HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-06-21 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

APPROPRIATION BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (15:59): Next, we have the ministers responsible for Families and Communities. I was referring earlier to others in the cabinet who were responsible for these matters. In this area, we have had a number of them. We had the Hon. Stephanie Key, who was a minister in this area, and I applaud her era, particularly in relation to the Robyn Layton report on child protection—an important initiative. She got on with the job quickly, and it was an excellent report. We have had probably six or seven other major child protection reports since, including by the former Justice Ted Mullighan QC. Commissioner Mullighan undertook considerable work in this area.

We then had the era of the Hon. Jay Weatherill. His time covering families and communities would have to be best described as one which took all the services in-house. This was his grand plan. He clearly had an utter, undisguised hatred of the private sector coupled with his complete dismissal of the NGO sector when he had this grand plan to bring in all the services in-house and take control. What I now find from the stakeholders in these areas is that, in fact, that great formula, much as it was presented as being the answer to more efficient and streamlined services, has ended up being a disaster and is now under review again.

Probably the other thing that he is most famous for in his management of the portfolio at the time was the 'stashed cash' incident when, for two years in a row while minister, considerable sums of money—and I am talking about millions of dollars—were paid from the department out to an NGO, which did not have any power to authorise or provide services for disability equipment, which was then given back to the department in little licks and drip fed out to the people who were eligible for equipment. That is a matter now which is the subject of inquiry in another place, and currently evidence is being taken. They are the distinctive features of his time.

Now, of course, we have minister Rankine. If today's performance was not a classic example of her incompetence, then nothing is. Here we have in South Australia, 13 days ago, a little boy who died in a government-owned house and the minister was able to speak to the media at that time, notwithstanding the mother of the child being charged. The minister was able to come into the house 12 days ago and say to the house that she is undertaking an inquiry, some information about what happened with her department, etc. But today, when she was asked a very simple question: how many times did your department receive a notification or advice about this family? What did he say? 'I have had advice and I cannot say; I cannot speak.' That is an absolute disgrace.

Let me remind members of the house what happened when Sue Vardon was the CEO of the Department for Families and Communities. Only a few years ago when the—

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I think we are addressing the Appropriation Bill. Relevance?

The SPEAKER: It is the appropriation debate and very often we have a wide range of subjects that are included in this. I will give the member the benefit of the doubt and ask her to continue.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Child protection takes up at least one third of the families and communities budget. If this is not one of the most important aspects of this jurisdiction, then frankly we may as well not be here. The importance of protecting children and the funding that is allocated to it responsibly is a critical service of the government and it is one which, as I was saying to the house, is comprehensively represented by a minister who is incompetent at best in circumstances where children are continuing to die.

I have said previously that her approach to this—back in the Sue Vardon days, when we heard about the 'House of Horrors' and the promises then that departments would act and that they would have resources available to make sure that children would not die, we had Sue Vardon at that stage say to us that she celebrated the fact that the department was doing what it should be doing by having found out this family. Children are continuing to die, and it is not acceptable.

The minister came into this house to say that she cannot answer that, but more importantly in respect to this budget she is saying she is going to spend more money for the protection of children—the provision of accommodation, for example, for alternate care for children who are under her guardianship. She is spending more and more money, yet we continue to have child abuse cases where the numbers are up; children in alternate care, numbers up; waiting lists for housing, numbers up; waiting lists for disability services equipment, numbers up. The only thing that is going down is the amount of public housing we have in this state.

Under her watch, more and more money is being spent, with more and more demand but less and less service being provided. That is my point. In addition, what we have is a situation where the minister says that these resources, of course, are available to everybody. For example, we have had announcements that the alternative care provision is for accommodation for children under her guardianship. We have heard all the terrible stories about children in motels, but she says there will be no more children in motels and delivers a multimillion dollar announcement in this budget about funds to build accommodation for them.

They are spending nearly $30 million a year on these children in motels—they could have bought a couple of motels in the time that they were spending that money. What is worse, having said that she is going to make provision for this in the budget and build this accommodation for these children, it is not going to be ready until 2015. What is going to happen to these children in the meantime? There is $8 million for that, but it will be 2015 before these children are accommodated.

We have disability funding, and it sounds great when the Treasurer comes out to announce that it has made provision for emergency equipment for the most critical people—about 800 of a list of over 2,600. They are the people who are on the list now, let alone the ones who are going to come onto the list. You say that this minister is doing her job—or the claim is that the budget is going to be a family-centred budget—and we have a minister who makes these promises but then does not even deliver on what she did last year.

For example, last year she said that she was going to spend nearly $69 million in that year on capital works in Families and Communities, but we find in the published budget this year that only $23.5 million of that money has been spent. We have very important precious resources needing to be available for an ever-increasing demand and she does not even spend what she has. It is completely unacceptable, and she has let these people down.

Finally, the Premier's priorities in this have to be lined up. For example, in this year's budget the Premier announced his pet project, the film hub down at the Glenside Hospital site—the $43 million development of a property into a film hub, now called Adelaide Studios—an acquisition at a cost of $2.5 million out of his budget. Up to about $45.5 million is going to be spent on the development of this hub for him to have his own pet project. What do we find in this year's budget? We find that he is going to spend another $1.6 million on that pet project. That is his priority.

In addition, over the same time frame that he says there has to be a delay in the building of the hospital on that site, he funds $6 million towards the TACSI. For those members who are not aware of it and do not know about it, this is The Australian Centre for Social Innovation. He has spent $6 million on the centre over the last three years. I do not know what it has done, and I have been to the website—it has made a few ads. Monsignor Cappo happens to be on the board of The Australian Centre for Social Innovation. Perhaps it has failed and perhaps that is why he has cut off the funding. In any event, $6 million has been spent at a time when such resources are precious.

Then, of course, in November last year we had the announcement by the Premier, alongside Monsignor David Cappo (the Commissioner for Social Inclusion), that they are going to have a new publication called Digging Deep about the social benefits of mining in South Australia. There are 500 pamphlets or booklets that have been printed up at a cost of $20,000, promoting mining companies in this state. Mining companies, frankly, can do their own promotion.

The reason we have this is because it is glossed up with a big picture of the Premier at the front talking about the social benefits of mining, endorsed by Monsignor Cappo as the Commissioner for Social Inclusion, and another nearly $20,000 spent on pamphlets to be spread out to send the good message about the Premier. All of this is happening while the Premier is taking away the $30 that pensioners receive from the federal government in the assessment of their pensions for the purposes of their rental in housing trust houses. All of this has been taken away when he rips off the disabled in this community who have had services from Disability SA on the management of their funds invested in Disability SA. He says, 'Bad luck, no longer available, go to the Public Trustee or somewhere else, pay for it yourself. Blow you people, you don't get that—'

Mrs Geraghty: You're misleading the house now.

Ms CHAPMAN: No, that is not correct. All this is at a time when the last treasurer announced that 44 financial counsellors in this state are going to be sacked. They are going to be sacked as of 1 July. They have got a few days left—sacked. All the NGOs have to pick up this responsibility.

How can the Premier, with any ounce of humanity in his body, accept that he can parade out this money, spend millions of dollars on his own pet projects, and slash away the very basic provision of services for the disabled, the mentally unwell, the people in this state who are aged, and the people who are on pensions, and these are the pensions, I might add, which when writing to the federal minister he promised he would never touch. Yet, he comes into his house, sits in cabinet, supports the Treasurer's announcement, by which these people have been raped financially.

It is an absolute disgrace to the cabinet, to the Premier, and the minister—useless as she is. Monsignor Cappo, for all the good work he does, is just paraded out there as some bandaid to all of this. He is some human shield for the Premier to give it some kind of credibility, to give it some kind of authority, to give it some sort of human face, when, in fact, it is an indecent and unconscionable act by this government, led by a Premier who is prepared to put forward his priority film hubs for his own little pet projects—increased in this year's budget—while he rips off the disabled, the aged, the pensioners in this state. He does not give a tinker about these people who are about to face the biggest assault in the cost of power and water in this state.

Utility services, concessions, are not even a pinch on what the increased costs are going to be on these. Yet, these people out in the community are expected to survive in an environment when they are having it raped off them for the purposes of the Premier's pet project. The Treasurer has the cheek to come into this parliament—parading with his wife and children in photographs—trying to tell us that somehow or another this is a budget for families. That is a nonsense.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (16:12): Once again, the presentation of the state budget has changed. I think that every year I have been in this place the presentation has changed. There has been a mix and match of various areas of health. This year we have seen the Adelaide Health Service put in the budget. It was obviously a combination of the Central Northern Adelaide Health Service and the Southern Adelaide Health Service. Next year, that will disappear, because we are going to have local hospital networks. We are going to have three local hospital networks.

Every year, it is a different presentation. The targets are presented differently, the whole budget process just seems to be one of trying to hide the real facts of what is going on in South Australia. It was interesting to see that the Parliament Research Library put out a document recently by Gerry McInally entitled 'Budget Scrutiny in South Australia'. The summary states:

The consideration of the Executive’s budget is arguably the most important role that Parliament plays in a Westminster system of government. The South Australian system has been in place since 1980, and by general consensus there are deficiencies inherent in the process which prevent the scrutiny of the budget being as effective as possible.

I am looking forward to the estimates committee in the next few weeks, although I have only got 4½ hours on health. That works out to $1 billion an hour, when you look at the health budget this year, being $4.63 billion. The need to examine the budget in detail is something that cannot be in any way downplayed, because this government is not giving us the truth; they are not showing us the true picture.

South Australians should be scared to death. Be afraid, be very afraid of what the true picture of the state of the state is, what the state of the health of the state is. What we are seeing is not the real picture; it is one of gloss, it is one of spin, it is one of cover-up, and it is one of deceit and deception, which is a sad, sad thing to say about any government in any Westminster parliament, but particularly in South Australia. We should really be getting what we deserve, which is a lot better than we are getting at the moment. This year, again, the budget is presented in a convoluted way. I described it as the height of prestidigitation in my first budget speech, and there is still the sleight of hand and trying to deceive the reader.

The example I will start with is how much is the health budget? In the budget speech there was $133 million extra over four years, $33 million extra per year. That is what was said in the budget speech. It works out at about 0.07 per cent, I think it is, of the health budget. The health inflator is acknowledged at about 9 per cent. The former treasurer did say in January last year it was 12 per cent. Some people say it is about 8 per cent. It is certainly not the 3 per cent CPI that we have for our groceries and household income; it is a much bigger figure than that.

The commonly accepted figure by the federal government for their National Health and Hospital Reform is 9.3 per cent. We will say 9 per cent. So, the pittance of an increase in health funding this year is way behind what it should be. In fact, in real terms health spending is going backwards under this government this year. There should be about an extra $400 million going in, just this year alone, not the $33 million that is being put in.

In a glossy brochure sent out by the Minister for Health, it says that the health budget is $4.63 billion, which represents an increase of $174 million. So, $174 million in the glossy brochure here, but $133 million in the budget speech. Then, in Budget Paper No. 3, page 32, it talks about an extra $100 million, and it gives a figure of $4.715 million as the total health spend. So, we are getting differences all the time in the gross amount, what is being put in and what is not.

Let us try and get our act together and let us present the actual figures for South Australians. They deserve to know the truth. They deserve to know what they are getting. They deserve to know what they are getting this year, not in 2014, 2015 and 2016, because so much of the spend has been pushed out. The slippage is terrible. I will go through a bit later on the number of projects that have been delayed and pushed out.

The underspend from last year almost equates to four years of the extra money that the Treasurer says is being put in. It is about $133 million. Well, there is about $130 million underspend from last year, and some of those projects have been pushed out even further. We have looked at the total health spend and we do not really know what it is; whether it is $4.715 billion or $4.63 billion. It is a lot of money, and it is a disgrace that I am only getting 4½ hours in estimates to look at that. It is about a billion dollars an hour.

I will now turn to country health. In a letter to the Presiding Member of the Hills Area Health Advisory Council (HAC) on 14 May, the minister said—and it is signed John Hill, Minister for Health—'In 2010 alone, we are spending $714.5 million on public health services in country South Australia.' That is the letter to the Hills Area HAC. Then, in the glossy brochure put out by the minister, Country Health Budget 2011-12, it talks about putting in $719.8 million. So, there is a $5 million difference there. What is the real figure?

The minister, in his glossy brochure Country Health Budget 2011-12, talks about the fact that an extra $339.5 million—89.3 per cent—will be spent on country health services compared with 2001-02. We all know in 2001-02, nearly 10 years ago now, the Liberal government were in. We had suffered the legacy of the State Bank collapse and we managed to get the state back on track. The Labor government came in by default, thanks to the former member for Hammond, and it has been downhill ever since.

However, when you put in the health inflator of 9 per cent now—say it was even 7 or 8 per cent back then—back in in 2001-02 as to what should have been spent on country health, you should have been spending about $740 million last year. Let us say $720 million this year as a round figure, so we are underspending again. We are underspending in health in this state, and who is suffering? The South Australian taxpayer.

What we are seeing every day in our hospitals in South Australia is people waiting longer, people having to wait just to get on waiting lists in the first place. When they do get to finally see a specialist, they wait longer to get on the elective surgery waiting list. Then, if they get on the elective surgery waiting list, they will hopefully get their surgery on time, but in a lot of cases it is being delayed and being re-categorised. The fiddle factor is coming in to make the figures look good. The South Australian public—the taxpayers—are continuing to suffer.

Even today, if you look at the figures coming out of the Royal Adelaide Hospital and other hospitals around metropolitan Adelaide, you will see that they are full to bursting. Go and look at the CapPlan, the capacity planning program for the Royal Adelaide Hospital, and see what the average waiting times are in the emergency department. They are not, as the minister would have you believe, way down and reaching their four-hour targets (which is an absolute farce, and I will talk about those a bit later), they are way out there at 20-plus hours. I saw one recently where the average waiting time in an emergency department back in March was 27 hours, and that is in the government's own CapPlan documents.

The inpatient and emergency department dashboards—the documents which are put out every day and which show the capacity and the flow-through of the various hospitals and the various departments within hospitals—are categorised in a traffic light system: green is less than 80 per cent, amber is 80 to 95 per cent, red is 95 to 125 per cent, and white is 125 per cent capacity. That is the number of people in the hospital compared with the number of available beds, and many of those hospitals—in fact, on some days most of those hospitals on most days—are either in the red zone (90 to 125 per cent capacity) or, unfortunately, in the white hot zone (125 per cent capacity).

Our hospitals are being pushed to the limit, and we have seen an underspend by this government. They say they are spending more, and they are spending more in dollar terms, but in real terms they are spending far less than they should. What are we seeing? We are seeing the same old, same old. When you look at the budget documents regarding the Adelaide Health Service, the number of urgent cases, which should be seen within 30 minutes, went from 64 per cent last year to 63 per cent this year. It is getting worse.

I was pleased to see that the Women's and Children's Hospital's emergency department figures in the budget documents show a significant improvement. I do not believe the degree of improvement. I think there is some gaming or some fiddle factor going on there, and I will be asking the minister about that in estimates, so I am happy for him to take that on notice. If he wants to call it a Dorothy Dixer, fine, but he had better explain what is going on with some of these figures, such as the satisfaction rate for our hospitals, which has been 85 per cent for the last three years—it has not changed, and I do not believe that either.

The big issue in the health sector in this state at the moment is not in the main part of the budget. We have $30 million for some site preparation at the rail yards, we see some money spent on advertising and public education, but the big serious dollar is for the new Royal Adelaide Hospital down at the rail yards. I remember that on 10 March and 19 March in 2010, the minister told Leon Byner on FIVEaa that it was $1.7 billion for the hospital when he knew (because the Auditor-General told us) that in November the year before they had signed off on $1.8 billion. But, as treasurer Foley said, 'What's $100 million?'

Even then we knew that that was not the real picture. We were getting hints about the real cost of that hospital down on the rail yards—a cost of over $2 billion. We now know that it is $2.7 billion in the documents that Macquarie Bank has issued, and the government is saying $2.1 billion. That is only just the tip of the iceberg with this PPP because, when you factor in the non-clinical support contracts, the equipment supplies, the staffing levels—everything from the help desk to the security guys on the wards—it is going to be far more than that.

The amount of $11.1 billion over the life of the PPP is $1.1 million a day for 35 years. It is a disgrace for this government to have to admit it has mismanaged the rebuilding of health facilities to the extent where it has entered into a contract like that and tied up South Australians like my kids and my grandchildren—little Harry is two on Friday and he will be 37 when this hospital is paid off. I will be on a Zimmer frame by the time that hospital is paid off. I just hope the heck that they have the services there, and if that hospital is still functioning as a hospital then (and not as was put to the Institute of Architects that, after 40 years or so, it has outlived its worth and you could probably turn it into an art gallery or museum), I just hope that it will be providing the services that this government tells us it is going to provide, because we know it is not going to provide anywhere near the services that you can currently get at the world-ranking Florey precinct down at the current Royal Adelaide.

One little factor that is not being put out there very much about the cost of the new hospital, though, is the opportunity cost. The opportunity cost of moving down there is that you are going to bulldoze a billion dollars down at the Florey precinct—a billion dollars is going into the dust. Is the government going to keep some of it open, and we are hearing that? We know about pathology, ophthalmology, women's services and diabetic services. I heard today that the lymphoedema unit at the Flinders Medical Centre is closing. Is that going down to the new Royal Adelaide? I do not think so.

We know that a lot of the services that are at the current Royal Adelaide are not going down the road. The minister admitted in this place in the last sitting week that some of the services were going to be elsewhere. We know that some of the pathology services are going to be down at the IMVS, some are going to be down at the rail yards and some are possibly going to be over at the bioscience precinct at Thebarton—some may go elsewhere. What else is going out there?

Where are the outpatients going? We know that this government has failed in its review of outpatient services. Where has that committee gone? Where have the reports gone? They were going to save thousands and thousands—millions—of dollars by outsourcing 10 per cent of outpatients in the first tranche, which was going to be 150,000 outpatient appointments in the first tranche and then moving to 50 per cent; that is, 650,000 outpatient appointments were going to somehow miraculously go to private specialists in their rooms who were not going to charge a gap, who did not have waiting lists, who were going to instantly get these people onto elective surgery waiting lists in our hospitals. What a lot of rubbish! Anyone who thought that was going to work needs to really look at the advice they are giving this government. They should not be in the positions they are in if they actually believe that advice. It was never going to work.

The new Royal Adelaide Hospital is going to be a lead weight around this state's neck. It is State Bank mark II. I was reading a wall poster from the 1993 election about 'never again', and it was about the state budget blowouts. There was an article by Randall Ashbourne about the massive blowouts in the State Bank then. There was another article about the blowouts and the mismanagement in health services then, and, under Labor, we are seeing the same thing again. The commonwealth is going to put in a lot of money this year (a lot more than it has in the past), but it is still not enough to manage the health system in South Australia. Almost $1 billion will be received in 2011-12, and then nearly $155 million in national partnerships' funding for the national health-care reform under COAG.

National health reform has brought in the local hospital networks. A couple of years ago we saw the Central Northern Adelaide Health Service and the Southern Adelaide Health Service combine to save money. That was in 2008. The local hospital networks were being talked about then. So, we have the Adelaide Health Service out of the combined service, and now the Adelaide Health Service is gone and we are having three local hospital networks.

Where have the savings gone? Where was the forward planning involved there? Where was the forethought about money that was going to be wasted in, first, the amalgamation and now the separation again? That is the sort of incompetence that we cannot tolerate in managing health when you have a nearly $5 billion budget by this time next year.

The funding cuts that we are seeing are everything in a $17 million reduction in public health expenditure. A 12 per cent decrease will be reflected in everything from public health education to shop and manufacturing inspections, and last year we saw how the government did not do the inspections that it was supposed to do. We saw a real failure there. The government gets stuck into local government but it was not doing that.

We will see a zero increase in spending on pharmaceuticals, medical aids and appliances. We will see a zero increase in spending on health research, despite increased royalties from SA Health from the research fund. They were going to sell Medvet. They should have a look at the returns from some of the royalties and the income from some of the stock market activity from Medvet. It is millions and millions of dollars.

They are hitting the soft targets. There are $2.3 million in cuts to volunteer ambulance stations and a $1.6 million cut to the ambulance vehicle replacement. The South Australian Ambulance Service is the shining light in South Australian health, yet we see them getting a budget cut this year. Ray Creen and his mob down there are doing a fantastic job. Apart from all the ramping and other issues they have to put up with, they are doing a great job but they are going to suffer. South Australians will not only suffer because of poor mismanagement but also they will have to wait much longer to get services delivered.

As I said before, there was nearly $130 million underspend in capital projects last year. I am looking forward to the minister explaining this to me in the estimates committee when we get there. There was a $27.5 million underspend on the Lyell McEwin stage C. That is not going to be finished until 2016. We need the beds now, minister. Have a look at your cap plans; have a look at your dashboards, minister. The hospitals are fit to bursting.

People are dying as a direct result of delays in emergency departments. Ask the College for Emergency Medicine. It is more than the road toll every year, and 2016 is not acceptable. There was a $13 million underspend on the Whyalla hospital last year, and that will not be finished until June 2013. The Berri hospital, fortunately, one of the good bits, is being brought forward. There was an $11 million underspend on new Royal Adelaide site works last year, so God help us with the whole project. What is going to happen there?

A really despicable piece of work by this government is the $11 million underspend on James Nash House. That will not be finished until December 2012. I visited there the other day and the people staffing that facility are doing a fantastic job. They deserve better from this government.

It is Glenside campus, Modbury Hospital, QEH stage 2, the Modbury GP Super Clinic, the Women's and Children's cancer centre, the Women's and Children's upgrade, the Repatriation General Hospital, the forensic mental health step down facilities, emergency departments, Port Pirie GP Plus health centre (which is not much at the moment: in fact, it has not even started yet) and it is Hammill House. It goes on and on. People have to wait longer and longer because of the mismanagement and underspend last year. That cannot be allowed to happen this year.

The minister needs to look at where he is going and, if he cannot do the job, he should hand it over to someone else who can do the job, because this is not good enough. I am looking forward to estimates because there are a lot of questions. There is not much time at $1 billion an hour, but we are going to make the most of that because there are many issues for South Australians who have been suffering far too long under this minister and government and their mismanagement of health.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite) (16:32): This budget is presented to the house at a very interesting time internationally. It is worth reflecting back to the international economic environment into which this government first found itself in office. It was a buoyant international economy, particularly in the United States and Europe, with China and India emerging strongly as great markets and great buyers of Australian products. It was an extremely buoyant national economy, championed by a very competent federal coalition government under John Howard that had delivered record low interest rates, a buoyant property market, a booming share market and extraordinary growth in both infrastructure and industry development, particularly in areas such as mining, food, manufacturing, etc.

These were very good times from 2002 through until 2008. These were the times that this state Labor government enjoyed. Of course, we have had the former treasurer crowing about what a good treasurer he was during these times. I can assure members the proverbial drover's dog would have been a good treasurer in 2002 through to 2008. How could you not have been a good treasurer in those years with buoyant revenues literally collapsing across the table at the treasurer of the day? As the Auditor-General frequently observed, out of control expenses were, year after year, being rescued by windfall unexpected revenues flowing from this buoyant international and national economic scene.

But, of course, the previous treasurer, and the government with him, got caught out in 2008 because the international climate and the national climate changed dramatically with the global financial crisis. It is interesting now to look at the context within which this budget is framed because, indeed, things have changed. We have had this spectacular reduction in state government revenues and net wealth as a consequence of losses on international sharemarkets from government entities. We have had a federal government that has had to tighten its belt as a consequence of the international and national scene extant today.

Of course now, after an 18-month to two-year period of uncertainty, which saw a stimulus package coming out from the commonwealth and low interest rates to line up with the global financial crisis, we have seen a staving off, if you like, of the inevitable. There was money about being spent in schools (Building the Education Revolution), cheques being sent to households so they could rush out and spend it on retail, tourism, cafes and restaurants, etc., services consumption.

Coinciding with that, we saw record low interest rates which held off foreclosures, which enabled people to go and borrow against equity to see themselves through and which enabled small businesses to go and borrow more easily against home equity and business assets to see them through the global financial crisis and its disruptions. Of course, those stimuli have come to an end. The federal stimulus package and the BER are virtually winding up. Interest rates are now creeping up again and, of course, internationally, there are now worrying signs of a possible second dip.

I am watching with great interest the events taking place in Europe, and particularly in the United States, as we debate this budget. Let me start with Europe where, as members would be aware, the euro zone is literally tiptoeing on thin ice. We have the great fear among euro zone governments, reported in The Australian today, and in the international press, that the ECB, or the euro zone, is:

...concerned about a debt default by Greece that could undermine the bond market's trust in other cash-strapped euro members. Ireland and Portugal are already struggling to rebuild investors' confidence, despite rescue loans from the EU and the IMF. If panicked investors flee from Spain, a $US1.6 trillion economy, the country could prove too big to save. At the Luxembourg meeting held recently, finance ministers were also working on outlines of a new loan package for Greece. As before, it is to be tied to the ever-deeper fiscal cuts required of the Greek government.

These are fiscal cuts that the Greek government is struggling to meet. The article continues:

One year into its multi-year fiscal program, Greece is running out of steam. The budget is off target, thanks to a tanking economy and persistent tax evasion. In Germany, politicians have worried for months that Greece will end up defaulting in a couple of years. By then, the European taxpayer would have replaced the bond market as Greece's main creditor, thanks to the loans euro zone countries are giving Athens to pay bondholders.

German taxpayers and other taxpayers in the euro zone stand to lose if Greece defaults, and there could be a contagion effect across Europe. Do not think that will not affect this budget: it will affect this budget in the out years significantly, should it occur, and there will be confluent effects across the Atlantic to the United States, where the banks are interconnected.

The debt levels currently being carried by the American taxpayer are at absolute record levels, and the signs of recovery in the American economy are bleak, to say the least. So, the international context within which this budget is framed is one of great concern—great concern indeed. Yet, this budget seems to fail to recognise that international context and that national context. In some respects, it is quite an optimistic budget with growth projections and income projections that I believe are probably going to prove to be unsustainable, but we will see.

So, the history of this government's budgets since 2002 has been a history of a tightening of the belt, to be fair, in budget one and budget two, while the former treasurer assessed the situation, but by budget number three he had quickly begun to let out his belt as fast as he swallowed the cash. As we have heard from earlier speakers, during that period, they started to grow the size of government.

As has been outlined by my colleagues, bit by bit, sliced by slice, layer by layer, there were new hirings in the Public Service; there were new projects undertaken, many of which blew out and proved to be unsustainable. There were a whole host of broken promises and a whole host of wasted government initiatives. Of course, those extra public servants—18,000 of them and only a handful are police, nurses and teachers, leaving thousands more unexplained—are at the core of the government's problem.

Having let go of the rope when it came to the growth of the business of government, they are now trying to wind that back by cutting back thousands of government jobs one way or another. Of course, the right thing to do from the outset would have been to contain the costs of government—not to let government grow out, not to let that number of employees be hired, not to let the business of government become more expensive and more costly than it should have been. But no, they could not do that and, in each year, expenses have quickly matched income.

It is just basic business fundamentals. During the good times when revenues are strong and the money is coming in, if you hire extra staff, take on extra business expenses, roll out your costs of doing business, instead of allowing a profit margin to develop which you take to the bank, then what you risk is that when the income tightens in tougher times and your cost structures are still too high you are caught in a deficit. That is exactly what has happened. Every small business person in the country and in the state knows the risk that the government took and understands how they have been caught out.

A $263 million net lending deficit, a $1,182 million cash deficit and a $1,252 million net operating deficit—the government has simply been caught out by its own financial mismanagement. As the ship has listed to starboard, they are now trying to yank it back over to the port, and the old ship is seesawing on the ocean from left to right as the government tries to right the ship of state which is floundering in uncertain seas.

The former treasurer was not a brilliant treasurer, he was not the great treasurer he pretends to be, and he does not deserve the credit that some in the media tend to try to give him in his self-description as, after Paul Keating, the world's second greatest treasurer. As I said, the proverbial drover's dog would have been able to run a successful budget up until 2008. It only took two budgets in tough times to completely bring unstuck the former treasurer's career—full stop, end of story.

Enter the current Treasurer and this current budget. Its strategy is intriguing. In some respects, it reflects a complete change of direction. The language of the government in its initial budgets was all about health, education and police. That is all they wanted to talk about. In their first term of government, they virtually built nothing and did nothing. They were a minority government, they simply spruiked the mantra of health, education and police—law and order was tucked in there—the grand proclamations, and they got themselves a second term.

In their second term they seemed to meander aimlessly, not knowing what to do. We had the grand glossy brochures, we had the grand publications, but nothing really materialised until, in response to the opposition setting the agenda, a government agenda started to emerge towards the end of their last term. We now have the big build in this third term. They are going to have the big build. This budget shifts direction from this aggressive and at times belligerent determination of the past to a strategy under the current Treasurer of minimising cost increases by creeping up revenues and achieving savings through program delays, capital works rescheduling and underspending—combined, of course, with additional debt.

Suddenly now we have a family government, the family-friendly government. Can I just observe (and I really do like the current Treasurer) that I do think it was a little self-indulgent having these pictures of the family splattered all across the state's budget. I do not think we are really that interested in all of that and I think it was a little self-indulgent. We would really like to know what the Treasurer has to offer the state, although I am sure it helped to lift his profile in any leadership meanderings that might be going on in the Labor Party at the moment as to who might be the next anointed king.

Debt has featured as an issue in this budget, and it should do so. I draw the attention of members to warnings today from David Murray, Chairman of the Future Fund, about the level of national and state debt. The states combined now have allowed their debt to surge by almost $102 billion this year to $135 billion next year. Combined with federal government debt it is well over half a trillion dollars. This state is starting to run up its credit card and this nation is doing likewise at a time when the economy is already in debt and the terms of trade are at an all-time high causing capacity constraints in the economy, incremental indebtedness of governments that risk crowding out the private sector as it seeks to borrow to build the infrastructure we need to grow the economy.

As I mentioned, the crisis in Europe has forced governments to cut public services and pensions while in the US the administration is struggling to raise the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling in order to avoid defaulting. There are messages here about debt and unfunded liabilities that this state government needs to heed.

I wonder, as I read this budget, what this government thinks its legacy will be. I think in the first term it had no idea at all; in its second term I think it had no idea at all; I think it has realised, in its third term, it needs to build a legacy and I think it hopes it will be a desalination plant, an Adelaide Oval and a new hospital. I am sure it would have liked to have called it the Mike Rann Memorial Hospital—perhaps not now.

It is interesting that two of those three things were creations of the opposition: football in the city and the desalination plant. One of those ideas—a hospital in the railyards—was the government's idea, and probably the one that carries with it the greatest fiscal risk of all to this state and its finances, for reasons that my colleagues have mentioned. But I do ask what this government thinks its legacy will be, because I do not see this budget putting a light on a pathway to that vision and to that legacy.

What is sadly missing from political debate at the state level at present and, to a degree, at the national level, is a long-term vision for the future of the country and a long-term vision for the future of the state. Forget all the glossy brochures and state strategic plans, I am talking about meaningful plans, ones that set out a program of what is to be built, when it will be built, how it will be built and how much will be spent building it.

Instead, we tend to career from budget to budget, from election cycle to election cycle, looking a few years ahead but never looking out to 20 or 30-year windows, as we should be doing, and working budgets and programs into a broader plan for the future. It is a feature of concern in state political debate, and one that I believe this parliament needs to remedy and remedy soon.

During budget estimates I will be going through a range of issues that relate to the portfolios of industry and trade, science and information economy, motor sport and defence industries. Can I just say that in these uncertain national and international economic times, I think the government has done a poor job of reinventing and rebuilding the state economy. I made public comment recently about ABS findings that the manufacturing sector has now slipped beneath the services sector as the greatest employer in this state, with 4,000 manufacturing jobs lost.

The harsh reality now is that there are 103,000 people in South Australia working in hospitals, dental surgeries, optometrist offices, aged care and social assistance. It is the biggest employer in the state. The real export industries upon which the state economy depends—manufacturing, our food producers, minerals, those things we export, that we get revenue from, that bring the wealth into this state that we can then spend on services—are in decline.

We have had all the rhetoric about mining and defence, a lot of it unrealised, and overstatements of the benefits of the defence investment. We have won a $6 billion to $8 billion air warfare destroyer contract, but we find out later that only $1 billion of that is being spent here in South Australia over 10 years. There is mining expenditure that is still yet to happen—in fact, mining has been in decline—and you have let manufacturing, food, and these other industries wither on the vine. There is very little in this budget—precious little, if anything—for the reinvention of manufacturing, of tourism, of services industries, of food for the future, and of adding value to our products so that we can prosper and thrive as a state and as a nation.

In that regard, it is what is not in the budget rather than what is in the budget that is of most concern. This state desperately needs an innovation and science-led reinvention of its manufacturing sector, of its food sciences sector, and of its services sector in regard to profit-making industries like tourism, education and a raft of other professional services where we can do better. All of that needs to hinge around our ability to export and create wealth for this state by running thriving, vibrant businesses.

I must say, when I look at this budget, I look forward on behalf of our children and our grandchildren and I see nothing but fog. I do not see any clarity of vision. I would appeal to this government in the time that it has remaining in this term of government to come up with some more visionary budgets, come up with something that is more meaningful and get the expenses of government under control. You may be surprised at the support you might get from not only the parliament but from the public if you do so. By creating a buffer that you can invest in, invest in the future. This budget does little to achieve that outcome.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:53): I rise to speak to this budget with great disappointment. As some, hopefully, senior members of the government have rightly pointed out, nobody is listening to this government. That has been happening for some time. In response to that, this government believes that it can rejig itself, remake itself, and renew itself. Unfortunately, my disappointment arises because the Treasurer who has handed down the budget—it is a different face, it is a different voice, it has the photo—has handed down the same budget. As my colleague the member for Davenport said, this Treasurer is just like the last one without the nightclub. I think it is a very apt description. The Treasurer, in the opening statement of his budget address, stated:

All of us know the dangers of borrowing to finance your day-to-day expenses—sooner rather than later those credit card bills catch up with you.

Absolutely right. It is the most sensible thing that the Treasurer said in his budget speech, apart from quoting himself in the penultimate statement of his budget speech. He said:

The day I became treasurer of our state I said...

The job of the Treasurer is to look at the financial state of the government and to make sure that our policy settings are right so that we're not living off our credit card and accruing the sort of debt that is going to be left to our kids to pay.

Two prophetic statements. This Treasurer has delivered us the same budget that we would have been delivered had there been no change in Treasurer, but the spin machine has been working overtime.

The Treasurer has tried to present himself as a sensitive family man with young children and that he is the same as everybody else living up and down the street. I point out to the house that I entered this parliament on the same day as the Treasurer back in 1997. At that time, I had a wife and four children, the eldest of whom had completed her education, and a significant business overdraft. I know what it is like to lie awake at night worrying about the mortgage, wondering how you will meet the payments at the end of the month, agonising over what the wool price, the cattle price, the sheep price or the wheat price will be in a few months' time. I know what that is like.

The Treasurer, who would have us believe that he is like every other family man up and down the street, entered this place as a 24 year old. I do not know whether he had a mortgage at that stage. I know he had not been operating a business. He was a single man and his life experience since then has been on a fairly comfortable wicket. That is the reality of the experience of the Treasurer. For him to have us believe that he knows what it is like up and down Struggle Street I think is a very long bow being drawn by him. I put that because I want to put this into context.

My colleague the member for Davenport referred to the new Treasurer as 'high tax Jack', and I think that epitaph may indeed stick, because it aptly describes this Treasurer on the form that we have seen so far. On many occasions I referred to the previous treasurer as 'Mr Borrow and Spend', and he used to interject across the house that I did not know what I was talking about. I think I know what I was talking about. I think all of South Australia knows what I was talking about. This government, for nine years, has been doing just that. It has been spending every cent it can get its hands on, and when it ran out of that money it has gone out and borrowed some more, and when that became difficult it started flogging the state's assets. This state has been very poorly managed for a number of years, in fact, ever since this government has been in office.

It was quite interesting this morning when the leader noted that across this nation every state that has been governed by a Labor government has a deficit budget and every state that has been governed by a Liberal government has a budget in surplus. It is in the genes. It is in the DNA. It just happens time and time again. It is a great pity.

I lament when I hear the Treasurer say that our net debt will peak at $4.2 billion in 2013-14. What really makes me angry, though, is that the Treasurer does not tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The actual indebtedness of this state, of the government of South Australia, is much greater than that. The Treasurer conveniently omits to talk about the debt in public corporations such as SA Water.

I have been arguing for years that this government has made an art form of sucking cash out of SA Water and causing SA Water to borrow money to provide that cash. It is not just me that has been saying it; the Auditor-General has been saying it for years. Everybody knows that SA Water has been used as a cash cow. However, the Treasurer does not acknowledge SA Water's indebtedness when he talks about the state's debt. If you put in to the numbers the indebtedness of those public corporations, which are owned by the state, the actual debt figure will peak at some $8.2 billion in 2013-14.

That is a significantly higher number than the Treasurer would want us to believe. It gets even worse than that because we have an unfunded superannuation liability of around $9 billion. Just because it is unfunded does not mean that it is not a liability. I suspect that there are some people on the other side of the house who do not understand that. I think they go home and think it is unfunded, it does not really matter, we do not have to count it.

The reality is that every one of those dollars will have to be found by those children that the Treasurer referred to, and will have to be paid to our public servants as they retire—about $9 billion worth, and that has been growing rapidly in recent years. If we add that to the $8.2 billion, and if we add the unfunded liability of WorkCover—if we add the liability to the public sector WorkCover scheme—we see that the total liabilities of the state are in excess of $20 billion.

The Treasurer makes the analogy—he made it in the house, he made it on public radio—he says our indebtedness is not a problem. If we were a householder and we had an income of $100,000, we would have a mortgage of some $26,000. That is the analogy the Treasurer uses, because he is only referring to the $4.2 billion, not the total indebtedness of the state.

In reality, if we want to use the householder analogy with an income of $100,000, the mortgage would be $125,000. That is before we add in things like the new Royal Adelaide Hospital. That would add the best part of another $20,000 to those numbers. It would be getting towards a $150,000 mortgage.

The analogy that the Treasurer uses is out by a factor of about six. The scenario he paints is about one sixth of the true picture. Not only is this Treasurer similar to the last one because he delivers to us the same sort of budget, he couches it with the same spin. This Treasurer will be seen to be out of the exact same mould as the last Treasurer on every assessment you can make. We have the same spin. I suppose within a year or two this Treasurer will have us believe that he is the greatest Treasurer the state has ever had. We all know that is a very fallacious claim with regard to the previous treasurer.

The state's indebtedness continues to rise. The rate of increase of our indebtedness is only matched by the voracious appetite for cash from this government. This government continues to increase taxes across the board; taxes which impact on South Australians' daily lives. Transport is a fabulous place for this government to tax. Some governments work strategically, and they say, 'If we are going to try to make the impost of transport costs less on the state into the future, we will encourage people to use public transport.'

Some governments might say, 'Look, we will increase slightly the taxation on motorists and we will use that as a lever to get them onto public transport.' This government, because it does not think strategically, and it does not act strategically, has done half of it. It has increased the impost on motorists through registration fees and through licence fees, and through fines.

The reality is that, when you increase dramatically the level of fines for those who inadvertently just go over the speed limit (inadvertently, in most cases), it is obvious what you are up to. It is obvious that you are up to collecting revenue. Our roads have become tax roads. That is what they are; they are tax roads. The fines for people who inadvertently go over the speed limit (and it is so difficult to understand what the speed limit is because it varies so regularly, even on our arterial roads), and the collection of revenue from that source, is increasing by millions and millions of dollars year on year.

You would have thought that might have been used as an opportunity to get people to move to public transport. No, not this government. 'We'll increase the cost of public transport fares as well.' You cannot do anything with this government in charge of the Treasury without paying more tax. The Treasurer got it wrong when he tried to paint himself as 'family friendly'.

I want to talk, again, about that cash cow of this government, SA Water, and just bring people up-to-date with another insidious way in which water rates have increased this year. During the height of the drought, I raised the issue that the less water you used the more you paid for it; that is, the smaller the amount of water you consumed through any meter the less you paid per kilolitre. The government kept arguing, 'No, no, no. We have an inclining block tariff regime where the more you use the more expensive it is.' That is right if that is all you pay, but the water account is made up of two components: a fixed charge, a delivery fee or a service fee; and the actual usage charge.

When you add the total cost together, the reality is that, throughout the drought, the less water you used the more you were paying per kilolitre for it, and we were trying to get people to reduce their water consumption. Magically, a couple of years ago, the government in one of its water increase announcements increased the price of the tariff rates for the various blocks and decreased the service fee, and it was very clever because I used to do an analysis and work out how much it cost per kilolitre for a consumer of 100 kilolitres, 200 kilolitres and 300 kilolitres of water, etc., and the government got it right.

It made it such that the cost per kilolitre of water was identical at every point—at 100 kilolitre consumption, 200 kilolitre consumption, 300 kilolitre consumption and upwards. Now that the drought is over, now that people are not continually talking about water (particularly in trying to save water), the government has gone back to its old game and tried to maximise its revenues. In the latest water rate announcement, with the newest prices (which will apply as of 1 July), again, we will see that the less water you use the more you will pay for it.

If you happen to use 120 kilolitres of water, you will pay $3.88 per kilolitre; if you use 200 kilolitres of water, you will pay $3.43 per kilolitre; if you use 300, it will be down to $3.20; at 400, it will be down to $3.09 cents; and at 500 kilolitre consumption, it will be down to $3.02 per kilolitre—a significant reduction.

You might ask, 'Why would you set the water rates like that? Why wouldn't you set them to encourage people to reduce their water use?' The reality is that it is set like that deliberately because most people are trying to do the right thing. They are trying to reduce their water consumption. The average consumer does not use 500 kilolitres of water, they use much less than that, and the government is trying to maximise its returns by charging a higher rate when you use less water than it charges when you use more water. Nothing has changed from the previous treasurer to the current Treasurer. He is up to the old tricks of maximising the revenues because this Treasurer has no more idea about reining in the expenditure of this government than the previous treasurer did.

As recently as last December in the Mid-Year Budget Review the government was predicting an $81 million surplus for the next financial year. Only six months later we now have had a prediction in this budget that we will have a $263 million deficit. That is a turnaround of a lazy $244 million. The figures cannot be fiddled when you get that close, and the government has had to come clean and admit that its finances are yet again in a mess. What really amazes me is that the government cannot predict within $244 million the position only six or seven months out, but the government predicts that by 2014-15, three years' time, we will have a surplus of $655 million.

I am very concerned. I have gone back through the budget papers for the last four or five years and the government's predictions are not within cooee even a year or two ahead, least of all three or four years ahead. I will not bore the house by going through the whole table of figures but, as the Treasurer said, these numbers bounce around a bit. I reckon that is a bit more than bouncing around a bit. I reckon that is a gross understatement. The state will need a surplus of $655 million in the years 2014 and 2015 because that is when we will get to the point where we will have to start paying for the new Royal Adelaide Hospital.

My time is running out and I will not have time to go into that disaster, but the decision to build that hospital will nobble this state for many years to come. This state has been going backwards relative to our cousins in the other states right across this nation. It has been going backwards at a rapid rate, and I suspect that that rate of digression will be even accelerated. We flogged off the forests, we are flogging off the Lotteries Commission and we are building a new hospital which is an absolute waste of money. It is a very poor budget.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (17:13): It is really a dubious honour that I think I have, being in my 10th year as an elected representative in this parliament, to speak to the 10th Labor government budget since its election in 2002. As has been previously stated, this is a typical Labor budget, but I also want to make the point quite clearly that the manner in which this government runs this state in terms of its structural, financial and administrative operation is also typically Labor. We see a continual centralisation of services, supported by massive bureaucracies. That has been the trend for the last 9½ years that this government has been in power. That is a very expensive way to operate the state's finances and administration.

At the end of his contribution, the member for MacKillop touched on the new hospital being built at the rail yards. That is a glaring example of the centralisation of services. It is a hospital that will have fewer beds and facilities than the current RAH when the government first came into power back in 2002, and it will burden this state for 30 years with a payment of $1.1 million per day. That is a significantly massive financial burden, for 30 years, that will be placed on my children's generation.

As has been pointed out, it will cost $1.1 million per day for 30 years, and all the services that are currently provided at the current RAH site, as we understand it, will not be provided at the new site on the railyards. It will be a money pit; it will suck money from the health services budget and from the other hospitals—metropolitan hospitals and country health services—to support this new hospital here on the railyards site. It is a glaring example of how this government operates.

As we have witnessed over quite a number of years, we have seen a massive increase in bureaucracy. Some 18,000 additional public servants have been hired under this government. We know that about 6,000 have been doctors, nurses, teachers and police, but that obviously leaves the balance of 12,000 additional public servants who have been hired by this government.

When this was highlighted a number of years ago, there were some lame excuses made. There was some shilly-shallying around by ministers on the other side of the house who were trying to make some excuses about how this could actually take place, but there has been no mistake made. The government has consciously hired these addition 18,000 public servants, and that has obviously put enormous pressure on the state's finances.

I just want to focus on this for a minute or two. There are 6,000 additional doctors, nurses, teachers and police—those 6,000 have been absorbed into those professions, but what actual benefit has the state gained from the additional 12,000 public servants that have been absorbed into the system? What actual benefit does the state receive from those 12,000 additional people hired?

I can tell you that the only thing that I have personally witnessed that may be an improvement in service—even though I do not actually need it—is when you go into the motor registration office to renew your car registration; there is a person that stands at the finger-touch console which says, 'Press here if you want to renew your registration, or you want to renew your driver's licence' or, for any other service, you press another little window on the screen.

Now, I can read, so if I need to go in and re-register my car or renew my license, I push that button, get a ticket and sit down and wait for half an hour before I get called up to the window. So, this person stands at that console and asks me what I want to do, and I tell them, and they say, 'Well, you press that button,' and I am very courteous to them and say, 'Thank you very much,' even though I, as I said, know what to do. That is the only tangible benefit that I have witnessed that is evidence to me of a benefit from these 12,000 public servants.

Now, I do not know how many motor registration offices there are in this state—there might be half a dozen. Those people obviously have a lunch break and so on, so you might need another 12 people to fulfil that role, not the 12,000 people who, as we have seen, have been absorbed into the system who are not a doctor, a teacher, a policeman or a nurse.

We can see that this uncontrolled spending has obviously put pressure on the budget, and we are going to have a look at some statistics here, Madam Deputy Speaker. In terms of the fiscal position and outlook that this budget presents, the three measures that are applied to a budget are all in deficit. The net lending measure is in deficit, the cash position is in deficit and the net operating position is also in deficit. This year, 2011-12, every state Labor government in the nation has a budget deficit, contrasting significantly to the state Liberal governments in the country which have a budget surplus.

We have been highlighting this for many years in relation to this government not being able to control its spending. We have seen record revenues received by the government as a direct benefit from Liberal Party policy in terms of the GST, and when we were previously in government getting the financial issues and the economic issues within this state under control. For the first seven years of this Labor government, there have been record revenues received as a direct benefit of Liberal Party policy.

The government has been unable to control its spending, as I have highlighted previously, and it has been going over budget by a total of $3.5 billion since 2002-03. In nine out of its nine budgets so far, actual spending has exceeded budgeted spending. Spending blowouts, not falls in revenue, are the main reason that the government's budget has slumped into deficit. The current rate has been highlighted previously. The interest bill that we are all going to pay on this debt is approaching $2 million a day, and that is on top of the forecast $1.1 million per day for 30 years for this new hospital.

That is obviously money that every South Australian who is earning an income pays in taxes, and that is obviously soaking up money that could be spent on further health services, education, law and order, transport infrastructure and other areas, and I will come to that later if time permits. That is the scenario; that is the situation that the state is in under the current Labor government.

As I said, that is a stark contrast to every other state Liberal government that has a budget surplus and a stark contrast to how the federal Liberal government performed economically and financially. We have a look at the Howard and Costello years. They actually made a conscious decision to pay off government debt. It got them out of the borrowing market; that had a beneficial effect in driving interest rates down because they were not in the market placing pressure on that sector. They were able to actually put some money aside in the Future Fund to be able to cater for budgetary impacts into the future.

What do we see that this government is providing the state? The state is actually going to saddle us with enormous debt into the future. I do not need to go over those figures because they have been quite satisfactorily highlighted on this side of the house by the leader, the shadow treasurer, the deputy leader and other members on this side. That is the way governments, I think, should model themselves on the Howard and Costello years. They paid off debt, they were out of the market, they were not placing pressure on interest rates. Interest rates came down.

That actually freed up money in the household budgets that those households could go out and spend on other goods and services and increase what they call their discretionary spending. That obviously created a demand out there. People had to make the product to meet the demand; that created additional GST. So, you do not have to be a professor in economics to work that out. That is how the previous federal Liberal government operated to the absolute benefit of this country economically.

As the leader pointed out previously, you need sound economic management to be able to create enough funds within the government's control to spend on all the social justice areas like the disability sector and the public housing sector—all those areas where we know the government is really struggling to provide any level of satisfactory support to the less fortunate in our society. That needs to be underpinned by strong economic management. Unfortunately, the government does not seem to understand that or does not seem to get that basic principle and put it in place.

What have we seen in the last two budgets? Even though the federal Treasurer, Wayne Swan, said that, through the stimulus, the BER and other supposed initiatives, he was going to shield us from the global financial crisis, that has not worked, has it? That has turned into a massive mess over in Canberra. He has enormous issues to deal with economically. We have seen a supposed reduction in GST receipts.

Anybody knows (and this was exhibited in the Howard-Costello years) that you need to cater for the years when you experience a downturn. We all know that there are going to be some good years and there are going to be some bad years, but what have we seen under this government? It has just wasted those seven years when we were getting record revenues into the Treasury coffers—rivers of gold as it has been described. We have wasted opportunities, and now what do we see? We see the budget in deficit from an $81 million surplus only seven months ago plunging to a $263 million deficit under this budget.

How is the government proposing to deal with this? Again, it is typical Labor Party policy of high taxation—high taxing and high spending, typical of Labor governments. I have said this on many occasions in the house previously, that this is the hallmark of Labor governments going back to the early seventies when Whitlam first came in; then we had Hawke, Keating and Rudd, and now we have the current Gillard Labor government and we have experienced it under this Rann Labor government—high taxing, high spending. That is how it is going to try to get through this problem. As we said, we are the highest taxed state in the nation. The government cannot control spending. We have seen a downturn in the GST so taxes and charges go up.

As has been previously highlighted in the house, the Treasurer may be a family man in his private life but that does not translate to his public life. We have seen water, energy, car registration and insurance, fuel, rates, charges, fines and levies all increasing. We are going to see the Treasurer jackhammer more tax, more fines, more fees and more levies out of families. He may be a family man in private (and that is a good thing) but it does not translate to his public life. This is a budget that will hurt families, not a budget that will help families.

The government knows that it is in trouble. This is clearly evidenced by its infighting. We see the member for Mawson breaking out, breaking ranks and making public statements. There is obviously clear tension between him and, obviously, the right, and the previous treasurer, the Minister for Police. We see that the minister for agriculture has broken ranks and made public statements about how it is unsustainable to borrow money to pay wages to prop up operating costs.

The Premier we see hanging on for dear life. He is boldly out there saying that he is going to be running as the Premier at the 2014 election and beyond. Well, I have got some news for the Premier. He might not know it, but I think those decisions about his future are going to be taken out of his hands. We clearly see that that is taking place now, with the member for Mawson publicly supporting the Minister for Education.

Obviously, some of the right faction can see the writing on the wall, that their hopefuls in the Deputy Premier and the Treasurer are not quite up to scratch, are not quite making the grade to be elevated to the position of Premier. They have obviously jumped over from their previous position within the right faction, and they have swung their support behind the Minister for Education.

I think in the next few months, maybe not that long, we will see the Minister for Education sitting in that position on a permanent basis, not just there as the duty minister for the afternoon session here at 5:30 this afternoon, not just as a duty minister, but we will see him there permanently. That is what we think is going to happen and, clearly, that is what the media and the papers are reporting.

The Premier is hanging on for dear life, and as a consequence his leadership is drifting and the state is drifting—it has no direction. The state in terms of policy is directionless. They cannot make up their mind. The majority of the caucus cannot make up their mind, even though the right have swung behind Jay, who the new premier really will be. They are all at sea.

There is party disunity, they are fighting amongst themselves, and that is breaking out. As a consequence the state is suffering. So, all in all, once again for the 10th consecutive year I have the dubious honour of speaking to the budget. It is a typical Labor budget, and the way that this government runs the state is typically Labor.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (17:33): I can but only imagine that one day I will have the capacity to follow some of my colleagues in the comments that they make, put so eloquently here and with the history that they bring to this place. I must admit that it becomes a bit of a struggle to sit here in an afternoon—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am trying to be nice. It is a bit of a struggle to sit here in an afternoon and listen to so many words from only one side of an argument. That is my great frustration. When I contemplated the opportunity to come in here, I thought this place was about debate, where great minds would come together, talk about issues, try to get the absolute best solution in mind and, hell, it is a different world to that.

There is absolutely no doubt that it is a very different world to that, and it is a shame. It is a shame, because this should be the place that people in South Australia aspire to when they want to serve the public in some way. They should see the parliament as being the ultimate dream for them, and they should want to come in. But if they came in and watched us from the gallery sometimes and listened to the debate they would wonder where they were.

This is the sixth budget that I have had the opportunity to have some level of review in. I have enjoyed reading the documents—there is no doubt about that—and reflecting upon the history and future visions that will be in place and, at a later date, reviewing those visions and determining how they came to be and what level of account was taken in this place by the Auditor-General, by the opposition, or by the government itself when they try to review performances—but, wow, it is interesting.

I want to relate the comments that I make to real people and the people in my community and other communities that I have the opportunity to meet with on a very regular basis—thank goodness that I do, because it helps keep me sane—and the thoughts and comments that they make to me. Those are the people that we are here for. It is those people a budget is set in place for. It is those people that government and oppositions and all political parties determine policies for and put their grand visions out there for, and it is those people that we have a responsibility to absolutely do our best job for. It is those people who have come to me and other members of the opposition. That is why we are standing here putting an alternative view to what you on the right-hand side of the Speaker might think today, but it is important that the debate occur.

I look forward to members from the government actually standing up and expressing how they feel about the budget and the feedback they have had from people in their community and from business operators in their community, because the feedback we are getting is one of continual frustration. The comment I hear often is, 'How do we get rid of that mob? How can we get rid of them? Is there any form of constitutional crisis that can occur to allow that to happen?'

Mr Odenwalder: There's an election.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Well, there was—every four years, the third Saturday in March every four years. The tide will turn. I am a glass half full type of person, I must admit. I look at the budget and at what I think are quite reasonable investment strategies, and indeed quite reasonable policies in some cases, but then I come back to my core frustration of the increased cost that this budget represents to the people of our state.

The opposition has put out some press releases that talk about $750 per family per year in additional costs from this budget. I am generous enough to discount the $141 in that amount that goes in council rates, recognising that the state does not have control over that, but the state does influence the other $609. It clearly influences the other $609. I recognise that those $609 will not equally impact all families in the state, but that is the average situation, and it really does concern me.

It affects the basic needs of our society, such as water, electricity, driver's licence and vehicle registration costs, and employment costs for business. I will make some comments later on about the need to support business more. It comes down to the basic level of what it will do to a family. All of us aspire to create an environment where there is an opportunity for a family to prosper. In everything I have ever done, be it in my years in local government or the opportunity I have here, I have considered what the impact will be upon people and, by association, on families. That is why I am really concerned about what the impact of this budget will be.

I understand as much as anybody—not quite as much as probably some of the ministers who deal with an immense workload every day—that there are a large number of competing demands upon a budget figure. It is $16 billion. It has increased exponentially since 2002. There is a large amount of outgoings, and a large amount of incomings also, that create that environment that gives a collective amount to provide services and infrastructure for our state, but how do we get it right?

There will always be differences of opinion. There will always be people who have very strong points of view about what level of money needs to be expended or, indeed, what level of money needs to be received. How do you do it? Do you create an environment where you tax continuously, or do you create an environment where there is a capacity to expend funds, which then creates transactions? It is from those transactions that the government receives a reasonable amount of dollars.

The people I talk to say, 'Look, Steven, we recognise there is a need for governments to be supported and for them to provide us with what we need, too. The only way they can do that is via taxation. We are comfortable in paying a reasonable level of taxation.' The frustration that continually comes through to me is that the level of taxation acts as such a negative and puts a wall around any opportunity that might exist for them, and it is taxation across all different levels.

I understand that there has been tweaking of some figures. I also appreciate the fact that incomes are expected to increase for the state over the next four years, and it is those incomes that need to be managed very carefully. You want to create an environment where, yes, you present a balanced budget, where you provide an opportunity for business to be successful and where private enterprise drives the economy of the state. It has to be that way. Governments are there to provide a framework, but it has to be private enterprise that is successful. I believe that in my heart, and I will never deviate from that thought because it is one that we need to work around.

I understand that government priorities need to ensure that we live well, that we can get a job, that we can get a good education, and that we can learn the skills that we need as we progress along career paths, and we need to be provided with the infrastructure and the social services to give us everything that we need. While people are prepared to pay a reasonable level of taxation, there is a limit that they will reach, and in my eyes they have certainly reached that. Unless we manage to grow our economy through a large number of people coming here, we are going to face a lot of challenges. We face that challenge anyway when it comes to workforce issues, and we have an ageing cohort of people who work within our state—a large number of those being baby boomers—who will retire within the next 10 or 12 years or so, and it will create a big challenge for us. When I reflect upon the last nine years, and I try to be objective about this, I am saddened by many of the things I have seen.

I want to comment on a few specifics about the sorts of things that people talk to me about, and they might seem minor when it comes to government eyes in some of the expenditure or income areas, but they are things that really tweak a thought bubble in people's heads and it makes them question a government. One of these is community hospitals.

We on this side, because we represent those communities that have suffered from the decision of the budget of September last year—be it Keith, Blackwood, Ardrossan or Moonta or Glenelg hospitals—were very disappointed about that. I have two of those hospitals within my electorate. I am frustrated immensely when the Minister for Health continually says 'private hospitals'. They are not private hospitals, they do not derive a profit, they are community driven.

For example, the Ardrossan Community Hospital has some wonderful, dedicated people in the op shop there and they make something like $40,000 or $50,000 per year that provides an opportunity—and a hell of a lot of work makes that sort of money—to keep that hospital afloat. They have a permanent group of people who are out there organising events to try and keep their hospital going. They do it on the smell of an oily rag. They hope for a bit of support from the government. That had been in place following the 2006 election, and it has now been removed as of 30 June this year.

It is that $146,000 that they will try and work through. They will try and ensure that they get a greater return from some of the aged care facilities they provide. They will try and ensure that they can provide accident and emergency skills locally, on a very busy road that probably carries hundreds of thousands of people per year. It really does make you question the pettiness of decision making, when that level of investment—across Keith, Moonta and Ardrossan—of $800,000 cannot be found out of a state budget of $16 billion.

The state forest sale is, again, a very difficult issue. People from the South-East have continually been in contact with all members of parliament questioning the logic behind this decision. The Leader of the Opposition quotes very often when she speaks at public functions—and I have been at a lot of those—that the profits of ForestrySA bring in some $43 million per year into Treasury funds.

I have grave fears, indeed, for the economy of the South-East as a result of that, and it is those grave fears that have been demonstrated to all of us who have bothered to go out the front and look at the people from the South-East who have come up here in their hundreds and their thousands to protest about what they think is determining their future, in a negative sense.

These people do not make that trip because they like to come up and yell and scream. These people make this trip because they know that, unless they yell and scream in a public place where there is a chance for a lot of people to hear, and with the media opportunity to get their message out there, their voices are going to be lost.

They will not give up the fight and I commend them on this, because they are passionate about where they have come from. They understand their history, and they know what their future chances are. They are facing a lot of economic challenges with industry that is deciding to leave, but the basic necessity for them is to ensure that the state forests remain in government control and that job opportunities abound in the South-East.

Others will speak on that. No doubt the member for Mount Gambier is going to talk on it too, but it is those people that I listen to, because they are passionate. They do not just continually say, 'This isn't good enough, this isn't good enough.' They demonstrate solutions, such as, 'I know the forward rotations, three of those, 37 years each one.' The financial figures I saw indicated that it was worth $1.59 billion, I think, to the economy every 37-year rotation. That is the economy of the South-East so, please, I ask for consideration of that. I know that the shadow treasurer in his excellent contribution earlier today has highlighted the fact that even with the revenue streams and writing off the asset of $630-odd million or thereabouts, member for Davenport—

The Hon. I.F. Evans: $682 million.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes, $682 million—thank you for correcting me on that. So removing that asset from the valuation of the state government's assets listing—and assuming therefore that that is what level of expected revenue is going to be, that is still not a good return. The member for MacKillop has certainly posed some questions about the economic modelling report that was done on that which justifies the sales. The Treasurer comes in and talks about the fact that he will not go ahead with it if there is a negative for the community. Clearly, either he is not reading the brief properly or he is not asking the right questions, or he is not talking to the right people, because we have a very different position.

I also want to talk briefly about the marine parks. Other members speak about this constantly. I come from the basis of, yes, wanting to support the marine environment, but I have great concerns about the economic future of the regions where the sanctuary zones are going to be established, and it is those people across South Australia, in the 19 marine parks, who have fought fantastically.

You might say that it was political opportunism to have that public meeting at Burnside, 1,100 people there and all that sort of stuff, but they were not only people who were fearful of losing a recreational opportunity that they love—and we know that there are nearly 300,000 rec fishers in South Australia—but also there were people from communities across South Australia who were worried about their economic future if recreational fishing opportunities were taken away from then and suddenly they did not have that influx of people coming in to go fishing.

I am from a community that has 20 per cent of the state's boat ramps. It has agriculture as its main base. There is a little bit of developing mining exploration industry occurring there, too. Tourism has always been a very strong focus, but the tourism market has been driven by rec fishing opportunities. So, the linkage is there, I understand, and I just hope that the eventual outcome from marine parks is one that the whole parliament and the people of this state can be proud of and that we get outcomes that do not kill communities off. That is my great fear.

I do have to talk about our road network. I note that the DTEI budget is significant, no doubt about that. I look, though, in new expenditure areas, and I think that there is only $23 million in the 2011-12 financial year and $5.5 million in the 2012-13 financial year. In discussions with the chair of the board and two senior staffers (including the CEO) of the RAA only about three months ago, they confirmed with us that, yes, they had done a report in 2005. They had a $200 million backlog. Now the latest figure for them is something in the $400 million range; and any person who drives out in the regions will know that that $400 million is justified.

Trying to find the money to fix that is not easy, especially in a budget that is not well managed, has cost overruns and where individual ministers, much to my frustration, do not take responsibility for controlling budget expenditure within their own departments. But it has to come, because it is not just the social fabric of a community that suffers from that, economic opportunities will be lost, too.

Mining will be a big part of our state's future, no doubt. I hope that it grows to the level that actually allows us to ensure that we have a far greater amount of royalties coming in; that we have thousands of people working in the mining industry who do not currently work in that area; and that our regional communities benefit from being seen as home opportunities for those people who do not want necessarily to live in the mines but who want to live in a nice town, and I have lots of communities across my electorate that would suit that need wonderfully well.

We have got to make sure that we have got the infrastructure that supports mining, too, and it will take a significant effort by government and private enterprise to come together to provide the forum and opportunity for that investment to occur. Government cannot fund it all; it is not expected to fund it all. Certainly, private enterprise will raise the capital where needed internationally or within Australian sources to ensure that it gets the infrastructure it needs to create that export opportunity of that raw product. I hope that more value adding occurs, too.

It will create that forum to do that, but states have to ensure that they create the mindset—that they sit down, they talk to people, they calculate what the risks and the opportunities are and they get a positive outcome from it, because, if we don't, we are going to miss out on tremendous growth opportunity for this state. We see ourselves as having a very strong mining future.

I read a figure today in the State of the Regions report, which was released in Canberra at the weekend at the Australian Local Government Association's national congress and which talks about the fact that mining actually is 20 per cent of the nation's economy. South Australia has a small part of that pie at the moment. I certainly hope that grows exponentially, but we need to make sure that we provide the forum for us to be a part of that vision.

Other members have spoken at length about state debt figures. As a person who previously used to look at the books quite closely, that concerned me immensely, and that is why I am sure that I have got a lot more grey hair now than I had 2½ years ago. The forward estimates show a level of debt of $9.2 billion; and, indeed, if you look at all liability areas, some $20 billion. If you equate that back to every man, woman and child in the state, it brings it down to $15,000 per person, and that is frightening.

If you have a growing economy that can afford to and will create the environment to service that level of debt and still carry out investment in services and infrastructure, well and good, but I am fearful that the climate that exists in South Australia is somewhat the opposite of that. When, indeed, that $9.2 billion figure does not include a SA Water debt of $1.7 billion, and potentially more, attached to the desalination plant, I have fears, and I think all South Australians will also.

We are talking about dollar amounts that are beyond the capacity of people to understand. They relate their own experience back to the level of debt in their home, and they can appreciate hundreds of thousands of dollars in that case and they worry every time there is an interest rate rise or, indeed, any time that their job might be seen as being at risk. The state also needs to be very concerned about that, and that is why we on this side will continually raise debt issues as we move forward, because it is important.

I want to talk briefly about the funding cuts to Regional Development Australia and the business enterprise centres announced in last year's budget, in September—and the minister is still in the chamber, so I appreciate that.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Bipartisan support.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Not at all times. I am concerned that the BEC network, and there are nine of them, has something like 70,000 contacts per year. The minister acknowledges that with a head nod. He understands that. I read an Advertiser report, I think last week, that talked about restructuring the support necessary for small business enterprise in South Australia and taking from the BEC network some $1.35 million. There will be some change occur and out of the ashes I hope will come four BECs that will have a strong future. I hope they will have a level of financial support from the state to ensure that the federal money they get, and some level of revenue that will come from charges that they will place upon the industries and businesses they provide support to, will be sufficient.

Regional Development Australia is a frustrating issue. We had the structural change to the regional development boards only two or three years ago. Regional Development Australia was formerly the area consultative committees, the federal government arm of economic development, and now we find on 30 June 2013 that their dollars are being taken away. In this case, it is a little under $4.1 million, and that is not good enough, because they are there to support small business.

The member for Davenport in his contribution earlier today picked up on one very important component of the Treasurer's speech which I find extremely disappointing—and the Minister for Small Business, who is in the chamber, should acknowledge this also—that is, the lack of recognition in the Treasurer's speech and, indeed, in the budget papers about the need to support small business. Overwhelmingly, it drives our economy.

There is a large number of people out there who want to grow their small business and they need some support in that, but to suddenly find that in a $16 billion budget there is only $1.9 million—I will repeat that: $1.9 million—to support small business is disappointing in the extreme. These people are good and hardworking. They work long hours and, when they need support, they want to get it quickly. They do not want to be stuck with a situation and have no solution in mind and, indeed, no-one to ring or contact about it.

That is why we need support mechanisms provided by the state government to help these business opportunities, to allow small business to expand, to give them the chance to be successful and to employ more young people. We want to see more young people employed in small business and, indeed, for it to be one of the products of the grand vision for all of us to be successful in this state, whether it is working in the Public Service, in private enterprise of any size or, importantly, the small business component. It is without that level of support that I have grave fears.


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


Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (17:54): I rise today to speak on the budget handed down by this Labor government and how it affects my constituents and South Australians in general. Given that we have had 10 years of financial mismanagement, it is no wonder this budget hits all South Australians by penny-pinching in the extreme. This budget contains measures that spare none in order to pay for unnecessary, very expensive capital projects that have all gone over budget, some even before starting.

If you drive a car, catch a bus, use water and have a shower or a bath, this government is going to tax you, and what they do not increase in taxes and levies and take away by reducing services, they are going to privatise. People who have been conservative with their water use—those who have saved up and installed rainwater tanks—will be rewarded with an increase in water supply charges of 65 per cent from 1 July this year. That is 20 times the rate of inflation.

Per kilolitre water charges will increase by 40 per cent. Sewerage rates will be up by 12 per cent, and, worst of all, water gets cheaper as you use more. I thought we were trying to discourage overuse of water. This budget measure hits people hardest the less water they use. The average household will pay $189 more for water next year. Average water bills have trebled under the Labor government despite households being more and more careful with water usage. There is no escaping the cost. Even if you do not use a single drop of water from SA Water, you will still bear the brunt of this government's increased water costs through the increase in connection charges.

For concession recipients, the increase will equate to a price rise of up to 74 per cent after concessions. Why are we paying for this? The government's excuse is that we need to pay for our not-yet-operating desalination plant, the plant that South Australians will pay up to $130 million per year to operate, on top of the $2.2 billion construction cost. We do not even have anywhere to store the water, so we could possibly be paying a huge price to pump water out to sea.

From a recent survey sent out to my electorate, 76 per cent of respondents were concerned about the cost of electricity and 69 per cent were concerned about the cost of water, even before the latest increases were announced. A further 45 per cent were concerned about current land taxes.

Each year since the desalination plant was announced, our annual water bills have risen well above CPI. We have seen successive years of water bill increases from 16 per cent, to 21 per cent, 25 per cent and now, this year, 40 per cent. That is unsustainable for South Australian families. It is cruel and punitive, and people are suffering. Water is an essential item; none of us can function without it, so the government is abusing this need by increasing charge rates, for this financial year alone, 12 times above CPI.

South Australia is the highest taxed state in Australia. Total taxes are up by 88 per cent since Labor came into government. GST was meant to lead to reduced state taxes. What do we have to show for all the GST windfalls? A tram to nowhere. Land tax has increased by 346 per cent under the Rann Labor government. The previous treasurer would always use the line that, if the land tax was too much, just sell the property, but that is just simplistic.

The cost of land tax is shared by everyone. It means there are fewer mum-and-dad investors keen to enter the property market. This means less affordable rental housing due to the disincentive to invest in rental properties due to the land tax and aggregation laws. It means that investment leaves our state because we are uncompetitive. Why invest here when you can pay less tax in other states?

The uncompetitive climate in South Australia is not limited to those who invest. South Australia's vehicle registration costs are not competitive with other states. This budget includes an increase of 4.3 per cent in registration costs, the cost that is burdensome to those on pensions and low incomes. Ten-year car licences are increasing by 32.1 per cent, up from $280 to $370—a huge increase. Again, this government is taxing for maximum effect, trying to strike at costs and services that are unavoidable and affect nearly everyone.

If you are in Victoria, your renewal would cost $162.20 for 10 years (less than half that of South Australia). What about the massive increases in speeding fines for zero to 15 kilometres over the speed limit? This is clearly a money grab and is not about safety. No wonder, of all businesses nationally that moved their place of business, 22 per cent departed South Australia.

Why is this government imposing such punitive measures on South Australians? The answers are within the electorate of Adelaide. Adelaide Oval was going to cost $450 million—not a penny more—prior to the election, and that cost was to include the footbridge and parking. It is now $535 million after the election, to include SACA's debt, and now the projected cost does not include the footbridge or parking. This stands to benefit two wealthy organisations.

Football could be played this weekend at Adelaide Oval with no extra cost to taxpayers. Round 12 on 11 June was the last time the Adelaide Crows played a home game, against the West Coast Eagles, and the crowd was 31,412. This game could have been played at Adelaide Oval with no need to spend $535 million. The average Crows attendance for home games so far this year has been 35,309, for home games in 2010 it was 35,764, with the average for Port Power home games so far this year being 23,155 and home games in 2010 at 24,256. Clearly, Adelaide Oval is more than adequate for the numbers that we are getting at these football games.

Why is it so urgent to spend taxpayers' money we do not have to expand an oval when we cannot even fill Adelaide Oval now? This decision will take us from two ovals that we have sustained for 30 years to one oval, and we call this progress. This is a horrendous waste of money that is completely the wrong priority for our state at this time. The Liberal Party supports football in the city but not at the unnecessary expense of hurting everyday South Australians.

I think it is worth noting that the selling of the forests in the South-East was announced the day after the Adelaide Oval was announced. There is a transfer of assets that regenerate out of the budget at a figure of $682 million. We can only assume this is a forward rotation of the forests in the South-East being sold to pay for the Oval.

Bizarrely, after such a massive investment of private infrastructure on Adelaide Oval under the guise of bringing tourism to our state and to our city, the government in its wisdom has decided to slash spending on tourism. All three program areas—destination development, tourism events and tourism marketing—suffer a loss of government funds. In 2009-10, the actual costs for these three programs were $61.74 million. The budget for 2011-12 is reduced to $53 million. I cannot understand this government's logic that you would significantly reduce spending on tourism while at the same time making a significant outlay of taxpayers' money to the tune of $535 million to upgrade the Adelaide Oval in the hope of attracting more visitors to Adelaide. The decision is nonsensical.

This brings me to Adelaide High School. Many times in this chamber I have talked about the struggles of Adelaide High School. The school is overcrowded, with hundreds of children on the waiting list. Just four days prior to the March state election in a last-ditch effort to attract votes, the state government announced a promise to expand Adelaide High School by 250 students and to increase the zone to include Prospect and Walkerville without encroaching on the Parklands. Given the reality that Adelaide High School is already over capacity by more than 200 students by the latest benchmarks and that it cannot fulfil its current in-zone demands, this was a piecemeal and makeshift solution at best.

Out of the five suggested expansions, four encroached on the Parklands. The preferred solution, as discussed last week at the governing council meeting for Adelaide High School, almost encroaches 100 per cent on the Parklands, not to mention the cost of $17 million to give 250 extra places (less the 200 overcapacity that they already are), meaning that only 50 extra students will gain access to the very popular Adelaide High School at a cost of $17 million and more land will be alienated from the Parklands.

There will still not be any sibling rights for special entry children, and how this will allow for any expansion of the zone further north to include Prospect or Walkerville as promised at the election is yet to be seen. The government knows that all the inner-city primary schools of Gilles Street, Sturt Street and even North Adelaide are bursting at the seams. They know that many of the families who have children currently in middle primary school years are hoping their children will progress to Adelaide High School.

The government's 30-year plan so dramatically increases Adelaide's city population with the building of 15,040 new dwellings in the Adelaide city area. Where will these children go to school? The government must face the fact that we need a second inner-city public high school. The Bowden Urban Village would be perfect, yet not mentioned in the budget.

For another reason the government is penny-pinching we need to look no further than the new Royal Adelaide Hospital. The new projected cost of $2.7 billion is $1.1 billion (or $1,100 million) over the election promise. This is without paying for doctors and nurses. After the build it will cost South Australians $1 million per day for 30 years. How can you leave this legacy for the next generation to pay? This will be a debt that children who are not even born yet will be contributing to for over 10 years of their working life.

Our state debt will be up to $20 billion by 2014. Interest on government debt is approaching $2 million per day. Imagine what we could do with this money. We are delaying the Riverside precinct by two years to begin in 2015 and taxes are up by more than double the rate of inflation. The legacy of this budget is more debt and more pain for South Australians. Generations of South Australians will be paying for a desalination plant, with no extra capacity to store water; for an oval that we cannot afford that relies on parking in the Parklands; and a rail yards hospital that will replace a hospital that has already had significant recent infrastructure spending.

Ordinary South Australians will suffer through paying extra costs they will be unable to escape from. They will have no choice but to pay increased water supply and connection charges. They will have no choice but to pay for increased motor registration and licence costs. If they choose to give up their licence, they will be hit with increased public transport costs. This budget is shameful. Despite the family pictures on the cover, this budget has contempt for South Australian families, South Australian small businesses, South Australian employees and contempt for every South Australian.

Mrs VLAHOS (Taylor) (18:05): I rise today to speak on the Appropriation Bill for the 2011-12 budget, a budget that delivers infrastructure investment of $9.1 billion over four years for South Australians. I note the comment of the member for Adelaide across the chamber about many of these things, particularly the Adelaide Oval, and I will come back to that later. Across the forward estimates, the capital program is, on average, $2.3 billion each year. This continues the record infrastructure investment of recent years, providing jobs for South Australians today and providing a building block for a strong economic growth into the future for our state. It is a building block program that is aimed at providing the transport and healthcare infrastructure needs for all future South Australians into the years ahead.

In 2011-12 alone, $3.369 billion is to be spent on the capital program, supporting an estimated 10,000 full-time equivalent jobs in South Australia. These are real jobs supporting South Australian families—just as the Northern Expressway provided jobs for people in the north during the GFC. This represents a major investment in the infrastructure in this state, and our government is proud to be putting this program forward—in contrast with the last years of the Liberal government, when the actual infrastructure spend was about $0.7 billion—$0.7 billion.

The Liberals barely invested in maintaining the infrastructure we had, let alone invest in the future prosperity of our state. However, I do recall that the honourable members opposite built a one-way street to the south. The government is spending around $445 million to fix this short-sighted mistake for those in the southern suburbs. This $445 million duplication of the Southern Expressway is welcomed by the people in the south. It is part of a $1.1 billion package of road investment and improvements over the next four years to be undertaken in partnership with the commonwealth government.

This program and package will significantly improve traffic flows on the north-south corridors and includes the new South Road Superway. Many of these things are needed by the whole state, particularly those living in Adelaide. In addition, the government is also investing $100 million in the South Eastern Freeway and the Dukes Highway making improvements for people in regional South Australia.

There is $35.5 million for sealing road shoulders as a high priority for rural roads. This is welcome in my electorate, and I know the member for Light and many other seats neighbouring mine welcome this investment, particularly the people who have trucking and family businesses that grow agricultural produce and complain about these things to me. There is $80 million to complete the McLaren Vale overpass which, again, is welcomed by the people in the Southern Vales.

The government is not only investing in roads, it is also investing in public transport, something that my electorate cries out for, and it is very happy about these new facilities that are to be provided. We will be providing more buses, more trains and more trams. The government is spending $1.2 billion over the next four years upgrading the train network, including the electrification of the Outer Harbor line, upgrading and electrifying the Gawler line, which goes through Elizabeth South in my electorate, and extending the Noarlunga to Seaford line, in addition to its upgrade and electrification.

The government is also doubling the capacity of the Klemzig and Tea Tree Plaza O-Bahn park-and-ride facilities, as well as improving passenger accessibility and safety along the O-Bahn corridor. The government is also spending approximately $100 million on new and replacement buses for the metropolitan network, buses that can be used free of charge by the state's seniors during interpeak times, something the Labor government has provided.

This government is also about investing in our schools—$394.6 million over four years will be provided to improve facilities and expand the capacity of our schools. This includes $52.4 million to co-locate special schools onto existing school sites around the state. The people in my electorate of Taylor care passionately for education, and they are very pleased with the new facilities they are receiving under this government that are needed and warranted and building for their children's future.

The government is also investing in public and social housing, with $953.2 million over four years being spent primarily on construction and development. South Australia already spends significantly more per capita on public housing than the national average, and this investment will continue the strong history we have in this area.

The government is also spending $393.7 million to upgrade and expand the Adelaide Convention Centre and the Riverbank precinct, which will be a welcome boost for the state's tourism prospects and amenities for all South Australians who use the riverfront precinct. The wider upgrade of the Riverbank precinct also includes the Royal Adelaide Hospital and the Adelaide Oval development. Most of the spends on these projects are in addition to the $9.1 billion capital program over the forward estimates and will provide more jobs for South Australians in their construction.

The new Royal Adelaide Hospital will provide the best quality of care for South Australians for generations to come. It will be the most advanced hospital in the nation. It will provide more beds than the old hospital. It will have more theatres than the old hospital, and these theatres will be larger and of better quality for our future and the needs of future medical processes that we are yet to envision.

In total, the new Royal Adelaide Hospital will have a large footprint of 167,400 square metres of floor space. Delivering this new state-of-the-art hospital, together with the upgrade to the Adelaide Oval, which will bring football back to the city, will be delivering on key election commitments made by this government at the last election.

Whilst I note that the member for Adelaide raised the issue of Adelaide Oval, it is interesting to note that the member for Waite earlier in the day raised the idea that they thought the Liberals had placed this item on the agenda. The matter is in the public domain. We were elected, and we are delivering on our promise.

The government's commitment to infrastructure spending for the future of this state is commendable and much better than the record of the opposition Liberal Party. I urge his house to pass the Appropriation Bill and to allow the record investment for the people of South Australia to move forward and be delivered.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Atkinson): The member for Fisher.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (18:13): Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. You certainly have a multiple-skills capability. I guess in time you will be on this side of the house as you seem to be moving east.

This is a fantastic budget if your family gets around on only a pushbike, does not shower and does not water the garden. If you come into that category, it is a fantastic budget, but if you do not, then it is not a good budget, because contrary to the government's label of being a 'family budget' one would have to consider that to be a bit of cruel, humorous labelling. There is nothing in this budget that really, in my view, is pro family; in fact, there are a lot of things in it that I think are very negative.

There are some good things. I should start, I suppose, with the positives. The electrification of the train lines is continuing, and, hopefully, the extension of the tramline, the tram network; that would be a good thing. I believe in time that the hospital will prove to be a great asset, although one can query the capital cost and the running cost. I think there is merit in having a hospital on a greenfield site rather than trying to modify the existing Royal Adelaide Hospital.

I have argued in the past that I think it would have been better to build up existing metropolitan hospitals and have a much smaller central hospital with a couple of specialties. Build up Flinders, Modbury, Lyell McEwin, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital and so on because that is where the people are, and have a smaller, central hospital. Anyway, the decision has been made. I think what needs to happen now is to make the best of it.

The budget contains some other good measures and, time permitting, I will come back to them. There are some things that should have been highlighted and provided for. I think the government needs to significantly expand the traineeship scheme. Many members here have had trainees in their offices, and probably still do. It has been a fantastic system. All of the trainees I have had have gone on to have very good jobs, and that concept needs to be expanded much more widely throughout the public sector. It brings proven results and the government really needs to push that along. I look forward to the day when we might see some special provision for young people in regard to youth centres, police youth clubs and so on—not in this budget, but one day maybe that will happen.

In terms of health, there is a lot of money going to the new Royal Adelaide, and I have said before—it is not novel—that if governments, and that is all governments, including the federal government, do not address the issue of what is sometimes called 'preventative health', a funny term—the wellbeing of people through awareness of medical issues and so on—then no amount of money will be available in the future to deal with the health problems that are going to accrue. I have argued for a long time that there should be provision for health checks for all school children at different stages throughout their schooling.

To the credit of Lea Stevens, when she was a minister, we had the initiative, which I was very keen to encourage, of the home visits for newborns. That was a great initiative and I was very supportive of that. The concept needs to be taken further because, for example, children can have things like scoliosis and hernias, and all sorts of things which are not necessarily picked up by parents.

I may have mentioned the example of my middle lad who is totally deaf in one ear and partially deaf in the other. Even though his mother (my first wife) was a double-certificated nurse, and I thought I knew quite a bit—I have learnt over time that I know less than I think—we did not pick that up; it was picked up by the health assessment team at Coromandel Valley school. They sent a note home saying, 'We think your son has nerve deafness,' and it turned out to be correct.

In a lot of areas where people do not necessarily access GP or other medical services children can have undiagnosed conditions, and likewise many children at the secondary level are showing signs of early problems of a mental nature. I am dealing with a case at the moment of a 15 year old who is running away from home, out with older men and that sort of thing. We believe that young lass has a condition that needs to be assessed by a psychologist or a psychiatrist.

If you have proper screening through the school system you will pick up those issues and get to them before they lead to chronic depression or some other issue. I am a great advocate for awareness and screening at the school level; not every year but maybe at mid primary and early secondary.

Likewise, screening in the workplace, and the progressive private organisations are doing it. In countries like the Netherlands it is mandatory: every employee has to have a health check covering a whole range of issues. I think we should be moving the same way. If you do that and get onto issues quickly—you can encourage people, for example, who are smokers and so on to get off that habit—then you will save lives and money as well.

Greater focus needs to be put on physical education for primary schoolchildren. We know that a lot of children do not walk to school. They are at greater risk in their car with their parents than they are walking to school, despite what people might think about paedophiles and so on. Not enough children are playing sport, and many members would agree that if young people play sport they are less likely to get into trouble later in life through misbehaving or inappropriate social behaviour.

In terms of public transport, I commend the government for the electrification of the rail system and the tram system, but there are some areas that could be further improved. We do not have an adequate bus connection from my area at Aberfoyle Park to Marion shopping centre. We have asked for it, but we have not had any success with that.

I have lobbied the Minister for Transport for bus shelters for some years. You cannot expect people to catch a bus in this weather if they are drenched before they get on the bus or in summer if they look like a roasted parsnip when they get on the bus. I am pleased that the government has over time provided money for bus shelters, and I hope that it continues, as it is very important. Some of my elderly residents say they just want to be able to sit down while they are waiting for the bus, and I do not think that is an unreasonable request.

In regard to roads and signage, the government has thus far refused to provide better access and egress to the soon-to-be duplicated Southern Expressway in the vicinity of Kenihans Road and Panalatinga Road. A lot of people in my area, and I guess some in the areas of the members for Reynell and Mawson, want to be able to travel in both directions on the Southern Expressway, and I make that request to the government. I do not believe it is currently funded. The government has done a study and is still being very stubborn in terms of not providing greater access and egress in the vicinity of Kenihans Road. I welcome the duplication of the Southern Expressway but, if you are going to do it, let us do it properly. Let us make sure people who want to use it can actually get on or off it at the appropriate place.

I understand the land adjacent to Flagstaff Road, where SA Water has storage tanks, is becoming available because those tanks are about to be decommissioned. I would make a plea to the government for the transport department to get that land and convert Flagstaff Road into a permanent two-way system, with a dual carriageway each way. I had the unfortunate pleasure a week or two ago of going down there in the correct lane to find that someone was coming up in the incorrect lane. Reversible lane systems are fine, providing that people can read the signs and follow the instructions.

Ms Bedford: What did you do, Bob?

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: Being a gentleman, I got out of the way of this oncoming four-wheel drive because I was only in my humble Toyota Celica. I got out of the way because I did not want to have an argument. It has happened to a lot of other people, and I have written to the minister asking for better signage at least in the interim.

In terms of roads and so on, I argue that there generally needs to be much more improved signage. The other night I was at Tea Tree Gully talking to the Rotary Club and, from where I live, it is a cut lunch and a water bag job. I know the area roughly but, if you did not know the area or if you were a tourist, you would have no idea which main road you were about to approach, and that applies not just to the arterial roads but to some of the collector roads as well. I think we need better signage in advance so that people are not put in a situation where they are likely to be a risk to themselves and others and can know in advance that a particular arterial road is coming up and that they need to turn off.

Likewise, in relation to speed limits, it is fair enough to ping people who exceed the speed limit if they know what the speed limit is, but in some cases it is not quite clear. People say we have a default system. What we need is something like they have in New South Wales: when you enter an area that is 50 km/h, there is a clear indication on the perimeter that that is what it is, because you can turn off an arterial into what looks like another arterial and, before you realise what you are doing, you can be subject to a penalty. For members' information, prior to the recent allegation which I dispute, I had never had a speeding fine in my life.

I turn to the issue of law and order. I notice in the budget there is provision for 300 extra police over four years. I would argue that is not necessary. I am told that at the moment we have close to 4,400 police. I have seen no evidence of extra police anywhere. I do not know what they do, where they go or how they are utilised.

I do not believe that this idea of increasing the number of police, as they have done in Victoria, is necessary. What you need is for the police who are there to be used efficiently and effectively. I query why you need the police to be doing road vehicle escorts. That could be done by the private sector. I do not think you need police doing that. I do not believe that you need 300 extra police, particularly when you have cut 300 out of the Department for Environment and Natural Resources.

I am quite concerned at this government, unlike some of its predecessors, where you had people like the Hon. Don Hopgood who did a lot to establish the national parks and conservation parks system. Now we seem to have a government that talks about the environment but at the same time is cutting staff left, right and centre out of anything to do with the environment. So, that is a negative which is continued in this budget.

Bushfire prevention, I think, is good. It is another positive in the budget. The increased cool burns, or preventative burns, is a sensible thing to do, particularly if it is done in accordance with ecological practice. I believe that the community and government agencies are getting better at cool burns and appropriate burning, so I do think that is a good measure provided it is done in a way that is sympathetic to the environment, and that should be the case.

In terms of the environment generally, I do not see much money allocated for species protection. The government has had a policy of no species lost for a long time. I do not see a lot of commitment, financially, towards helping ensure that that happens.

With regard to education, and I see the minister sitting here, I am very passionate about education. I believe the minister is a good Minister for Education. He does listen and I think he has the interests of students and the community at heart.

I notice that in Queensland they have committed to having all year 7s in high schools. Traditionally, that has not happened here and one of the reasons is the cost factor because once you put more students into a high school setting then you are faced with things like expanded library and laboratory facilities. It will not be cheap, but I think it needs to happen and the government needs to be actively pursuing the transformation of the year 7s into a middle school setting in a high school.

Some schools are set up for that. Reynella East college, as it is called now, has 1,600 students on campus. It is a one-stop shop. The parents like it. Their children do not have to change schools when they go from preschool to primary or from junior primary to primary or from primary to secondary, and that is the obvious trend.

I notice that the government is going to put more preschool centres in with primary schools. I think that makes sense because you do not have any trauma when a child has to change location simply because they are going from preschool to primary. There are other savings as well.

In respect of my own electorate, the Salvation Army, which is a great organisation, has to relinquish the property it owns at The Hub and I am urging the government to buy that because it would give Aberfoyle Park High School a fantastic extra area, and I believe the government could also put some of its regional staff in there as well. So, I think the government could get a good deal by purchasing that from the Salvation Army.

Water recycling. Water rates have gone up and a lot of my self-funded retirees are telling me that it is hurting. I will quote from one constituent, Eric, who lives on Ackland Hill Road. He says:

Dear Mr Such,

The steep increase in water rates for one...

He is talking about self-funded retirees. It continues:

Self-funded retirees don't get a concession on water rates, nor on a driver's licence, car/caravan registration, dental care, hearing aids or numerous other services.

He is not the only one, there are others. One constituent (who acknowledges that he is a right wing type person) from Aberfoyle Park is highlighting his concerns about high taxation. An increase in council rates, we know, is not the responsibility directly of the government, though local governments say that the state government is putting more and more responsibility onto them. I think that is only partially true. I think that some councils have forgotten what their core business is. When you put that together with increased water pricing, water rates, increased licence fees for licences and heavy penalties for minor traffic infringements, you are really putting the screws on the ordinary citizen.

It is fine for us in here. We are all on good incomes. We should not forget that there are a lot of people out there who are doing it tough, and, if they have young children, or children of any age, and they are on a basic income, they are struggling. There is a groundswell building up, and the government—and I would say the opposition, as well—ignores that at its own peril. But the public are getting very angry at the increases, and this budget does not do anything to help in that regard. It puts the pressure even further on the families and others, particularly people like self-funded retirees who do not really have any avenue to ameliorate some of those extra costs.

This will come in by way of a separate bill, but this defect policy the government wants to introduce, I think, is absolutely draconian. To fine someone who might have a faulty wiper blade $125, or maybe $250, means that they then have to take their vehicle down to Regency Park. I can guarantee that, when it is inspected, they will find another fault or three. They will have to take the vehicle away to someone to get it fixed and then come back; then, if it is approved, they then pay a release fee, and they have copped a fine.

The people who are going to get hurt will not be the people in here, it will be the poor battlers in the outer suburbs in particular who are struggling to make ends meet; and farmers and others with their trucks that drop one spot of oil will be off the road and down to Regency. I was talking to someone at Strathalbyn only last week. He had a faulty horn on his truck and, by the time he got it all sorted out, it was $2,700.

Some of these things are becoming ridiculous, and I think that it is going to backfire. I have expressed this to the police commissioner that police are increasingly going to be seen in a hostile way by the public (that is, the traffic police), because they become tax collectors for the state government.

Time expired.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (18:32): Yes, I, too, rise to speak on this 2011-12 budget, which really does worry me, particularly coming from the regions. What really does bother me is what is not in the budget. I think that most people today have spoken to the deficiencies of the budget to support the state, to support the regions, but it is about what is not in the budget. It is clearly lacking financial management. It is clearly lacking a real business backbone behind it to give some vision of what this state could produce with a government that was dedicated to leading the state into a prosperous future.

The question is: why is there a continuing debt? We continue to see this government driving the state into oblivion with increased debt. Again, as many speakers on this side have said today, their children and their grandchildren are going to be paying off this debt for many years to come. I do not want to stand here today and just bag the government on its lack of vision or its lack of financial management, but to get a prosperous future, to get business boiling, to get business on the move once again, we are looking at incentives for people to stay in South Australia.

As a food producer living in the regions, I see people moving from the regions, people moving interstate from the city because they are getting more support and more incentive to go into business elsewhere. There is just no incentive whatsoever to come to South Australia. There is no incentive to invest in South Australia, particularly in the regions. The amount of foreign investment that is coming to South Australia is of major concern to myself as a regional MP, but it also should be of major concern to every MP in the South Australian parliament.

We see the threshold of $232 million as the exposure point of investment coming into Australia. I think that highlights the lack of understanding of why we need to have a better regime. We need to have a land area regime to know when foreign investment will come into this state and this country so that we can actually keep viable agricultural businesses that drive the state and country's economy here.

Again, the lack of investment in South Australia is clearly dragging this state under. We see continual red tape that gets in the way of people who want to come to this state. The cost of living in this state has now increased by $750 per family. My office is continually getting people saying in desperation, 'There's got to be some way of getting this government out of office before 2014. We just can't take it any more. We've got no incentive to continue within our business. With the lack of support and increased costs, we've got no reason to continue, and it's just becoming harder and harder to live on a daily basis.'

We need to hear what people in all electorates are saying. It is not just the opposition electorates; it is all electorates here in South Australia. South Australian voters are becoming sick and tired of the excuses and the lack of support of this Labor government, and the polls show that. The polls show that people in South Australia are sick of a tired Labor government. Again, I do not want to stand here and bag the government, but it is just plain and simple common sense. It is the lack of financial management and the lack of a real business backbone that is making people in this state lack confidence.

Particularly in my electorate of Chaffey, the high dollar is affecting exports, tourism and investment, but it is not the only reason for food producers in particular. Irrigators have been tarred with the same brush as irresponsible water users. Farmers have been tarred with a brush—particularly people who are unaware; I would not say particularly in the cities—that they have created the problem and they have to live with it.

I now call on people—farmers, irrigators, fruit producers—to just look and reflect. Perhaps they could be South Australia's gardeners. We can be part of South Australia's garden, producing the food and the agricultural products that everyone expects when they sit down to a meal.

It is not only about the high dollar and the lack of government support for agricultural businesses in South Australia, but the number of businesses that are closing and the job losses that we are incurring at the moment. That all revolves around the lack of support, particularly in the regions. I reflect on that in every second sentence because the agriculture, mining and fishing industries are the backbone of this economy. Over the last 10 years, the manufacturing sector has been almost decimated.

We see small businesses being cut to the bone with taxes. Again, why would small business want to invest in South Australia? We have the highest payroll tax in this country. We have the highest land tax in this country. Costs and red tape are driving those businesses away. The small business sector is one of the vital components of the state's economy. It is a vital component of the future of this state's economy. Again, it has to be recognised that it needs support to get us through these tough economic times.

We look at the general items of the budget and the debt has risen to over $8.2 billion over forward estimates. That is absolutely outrageous, as the member for Hammond regularly says. We had a $263 million deficit in 2010-11. The financial liabilities are forecast to be up to $20 billion by 2014. With the way the government's performance is being reflected in the polls, 2014 will be a year of change. It will be a year that perhaps a new government will have to come in and sort out the mess that this government has left.

As I have said previously, the cost of living is up by about $750 per family. Again, that is making it harder and harder to live in this state, and I say: why? Again, it is obviously the financial mismanagement and the business backbone that this government clearly does not have.

An additional 400 public sector job cuts follow 3,750 in the last budget, and that budget was only nine months ago, not a full 12 months ago. These two budgets, rolled into one, are a reflection of what is going on. It is two budgets of bad news for this state in nine months. We look at payroll tax, which is up $91 million in 2011-12. We are already the highest taxed state in the country. There are funding cuts for years 11 and 12 students of $163 per student. That is outrageous and it is more impost on a family's budget.

Again, we look at cuts to Primary Industries. This is an example that shows this government has no clear understanding of long-term benefit. Primary Industries is there for the long term. It is there for the research, development and support of agriculture, horticulture and aquaculture. It is clearly being cut to the bone and it is almost getting to the point of no relevance. The flesh that has been cut off PIRSA's bones is a clear indication that the government must have an agenda. It has an agenda to make PIRSA almost not relevant, and that is of real concern to every agriculture-based region and every food-producing region in the country.

Again, we look at Labor's inability to control its spending. It is selling off these money-making assets such as the state's forests. SA Lotteries is now being privatised, essentially. We are told it is not being privatised and the government will just sell the rights to SA Lotteries. These are credible assets to the state; yet they are being sold off, and for what? It is just to prop up mismanagement of spending. It is very hard to conceive that the state's South-East forests are to be sold off to upgrade Adelaide Oval—a football oval and a cricket ground, for goodness sake. People will be paying this off for many years to come.

There are solutions. The short-term solution to the Adelaide Oval, a $535 million spend, is to trial football at Adelaide Oval before we put in the big, whizz-bang, shiny grandstands with the special bars and corporate facilities that will be looking into the sun and the wind. Let's get football to Adelaide Oval this year. Let's not beat around the bush and buggerise around with this state's economy. Get the footy to Adelaide Oval and trial it now. We are seeing decreasing numbers going to West Lakes and decreasing numbers at a lot of sporting events.

For the government to go out there spending willy-nilly $535 million—it is not the right economic climate to be out there flinging $535 million into a stadium, which will need a huge amount of this state government's expenditure. It is not just the $535 million on the stadium; it is about accommodating the people who come to the stadium, and it is about the businesses which will have to invest in that stadium and support the cafés, bars and hotels. All the support structures that revolve around Adelaide Oval will have to have money spent on them, too—things such as road upgrades.

I do wonder whether we will see depreciated land values around Adelaide Oval because of the invasion of people parking willy-nilly. Will we see the people who come to Adelaide Oval turn up at the parking areas? We say that we are going to see special parking areas. Well, goodness me, the Parklands will be affected; there is no doubt about it. Again, that is something where the government could show some initiative. Instead of putting up the $535 million, which everyone has to pay for, let's just trial it, for goodness sake.

Again, moving along, we see tax increases: $1.1 billion on extra taxes over forward estimates. Tax revenue is up by almost $2 billion since 2001-02. What are they doing with all of that extra tax? Again, in this budget, payroll tax is up $441 million. Conveyance duty has more than doubled, over $446 million. Land tax is up $485 million, which is a 346 per cent increase, and that is affecting every electorate in this state. It is not about the opposition giving the government a bit of a kicking over it; it is about every MP being responsible for the extra taxes.

Motor vehicle tax is up $185 million; property tax is up $81 million; insurance taxes, $164 million; and gambling tax is up $108 million. There are huge increases in those taxes, yet we continue to see this state slip into a decline of more and more debt.

If we look at some of the big ticket items for Adelaide, we see the $2.2 billion for the desal plant. That is something that has been very high on my agenda. If we break that down, we look at the $1.8 billion cost to the desal. I am sure that, by the time we get it up and running, that $1.8 billion will have blown out further in cost; I do not think we will see much change out of $2 billion by the time we actually get a drop of water out of that desal plant. Every South Australian is paying for that desal plant, and they have been for two years, yet what are they getting for that money? They are getting a bad deal.

Look at the $400 million interconnector so that we can pump water out of the desal plant into the northern areas of Adelaide. We can also look at the projected 65 gigalitres of stormwater recovery over the next period of time and the 60 gigalitres of water reuse. What are they going to do with that water? We are being told that, if we want a warranty on the desal plant, we have to run the desal plant at 75 per cent capacity for the next two years. That is a huge burden on the people of South Australia.

I say that, if they are going to spend $400 million on an interconnector and $2 billion on a desal plant, let's look at putting some of that water underground and storing it for when the rain is not there. For goodness sake, do not let the desal plant operate in order to get the warranty and pump the water out to sea. Let's not see it wasted. There has to be an opportunity to store that precious and very expensive water from the desal plant; it has to be pumped underground. Yes, it is not just a straightforward exercise of hooking up a pipe, some flanges and some valves and pumping it into the aquifer, but it can be done. The government needs to look outside the square with this desalination plant.

There is a solution there, with what the state is forking out with this desalination plant. Every South Australian is paying for it. Even if you live in the Far North of the state, far away from any SA Water mains, it has to be acknowledged that the desalination plant has to be put into relevance and, if it is, it needs to have a bigger picture behind it. We cannot have irrelevance happening once the people of South Australia have forked out that money.

Regional South Australia continues to miss out and, again, I say that the research and development programs that this state has depended on historically have kept it at the forefront of agriculture and at the forefront of water use. South Australia has been a leader in agriculture, a leader in horticulture and a leader in the primary industry-driven commodities that keep us on the national stage, and yet we continue to see this government cut the guts out of PIRSA's funding and make the thriving region's programs irrelevant.

Regional programs have been underspent by $5.3 million, so that is helping to prop up the budget to make it look good, and that really does make me shake my head. If we look at the $5 million a year over four years for the Riverland Sustainable Futures Fund, again the government is not spending the money; the money is not hitting the ground to make a difference, and that is something I will be taking up not only with the government but also with the relevant ministers, to get an impetus to actually spend that money to help generate and stimulate this state's economy. I think that the electorate of Chaffey—the people in the Riverland—have the capacity to help generate more economy and generate a stimulus to help get this state out of the ridiculous debt that it is currently in and going further into.

If we look at the government funding for drought assistance and look at the FaB Scouts program, which has gone from a mere $75,000 to deal with mental health, they have contributed a measly $5,000 into the FaB Scouts program. The funding for rural counsellors has been reduced to almost nothing. Again, that is looking after the mental health of our farmers and our regional people. Those rural services have been cut to the point of irrelevance, and this government continues to do that because they are a minority.

Regional tourism is a $1.9 billion industry. It underpins one of the largest drivers into South Australia's economy, and they have now underpinned it with a $1.4 million budget. That is absolutely pathetic and, again, I say that is outrageous.

Debate adjourned on motion of Ms Thompson.


At 18:53 the house adjourned until Wednesday 22 June 2011 at 11:00.

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