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

STATUTES AMENDMENT (BUDGET 2011) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 9 June 2011.)

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (11:37): As shadow treasurer I rise to speak on the 2011-12 state budget, a budget that is one of debt, deficit, division, deals and deceit. This is not a budget designed for families but a budget that is, indeed, targeted at families. This is not a budget that helps families; this is a budget that hurts families. This is a budget that does not grow businesses; this is a budget that hinders business. This is a budget that does not pay off the credit card, but rather increases credit card spending.

It is a Labor budget. How do we know that it is a Labor budget? When taxes are increased at twice the rate of inflation, you know it is a Labor budget; when the budget is in deficit to the tune of $253 million, you know that it is a Labor budget; when the state debt increases to $8,200 million, you know it is a Labor budget; when state liabilities are predicted to go over $20 billion, you know it is a Labor budget; and when there is a backdown to the unions as the only new announcement in the budget, you know it is a Labor budget.

This is the 10th Rann government budget and, after 10 years, what do we have? We have more debt, more deficit, more division, more deals and more deceit. It is a budget that does not care for families. Indeed it is a budget that costs families. South Australians will learn, through the pain of their hip pocket, that the cost of Labor is the cost of their living. The cost of doing business in South Australia is the cost of the Labor government. Families in South Australia will be around $750 a year worse off as a result of recent announcements in the budget, and we already know that South Australia is the highest taxed state for businesses in Australia. In South Australia, a small business is $50,000 a year worse off than a business in the Northern Territory. A business in South Australia is $25,000 a year worse off than a business in New South Wales or Victoria. This is a budget that hurts families and small businesses.

Treasurer Snelling tried to paint himself as a family man. There was even a photo of the family in the budget. In fact, from what I could tell, the only thing in the budget for families, other than cost increases, was indeed a photo of the Treasurer's family—the happy snap budget. The reality is that the Treasurer is not the only one in this parliament with a family.

My 26 year old, who rents a property, is outraged that the First Home Owner Grant is gone and home ownership has just got that little bit harder thanks to Treasurer Snelling. My 23 year old, who is a uni student, cannot believe that his driver's licence has gone up by some 32 per cent. It is now going to cost him nearly $400, thanks to Treasurer Snelling. My 21 year old, who is also a uni student, thinks that a 29 per cent increase in speeding fines (from $196 to $252) is more about revenue raising, not road safety. My 18-year-old daughter is angered that her car rego and running costs have gone up.

My wife, like other managers of households, will have to find the extra money to pay for Labor's mismanagement, no better illustrated than the 50 per cent increase in water prices this year and the 50 per cent increase in water prices again next year. My parents, who are in their late 70s and 80s, are wondering just what they have done to deserve the cost of living increases in this budget after 10 years of Labor government. So, Treasurer, you are not the only one with a family that is impacted by this particular budget.

For a budget that was pitched at the family and where all the media hype was about the family, there was virtually nothing in this budget for families, other than increased costs. Listen to talkback radio, read the letters to the editor: South Australians are angry about the cost of living, and they have every right to be. After 10 years of Labor government, the cost of living is an issue in South Australia due to the government's own incompetence and poor management.

What the Treasurer was trying to say to South Australians was that somehow he was different from Kevin Foley (the former treasurer), that he was the family man. That, of course, is an insult to former treasurer Foley who himself is an avid family man. The Treasurer wanted to paint himself as something different because something had to be different in the budget, because the budget strategy and the policies were exactly the same. Everything in the budget—the policies, the announcements—were essentially a re-run of last year's budget. Something had to be different: it was the picture of the family in the budget. But make no mistake, the policies are the same under Jack Snelling or Kevin Foley. Treasurer Snelling is simply treasurer Foley without the nightclub. The reality is that the policy settings are the same—

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: It is the policies that hurt families, member for Torrens, and it is not the policies that are changing. There are a few things that have changed in the last nine months. You might remember that the Premier said, 'We're going to go out and listen after the election. We're going to go out and listen and we're going to reconnect with the community. We are going to listen.' What changed? Only two things changed: the Deputy Premier changed and the Treasurer changed—they sacked those two. They went out and listened, and they sacked the Treasurer, effectively gave him the big push. If you believe the member for Mawson, they are not listening enough, because he wants the Premier sacked as well, but we will come to that in a minute.

The reality is that the budget settings in this budget are essentially a photocopy of Kevin Foley's with a family picture attached; that is the reality of it. There have only been four small changes since the budget of nine months ago, other than the change of treasurer. The Parks Community Centre: the decision was overturned—not by Treasurer Snelling but by treasurer Foley. There was a small Treasury saving. In fact, I must congratulate Treasury: it was the quickest give up of a saving measure in history. I think it lasted six weeks. There were some higher education changes. They were all made under treasurer Foley. The one change under Treasurer Snelling was the Public Service annual leave. Only that was changed in this budget. Virtually every other policy setting that Kevin Foley set nine months ago in that budget holds. They have changed the treasurer; they have not changed their policy.

On the idea that putting a family picture in the budget would somehow be different, I will make the point to the house that it is not the family favourite photo in the budget that hurts families, it is actually the policy setting in the budget that hurts families. Where have the policies got us? They have more debt, more deficit, more division, more deals and more deceit.

Let's talk about the debt. Last year the debt was projected to peak at around $7,500 million over the forward estimates. This year the debt is projected to peak at $8,200 million over the forward estimates. This increase in debt is after we sell all of our forests in the South-East. Kevin Foley told us in October last year:

An amount for the sale of the rotations is in the forward estimates. It is in 2011-12...What we are doing is selling forward the timber rotations to maximise a lump sum payment by which we can reduce debt.

The government has announced the selling of the forest. They have also announced the selling of the Lotteries Commission. If last year's announcement of the debt level at $7,500 million already allowed for the debt reduction from the sale of the forests, it is fair to assume the announcement of $8,200 million debt this year also includes the reduction from the sale of the Lotteries Commission. In essence, South Australia is selling well over $1 billion worth of assets over the course of this budget forward estimates period, and we are still left with the debt increasing to $8,200 million.

In this budget, the forward estimates show that the state liabilities will exceed $20 billion. This $20 billion figure does not include the unfunded WorkCover liability of around $900 million, or indeed the liability that attaches to the new Royal Adelaide Hospital. The total liability, according to this budget, will have more than doubled from $9 billion in 2007 to over $20 billion in 2014. It would have doubled in seven years.

When the Treasurer goes out and talks about debts and liabilities, this is where the first element of deceit comes into this particular budget. It is one of the great deceits that the Treasurer goes out and talks about a debt figure that is not the whole-of-government debt figure. He conveniently forgets (or deliberately forgets) to include the whole-of-government debt figure which includes all of the trading enterprises—for instance, SA Water.

When he talks about a debt level less than $8.2 billion, he is conveniently forgetting the desalination plant debt. I say to the Treasurer that the public are not going to forget the desalination debt; the long-suffering taxpayers will not forget it. Every time the South Australians are there having a bath, 'Bubbles Snelling' and the 'Rubber Ducky of Desal Debt' will be there with them because it is going to cost them the earth. Water prices are going through the roof and it is hurting ordinary everyday South Australians. Why the Treasurer runs around refusing to use a figure that does not include the desalination debt is for him to explain, but the reality is that South Australia knows that the desalination project was bungled, has blown out in costs, and we are going to pay dearly for it through our water price increases over a very long time.

Let's talk about the deficit. The Leader of the Opposition in her excellent address talks, quite rightly, about every Liberal government in Australia running budget surpluses and every Labor government running budget deficits. They have all gone through the same global financial crisis and they have all gone through the claimed GST reduction, although I note (looking at the Mid-Year Budget Review) that over the next three years GST revenues actually go up by $52 million and do not decrease.

All the states have gone through the same economic turmoil that they are claiming, but it is the Labor governments that are running deficits and it is the Liberal governments that are running surpluses; it is something in the DNA. Let me repeat the Treasurer's own words in his budget speech:

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...to take on debt merely to pay for the running costs of government is tantamount to stealing from our children. It obliges them to pay tomorrow what we can't or won't pay today.

Really! Next year the government is predicting a $263 million deficit. I mentioned $253 million earlier; it is a $263 million deficit. Go back over the last four years from that point: in 2008-09 there was a deficit of $233 million, in 2010-11 a deficit of $427 million and in 2011-12 a deficit of $263 million. So, three out of the last four years going back from the 2011-12 year have delivered deficits—in fact, $736 million worth of deficit going onto the government credit card—by the Treasurer's own definition of operating expenses.

So do not come in here saying in your budget speech that the government is not going to leave credit card debt for future generations to pay; they have put three-quarters of a billion dollars of credit card debt onto the debt due to their own mismanagement—not over one year, not over two years, but over three of the last four years. As the leader quite rightly points out—surprise, surprise—the one year that they orchestrated a surplus happened to be the state election year. Forgive the public for being cynical about the budget management of this government, but $736 million has gone on credit card debt onto the state debt, helping lift it up to that $8,200 million figure.

Let's put that in context. The state budget shows the transfer of assets for assets that regenerate. There is a line that is called, 'The regeneration of assets', so it is a value line. The only assets we can work out that actually regenerate themselves are the forestry assets. If you look in the budget this year, the budget figures show there is a $682 million reduction in assets through the sale of the forests. So, we have spent $736 million on the credit card running up government operating costs and now, as a result, to help pay for Adelaide Oval and other infrastructure measures, the government is going to transfer $682 million of assets off its books.

I think it is a fair assessment if I put it as simply as this: if Jack's family had controlled the use of their credit card they would not have had to sell the income-producing family forest that had been in the family for generations. I think it is pretty clear that if they had properly managed their finances they would not have had to do it.

Of course, the government was warned—not only by the Auditor-General and the opposition—it was warned by minister O'Brien who, at a public meeting in Mount Gambier, had these words to say:

We are actually having to borrow to pay wages. Now that is unsustainable in the long term. We are in a position as a government if we were being financed by the banks, they would pull the overdraft on us because we are currently, year on year, operating in the red, and that is borrowing.

It is interesting to note that in the last four years the only budget to return to surplus was the election year budget. I note that in this current budget the government predicts it will go from a $263 million deficit this year and—surprise, surprise—in the election year a $655 million surplus suddenly appears ready for the next election, but I will come to that in a minute.

When governments run deficit budgets and they increase debt, borrowing costs also rise. When borrowing costs also rise, budget flexibility becomes an issue. With no budget flexibility, tax increases and budget cuts become the order of the day. The Treasurer (High Tax Jack as he is known in the community) is planning to tax families and businesses an extra $1.1 billion over the next four years—$1.1 billion in extra taxation over the next four years; that is taxation at twice the rate of inflation. In this budget, designed for families, High Tax Jack is putting up motor vehicle registrations by 4.3 per cent; compulsory third-party insurance up by 2.7 per cent; a 10-year driver's licence renewal up by 32 per cent; public transport multitrips up by 3 per cent; speeding fines up by just under 29 per cent; water bills up 50 per cent and a rock solid promise they will put them up 50 per cent again next year; sewerage bills up by 12 per cent; Emergency Services Levy up by 2.7 per cent; the NRM levy up by 6 per cent; and the Save the River Murray Levy up by 3.6 per cent. As I said earlier, the cost of Labor is your cost of living.

The Treasurer's real challenge, of course, is to control expenses, something this government has been terrible at for the last nine years. As previous treasurer Foley admitted in estimates last year:

There is no question that the blowout in expenses is our problem. There is no question that expenditure overruns are the biggest threat to public finances.

I make the point that the Treasurer has predicted a $655 million surplus at the next election year. Out of that $655 million going forward for the next four years after the election (or whatever that surplus ends up) has to come the $397 million a year average payment for the Royal Adelaide Hospital—it becomes an operational payment.

So $655 million sounds like a large figure—it is almost as much as they have put on the credit card over the last three years—but out of that figure has to come the payment for the Royal Adelaide Hospital. So the budget is going to be tight even at that point because the government has not been able to control its expenses over nine years. The big question for this government is: having not controlled your expenses over nine years, will you be able to control your expenses in years 10, 11 and 12? That is the real test of this budget.

This budget delivers more division for the government. This government is bitter and divided. The government hopefuls of the right faction are being undermined by the no-hopers of the left faction. Just as Treasurer Snelling is out trying to sell his budget, the member for Mawson decides to deliberately undermine the Treasurer, deliberately undermine the Deputy Premier, and deliberately undermine his Premier for his factional colleagues and leadership hopeful, the member for Cheltenham. In a planned attack, the member for Mawson gave media interviews to undermine Treasurer Snelling's budget a week after the budget was put out.

One week after the budget was put out, why did the member for Mawson pick that particular timing? It was to undermine Treasurer Snelling, a leadership rival of the member for Cheltenham, to undermine his media message. That is what it was all about. Let us make no mistake, it was a deliberate planned attack. The member for Mawson went out and said that no-one was listening: they are not listening to the government. Just in case they did not hear it, he went out and did not one interview, not two interviews, not three interviews but four interviews. He went out and said, 'People aren't listening. Listen, listen, listen. People aren't listening. You've got to listen to me. We have to get rid of Mr Rann.'

Why would the member for Mawson do that a week after Treasurer Snelling (leadership hopeful and rival of the member for Cheltenham) other than to undermine Treasurer Snelling and the Premier? This government is bitter and divided; there is no doubt about that. The member for Mawson will have to explain his actions to his colleagues as to why he seeks to undermine Treasurer Snelling, the great hope of the right faction.

Let's not forget what treasurer Foley told us last year. Treasurer Foley told us last year time and time again, 'Hey, don't blame treasurer Foley for this budget. My good friend the member for Cheltenham helped me draft it.' Time and time again in question time, when criticism came from the union movement and criticism came from the left wing of the Labor Party, Kevin Foley would point to his right and say, 'There's the guy that helped me draft it, the member for Cheltenham, the great hope for the left wing of the party to take over the leadership.'

So, let's not have any crocodile tears from the left wing of the Labor Party that somehow this budget, or last year's budget, is simply the doing of the right wing of the Labor Party. The reality is that Jay Weatherill sat there during the budget and helped design the cuts to the Public Service, helped design the cuts to entitlements and helped design the tax increases that are going to hurt South Australians, and Kevin Foley made it crystal clear to everyone that that was exactly what happened last year.

Members of the right wing are reported in the media as having called the member for Cheltenham a coward. Having helped design the budget last year, the member for Cheltenham is now trying to peddle himself to the voters as a softer option. He undermined the government, of course, on the WorkCover changes, and he has undermined them this budget in relation to the entitlement cuts.

The great tragedy is that Premier Rann's leadership is now insipid. He is insipid. He will not sack the member for Mawson for what has been a clear breach of party solidarity and a direct attack on his leadership. Could you imagine Premier Rann not sacking his parliamentary secretary for health in the first term of the government? Could you imagine the parliamentary secretary for health sitting there in the first term of government making those particular comments? Premier Rann would have had the strength and confidence in his position to sack the parliamentary secretary.

However, the great tragedy of this budget is that we are not quite sure who is going to end up delivering it next year. Is it going to be Premier Rann? Is it going to be Treasurer Snelling in a new role, Deputy Premier Rau in a new role, or the great white hope from Cheltenham in a new role? We simply do not know who will be delivering this document next year.

Labor Party leadership is paralysed; it does not know what to do. Mike Rann does not want to sack the parliamentary secretary because he is not sure of the ramifications internally. Mike Rann does not want to step down. He is on the longest lap of honour since Cliff Young ran from Sydney to Melbourne. He is on the longest lap of honour. Mike Rann is trying to hold on so that he can put on his CV that he got a record. Do we really have to hold the South Australian public to ransom just so that Premier Rann can get a record of being the longest serving Labor Premier?

I have a message for the Labor MPs: the Rann government and this budget are hurting South Australians. They are not interested in the Premier's long service record; they are more interested in their cost of living. The great tragedy, of course, is that the member for Cheltenham keeps running around not talking about the leadership by giving media interviews, saying, 'I'm not going to talk about leadership but, of course, if a vacancy occurs I'm going to stand.' We all know what that is doing. He may as well go to the minister for mining and get a mining licence, because he is undermining the Premier as quick as he can go, and the real tragedy is that the Premier's leadership is now insipid. The Premier will not act on the issue.

The other issue in this budget is the deals. In an act of desperation, when Kevin Foley was not in cabinet (a snubbed former treasurer Foley), Treasurer Snelling caved in to the unions and reinstated the annual leave loading for the public sector. Treasurer Snelling said it was about Christmas presents under the tree. Treasurer, give me a break! You have been in parliament since you were 24. Are you saying that it did not occur to you or anyone else in cabinet who had been there for ever and a day that by cutting the 17½ per cent loading it was not going to have an impact on families? Give me a break.

The cutting of annual leave for Public Service last year was agreed by cabinet; it was signed off. It was no accident; it was deliberate, you meant to do it. The reality is it was not about Christmas presents under the tree this year. The reality is that it was a backdown to the unions and nothing more. While we are on Christmas presents under the tree, how do you think a $750 extra cost to every family in the state is going to play out for your Christmas present under the tree scenario that you talk about for the Public Service?

It was interesting, of all the protests since the election—and there have been more protests on North Terrace than cars this year—which one have they taken note of? Did they listen to the people from the Keith hospital? No. Did they listen to the people from the other community hospitals: Ardrossan, Moonta, Blackwood? Did they listen to the people about Ward 4G? Did they listen to the people about the parent helpline? Did they listen to the people from the South-East about forestry?

The one group they listened to was the unions. Of all the protest groups the government listened to, it was the unions. The government could not find, in a $16 billion budget, $360,000 for the Keith hospital, but it could find $22 million a year to reinstate annual leave. I make the point that I do not think that $360,000 out of a $16 billion budget is a big issue for the government. It says something about this government's philosophy.

Earlier, I mentioned deceit. One of the great deceits in this budget is the no privatisation promise. Poor old Mike Rann, as Premier, what does he stand for anymore? In 2002, he put out the pledge card saying that there would be no more privatisations. We on this side of the house now call it the hedge card because he is hedging his bets both ways. He promised that there would be no more privatisation.

When the public transport tender was up for renegotiation there was a vote in this house, and the Premier voted for privatisation. When the SA Water contract was up for renegotiation, the cabinet, led by the Premier, re-signed the private enterprise to run the water contract. That raises a very interesting question. The Premier ran around for about five years saying, 'It's outrageous. They've sold all the SA Water assets.' If they had sold all of the SA Water assets how did the Premier then renegotiate for the private sector to continue to manage them? It puts a lie to the Premier's argument of years gone past.

We now have the privatisation of the Lotteries Commission. The government is saying, 'It's not a privatisation. We are still going to own the asset; we are just going to lease it out.' It is going from public sector management to private sector management and, by the Premier's own words, it is the same model used for SA Water, so if that is a privatisation then, by the Premier's own words, this is a privatisation.

The interesting thing about the Lotteries Commission is: how is it that this business has suddenly become a risky business only since Treasurer Snelling took over? In the crisis budget last year, when they were selling everything that was not nailed down, including the forests, even Kevin Foley did not sell SA Lotteries. Treasurer Snelling takes over on 8 February of this year and all of a sudden the Lotteries Commission is a risky business. It has been run perfectly well for decades (40 years) then all of a sudden it is a risky business. On this side of the house, we want to explore exactly what this supposed risk is.

The other deceit relates to the hospital. We know that before the election the government went out time and time again saying, 'It is a $1.7 billion hospital.' We now know that it is more like a $2.8 billion hospital. I understand that about $2.8 billion will come onto the debt figure after the next election, which gives a clear indication of what sort of cost there will be to the taxpayer.

Recently, I was explaining to my daughter, who is 18, when discussing the budget, that when she is older than me she will still be paying $1.1 million a day for the hospital. So, when the Treasurer says that he does not want to rack up a credit card debt, I do not understand what the difference is, in the sense that he is racking up a liability for the family to take on.

When the Treasurer talks about debts on family homes in the budget, what he forgets to mention is that dad has gone down the road and leased another house for 35 years, for which the kids are obligated to pay, and they will have to pay $1.1 million a day for that 35 years on the other house that they cannot get out of. So, he talks about a debt on one house, but he forgets on the other hand that they have taken on this other obligation. It is a deceptive argument. The other obligation in this case is a $12 billion cost over the contract term of 30 years—a $12 billion commitment.

I will finish with one last point. We on this side of the house are very proud of our support of small business and our background in small business. However, it was interesting to note that in Jack Snelling's first budget as Treasurer he could not utter the words in the budget speech 'small business'. He could not get there. It would be the first time, I would suspect, in many a day, that a state Treasurer has given a budget speech without actually mentioning the words 'small business'.

In this state there are about 100,000 small businesses and we are, indeed, a small business community. How a Treasurer cannot mention small business in his budget speech is beyond me. Of course, Labor's small business policy is very simple: you take a big business and tax it, and that will turn it into a small business.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You are going to tax them to pay for the Easling royal commission.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: If the former attorney wants to give me an Easling royal commission, I am happy to have the taxes pay for it. They also pay for defamation cases, former attorney.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Or pay for sexual harassment in electorate offices.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Really?

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Yes.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Croydon, order! Take your seat, please, member for Davenport. Member for Croydon—

Mr Pederick: You're going to cop it.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: 'You're going to cop it.' This isn't a school, despite what you think. Member for Croydon, take it easy.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The lack of mention of small business in the budget is in this context: in the South Australian economy we had the largest fall in business confidence in May 2011, we had the largest fall in housing finance commitments in the last 12 months, the highest youth unemployment rate of all states, the largest fall in job ads of all states in the last 12 months, the lowest proportion of exporting businesses of all states, the largest fall in quarterly business investment in all states and the worst quarterly performance in state final demand. We are also, of course, the highest taxing state in Australia.

It is staggering that the budget was silent on small business and had nothing for them, particularly when you look at the predicted economic settings going forward of lower economic growth, lower population growth and lower employment growth. It is small business that drives the economy and it is small business that has largely been ignored.

There are two clouds on the horizon, other than those I have mentioned. The first is the carbon tax. There is no impact of carbon tax in this budget. They will have to wait to see the colour of the ayes of the federal parliament in relation to that. The other issue is the GST review, which is being undertaken by the federal government, for which this Treasurer says we have nothing to fear. We will have to see the outcomes of those two issues to work out the budget impact going forward.

This budget is not about families and is not helpful to families; it hurts families. It delivers more debt, more deficit, more division, and more deals and deceit. It is a Labor budget and it hurts families.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (12:14): In speaking today, I wanted to concentrate my efforts—after the sterling speech that I enjoyed from the member for Davenport, my colleague and the shadow treasurer, who spoke very broadly about all things that are wrong with this budget—on the areas that I am responsible for, that is, education, training and employment. Before I do that, I mention some of the references the member for Davenport raised, in particular, the fact that the debt does not include the desalination plant—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, point of order! Excuse me, member for Unley; if you could take your seat. Member for Torrens.

Mrs GERAGHTY: We are currently dealing with the Statutes Amendment (Budget 2011) Bill, and you must speak strictly to the bill. This is not the Appropriation Bill. You must stick strictly to the bill in this debate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is relevance.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Madam Deputy Speaker, I think that you might need to explain to the house. There is some confusion as to the process. This side of the house wishes to respond to the budget as in the Address in Reply. You might need to get that bill before the house, whichever is the appropriate one.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the Treasurer speaks he closes the debate, the debate being, I might add, the Statutes Amendment (Budget 2011) Bill.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Treasurer, Minister for Employment, Training and Further Education) (12:17): I thank the member for Davenport for his remarks, and I look forward to the committee stage of the bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

The CHAIR: Member for Davenport, are you the speaker on this debate, and what is your area of interest? Is it clause 18?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: We can do part 2, the amendment to the First Home Owner Grant. I want to ask some questions generally about the First Home Owner Grant. Clause 4 is the start of the First Home Owner Grant section.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I wonder what consultation the minister had with the HIA and the MBA about the abolition of the grant and what, if any, economic modelling was done as to the impact on likely take-up of new home starts.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I did not have any direct consultation with them on this measure. I have spoken to the HIA previously but I had not foreshadowed taking this measure and removing this bonus. It is important to remember, to make a distinction, that the first home owners grant still exists. That is the $7,000 grant that is provided to all first home owners regardless of whether they are buying an existing home or building a new home, and I think it is under a certain value. It is anything under $575,000. So this is simply the bonus.

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes, that is our money but it is part of the agreement we have with the commonwealth as a result of the GST. So that remains in place. This is simply the bonus. The bonus, I think for some years, had been $4,000 and was available for all first home owners. As one of last year's budget measures to remove it, it was only for new builds but it would be increased for new builds to $8,000. That provided a significant saving to the budget. I cannot remember exactly how much it was, but it was a significant saving.

The bonus will be phased out but will remain in place at $8,000 for the next 12 months. So, you will still get your $7,000, plus you will get the $8,000 for the next 12 months; at 1 July next year you will still get the $7,000 but you will only get $4,000 for 12 months; and then, as from 1 July 2013, you will only get the $7,000 grant. In terms of consultation, I have certainly met and spoken with Robert Harding in the HIA but I have not specifically foreshadowed to him this measure.

Was there any economic modelling done? There was none specifically, but I think the evidence that this does anything for housing affordability is, at best, mixed. I think, with regard to the budget, there are better things that we can do to increase housing affordability than spend $20 million every year for first home buyers of newly constructed homes.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Do you have any idea of how many people had taken up the grant per year? How many people will now miss out as a result?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: We anticipate that, and what we have budgeted for, is about 1,400 people will take it up in the 2011-12 financial year. When we made this decision I had a look at how many people took it up. I do not have the exact figure in front of me but it was roughly the 1,000 to 1,200 mark, from memory, but in terms of what we have budgeted for in the 2011-12 financial year, it is about 1,400 people.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Madam Chair, on a point of order on a process question, my recollection—and I might be wrong—is that the house always used to do the budget debate first, then, having passed the budget debate, we debate the legislation that attaches to the budget. In this process we are passing the legislation that attaches to the budget and then we are going to debate whether or not we like the budget. It seems to me to be the reverse order. Surely, the house has to pass the budget first before we can debate the legislation that attaches to the budget.

The CHAIR: You have a longer corporate memory than I do in this matter. Bear with me while I consult with the Clerk.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I am not fussed. If you want to deal with the Appropriation Bill first, it makes absolutely no difference to me; I do not really care when we debate this. As I understand it, in discussions between the leader of the house and the opposition, this was agreed by the parties. In terms of process, I do not think there is anything to prevent us from dealing with the budget bill. They are separate bills; they stand on their own. It was certainly my understanding that we were going to deal with the budget bill first and that that is what had been agreed between the government and the opposition.

My only concern about not proceeding with it is that, because the budget bill deals with so many different areas, a number of public servants have been dragged from their office down to the house so that I can answer the opposition's questions on various parts of the budget bill, and it would be a bit inconvenient if we have to send them all back and then bring them all back later in the week. Certainly, my understanding was that this is what had been agreed to between the government and the opposition, through discussions with the office of the leader of the house.

The CHAIR: From the advice given to me by the clerks, this is not unorthodox or, indeed, impermissible. The clerks have made it very clear that, in terms of process and what is permissible and right, it can be either way round.

Ms CHAPMAN: Madam Chair, can I seek some clarification on that? As I understand it, the advice you have received is that it is permissible. There is no question that any bill can be dealt with in the order the parliament might determine. I have been here for only a short time, and I have never known a situation where we have passed legislation to implement the measures that have been announced in the budget prior to our completing the Appropriation Bill.

I have been here for only nine years; it may be that there is some other precedent for it. It seems rather peculiar that we would not deal with the Appropriation Bill and that each member in this house and in the other place would have an opportunity to speak on it. It may be that, at the end of that, the government or the treasurer of the day, with his cabinet, would reconsider whether they might even progress some announcements or any part of the legislation foreshadowed in the budget amendments, which is the second bill scheduled.

What you will see on the schedule is that both bills are listed each day. My understanding was certainly that we would be speaking to them together and that issues would be raised. In fact, this morning, our lead speaker (the Leader of the Opposition) addressed one of the issues, namely, the reform in relation to the police costs aspect, and then she traversed all of the issues in the Appropriation Bill, as she would normally do in relation to the budget—an excellent submission, I might suggest.

What I would say is that this is being raised in this instance because, as the member for Unley was about to speak, it was then announced that he could canvass issues only under the reform legislation because, as the whip pointed out, we were then dealing with the Statutes Amendment (Budget 2011) Bill. Either we are dealing with these either concurrently or we are not. If the government insists that we deal with the legislation that is to implement the budget first, so be it, but it is not with our concurrence.

Mrs GERAGHTY: I do have a point of order. I have already provided the Opposition Whip with a copy of an email that went from the Leader of Government Business's office to the Opposition Whip where it showed that we were dealing with the budget bill first and then the Appropriation Bill. They would be dealt with in that order. Then there was a follow-up phone call to the Opposition Whip's office agreeing that that would be how it was: budget first, then appropriation. Indeed, certainly from a discussion I had with him, the member for Davenport was aware that that was the order it was going to be dealt with.

I am not sure how it has ended up on the paper in this order, and my understanding is also that the same information that went to the Opposition Whip also came to me to show me the order and also went to the clerks. I am just asking for more copies of those emails because I have already provided a copy of that. That was the order we were dealing with them: budget bill and then appropriation. Indeed, as I said, from my discussion with the member for Davenport, he was aware of that.

The CHAIR: I point out that there was nothing in terms of process to stop these bills being debated in the way that they were. I understand that there has been agreement between the Leader of Government Business, the Government Whip, the Leader of the Opposition's office and the Opposition Whip that it would progress in this way. If certain parties wish to change that suddenly on the floor, so be it. The Treasurer is being extremely accommodating in agreeing to let that occur.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: In checking with the Leader of the Government's office, my advice is that the order in which business was being conducted was certainly made clear to the opposition. Nonetheless, so as to make things move as smoothly and as quickly as possible, I move:

That progress be reported.

The CHAIR: Thank you very much, Treasurer. I think that is extremely accommodating of you.

Motion carried.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

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