good points in regard to Shared Services and the failure of the government to make the cuts it expects, debt blowouts and unfunded superannuation liabilities, not to mention WorkCover. However, I will turn for a moment to matters within my portfolio areas. Can I say that the Minister for Industry and Trade has been a very clever little fellow in some respects. I note that about nine months ago there was talk that the Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED) would be swallowed into DFEEST, and the department was facing the axe. There were going to be all sorts of terrible things happen; however, he seems to have slithered off the hook a little bit, certainly in year 1.

I note cuts of around $25 million over the estimates period, but very little in year 1—$2.5 million, $11.8 billion, $18.4 million and $25.4 million by 2013-14. Of course, a lot of programs are going to be hit very hard. My colleague, the member for Goyder, has talked to the business enterprise centres. Careers promotions to cease; corporate functions to be reduced, economic and industry policies to be so-called 'refocused' (we will explore that in budget estimates, let me tell you; there are significant amounts of money to be cut); executive employees (well, that is probably a good thing); Innovate SA and Technology Industry Association thrown to the wind; the international marketing development program (streamlined); the Make the Move campaign (refocused); migration programs reduced; overseas offices cut significantly (I will be interested to explore that during budget estimates, because many of them, particularly in China, India, the UK, Europe and the US, perform very valued roles); regional development programs; small business programs; small business support; trade programs; and water industry alliance programs, all suffering the axe. These cuts are going to hurt small businesses, let me tell you, and hurt them in very tragic ways.

As I mentioned, Labor's credibility and trustworthiness, as a result of this budget, is in tatters. One group that I am very concerned about is by BioInnovation SA, which I see has suffered a terrible cut, with implications for the Thebarton Bioscience Precinct and the Centre for Plant Functional Genomics. That is one entity that we really must continue to support, let me say, and I will explore that during estimates. The time for a budget review commission was probably in 2002-03, not after you have been in government for eight years. You should never have got yourself into that position.

I think the government's handling of the media through the budget process has been most skilled. I think the leak of the budget review commission's work was masterful. I am one of those who believes it was quite deliberate. I do not know whether was done by the Treasurer or on a nudge and a wink, but anyone who thinks it was not deliberate is kidding themselves. Yes, there is some interesting information in there, but, boy, did it make the government's budget more consumable? Yes, it did. Put a shock and horror budget out there two days before the budget, and then put your own out there and you have people breathing a sigh of relief. I think it was a masterful bit of fifth column work, for which the government is renowned, and perhaps we will find out who did that. When it comes to dodgy dealings and flipping documents about, this government is expert.

I think that this budget sets the scene for the next four years. The government's mantra for its first five to six years was all about health, police and education. This government was about health, police and education. Everything else was dismissed as being irrelevant.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: No, it was not about transport. It was not about transport at all. They have changed their entire strategy and approach. That is why the budget signals a significant shift from the Rann government's first eight budgets, as I mentioned, with a focus on health, education, and law and order, to a new agenda of infrastructure and building of a legacy. Services and the Public Service itself have been cut to build a desalination plant, a hospital, a new Adelaide Oval, a Southern Expressway, the electrification of the rail system, a superway above South Road (though some of that is federally funded) and other public works.

This new direction tells us a lot about the Labor government's intentions over the next four years, and speaks equally of its past mistakes and inaction. There are four things which I think the government needs to learn and which it should have done since 2002, and which it could still do over the next four years. The first is to contain the size of government. If 12,000 public servants above and beyond police, teachers, nurses and doctors had not been hired, as I mentioned, $900 million a year would be saved. Aggregated since 2002, it is many billions of dollars.

The second thing that the government needs to learn is it must lead by example. It must streamline its cabinet. The secret is to contain the size of government and therefore the budget, so as to reduce cabinet to 12 ministers and to restructure the Public Service, I believe, into 12 departments, with 12 CEOs reporting to one minister. This would point to efficiencies.

My third point is we also need a broad integrated vision. We need a better master plan for Adelaide and South Australia, and hospital, road, public transport and oval solutions that are cost effective. Prior preparation and planning prevents poor performance. We have seen failure on roads, projects scheduled then cancelled, and infrastructure plans that do not match performance. My fourth point is there must be full engagement with the private sector. Why would you compete with the private sector? There are a range of government services that could be outsourced to the private sector and we could save many, many, many millions of dollars.

These budget observations are the key to reducing the state tax take, delivering infrastructure and better services and reducing the size of government. This budget, like previous budgets, does not deliver enough structural reform, in my view, and until the government takes a more structured approach and a more strategic approach to the way it plans its budget, we will not get the fiscal performance that the taxpayer deserves and expects.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (18:03): I am delighted to get up here today to talk about this bill. I am equally delighted because a couple of good things flowed out of the weekend. I am here speaking and everyone else is speaking, and Collingwood did not win the Grand Final. They blew it. So that is pretty good news as well.

However, let me turn to the state budget. Today I wanted to make an in-depth speech about how this budget relates to my electorate, but typically, as a country member, we got nothing at all, which is a sad reality for country people under this Rann government over the last eight years. Quite frankly, it is a sad and sorry story of how people outside the metropolitan area have been treated.

Just simply, I highlight the absolute arrogance of this government and the total disdain for people who live in the bush by removing the 3.3¢ a litre on fuel alone. It is a measly amount. It may not seem much to members on the other side, but let me tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it means a lot not only to my electorate in particular but also to other country electorates.

We know that we do not have a lot of things in the country, but 3.3¢ a litre means another $2 or $3 to fill up the car. If someone wants to go fishing, it is another $2 or $3 to fill up the boat. If they want to cut the lawn, it is a bit more to do that; or if they want to go for a drive, it is a bit more to do that. That is where it all adds up, not to mention the fact that it pushes up freight costs in the country, again, for the people who do deliveries, not that a lot of petrol-powered trucks are around. It just adds to the cost burden of living in regional South Australia.

I think to do that is miserable, narrow-minded and done in very poor spirit, and it is done to people who can do the least about it. It is probably worth noting that the constituents of the Speaker (the member for Giles) are probably going to get clobbered by it, quite frankly. Not a lot of Labor politicians live in the bush. I do not know how the Speaker reacted to it, but I just thought that it was a horrible thing to do.

We go on with other aspects of this budget, including its impact on the small schools. I have a couple of small schools in my electorate. I have Rapid Bay with just over 40 students and the Penneshaw Campus of KI Education with around 70 students. What will happen is that they will be put under incredible pressure to survive by the removal of these grants which they will no longer be able to access.

If members think that my margin went up in the last election, it will go up even more at the next one. The Labor Party may have been active in trying to take the seat off me, but people do not forget these sorts of things; and, if the chop happens, and if, through this subtle con by the government, Rapid Bay parents get put in a position where they have to make a decision, I know they will not be happy at all.

Country people have to drive a long way. Ceduna people have to drive in the car eight hours over and eight hours back, so the cost of petrol and everything else just adds up. Starving country schools of resources is closure by the back door. It is a disgusting way to run a state. If you go around regional South Australia now and just see all the little schools that used to be in place, it is an incredible number.

I am not for one moment suggesting that we return to the 1930s and 1940s but, with respect to the school bus issue, last night I attended the annual dinner of the Bus and Coach Association. Many of the people concerned operate school bus routes, and they are at their wit's end—and the leader talked about it this morning—to get a decent line of communication functioning between the department and those operators who do not know whether they are going to live from one month to the next because the contract process is drawn out and not finalised, and it makes it extremely difficult for them to work out where they are going.

They may have to replace stock—buses. Well, they do not know whether they can afford to. These Sir Humphreys within the department have absolutely no respect. I think that members heard the leader this morning talk about some of these Sir Humphreys who have stopped payment—for nearly a year—on accounts. You have to pay your bills in the bush, because people do not like it. It is a hand-to-mouth existence. I do not think that this school bus issue will go away, and I applaud the fact that the member for Frome is going to move on that matter tomorrow in this place.

I turn to the subject of roads. Many country members in this place have raised the matter of lack of substantial funding for councils to do roadworks and to progress their districts in the best interests of their ratepayers. This applies in my area as well, both on the Fleurieu and also on Kangaroo Island, where a few dollars to help out on roads that are not arterial roads would be of great benefit to the community.

I know that the Yankalilla council gets into bother over having enough money to do their roads; likewise the City of Victor Harbor council. I have had comments from members of that council that they are always seeking additional funding; likewise Alexandrina.

But more particularly, we turn to the issue of the road funding that has not been put in place by this Rann government over the last eight years to assist the Kangaroo Island Council, which is threatening to close roads from about 2013. My personal view is that I do not think that is the way to go. I do not think that closing roads is really the answer, but the council has proposed a traveller's levy, which my side of the house does not support, nor indeed does the government. I believe it is time that the council forgot about trying to put a levy in place because I do not think that is going to happen. If you put a levy in place for one council, you are going to have another 67 wanting to do the same sort of thing, and it becomes unworkable. If you have to have special legislation in place to assist Kangaroo Island Council, the district council of Goyder or the district council of Oodnawoopwoop will all want similar legislation.

I say to the Rann government: while you can find $535 million to do something with Adelaide Oval and make it into a site which could potentially be used for AFL football—$535 million of taxpayers' money—you cannot find sweet stuff-all to fund Kangaroo Island Council and other regional councils as well, and I think that is disgusting.

That leads me to the subject of health in the bush. The member for Goyder has raised the issue of the two small private hospitals in his electorate which will be put under additional financial strain by the removal of funding. I know that the funding that assists the medical facilities and doctors, etc. across my electorate is strained to the hilt. The South Coast Health Service is always short of money; and there has been a major issue with the doctors at Yankalilla, through the Southern Fleurieu medical practice. They do not need a lot of money, they just need some small assistance to help them through.

Of course, then we have the Blue Hills of them all in South Australian health, the protracted dispute between the government and the Kangaroo Island doctors which, unfortunately, is still ongoing and will not go away. It is simply a matter of the minister actually talking with the doctors and getting some common-sense answers between the two of them, which I urge should happen sooner rather than later. So, the health issues, the road funding issues, the school issues, the petrol issues—it just goes on and on and on.

There are a few other areas. I have actually inherited from the member for Kaurna the township of Sellicks Beach, which is outer metropolitan. I am not so sure they are sure about me, but I am very sure about them. It is a very different area, one that I have found most interesting to get to know. There are a host of issues down there.

As I said to them recently, when I was speaking there—much to their surprise—they are the only area in my electorate that has public transport because the buses go down to Sellicks. They were somewhat flabbergasted by that, because I think they thought the buses went everywhere, but I told them that they did not. They have concerns about the level of service they get from the buses, but at least they have them.

They asked why yet another big development down there. I see in the newspaper today a great slab of land at Sellicks is to be opened up for further residential use and the announcement by the government of major project status for the Buddhist temple development down there, which is going to bring a lot more people down there. Anyone who has been to Wollongong and seen the Buddhist temple there knows that it is absolutely enormous and draws thousands, if not tens of thousands, of visitors per year. As the minister indicated in his release, I think you will find it will probably happen if this Buddhist temple goes ahead—and I say 'if'—at Sellicks Beach.

The residents down that way, through Aldinga and right down to Sellicks Beach, say, 'Why should the train stop at Seaford? Why don't we take it all the way and do the job in one hit?' We probably could if we had not put trams to the Entertainment Centre. It does not matter that you have buses and trains going to the Entertainment Centre, and now we have trams as well. We have the whole kit and caboodle. But the member for Goyder, how many buses services has he got going in his electorate? Not a lot, I would not have thought.

Mr Griffiths: No.

Mr PENGILLY: And I am sure the member for Flinders would like some sort of transport system out on the West Coast. Actually, with the amount of grain he is producing this year, he could probably put one in himself.

It is an absolute disgrace the way country people are treated by this government, after 8½ years now. It has brought down a budget at the eleventh hour, months and months late—months after the election. It was pointed out once again by the leader this morning that the Tasmanian government had its budget out in next to no time; and the British government put one out about 50 days after the whole government had changed. But, in South Australia, here we are well into September and we finally get a budget. That is wonderful stuff.

The irony of it is that now we will tidy up this budget in the parliament over the next week or three and, meanwhile, the poor old public servants will be bustling away getting ready for next year's budget. That is the irony of it. We have not got this one out of the way but the public servants will be running around doing the budgeting figures for next year. It is ludicrous that, in a state of 1½ million people, it takes so long to put out a budget.

In addition, you only had to be out the front of this place and observe the media in the last few days and the absolute horror over the sneaky decision to close the Parks Community Centre—to sell it off and put in residential housing. I scratch my head and ask, 'If this is the great socialist Utopia, what are they doing that for?' Why upset your heartland? Why upset the PSA on matters pertaining to it?

I simply could not believe it when I heard about the Parks Community Centre. I do not know the area well, but I have been down there on a number of occasions to different events and it certainly is the hub of that community. It is where that community goes. They treat it as their own. That is their place. This miserable Rann government has decided to flog it off and leave them in the lurch.

There have been a few concerned looks on the other side of the house, and I would have thought that especially those who sit on the left in the Labor Party would be hanging their heads in shame over this. Then the member for Croydon said in this place this morning during an interjection that he supports the selling off of the Parks, and I wonder what the world is coming to. I think it really is a sad day for those western suburbs communities.

I really wonder what is going to happen over the next 3½ years. We have this enormous debt build-up—$2 million a day in interest, back to the good old State Bank days. Where are we going to end up? It worries me that my children, who all live and work in this state, are going to be paying off the debt again for the rest of their working lives. Old fellows, such as the member for Morphett and me, probably will not have to worry about it too much, but those younger people will be paying this for years, and there is not a lot more we can sell off. They have done pretty well. I am seriously worried about the capacity of the state to bounce back. Members here today have alluded to the fall off in numbers employed in the mining industry over the last 12 or 18 months.

Dr McFetridge interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: If you want to speak, get in your seat. If you want to have a good hard look at mining and see where it will end up, only this morning I heard on the radio coming into this place that, if the China bubble bursts or if the price of commodities drops over the next couple of years over there—I think it was Access Economics—that will have a disastrous effect on the Australian economy, and obviously that will have a disastrous effect on the economy of South Australia. I wonder just how we will look here in a few years.

It is probably worth going back to where I started, in the last you minute or two left to me. This Rann government, after eight and a half years of screwing rural people, is totally discriminating against rural people. It is hurting rural people. It just does not care about rural people. Its heartland has been in the city, but we made a few dents in that in the last state election. If it keeps going and doing things like flogging off the Parks Community Centre, and upsetting the people of Mount Barker over the proposal up there, which is about as popular as a pork chop in Jerusalem, I do not know where it will end up. It may renew its leadership. The Treasurer has been firing on all cylinders today. We know he wants the top job. There is enormous dissent in the Labor Party. You only have to look across the other side of the chamber when controversial issues are raised here: they want to be anywhere but looking at us. They hang their heads in shame, and well may they.

I thank the house for the opportunity to have a few words to say. The people in my electorate and in rural South Australia are not going to be happy. However, you get what you pay for. We paid for a dud in this government and we will be paying for it for a lot longer. I am appalled at this state budget. Other members will put their spin on things, but I am appalled at it and appalled at what it does not do for the good people of rural South Australia. In particular, I am appalled at what it does not do for the people of my electorate of Finniss, both on the Fleurieu Peninsula and on Kangaroo Island, who should not have to suffer such incompetent governance and putting up with the nonsense that it has to at the moment.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (18:24): September 16 was a sad day for regional South Australia, in particular, with the budget impacts on everything that matters in Chaffey: in horticulture, losing payroll support for exporters; in aquaculture, losing research and development funding, which is vital to both horticulture and agriculture; in tourism, reduced funding, again another blow; rural exports, getting less support than the region desperately needs; in the wine industry, losing the expertise and having the levies increased at the cellar doors. It is absolutely ludicrous to think it is belting an industry that is already suffering.

With local schools, in Chaffey I have 28 small local schools. The majority are small schools and are expecting closures and reduced funding. It is absolutely outrageous. The increased costs for regional families in losing the fuel rebate, as many of my colleagues have already noted today, will have an impact all around the board, not only on the cost of food production and on getting to services but also on the general cost of living.

Primary industries: a cut of $80 million to PIRSA's operating revenue over four years and a cut of 180 jobs. Again, it is just outrageous to think that the government has been gutting PIRSA for so many years. It is a major blow to the regions that rely on horticultural and agricultural research and development. Again, it will substantially impact on all services that these agricultural and horticultural industries rely upon.

The rural industry is already facing a challenge with the new Murray-Darling Basin Plan about to be introduced with reduced allocations, fluctuating markets and increasing overseas competition. How do we do more with less, with research and development being cut to the bone? It is absolutely outrageous. There is an $8 million cut to research funding. It makes no sense to keep cutting the research funding. That is what keeps the South Australian agricultural and horticultural sectors at leading edge, world-leading technology. It is a major blow.

SARDI makes an important contribution to agricultural and horticultural research. Again, there is an $8 million cut in research funding. In grains, approximately half of the industry growth is attributed to research and development and improvements to production and efficiency. Again, it is outrageous to think that we could have our future in food production jeopardised.

Horticulture: the Loxton Research Centre is responsible for making the Riverland a world-class horticultural region. Efficiencies in irrigation technology were imported from Israel in the 1970s, and with that research and development expertise it made us one of the world leaders in efficiency with irrigation, salinity management and new horticultural crop varieties. Again, the funding has been cut; the expertise has been cut. More and more job cuts are creating more and more obstacles to remain as a world leader.

Other states such as New South Wales and Victoria continue to fund important agricultural research, including Dareton in New South Wales with its citrus projects and Hamilton with the grains projects. Why not South Australia? Why will this government not support research and development within South Australia?

Horticulture in the Riverland is facing major challenges with the basin plan, as I said. However, it must be assisted with research to make them better producers, to grow more with less. We grow the world's best produce and are regarded as a green, clean food production area. We must have that research and development support.

Agriculture in the Mallee is also facing the prospect of many more dry seasons due to climate change and it must be assisted to manage and adapt to these impacts. We continue to have support cut but expect bigger and better produce for everyone to enjoy at the dinner table. South Australia used to be a global pioneer in agricultural and horticultural research, and it is a necessity in these difficult conditions. Conditions are becoming more difficult and research must be funded by government to meet the challenges.

Rural Solutions South Australia is moving to a full cost-recovery situation, cutting $12 million over four years. That poses another additional cost to our farmers. The Rural Solutions' agronomists used to offer vital unbiased—and I say that again, unbiased—free advice to irrigators and broadacre growers to keep us at the forefront of food production. The need for publicly-funded independent advice to balance biased advice from the private sector and to ensure all farmers have access to the latest research outcomes is vital to Australia being at the forefront of world-leading food production.

There are additional cuts to the irrigation sector and more cost recovery. It should be the government's responsibility to keep biosecurity at the forefront of our food production and, in particular, the fruit fly inspection. It has now been touted that that funding is in jeopardy. The fruit fly inspection keeps the Riverland, in particular, at the forefront of export produce. We are world renowned for being fruit fly free and it must remain that way.

In relation to the overall impact on the region, and Chaffey in particular, the increased costs and reduced services increase the pressure on farmers and their communities. Farmers will leave the industry and young people will not even contemplate being a part of the future for the food production industry. Who is going to grow the food that we all expect on our dinner tables?

There are social ramifications, including stress on rural families. We see the increased reduced funding in the rural sector and it continues to put not only added pressure on the farmers but increasing stress on the families. The economic ramifications, including the regional decline, loss of jobs and the drop in state exports, again continue to put pressure on our food production.

There are health ramifications in decreasing the availability of our fresh local food and the increased reliance on imported food. Is this government prepared to import unregulated produce? Is this imported food grown and harvested with slave labour? That is the question that everyone would want to ask.

I refer to an end to the payroll tax rebate for exporters by 2013. Many small export businesses in the Riverland, in particular, employ many local people and by removing that payroll tax rebate it again puts added pressure on the food sector and those people who produce that food that we all expect. We have all worked hard to gain export markets, building South Australia's reputation as a producer of not only world-class food but also green clean food.

The increased cost to exporters will reflect on the cost of not only dinner on the table but also lunch and the breakfast. Every time we go for a drink it is going to have added pressure upwards for the cost. The increased cost to exporters may cause job losses, and it may reduce the prices to farmers, as well as the price of produce for all South Australians.

The regional fuel subsidy to be cut by $50 million over four years is a major blow to all regional South Australia, in particular areas like Chaffey—in fact, all regional centres in South Australia. We rely totally on the fuel subsidy that has helped keep the price of food down, kept the cost of transport down, and kept down the cost to farmers for their major input. It will also increase costs for regional families across the board due to increased freight, and that spins off. Everything that comes to the regions has to be freighted. It is not just about going to the supermarket. It does not just arrive at the supermarket: it has to be freighted in. Again, the food that does get to the supermarkets will have an increased component for fuel because not only does it cost more for that food to be produced but it costs more to get it to the supermarket. All services will cost more with that higher fuel cost.

There is a $7 million cut to the cellar door subsidy. The wine industry is suffering terribly at the moment with overproduction and with our markets having overseas competition. We are seeing more cuts to that wine industry support and, as I said, the industry is already struggling, Why, therefore, do we belt an industry that is already struggling? It diminishes the ability to showcase our famous South Australian produce to the domestic Australian market and, more importantly, to the export market all over the globe. It diminishes wine tourism. It puts a slur on the cost of wine. It puts a slur on the wineries and pressure on cellar doors being able to showcase their wines. It also puts added pressure on tourism, a signature feature for South Australia, especially in the wine regions; and it is a major blow to the Riverland, Australia's biggest wine producing region.

There is a $12 million cut to the small schools grant program; for example, the forced amalgamations in Renmark schools. In the electorate of Chaffey there are 28 schools, the majority of which are small schools. That is adding pressure to every one of those schools. Many other small schools in the Chaffey region are all holding their breath: what school will have its funding reduced; what school will have its services cut? The government needs to increase funding for regional schools, not decrease it.

Local schools are vital to regional communities. They are part of the fabric that all small communities rely on. It is not just the schools; it is the hospitals; it is the community centres. Those small schools are a vital part of the local communities. They also act as a major community centre. As I have said, the schools are a hub for our future population; they are a meeting place for the parents. That is where children's futures are basically designed in terms of whether they continue on at a small school or move to the cities. Can they continue? Can they go to the city? Can they incur that extra cost to move to the city or to move to another region to attend a school that has been left open?

The region of Chaffey is already suffering economic hardship and, recognised by this government with a sustainable futures fund, the drought recovery funding, it should not be forced to pay for Labor's economic mismanagement. However, I will acknowledge that the Riverland Sustainable Futures Fund is welcomed. The $20 million over four years that this government has pledged has remained intact, so there is one shining light there for the region of Chaffey. That prospectus is a good start, but more consideration is needed for existing horticulture industries and the future of irrigation water supplies.

In closing, this budget has again targeted the most important link in this state's economic viability. Again we are seeing increased pressure on the horticulture and agriculture sector. We are seeing pressure put on the research and development that those two industries heavily rely on. For us to be viable on a world stage, we must have leading-edge technology. We must have that advantage that we compete with in every other market.

Again, I display my disappointment with the lack of support for regional South Australia, the lack of support for the food production sector. I think this government will one day realise that it has made a huge mistake in underfunding and giving less support to the rural sector. In every budget, the rural sector seems to be targeted. It is a growing trend and it is a sad trend that the rural sector continues to shoulder. Again, it cannot continue to do that year after year.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (18:38): A lot has been said, obviously, about the budget and I will not trawl through too many figures, because my colleagues have already spoken very ably about many aspects of this budget. I have a view with regard to budgets that the principles are pretty simple. I know that running a state budget would be a very large, very difficult task and we have all gone through hundreds of pages of documents. I am not underestimating the effort and work that goes into it that, but some of the principles are simple.

A budget is a plan. A budget is a plan for where you are now, where you want to go, what you are going to spend, what you are not going to spend, what you hope to achieve, what debt you think you can incur and what savings you think you can make. It is no different. The principle is exactly the same for a home household budget (whether it is a single couple or a large family with lots of kids), a small business, a medium business or indeed the state.

The fact that this budget has come so late is absolutely ridiculous. There is no need to beat around the bush with that. A budget for a financial year that comes out on 16 September is a sign of bad management, and there is no avoiding that. Budgets have to be balanced. They absolutely have to be balanced and the way you balance your budget, if you start with a good one, is by following the budget. You balance your budget by following it. You will get wrinkles and creases and little deviations in the road along the way, but if all things are considered, and you keep yourself on track to what you said you would do, your budget will be balanced.

This government swore black and blue after the election that it was going to enter into a new era of transparency, care, love, devotion, consultation and all of that sort of thing with the people of South Australia. I do not really know whether the leak of the Sustainable Budget Commission's report was part of that new era of transparency.

The Treasurer tells us that it was not part of that era of transparency, that it was a genuine mistake. We will never know, and I will never know; only a few people will ever know whether that was a government leak or a malicious inside leak. One way or another, it got out. Essentially, it is another sign of bad management. Information like that does not get out in a well-managed environment. It is just a fact, regardless of how it got out there, that it should not have. I think that really does discredit this government.

In regard to where we are now, and the picture heading into this budget, I will give a bit of a snapshot, and of course the things I say will be largely regionally focused. As we all know, and I have said many times, the electorate of Stuart is my overriding passion, but I do care enormously for regional South Australia more broadly.

Last year, exports fell by 14 per cent. Mining jobs, people employed in mining, were at a six-year low, so there are fewer now than there were six years ago. There is no regional infrastructure to speak of, and this is all after eight years of Labor government. If this state's employment rate had increased in line with national growth, if this state had kept its share of jobs, then we would have 34,000 more people employed in South Australia than we do currently. So, that is the environment that we start with when this government comes to put together this budget.

Let me talk about the AAA credit rating—the highly prized, highly touted AAA credit rating. I agree, it is extremely important. There is no doubt about that we should strive to hold onto that credit rating, but let me tell you that it should not be so hard. It should not be so hard to hold onto that AAA credit rating. The Treasurer would have us believe that he is an extraordinary financial manager to hold onto this AAA credit rating.

The reality is that, every year for eight years since the government came into office, the government has had unexpected surplus income and, simultaneously, has overspent. If they just looked after either one of those things it would not be so hard to keep the AAA credit rating, if they had just had the surplus income and kept spending where it was meant to be, or if they had not had the excess money coming in and kept spending where it was meant to be, everything would have been okay.

This is not, as the Treasurer would have you believe, any crisis to do with the global financial crisis. The global financial crisis is real and has had an impact, but the other things have had a far greater impact on this state's budget than the global financial crisis has ever had. I see the Treasurer telling us day in, day out, what a marvellous manager he is because he has managed somehow to hold onto this AAA credit rating.

The reality is that he is like somebody with a driver's licence living on 11 points, getting speeding tickets and parking tickets, running red lights, doing all sorts of traffic infringements all the time and, at the end of the year, trying to say to people, 'But I have still got my licence. I must be a wonderful, wonderful driver.' It is ridiculous. This is the sort of analogy he is trying to give us with regard to his financial management. He leaves us in this condition where somehow you just have to cut and cut and just grapple to keep the budget together, just like the driver who is perpetually running red lights and getting speeding tickets but then trying to say they are a wonderful driver, because they still have their driver's licence. It is just ridiculous.

I want to identify some spending and service cuts in this budget that are going to seriously hurt regional South Australia. Top of the list for me, not because it involves the greatest amount of money but because it cuts right to the heart of regional communities, is the removal of the small schools grant. For people who do not know, that is a grant that goes to small schools in regional areas. It is $30,000 per school.

I have 42 schools in the electorate of Stuart and a lot more than half of them are small schools that need this money. There are a lot of schools around with 20 and 30 students. If you take a school with 20 or 30 students and take $30,000 out of their operating budget, more than $1,000 per student, that is an enormous amount for a small school in regional South Australia. The issue is that, if you lose the school, the community shrinks.

Our communities are already under enormous pressure, but if you lose the school the community really suffers. As soon as you start taking your kids to school in another town you start shopping in that other town and getting involved in the other town. You might play netball or football, buy your fuel and all sorts of other things in another town. The government refuses to say that it is going to close these schools, but is just pulling the rug out from under them, so that is a dreadful thing.

The cuts to PIRSA: $80 million in savings, 180 jobs. This has been talked about a lot so I will not go into it in too much detail, but that is disgraceful. That will impact Jamestown, a wonderful town that I represent, probably more than anywhere else, let alone the impact on regional South Australia across the board. That goes directly to the heart of our exports. PIRSA cuts in agriculture will hurt our exports. Just as an aside, grain growing in South Australia, one of the most important exports we have, supports over 100 small towns in regional South Australia—very important. One hundred small towns; please do not forget that—very important.

Thirty two Country Health scholarships were given out last year, and I credit the government for that. I think that is a fantastic thing. I would certainly advocate for more, but there were 32 Country Health scholarships last year. The day after the budget, the Country Health website says, 'This year we have 15.' Thirty-two to 15 scholarships for regional young people to get medical training and then hopefully come back and work in the regions.

I have talked about shared services here many times. The snapshot on shared services is that the government planned to spend $60 million originally to save $124 million. What they have actually done is adjusted their savings target. They expect to save more, but the bottom line at the moment is that over the last few years this government has spent about $73 million to save $78 million, so right now they are $5 million ahead. Okay, $5 million is good, but that $5 million creates regional devastation. Moving these jobs from regional areas to the city is dreadful. Exactly the same technology that allows the centralisation of services such as IT, human resources and payroll would allow those services to be done in regional centres. We could have payroll in Mount Gambier, human resources in Port Augusta and Port Lincoln looking after IT, etc. They planned to save $190 million, so right now there is a savings shortfall of $70 million. This program is just not working.

Other cuts include $12½ million to tourism. It rolls off the tongue pretty easily, but $12½ million to tourism is a lot of people working very hard in tourism in Adelaide and all around the 12 regions that Tourism SA is divided up into. That regional income is vital. There are regional towns and businesses and families struggling all over South Australia, and we all know that many of them have turned to tourism to supplement their income. It might be supplementing a farm income or saving a town through tourism jobs, so to cut in that area is another direct attack on regional South Australia.

I also highlight the First Home Owners Grant. Something people may not quite understand is that that is now limited to new homes, and that is going to be devastating for regional South Australia. It is much harder to get a new home built in regional South Australia than it is in Adelaide; it is much harder because it is much harder to get the tradesmen and the builders to do it. It is much easier for a young person, a young couple or a young family to buy an existing home. So that is going to hurt regional South Australia far more than it is going to hurt other areas, and it certainly will hurt other areas as well.

I will touch now on the Parks recreation centre. I saw the member for Croydon today laughing and giggling about this, and he said clearly on the record that he supports that cut. I think that is disgraceful. He said that at exactly the same time hundreds of people from that area were out the front protesting about it. He also laughed and giggled, and the first thing he could say any time anybody would raise it was, 'Well, have you been there?' Guess what? I have been there. I lived in that electorate for a few years and I spent quite a few years going to the Parks recreation centre. It is a fantastic centre. Not only is this budget and the government hurting regional South Australia, it is also hurting people in its heartland. That is in the electorate of Enfield; it is in the suburb of Mansfield Park—good, strong Labor voting territory, no doubt—yet they are prepared to hurt that community as well. Looking after local, small communities clearly is not an objective of this government

Let me say what is good about this. There are some good things in this budget, and I am happy to acknowledge those things. Let me highlight a few. One is $5 million for the Central Oval precinct upgrade in Port Augusta. That is a fantastic project led by the Port Augusta city council, and $5 million from this government towards that project is fantastic. Let me also point out $3 million per year to the Regional Development Infrastructure Fund. That is very important. It is a small increase but a very important thing. There will be extra money for chemotherapy services in regional areas, and Port Augusta Hospital is my highest priority with regard to putting in chemotherapy services. It is a fantastic thing, and I congratulate the government on that.

Let me also highlight that those were Liberal opposition election commitments going into the last election. The government begrudgingly copied those promises. We offered $5 million for Central Oval. We actually offered in year one a $40 million increase to the Regional Development Infrastructure Fund, taking it from about $2.5 million to about a $42.5 million increase in year one through our royalties for regions; 25 per cent of mining royalties go directly to that fund. We were going to do $40 million; they have done $3 million. Thank you for the $3 million increase; that is very positive but not good enough. Chemotherapy: we promised a chemotherapy service for the Port Augusta Hospital.

Those three things are all fantastic but, guess what, they are all copies of Liberal opposition policy going into the last election. I thank them for the money and am very grateful; I give them full credit for that but, if we had not made those promises heading into the last election, the government would not have copied our promises and they would not be in this budget.

What would we have done differently? It is pretty simple. The budget would always have been difficult, there is no doubt about that. It would always have been difficult to balance the budget, but we would have found it much easier. We would not have been the car running all over the road at high speed, running red lights, and then bragging about somehow holding on to our driver's licence. We would have saved $1 billion by rebuilding the Royal Adelaide Hospital on-site where there are state-of-the-art facilities in place already. We would have left them and we would have built around them very productively and, compared to the new rail yards hospital, over the life of the projects we would have saved $1 billion. That is significant.

We would not be spending the hundreds of millions of dollars that the government is going to put towards upgrading the Adelaide Oval. We would have actually done a public-private partnership funded by land sales for a brand-new world-class sporting and entertainment facility on the rail yards site in addition to leaving the Adelaide Oval as it is, the special Adelaide Oval.

We would have saved $500 million by axing the trams going to West Lakes and Semaphore. So, with those things alone, that is over $2 billion we would have had that is not in this budget at the moment. We would have saved money on consultants. We would have spent far less on consultants than the current government has. We would have axed the Thinkers in Residence program and we would have reduced the number of ministries, just to name a few things. It does not have to be so hard. It does not have to be so hard to hold on to your AAA credit rating. It is never easy. I am not for a minute underestimating the amount of effort it takes to be a treasurer or to run a treasury department, but it does not have to be as hard as this Treasurer would have us believe—that somehow he just keeps it all together because he is so wonderful.

Where are we heading? In summary, in this budget, we are heading towards $2.5 billion of new fees and taxes and service cuts. Where are those things? Where are those service cuts? They are going to hit the farming industry, the wine industry and the tourism industry. They are going to hit a lot of industries very important to regional South Australia. They are going to come in the removal of the 3.3¢ a litre fuel rebate for all fuel sold more than 100 kilometres from Adelaide. That is enormous. There is not one thing that we do in the country that does not include transport or freight. They are the sorts of things that are going to be included in that $2 billion of new fees and taxes. We are heading towards a $7.5 billion debt. It is an easy number to say, but it is actually quite hard to contemplate. A debt of $7.5 billion for this state is going to cost $2 million a day in interest. That is not hard to understand—$2 million every day of the year in interest. Imagine that. Our leader has said so many times—and I will repeat it, because it is a very valid, clearly understandable point—$2 million every day just spent away.

Imagine if you could have had half the debt. Imagine if you had done the things that we had suggested and had half the debt in place and it was only going to cost you $1 million a day. You would have $365 million left that you would not have to spend or that you could spend somewhere else. As our leader says so often, imagine if you cut your debt and your interest payments in half and you had $1 million to give away to communities all over South Australia every day, including city communities. Imagine if every country town could have $1 million, as well as city suburbs. There is nothing wrong with that. I am fighting for regional South Australia, but money needs to be spent and saved in the city as well.

Imagine if you could go to different suburbs of Adelaide and say, 'We've got $1 million to spend on your suburb today.' How would that be? I reckon that would be pretty fantastic, and I think it is an absolute crime that we are frittering that money away. In closing, I will take you back to my analogy: the Treasurer would have us believe that he is an extraordinary manager; he is just not.

Debate adjourned on motion of Ms Thompson.


At 18:59 the house adjourned until Wednesday 29 September 2010 at 11:00.


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