HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-06-22 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

APPROPRIATION BILL

Second Reading

Second reading debate resumed.

Ms THOMPSON (Reynell) (19:53): I rise to support the Appropriation Bill and to commend the Treasurer for what has been a good budget in a time of considerable difficulties. I know that every member on this side would have liked to have been able to bring down a different budget, a more generous budget in which we could have given more to a number of people in the community who we know are finding times difficult, but I also know that the world is hurting.

We saw on our television sets just a couple of days ago riots on the streets of Greece as a result of the budget they have had to bring down in Greece curtailing public expenditure. Thanks to the wisdom of the Rudd-Swan and then the Gillard-Swan governments and the work of the Rann-Foley administration, in Australia and in South Australia we have not felt the effects of the global financial crisis in anything like the way people have in Greece, in the US and in the UK.

In the UK, the Cameron government has withdrawn much of the heating subsidies so that old people are likely to die in the next winter because of the lack of heating. In the UK every year people die because of the lack of heating—people also die in the UK because of the lack of cooling. This can only be exacerbated by the measures taken by the Cameron government in response to the global financial crisis. Fortunately, we are not facing those problems here in Australia but we are facing tight budgets in which difficult decisions have to be made, and people will feel that the government is not as generous as it can be. However, my view is that we are focusing expenditure on the areas of most critical need.

When I look at the last budget brought down by the Olsen government I can see considerable changes in the values that have been demonstrated by the Rann government through successive budgets. When I was first elected by far the biggest issue in my community was hospitals. When I undertook a community survey, the hospital issue was so far No. 1 that it was also Nos 2, 3 and 4. The next issue of concern to my community was way down the scale compared with its concern about hospitals.

At my last survey their concern about hospitals had considerably reduced. We do not have people on waiting lists for two and three years any more, as we did at the end of the time of the Brown-Olsen regime. We do not have people waiting for hours and hours in emergency departments. I agree that people wait in emergency departments, but there is nothing like the sort of waits that were reported during—

Mr Pengilly: Three hours the other night at the Royal Adelaide Hospital.

Ms THOMPSON: —the Brown-Olsen government. 'Three hours' the member for Finniss interjects, at the Royal Adelaide. One of the things that amazes me about members opposite is their lack of corporate memory. In fact, I had thought that I would urge all the new members elected last year to go back and have a look at some of the Hansard from the estimates during the days of the Brown-Olsen government—and, indeed, I do. There are very few members opposite who were there during those days and know what was happening. All we ever hear is that it was due to the State Bank. However, the priorities exhibited by that government were very different, as can be demonstrated from the fact that, in the 2001-02 budget (the last budget of the Olsen government), 24.7 per cent of the budget was devoted to health. This year, 29.5 per cent of the budget is devoted to health.

We know that the health budget is a real issue in Australia. Australia has the best health system in the world; Canada is close but, otherwise, we have the best health system in the world. It does not come out of nowhere, but it is clearly the priority for people of Australia that when you are sick you should be able to be looked after; you should not die on the streets, as people in the US do because they have no access to a healthcare system. You should not have a situation, as they have in the US, when the Obama government tried to introduce some basic public health scheme, that they had riots in the streets, saying that this is not right.

Public health has become a major priority for this government. Of all the things that are important to our community, one of the most important is the knowledge that people can have their healthcare needs attended to. They would like a lot of other things, they would like concessions for water and electricity, but a basic security for them is to know that they can have their healthcare needs attended to. The situation now is that health is clearly the priority of this government.

As I said, the proportion of the budget that has been devoted to health has increased from 24.7 per cent to 29.5 per cent. That is a 4.8 per cent increase, not in the growth of how much expenditure is going to health but in the proportion of the budget that is going to health. Of course, that has meant that money has had to be saved in other areas, but it is also a significant fact that the other area of major growth in the budget during the time of the Labor administration is social security and welfare.

In the last budget of the Olsen government 4.7 per cent of the budget went to social security and welfare. Now 7.2 per cent goes to that area, an increase of 2.5 per cent in the proportion of the budget that goes to looking after the most vulnerable in our community. It is that area that I want to use my time to speak about tonight.

In the families area, the record of the Rann government is exceptional. When the Rann government was elected in 2002 the Liberals barely cast an eye over the issue of child protection. They left behind a barely functioning alternative care system, under-resourced, understaffed and buried within the former department of human services. Since coming to power, the Rann government has shone a spotlight on child protection, raising awareness of the issues and making it a priority to protect our children in the whole community. The Layton Review, the single biggest review of child protection in the state's history, and its findings identified areas requiring urgent action and increased resources, and the Rann government listened.

In the last eight years we have undertaken a massive amount of reform in this area. The Guardian for Children was appointed and so was the Child Death and Serious Injury Review Committee to examine serious cases of harm and recommend ways to prevent this. The Rann government has almost trebled the total of annual funding for Families SA. Following the handing down of the 2011-12 budget the total funding is now almost $300 million. This means this year an additional $69.1 million will be invested over the next four years in the state's child protection system.

In South Australia children are only ever removed from their birth parents when it is no longer safe for them to stay there. This is obviously a traumatic and heartbreaking experience for anyone involved. That is why in this budget more than $50 million will be spent to support the growing need for alternative accommodation. This includes $41.7 million to meet the home-based, residential and emergency care costs of children in alternative care, as well as $8.4 million for six new residential care homes which will help us to provide a stable, secure and homely environment for children in state care and will help us achieve the goal of having no children in motel-style accommodation.

A particularly important feature of the new style of residential accommodation is it enables children from one family to be kept together. One of the tragedies of the system that was operating under the Liberal government is that children from one family—where there was a critical need, so that the children could no longer stay with a parent or relative—were broken up, just adding to the absolute trauma that children experience when they cannot be cared for by their parents.

We are also working to support families so that children do not need to be removed from them and we have identified an $19 million boost to funding to ensure more intensive programs for families at risk, to help parents and children deal with their challenges.

Another area of critical need left by the former Liberal government was housing. During the period of the Liberal government, South Australia's public housing system suffered to the tune of 11,000 houses being sold in eight years. I really urge new members to look at the record of public housing for the previous Liberal government and not have this collective memory loss that we hear in this house nearly every day.

At the moment we are in the middle of the biggest social housing construction program in 20 years as we build over 1,360 new houses and refurbish more than 500 others through the Nation Building Economic Stimulus Plan. More than 1,000 of these houses are now complete and the remainder are due to be ready by the middle of 2012. This is thanks to a partnership with the commonwealth. The previous Howard Liberal government did not even have a minister for housing, let alone provide funding to the state for public housing.

Another successful partnership between the state and the commonwealth is the National Rental Affordability Scheme. This will provide 3,800 new private rental properties in South Australia that must be rented at least 20 per cent below market rates. This was funded with $100 million from the state government, plus additional funding from the commonwealth.

Housing SA is also partnering with community organisations to build 500 new affordable rental properties through the Affordable Housing Innovations Fund. This fund was created from the revenue that was received as we helped 1,000 public housing tenants to buy their own home with HomeStart's equity start loan. Yes, we sold houses. We mainly sold them to tenants so that they could own their own homes. In relation to the funding for the new Affordable Housing Innovations Fund, $60 million came from the sale of homes to housing trust tenants and $60 million came from community organisations.

HomeStart has been a really successful innovation, having since 1989 helped around 60,000 South Australians to buy a home. Many of these people could not get finance from a bank, but HomeStart is able to organise flexible funding arrangements and repayment arrangements so that they can own their own home.

South Australia was the first state to introduce a requirement for 15 per cent affordable housing in significant new developments. This has achieved more than 2,200 commitments from 25 developers to date, and another 2,000 commitments are under negotiation. Congratulations to previous ministers for housing—Key and Weatherill—as well as the current Minister for Housing for having the foresight, first, to implement this scheme, and then, secondly, the determination to make sure it works.

The government is also ensuring that affordable houses are bought by those who need them most. In 2007, the state government launched the Property Locator website, which gives low and middle income buyers exclusive access to affordable homes at a fixed price before they are placed on the open market. More than 1,200 properties have been listed on this site so far.

Disability: yes, there is still need in disability areas, but also yes, yes, yes, the Rann government has done more for people with disabilities than any previous government in this state's history. As part of the 2011-12 state budget, the Rann government will increase the disability services budget by an extra $37.5 million over four years. This comes on top of other key disability announcements, including $10.8 million over four years for disability equipment and $7.7 million over four years to relocate 32 of the remaining 63 Strathmont residents into community living.

This funding will be used to address key spending priorities in the disability portfolio and will include: accommodation support; community support, such as therapy services; community access, including day options; and respite. This is new money and comes on top of last year's commitment to deliver a further $70.9 million over four years for disability services. As the only government in Australia that provides a meaningful unmet need register, we will be able to deliver this funding where it is needed the most.

Since coming to office, the Rann government has increased state disability funding by 93 per cent, from $135.4 million in the 2002-03 budget to $261.3 million in 2009-10. Around 20,145 people receive disability support services in South Australia. This is an increase of over 5,000 new clients since the Rann government came to office in 2002.

South Australia provides services to 36.6 per cent of the estimated disability population, the highest proportion nationally and well over the national average of 23 per cent. As members may have recently noticed, part of this funding has been announced to deliver over $1.5 million over four years to Novita Children's Services to deliver therapy and family support services. Novita Chief Executive Glenn Rappensberg said it was 'a great result for the children and their families we serve and a much needed boost to support our charitable cause'.

Disability equipment: this $10.8 million initiative over four years will support both children and adults. It will purchase 600 pieces of equipment or home modifications each year for South Australians with a disability. Based on current levels of demand, this measure is expected to significantly improve management of the waiting list for the foreseeable future. It comes on top of the government's $17.5 million election commitment for disability equipment, with that $17.5 million being spent over four years.

It is worth noting that the Liberals made no commitment to fund disability equipment during the last election campaign. The best they could do was an uncosted superschool for children with autism and $2.5 billion a year for unmet demand—$2.5 million is quite considerably less than $17.5 million over four years.

Average supply times during 2010-11, from the figures for 31 March, included: all item types supplied in 4.3 days; customised manual wheelchairs, average supply time 40 days; and powered wheelchairs, 51 days. It is important to note that these customised wheelchairs are made by hand to suit the particular needs of an individual. In 2009-10, there were 6,097 items of equipment and 451 home modifications to South Australians with a disability were made. This compares with 1,393 new items of equipment and home modifications in 2001-02—6,097 plus 451 is an awful lot more than 1,393 and indicates dramatically why people are finding it tight in some other areas of the budget.

Yes, the budget has grown in every area and, yes, we are looking at the expenditure of every single dollar, let alone every single hundred thousand dollars, to make sure that the bulk of resources in this state goes to ensuring that people have a good, safe healthcare system, to ensuring that all children have the chance to a good, sound education system and, most importantly, to ensuring that the most vulnerable in our community, that is, children whose parents are not able to care for them and people with disabilities, have their needs met and are well cared for by the government of South Australia.

Mr PEGLER (Mount Gambier) (20:13): I will probably bring a different side to the debate on the budget, as I will give recognition to both what is bad and good in the budget we have before us. For far too long now this state has been living beyond its means and reliant on selling its capital base so that it can remain viable. Our forebears up to the 1980s built this great state and its businesses and infrastructure.

The rot set in under the Bannon government in the 1980s, with the collapse of the government-owned State Bank. This was brought about by pure mismanagement in a reasonably stable financial climate. Bannon was then followed by the John Olsen-led government in 1996. This government introduced a policy of corporatising and privatising state-owned businesses and services. Through these actions we saw the sale of ETSA and the TAB. The TAB was sold for about what it would return to the government in one year.

Some said at the time that the ETSA sale would be convenient as the price of electricity would go up and, if it was in private hands, the government would not be blamed. Guess what? The price has gone up and the government has still received the blame but no longer the profits. Just imagine how much easier it would be to formulate a budget today if the government were still receiving these massive profits.

It saddens me that this present Labor government is about to repeat the folly of the Olsen-led Liberal government by forward selling the harvesting rights of the state-owned forests in the South-East of South Australia and western Victoria for up to 105 years. I will repeat what the champion of the Labor movement, former premier Don Dunstan, said to the 1998 Whitlam lecture series:

Why do we have to have a fire sale of community owned assets, including assets which are revenue producing? It is only for ideological and irrational reasons that this is put forward.

He then went on to say about the timber industry:

The state sector has remained throughout the driving force in providing a timber resource to this state, and providing a use of a non-indigenous timber already of considerable benefit to communities elsewhere in Australia. The whole enterprise had provided a cheap timber resource which has been a factor in keeping housing costs down. The state forestry enterprise is on the Olsen government's privatisation list. The whole pine forestry enterprise and the pine resource of this nation would not exist if the matter had been left to the enterprise of the private sector.

I am sure that Don Dunstan would be quite upset with the proposed sale of forestry by this Labor government.

I believe that we have to have a very serious look at the way our government carries out its business. We have a very dedicated Public Service workforce whose rights and conditions must be protected. At the same time, I must say that the growth in our Public Service is unsustainable. We now have one public servant to every 19 residents in this state. The total wage bill for our state government public servants last year was $6.697 billion or $4,084 for every man, woman and child in this state. We must concentrate more on the delivery of our core services such as education, health, police, social welfare, transport and environmental protection. It will take a government with a lot of intestinal fortitude to make the changes necessary, but the longer it takes the greater the pain and disruption will be.

I congratulate the government on bringing in a form of ICAC. I feel sure that, once we have this proper ICAC in place, the people of this state will have a lot more surety that our government and our police are answerable to an independent authority. I commend the government on the extra resources made to the most vulnerable in our society. I am sure that people with disabilities and their carer's lives will be made a lot easier with the extra funds for resources and equipment that have been made available to them.

The extra funding being made available for the housing of children from dysfunctional families is a great initiative, and I think we must realise that if we can help these young people now it may cost us a lot less in the future, as I am sure that these children will be a lot better citizens if cared for in a proper way now.

I am also pleased to see the extra funds that have been made available for fire suppression and control, which should make it a lot safer for our residents, particularly in regional areas. Road safety is always of a great concern to us in the country, and it is pleasing to see that there will be extra funds made available for safety measures such as shoulder treatments and sealing on our rural roads.

Our farmers are rightfully aggrieved with this budget. I fully understand the reductions in drought funding and locust control but I cannot understand how we can further reduce the funding to both SARDI and PIRSA. We must remember that agriculture is by far the largest contributor to the South Australian economy, and much of this has come about from the excellent work done by our researchers and extension officers. With cuts to both PIRSA and SARDI, one wonders how much longer they can operate in a worthwhile manner.

I cannot support the proposal to not allow people who have been prosecuted by the police and then found not guilty to recover their costs. I feel this would be a complete injustice to those people.

On the local scene, the people of Mount Gambier certainly thank the government for the allocation of $300,000 to the BMX Club which is holding the national finals in April 2012. This club has the best quality course in Australia and has done all of this off its own back, with tremendous support from the council and local businesses in Mount Gambier. I recently attended an event at the BMX Club and it was tremendous to see hundreds of families enjoying themselves and so many fit and healthy young people competing in a safe and family-friendly environment.

We were also pleased to gain approximately $1 million in funding for traffic lights on the corner of Jubilee Highway and Pick Avenue. This corner has been a major concern, with many accidents occurring over a long time. The state government has also been successful in gaining from the federal government $3.5 million for a new ambulance station, and a further $26.7 million for health initiatives in Mount Gambier. The present ambulance station is completely inadequate and poorly located, and the staff and the community have been calling for a new station over many years. There is no doubt that they will be pleased that there is some light at the end of the tunnel at last.

Dental services at the hospital are to be increased from six to 10 chairs, which is a great initiative. Two extensive reports have been done on the Mount Gambier Hospital's Accident and Emergency Department and the surgery department, and it is great to see that part of this $26.7 million is to be spent on these areas to implement the major recommendations of both these reports.

At last, our oncology and mental health services are to be brought up to a more adequate level, and many of our residents will be able to receive treatment in Mount Gambier instead of having to travel to Adelaide at a time when it is very trying for these patients and their families. I believe that once the mental health projects are implemented—such as, community-based intermediate care services, the digital tele-health network project, the mental-health subacute health services and acute care beds, all to be implemented over the next couple of years—it will be much easier for us to attract mental health care workers, particularly psychiatrists.

Overall, I thank the government for what it has provided to us, but I must say that I am disappointed that we have a deficit budget which relies on the sale of major assets to come back into surplus in the future.

Mr SIBBONS (Mitchell) (20:23):

One day Henny Penny was picking up corn in the cornyard when—whack!—something hit her upon the head. 'Goodness gracious me!' said Henny Penny, 'the skys a-going to fall: I must go and tell the king.'

There are similarities between this story and the story members opposite are telling South Australians about this budget. The sky is not falling, even though we face tough economic times. The global financial crisis is still having an impact on state government revenues, export and private investment. There are many in the community doing it tough right now; in particular, single pensioners and low income families are feeling the pinch.

As a government, we are doing the best we can to give financial support where it is most needed. This is a responsible budget. It is also a budget that delivers for people of my electorate of Mitchell. Spending is modest, but it is directed towards those who need it most—those who need care, equipment and facilities—and I congratulate the Treasurer for that. As a person who knows only too well the human impact of job losses in the suburbs around Mitchell, particularly from the closure of Mitsubishi, I am very pleased about the continuing emphasis by this government on getting people into work and giving them employment opportunities for the future.

Since the Rann government came to office in 2002, more than 130,000 new jobs have been created, with more than 80,000 new positions being full-time. This has been achieved through a number of different means. We have been investing in crucial infrastructure, winning all-important defence contracts and tapping into the expansion of mining exploration within the state. One such infrastructure investment particularly close to my own heart is the $125 million the government is budgeting for a new Sustainable Industries Education Centre at Tonsley Park.

This centre is being established to give young South Australians the skills they need to get into the workforce. It will offer training in such trades as plumbing, carpentry, surveying, bricklaying, building and electrical. I have spoken before about how vital it is that there is a permanent fix found to the traffic woes of commuters using the Oaklands Crossing where Diagonal and Morphett roads traverse the Noarlunga rail line. The Premier, transport and infrastructure minister Conlon, Treasurer Snelling and planning minister Rau all know from my form my feelings on this one, and the state government recognises the need for grade separation here.

I am very pleased that this budget commits funds to plan for a complete solution to a long-term problem, greatly improving traffic flow through the intersection and area, including improved access to the new SA Aquatic and Leisure Centre, Marion Shopping Centre and the adjacent GP Plus clinic. Speaking of the new Marion GP Plus, it is wonderful to have such an accessible and broad-ranging healthcare service in Mitchell. As well as being able to treat minor injuries and illness, the centre offers mental health counselling, physio, podiatry, dental and children's health services.

Of course, many residents in Mitchell rely on the health services provided by nearby Flinders Medical Centre, too, so it is great to see the government investing $163 million to upgrade the south's main hospital. This revamp will be complete by mid-2012. It includes a new maternity wing, a new cardiac ward, a new emergency department and a new day surgery. Other health investments that will bring positives for my electorate include a $36 million boost for BreastScreen SA, which has a clinic at Marion.

This includes an extra $17 million to buy digital mammography equipment, which will mean more people can be screened more quickly and in more detail, giving better health outcomes. Many of my constituents also attend the nearby Repatriation General Hospital at Daw Park which specialises in health care for older people and the veteran community. I am pleased that this government is investing money through the new acute care beds at the Repat which will also soon feature a new 120-bed teaching and aged care rehabilitation facility thanks to a collaboration with the not-for-profit aged-care group ACH, Flinders University and the federal government.

We all know that pensioners are amongst those with the greatest financial challenges in our communities, which is why it is important that the state government lends a hand through concessions towards necessities such as energy and water. Maximum water concessions will rise from 20 per cent to 25 per cent of the total bill, while a new medical heating and cooling rebate will provide for a doubling of energy concessions for people living with conditions and disorders affected by hot and cold weather, up from a maximum of $158 to $316. This will assist people with such conditions as MS, Parkinson's disease or spinal cord injuries, for example, who often need to run a heater or an air conditioner more often than the rest of us. I said at the start of this speech that throughout this budget the government is proud to be giving financial help where it is most needed.

Another major area of investment is funding for disability services. This will include $37.5 million to help people with disabilities and their carers; $10.8 million to buy more disability equipment and to cut waiting lists; and $8 million to improve disability access for public transport. This budget will also deliver an extra $69 million in support of another vulnerable group, children entering state care, particularly directing funds to assist with reconnecting children in care with their families. Money also will be used to reduce the time children spend in alternative care so that they do not have to stay in motel accommodation.

In the area of education, the children of Mitchell also will benefit from the government's budget plan of preschool relocation. Under this program, stand-alone preschools will be relocated on school sites. This will make the school drop-off and pick-up regime much easier for parents who have children of different ages, while also making the transition from preschool to school less confronting for little ones.

It will also allow schools to better plan the whole of a child's early years of education. A well-rounded education requires access to local sporting facilities, and the government has recently opened Australia's premier aquatic facility at Marion. The Australian age swimming championships held recently were an enormous success, and we can now look forward to seeing the likes of Michael Klim, Stephanie Rice, Eamon Sullivan and Libby Trickett at the Australian short-course titles at the centre in July. The centre has also helped South Australia secure the 2012 World Life Saving Championships, the 2012 World Junior Diving Championships, the Australian Masters Games and the Australian University Games. It is a great example of the economic benefits of subscribing to the 'if you build it, they will come' philosophy.

This is a budget of responsibility and well-targeted measures. It supports those who most need it, while keeping our economy strong and our financial position secure into the future. This budget builds vital infrastructure and creates jobs, and it delivers the transport and healthcare system we need in the 21st century.

In the remaining time I will talk about the past. If the international economy was so buoyant when this government came to power in 2002, why did the last three budgets delivered by those opposite contain operating deficits of $800 million? The first three budgets that Kevin Foley delivered had an operating surplus of $1 billion. That did not happen just by accident.

It is good to see that the member for Waite finally admitted to the house yesterday that there was a dramatic change in the international and national economic climate in 2008. For some time, it seemed that those opposite were determined to believe that the tough decisions made by the Rann government in last year's budget were due entirely to events within the control of the South Australian government.

The third budget of Kevin Foley delivered an operating surplus of over $200 million, as did the fourth and the fifth. I note from the member for Waite's comments yesterday that he is confused about the difference between net lending and net operating balance, believing the former to be a $263 million deficit in the current budget and the latter to be $1.2 billion in deficit.

I can inform the honourable member that if he refers to page 2 of the budget overview he will be relieved to find the net operating balance is only a deficit of $263 million compared with deficits of $330 million, $297 million and $174 million delivered by members opposite in their last three budgets.

During what the member for Waite himself calls buoyant times, this government has been able to deliver such a strong result during such difficult times because of the difficult and strong decisions made by the former treasurer Kevin Foley and this government in the 2011-11 budget. Kevin Foley protected a AAA balance sheet during the biggest economic disruption in 75 years.

South Australia has pulled through the GFC without going into recession. During 2008-09, when the GFC started to hit, our economy grew by 2.1 per cent. In 2009-10, as the effects on our exports and other industries intensified, our growth was still 1.5 per cent. In fact, apart from Western Australia, South Australia has been the only jurisdiction that did not record a fall in GSP per capita during the GFC. This is due in no small part to the considered and steady hand that the former treasurer, along with the rest of government, had in formulating its response to the greatest financial disruption in 75 years.

Prior to the GFC, the United States, the United Kingdom and Japan were three of South Australia's largest merchandise export destinations. In the two years leading up to the GFC they each imported more of our goods than China. In 2009, each of these economies contracted: the United States by 2.6 per cent, the UK by 4.9 per cent and Japan by 5.2 per cent.

In the two years since to June 2010, exports to these struggling economies have decreased by 89 per cent, 28 per cent and 83 per cent respectively. This should help members to qualify the impact of the GFC on the South Australian economy. Faced with this level of economic downturn, the government and the former treasurer acted decisively to maintain support for the community wherever it could, while retaining the state's AAA credit rating and keeping the budget strong.

I look forward to watching our state continue to grow, as the budget measures we have before us come to fruition.

Mr BROCK (Frome) (20:38): I would also like to speak on the budget handed down by the government, and the Appropriation Bill. First, let me congratulate the new Treasurer, the Hon. Jack Snelling, for bringing down his first budget. Bringing a budget down is not an easy task, trying to do the best with funds available and to be able to please everybody in the state. It has been very interesting to hear members from both sides of the chamber and their views on this budget. I will also give my view, as I see it as a country member, on the budget.

While my main focus is on the electorate of Frome, I am also very concerned with regard to other parts of this great state, particularly regional South Australia. We all understand that any government, and in any case any responsible person or company, needs to adjust their budget according to the opportunity for income.

This state has been promoting the many opportunities for the resource commodities and the great additional opportunities with the awarded opportunities for the defence industries and renewable energy projects. As has been mentioned earlier tonight, this state has been very fortunate with the opportunities we have had so far. As the previous treasurer has stated, we had the global financial crisis and the loss of expected revenue from the GST share from the commonwealth government.

However, this GST is now increasing, and we are on the up. This state has had the best years of the exploration for mineral resources, and we are looking forward to the next 10 years; and, hopefully, we can grab the opportunity and reduce the debt and increase our infrastructure spending in the regional areas of South Australia. As we are all aware, Australia and, indeed, South Australia escaped the worst of the crisis, and while our state received a great share of the commonwealth stimulus package moneys, we seem to have missed the boat with long-term planning.

We had, with the pause that was created in activities as a result of the above issue, an opportunity to look at getting people ready for the time when the resumption of activities occurs within the resource sector. This state appears not to have grasped the opportunity fully, with cuts to adult education and this opportunity now being slashed—and also the reduction of TAFE subjects being taught in the regional areas, which is not the right direction we should be going in as a state.

We have people looking to be skilled or retrained, and here we have this opportunity not being taken to the fullest advantage. How are these people able to get the required training to be able to apply for positions within the resource sectors—which, I might add, are all in the top end of regional South Australia—when the opportunity arises. This is being made harder with the reductions of opportunities in regional South Australia with large infrastructure improvements being made to teaching facilities in metropolitan Adelaide.

Unemployed people in the regions are finding it hard. Unemployed people in the regions are really struggling, and if they have the opportunity for retraining they have to come to Adelaide. Some of those people cannot afford to come to Adelaide, not only in terms of the cost of petrol but also with respect to the cost of accommodation at the different locations.

We have also sent a very clear message to business opportunities within the regional areas by eliminating or making uncertain funding for Regional Development Australia after 2013. This does not send a very good, positive image out to the commercial industries or the resource opportunities. We need Regional Development Australia to be able to grasp the opportunities there. Local councils are very, very supportive of growth opportunities, but they cannot do it by themselves. They are also struggling.

We should be increasing the activities of these sectors in Regional Development Australia to encourage activities and opportunities both on this side and also on the west side of Spencer Gulf. There are many opportunities within regional South Australia, but the message being sent to potential business partners is not very encouraging. One of the things that the member for Mitchell just indicated was: build it and they will come. I agree.

I think that is a great philosophy, but here we have the emerging resource opportunity in the north and they do not have anywhere to export their opportunities. Their minerals will be going straight up on the Adelaide to Darwin railway and being loaded at Darwin. We have Port Adelaide and Outer Harbor, but there is a lot coming down there to get to the overseas markets. The member for Mitchell has a great philosophy: build it and they will come. Build the infrastructure and they will use it. We will then reap the opportunities with the royalties, the charges and so forth, and it creates employment opportunities.

Another issue I want to bring up relates to school buses. The country school buses have been an issue for many, many years, and, as members will be very well aware, I endeavoured to get a select committee to investigate the operation of the school buses in country areas last year. That was not successful.

However, with respect to some schools, the students live a large distance away, and bearing in mind some of these parents of these Eyre Peninsula students are not very well off at all. They are struggling. Some of them do not even have a car. I will just use one example, the Lochiel to Snowtown bus. It had 10 people on it. It came down to nine, therefore the bus was eliminated. The Snowtown Area School took it upon itself to lease a bus for three years to be able to maintain those students coming in. If those students did not come in from Lochiel School to Snowtown, they would have gone to Balaklava or somewhere else, and that would have had a domino effect on the Snowtown Area School, forcing potential for closure. As the member for Stuart has indicated, schools are a very important part of the community. They are the lifeline, as are hospitals. That is something that the government needs to look at. Just because we go one below the qualifying number of 10, then we should continue to do that. We are here not only for the metropolitan area but also to qualify and assist regional students.

The electorate of Frome, as with other electorates, has a proud wine industry which not only provides export earnings for the state but is also very active in promoting tourism activities not only for people within this state but also interstate and overseas visitors. It was interesting to see in recent statements by the Minister for Tourism that the Clare region was one of the regions in the state experiencing more international tourists. This may have been as a result of running the 2010 Tour Down Under. This event gave Clare and the region great international exposure, and I am very grateful, after a lot of lobbying, that the finishing leg of the first stage of the 2012 Tour Down Under has been returned to the Clare region. The reason I am saying that is that exposure is very important. We cannot have and do not have all the money within South Australia—we need to get people from overseas and interstate.

However, despite the greater exposure with increasing tourism, the state of our regional roads leaves people with a very disappointing image of our state, and that applies not only to people living in the regions but also to the many visitors. Can you imagine somebody coming in and they go on the Northern Expressway—they are going to Clare—and, all of a sudden, they get into the back areas and the roads are very bad. The first impression is a lasting impression. They will go away and they may not come back. The amount of money included in this budget for regional roads is appreciated; however, it is far too little.

As I have mentioned previously, the state of our regional roads can be attributed to many years of successive governments not placing enough emphasis on maintaining them. We are now experiencing this loss of maintenance and infrastructure repairs to accommodate today's vehicles and lifestyles. Some of these roads were built at the end of the 1950s and 1960s—60 years ago—and lots of these roads are in their original condition. The motor car and vehicles have changed dramatically but, no matter who has been in government, we have not kept pace for many years. There are numerous roads in my electorate, in particular, the Port Broughton to Bute and the Bute to Kulpara roads; this last road being in the electorate of the member for Goyder. However, roads do not know any electoral boundaries, and I will be fighting very hard, as will the member for Goyder, to get both those roads upgraded in the next budget or the budget after that.

Also the Gladstone to Yacka road and then the road to Clare are utilised by many travellers with caravans and, again, these are tourists. These roads are not only becoming very dangerous but they are a bad image for our state. Just recently, I was in the main street of Bute and the road there is falling apart. DTEI has indicated that it is a low priority. I questioned that with the Minister for Infrastructure and, to his credit, we had a meeting, and I would hope that this road will not only be patched but it will be repaired to an acceptable standard.

During my regional visits as Chair of the select committee on grain for the parliament, the issues of roads has been brought up continually at all meetings, together with the standard of rail infrastructure, in particular in the Mallee area. There are trains that have speed restrictions and load restrictions, and that does not do well for moving grain by rail. Country people are, and always appear to have been, perceived as second cousins, and this affects the lifestyle and the confidence of extra activities in the regions.

Recently, the opposition stated at a meeting in Clare that the government would close a further 17 country hospitals and, whilst the Minister for Health has stated that this is not the case, I certainly will be asking for clarification from the minister. Statements like that do not build any confidence in regional South Australia. We cannot afford to lose any more of our hospitals, or any of the services in our current hospitals.

I have been communicating with the Minister for Health regarding increasing the payment for the authorised country people who require medical or specialist attention in Adelaide through the PAT Scheme. I have been talking to the minister for the last 18 months. This system has been the same for over 10 years at the same cost: 16¢ per kilometre, $30 per night for accommodation, and you then have to pay the first $30 out of your own pocket. That is an absolute disgrace for the less fortunate people in our regional areas. This system has been the same for 10 years—I will just repeat that: 10 years—and in the meantime the cost of living, the cost of fuel and the cost of accommodation have risen dramatically. Again, regional South Australia has been asked to pay for services that are readily available in metropolitan Adelaide.

I am also very passionate about regional hospitals and health services. Whilst I am very appreciative of the $12.5 million for the new GP Plus facility in Port Pirie, again this has been in the previous budgets, and I am only hoping that the start date will be 2010, to be completed by 2013. It has been in budgets previously, and I want it to be up and running. At the same time, there is an issue with the diagnostic mammogram machine at our regional health service. It has been out of action for 12 months, and we have to wait because of all the service and the contract for the whole of the state on the medical side of things. Again, the minister knows about this, and I am very confident that he will take it on board.

We also appreciate that the cost of energy needs to keep pace with inflation and operating costs; however, as mentioned before, there are people out there with certain medical conditions who require constant cooling at the same temperature. I had the privilege of sponsoring a forum on the medical cooling facility, and the member for Ashford was there, as were the Hon. Kelly Vincent MLC and also the member for Bragg. The forum highlighted these conditions and the fact that these people need to have their air conditioners operating at a constant temperature at all times, 24 hours a day. I am glad that the government has increased the concessions for those medically approved people; however, I stress that they need to keep those rebates in line with rising power costs. Do not leave it as it is today; it will not do anybody any good.

I realise that any government or private industry has to economise and look for the best practices. However, some of these moves may cause some concern for the elderly, and one of those is the elimination of the provision of registration vehicle stickers for vehicles. This may be a small cost saving, but it is causing concern for lots of people out there—especially the elderly. They are concerned they may overlook the renewal date and then, if they are driving an unregistered vehicle, they will not see it, they will forget about it, and then they will be liable for prosecution.

As the member for Mount Gambier indicated, the forward selling rotations of forests is not the way to go; we are selling our assets—the assets of our future generations. It is similar to the sale of the ETSA facilities by the Olsen government. Again, you can see what has happened now: the cost of power has risen dramatically. I think that is a retrospective move, but it is a decision that the other side has made.

Another area of concern, which happened years ago, was the relocation of various services in government departments to Adelaide that became Shared Services. There were to be massive savings by relocating to a central location, but this has not proven to be successful. I understand that a further allocation has been made towards Shared Services to further embed the new operation. The funds that have been allocated in this year and previous years to try to make it work could have been better utilised in providing funding towards extra services, equipment to country hospitals and also improving the road infrastructure in the regions. However, on a positive note, I am thankful to the Minister for Health for last year approving the four renal dialysis machines at the Port Pirie Regional Health Service. These units have been gratefully appreciated by the patients who now do not have to travel three times per week to Port Augusta.

Mr Venning: And you got the credit.

Mr BROCK: And I did get the credit, because I fought very hard in my previous role, also. Just last week at my listening post at Port Broughton, I had one of these patients come up to me and say how grateful they were that they did not have to travel to Port Augusta.

Mr Pengilly: That's one vote.

Mr BROCK: It's one vote. There were two, because it was a husband and wife; I always do it in twos. However, let's get serious. That was dominating the lives of these people; it was ruining their home life. Now they only have to go to Port Pirie, and it has changed their whole lifestyle.

Mr Venning: Rob Kerin helped.

Mr BROCK: Rob Kerin helped; yes, all right, if we can give Rob the credit. If we have to reduce expenditure for whatever reason, then we must ensure that the 'must have' items are maintained, and the 'like to have' items may have to be deferred or reduced to ensure that the items required for our day-to-day existence are maintained and improved.

We can increase income by increasing taxes and the like, which has happened in this budget and previous budgets. This move certainly does not encourage confidence or any increased activities by businesses, and it has been mentioned that small businesses are the backbone of the business community in South Australia and in the general communities.

Just before I close, that is why I think the Adelaide Oval, whilst it will be great for the metropolitan people and the followers of football, is a thing that could have been a 'nice to have'. I believe that that could have been deferred. That $500 million could have been deferred and utilised on expenditure in rural areas.

Again, we understand the need to balance budgets. However, we need to ensure that we do it in a responsible manner and, whilst people may elect to state that this is a reasonable way to achieve the savings, it is again the less fortunate who are bearing those cuts. The Treasurer may be saying that this is a reasonable family budget. It was very well presented. However, the people who have contributed to this with increasing costs are the people living in the country.

Mrs GERAGHTY (Torrens) (20:57): I can say that one could actually be forgiven, after listening to the opposition, for thinking that nothing good came out of this budget, and nothing could be further from the truth.

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

Mrs GERAGHTY: Sorry; I am deaf. I would like to congratulate the Treasurer on his first budget, which he brought down about two weeks ago now. I would agree that the Treasurer would have had quite a number of sleepless nights when drawing up this budget, given the narrowness of the state's revenue base and the decline in revenue estimates from the GST and property-based taxes. It is always difficult to find the right balance when drafting a budget, but I do think that the Treasurer has actually done a very good job under challenging circumstances.

This budget, though, ensures that South Australia's economy remains strong, our financial position remains secure and we continue to be supportive of those most in need, and that is exceptionally important. As has already been mentioned, the heating and cooling concession which has been introduced for those who suffer from chronic medical conditions which require them to maintain their body temperature within a narrow range to maintain their quality of life, I think is an exceptionally good initiative.

I, along with others, have been lobbying the Minister for Disabilities for some time to introduce this initiative. The concessions will greatly assist low and fixed-income earners who need additional heating and cooling. I have quite a number of people in my electorate, and I am sure other members do as well, who suffer from multiple sclerosis, paraplegia, quadriplegia—particularly given that I have a number of facilities to house people with those difficulties—and a number of other illnesses who find that even a mildly hot or cool day actually severely impacts on the quality of their life, so this will make a great difference to them.

The budget sees a number of proposals that directly impact on my electorate of Torrens, such as the improvement to the Klemzig O-Bahn Interchange, something I have discussed on a number of occasions with the Minister for Transport for a long time. It is going to greatly enhance service to my constituents. With greater urban infill and the Light's View development at Northgate occurring within my electorate, the improvements at the Klemzig Interchange are much needed and certainly will be much appreciated by my constituents—and even those who are not my constituents but who use the Klemzig Interchange.

I am also very pleased with some planned changes to bus services which are scheduled through the Klemzig Interchange. Hopefully, having spent many early mornings down there viewing what happens, I do believe—

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

Mrs GERAGHTY: —the changes that are going to occur will alleviate a number of the queues. I am really quite pleased if the member for Davenport is telling me that he likes to pop down to my electorate and catch the O-Bahn into the city.

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

Mrs GERAGHTY: I am happy to meet you down there and we will catch the bus together. Health has always been a priority of this Labor government and the new Royal Adelaide Hospital will be the jewel in the crown of our state's health system. The RAH is one of three public hospitals (along with the Modbury Hospital and the Women's and Children's Hospital) that my constituents rely on. It is pleasing to see ongoing investment in the Modbury Hospital with a $46 million investment in an upgraded emergency department and 36 new inpatient rooms which will improve patient care at the hospital. I must say that I really am very excited about the new Royal Adelaide Hospital that we are going to build because I think it is a wonderful thing for our state and for the people of South Australia. Once it is built and up and running, I think people will really appreciate what has been given to them.

Another health initiative that I am very pleased about is the building of the Hillcrest satellite of the Modbury GP Plus Clinic at the Gilles Plains Campus at Gilles Crescent at Hillcrest, which is to be opened early next year. The Modbury GP Plus Clinic facilities, both at Modbury and Hillcrest—and I use the term 'Hillcrest' because it is actually physically located in Hillcrest but those of us who are local refer to it as part of the Gilles Plains Campus—are going to assist in reducing the demands placed on our public hospital emergency departments by providing nursing and midwifery services, treatments for minor injuries and illness, child health, and dental services.

I go around there at least once a week to see how the construction of the building is going and, as it is part of my Gilles Plains Community Campus, I am extremely excited about it because there is a long story about how that came about, and I am extremely honoured and pleased to have been part of it. The Gilles Plains Campus site will support chronic disease management services and also deliver health services to disadvantaged sectors of the community.

Another pleasing aspect of the budget is the increased funding for disability services which will assist in meeting the growth in demand for these services. There is additional money to help people with disabilities and their carers, as well as $10.8 million to buy more disability equipment to help reduce waiting lists, and the $8 million to improve disability access for public transport is greatly welcomed.

I have a number of services for the disabled in my community. My community is quite focused on such services and I know that it is very welcoming of those decisions. As we know, 32 current residents of Strathmont Centre will be relocated into community living. This will leave about 31 residents living at the centre. A sum of $396,000 over four years has been set aside for sustainment works, and will be spent on the remaining residential villas and site infrastructure, which is necessary and also welcomed. I am keenly awaiting the release of the business case that will determine the future of the site. I am told this will be with us shortly.

I might just say, occasionally Strathmont is raised, sometimes by members of one of the houses of this place, and not necessarily, I think, in a productive way. I have in my 16 or 17 years in this chamber visited Strathmont exceptionally regularly, with a friend who had a daughter residing there, but also because I take a great interest in the services that are provided. While there are some things that certainly we are doing differently now than were done in the past, I do not think the way it is portrayed at times is quite correct. We are most excited about having former residents of Strathmont move down into community living. It has worked exceptionally well and they are extremely happy, as are their families.

The $19.32 million funding to BreastScreen SA to provide additional resources and support digital mammogram screening is an initiative that is also to be congratulated. Breast cancer is the most common cancer among Australian women, accounting for 27 per cent of all cancer diagnoses in 2007. One in 11 women will suffer from breast cancer before the age of 75, so I think these statistics clearly show the need for this program.

Education is always dear to my heart and I am very pleased with the ongoing commitment to funding of infrastructure in our schools. Klemzig Primary School sees $3 million allocated this year towards the $7.05 redevelopment of the integrated special learning unit, which is the hearing-impaired unit. Klemzig Primary and Centre for Hearing Impaired are totally integrated to provide a bilingual, bicultural program for deaf and hearing-impaired students learning both Auslan and English.

It is actually a really interesting school to visit. I have a brother-in-law who has been deaf from birth, so I find it a wonderful thing to see children in a playground who may be hearing or who may be partially deaf or completely deaf integrating in the schoolyard and communicating with each other exceptionally effectively. Those who are hearing, because they have learnt Auslan—which is the language of the Deaf—communicate just as we do verbally, and so there is that total integration.

The school is exceptionally proactive in ensuring that the deaf or partially deaf children have every opportunity that is available to them, and it also gives the hearing children a different perception of dealing with people who are a little bit different from them. They do not notice the difference at all. It is really well worth a visit and if any member would like to see how that school functions, I would be more than happy to take them for a visit. I just cannot recommend it highly enough.

One of the things about that school is that they have a choir, the Deaf choir. They sign the songs; it really is a unique experience. They often perform at school music festivals. In fact, the Queen of Sweden, Queen Silvia, visited the school some years ago to see the bilingual, bicultural program. I must say that one of the treats when visiting the school is to see not just the signing choir but the integration with the children and what a positive effect it has on the whole of the school community. Some of those children might not have a hearing impairment themselves but a sibling or one or sometimes two of their parents has a hearing impairment. They may have two deaf parents but they need to be able to speak and also communicate with their family. We all know with children with any kind of disability that, if we do not intervene very early in their life, it sets their learning back many, many years. I am very proud of the school.

Another initiative that is worth mentioning is the establishment of the network of children's centres that will integrate health, education, family and community services. Of the 34 planned centres, 23 are up and running, and one of those is in my electorate of Torrens at the Gilles Plains campus, which is where the Gilles Plains Primary School is and which is also where the spoke of the GP Plus centre will be. That is an initiative that I started pursuing some years ago, writing to the federal government and the state government. Finally, our Minister for Families and Communities picked up on an initiative and so this whole program came together. Even I am amazed at how—

The Hon. J.D. Hill interjecting:

Mrs GERAGHTY: I am amazed at how we have just put this whole thing together. It is just really extraordinary. I am talking about the Gilles Plains campus.

The Hon. J.D. Hill interjecting:

Mrs GERAGHTY: Yes; he knows. You have to be persistent. I have worked out one thing in life: just be persistent, drive everyone mad and eventually—

The Hon. J.D. Hill: So quickly, you have put it together.

Mrs GERAGHTY: Yes. Eventually, they give up, might be one way of putting it, just to get rid of me, but I am very proud of it. At that site, we have had a coordinator appointed just recently and her role is going to be to liaise with the local community. She will bring together the care and education, health and family services, so that will all be rolled out together. As I said, I am exceptionally pleased about that.

It is also fantastic to see investment in our schools. Whilst the federal opposition has been critical of the federal Labor government's Building the Education Revolution program, I can honestly say that it has certainly been extremely well received in my electorate. The program was the biggest investment in our schools in decades, and in my own community I am yet to hear any local criticism of that program.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: Catch a bus to Blackwood on Sunday and I will fill you in.

Mrs GERAGHTY: You can take me there for a ride, yes. My schools have had money invested in them that they were crying out for many, many years ago. What we as a state government have done is invested in them, like the money we have put into the Klemzig school and a number of others. These school halls have been the icing on the cake.

The $12 million boost to the Home and Community Care program is another welcome initiative. It is certainly going to assist older South Australians who live in their homes—and we do try to keep older people in their homes—and it will certainly assist people with disabilities who live independently. HACC, which is a joint initiative of the federal and state governments, supports more than 95,000 people in South Australia who receive services such as domestic home help and nursing and allied health care like physiotherapy, podiatry, home-delivered meals, personal care and also social support, which is exceptionally important. Again, this is a service providing help to those who most need it.

Another important focus of this government is the spending of an extra $69.1 million over the next four years to support child welfare in South Australia. The $8.4 million investment in six new residential care homes will help provide a more stable, secure and homely environment for children in state care. We know that that is incredibly important. These new homes will focus on keeping sibling groups together while working towards reuniting them with their parents. Where it is appropriate, ultimately where possible it really is best to reunite children who are in state care with their families; but, sadly and regrettably, that is not always possible.

I again congratulate the Treasurer on his framing of this year's budget. It provides a responsible mix of economic restraint, while focusing importantly on the services for those who most need it. I am exceptionally pleased that my electorate has greatly benefited from a number of the initiatives that he has set down for us.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (21:16): Our leader and shadow treasurer have put on the record our view of the budget in detail and alluded to copious financial figures. The only thing I can really find that is in tune with this government is the space shuttle program—because they are both coming to an end. I have added it up, and I reckon we have 14 or 15 members on the other side who are either in the transit lounge or in the captain's club waiting to go—and what a mess they are going to leave in this state! There is only one thing worse than this government, and that is the Greens; let me tell you, they both should disappear.

It has been an interesting transition from treasurer Foley to Treasurer Snelling; it has been a most interesting experience. I commented a week or two ago, and it has been commented on since—

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: I will come to you in a minute, Robyn. We had the seemingly benign appearance of Treasurer Snelling, coming in to do his first budget, and there was a picture of him with his family—he has a lovely family. However, let me just say this attempt at a new version of Shylock from the SDA has failed pitifully. He has absolutely no idea.

I really do not know for the life of me how you can go to school, have a year or two at university, go into a union, come in here at the age of 24, never have any real-life experience and become the Treasurer of the state. It is a singular failing of the Labor Party that it is filled up with union hacks and going nowhere. Very few have life experience, but one of the main ones with life experience is the minister for primary industries. He has at least run a business and knows something about business, and he gets pooh-poohed by his own side all the time, which is a travesty of justice. At least he has some idea.

Then we have the bizarre appearance on radio of the member for Mawson earlier this week doing another latter-day version of, 'Et tu, Brute,' sticking it right up the current Premier. This is after the Premier stepped in and bailed him out at last election by announcing the Southern Expressway, by announcing the McLaren Vale overpass, by doing this, that and everything else, and on top of that, he has gone to live in Port Willunga. I ask you—it is ridiculous.

I found the member for Fisher's contribution a little bit interesting this afternoon. With the 300-odd pages in the Government Gazette of government charges that are going up, the enormous increase in water and the effect of all these increases on the average family, I think it is a bit rich for the government to sit here and say what a wonderful job they are doing for government members.

Why I mention the member for Fisher is because he picked up on local government and rates, and I almost equate the two. What has happened is that the government and local councils, bless them—and I am a great defender of local government, they do a mighty job—are being starved of additional funding from state and federal government. However, what they are doing in tandem with the government is putting things up to the extent that the average family on a fixed income is staring right down the barrel.

While local government puts up its rates—CPI and anything up to 11 or 12 per cent—they have no idea of the ratepayer's ability to pay and, likewise, the government has no idea of the family's ability to pay. They simply cannot afford another $750 a year on average that each household in South Australia is going to pay. It is decidedly unfair. They simply cannot handle it.

If you wonder why numbers are down at the AFL football—and given that my belief is that the Crows and Port ought to play each other for the rest of the year so that one of them can win the odd game—the fact is that families simply cannot afford to go to sport. They simply cannot afford to go. They are pinned to the wall by increasing costs, and we have these ongoing debacles.

I am also being given information that in the department of environment, the national parks are scheduling a 6 to 8 per cent increase in their park entrance fees on 1 April next year—way above CPI. My personal view is that the department of environment should do what they have done in the new governments interstate: they have put it in with primary industries. Get rid of the department and put it in with primary industries. I think that would be a good move.

I heard earlier the member for Reynell, I think, talking about housing and what a fantastic job the state government is doing about housing. Well, it is a bit rich for her to stand up there and talk about that when the government have got rid of 12,000 houses.

The Hon. J.M. Rankine: We have not.

Mr PENGILLY: I am just about to pay you a platitude actually, minister, so just wait a minute.

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: I seek protection from this vicious attack. I was about to say to the minister, before she interrupted, but I have actually had a great deal of assistance from this minister in finding housing in my electorate for people, both down on the South Coast and on Kangaroo Island. I want to put on the record my great concern—and the minister would not be aware of it, and I would not expect her to be in a department of that size—that her department and other agencies are sending people out into the country from the city, particularly to Victor Harbor and Kangaroo Island (more so on the Island) where there just is not the housing nor the support services.

Unfortunately, those people are disadvantaged families in our community, and we always have them. The minister and I know that; we have talked about it. However, disadvantaged families and families who simply cannot cope with life are being sent across to Kangaroo Island where there are no support services, there is no public transport, not enough to assist them, and they are getting themselves—

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Point of order.

Mr Williams: What number?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Yes, 303.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Sibbons): Order, the member for MacKillop!

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: You used it yesterday. There is a 303. Look it up.

Mr Williams: No, there is not.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: There is. The member for Finniss has made the assertion that the government has got rid of 12,000 public houses. That is not true. In fact, 11,000 public houses were sold under the previous Liberal government. I suggest he withdraw that comment.

The ACTING SPEAKER: Minister, there is no point of order. Member for Finniss, continue please.

Mr PENGILLY: Thank you very much for your protection.

The Hon. J.M. Rankine: As long as it is on the record.

Mr PENGILLY: Perhaps not 12,000; perhaps more like 14,000. I am not sure. Anyway, there are a lot of them gone. Minister, the reality is that some of the people in your department are sending more and more families out into the bush where there are not the support services.

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: I am sorry, but when I have education authorities, when I have police come to me raising these issues, there is something wrong, Jennifer. I did say that I paid you credit for assisting me on many occasions, but I am also placing well and truly—

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: Oh, shut up!

Members interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: Okay, I have made my point on that. I am concerned and other authorities are concerned because it is increasing problems across my electorate, and it should stop. Quite simply, if these people cannot find accommodation, cannot find the facilities they need in the metropolitan area, there is little or nothing to be gained from pushing them out into rural areas across the state where we do not have the support mechanisms.

In the last 24 hours, we have learned that the $24 million debt at the zoo cannot be paid, so the government has had to step in. Once again, all of a sudden, the government can find $2 million to assist the zoo when it could not for months and months find anything to assist Minlaton, the hospitals on Yorke Peninsula or at Keith, or whatever.

Mr Williams: Keith.

Mr PENGILLY: Yes, I just said Keith. You can have your turn in a minute.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: Well, have another turn. It could not find money but, overnight, it can find—

Mr Williams: Can we get the zoo to take over the Keith Hospital? They'd run it.

Mr PENGILLY: The reality is that the zoo is an integral part of South Australian culture. It is a wonderful zoo. We were most supportive of the panda enclosure and the other buildings that had to be done there. I was on the Public Works Committee at the time. However, in my view, the government has failed. The shadow treasurer (the member for Davenport) raised it today. The government has failed again. Their people on the board of the zoo have failed them, just like their people on the State Bank board failed them all those years ago, in the early 1990s.

Much has been said. I listened with interest to the member for Torrens and I nodded my head in agreement with much of what she had to say. However, this government has absolutely no idea what is happening to small business. It has no idea. Only today I learned of a major enterprise down in Victor Harbor that is closing in the next week or two because just one of the many costs that they have to bear is land tax. They are up for $98,000 in land tax, and it is beyond them to pay.

The economy is declining, Australians are going overseas in droves and the incoming tourism industry is staggering at the moment. I know of businesses in my electorate that are talking downturns to the extent of 30 per cent in international visitation. While we are on the subject, the government has gutted the SATC, the very government agency—small as it is—that should be out there doing all it can to bring people into the state. It is a big employer in the tourism industry, an enormous employer in the state, particularly in rural and regional areas. The government has gutted the SATC and, once again, we go down hill—no experience in business.

I have raised the issue of police resources in my electorate with the media, and I have raised it in this place. The state government talks about the number of additional police resources it has, but the reality is that it is bringing them in from areas close to Adelaide, putting them into the city on Friday and Saturday nights, and they are reducing the numbers available for patrol out in other regional areas. That is what is going on. The government is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

There is an increasing rate of petty crime in areas of my electorate which concerns me greatly. We do not have a lot of crime down our way, either on the Fleurieu or on the island, but the petty crime rate is lifting, and an analysis of that will be done. It is a major worry to me that the police are not getting the resources they need.

We are spending a fortune on this marine parks program, about which I have spoken on countless occasions, probably much to the interest of the minister, I am sure. The reality is that we are still spending a fortune on that and, at the risk of repeating myself, I am told that park prices are going up 6 to 8 per cent. We are still spending $500,000 on sterilising koalas on Kangaroo Island.

On that topic alone, there has been absolutely no research done since the 2007 fires which burnt out a third of the island, including enormous amounts of koala habitat. There has been no research done whatsoever into how many got cooked in those fires, yet we are still pouring money into sterilising koalas. These are simple things.

I am very pleased that the government has found in its budget some money for roads in my electorate but, more particularly, $2 million into Kangaroo Island roads. It has picked up on the Liberals' promise last year before the election when we promised $2.5 million a year over four years on an ongoing basis to do something about the roads and the government has announced that it is putting in $2 million. I welcome that, and I welcomed that in the local press.

That was not enough for the Minister for Transport. The Minister for Transport had to have his fun and games and he got his beavers up there beavering away in his office, so he rings up and they put in the local paper that Pengilly has written 147 letters to the Minister for Transport but not mentioned Kangaroo Island roads. I have news for the minister. We have counted up 20 speeches that I have made in this place since 2006 particularly on Kangaroo Island roads, and we have not finished yet: we have not even got to the last 12 months. So, when the Minister for Transport wants to play little ducks and drakes—this is more government expenditure—and send a press release by courier to the island to announce that, he should get his staff to look and see how many times I have talked about it in the parliament, because the local people know.

We have what is called in our policies a Royalty for Regions. It is a wonderful idea, I support it in its entirety and it should be brought into play as soon as we get into government, hopefully in 2014.

I am pleased to see more money being put into fire protection by the environment minister. I think that is a good move and am pleased about that. However, what really worries me is that we are running out of volunteers. In the early 1990s we had 17,000 CFS volunteers. We are now down to under 11,000. It is a major concern that the bush is getting dudded and people are leaving to work elsewhere and the volunteer ethic is dribbling away very slowly.

What I note, and it is very evident on the South Coast in the Victor Harbor, Port Elliot and Middleton area, is that most of my volunteers and service club people are what we would call senior citizens. They do an absolutely fantastic job but they are ageing and the younger people who are coming through are simply not picking up on the volunteer ethic like they used to. They are involved in sports clubs, but they have families that are struggling and they have to work. We have increasing numbers who are working away two weeks on and two weeks off, and it is putting pressure on everything.

I listened to the member for Reynell about an hour ago talking about the government's priorities and the priority of health, and she talked about 29.4 per cent, I think, of the state budget going into health. It is no secret that the minister himself has said that, the way we are going in this state, before very long, in a few short years, health is going to take all of the state budget. The whole lot will be taken just by the health budget. This is a major concern. I am very lucky that I have wonderful health facilities in my electorate. We have two hospitals—the South Coast hospital at Victor and the Kangaroo Island hospital at Kingscote.

Mr Gardner: They have got some tremendous staff.

Mr PENGILLY: The reality is that we have wonderful health facilities, wonderful people serving those facilities and wonderful doctors across the regional areas. In my electorate, I am particularly grateful that I have such wonderful medical practices across the electorate—at Kingscote, Yankalilla, Victor Harbor, Port Elliot, the Middleton area and also wider afield at Mount Compass. So, I am very lucky. But we cannot take our eye off the ball.

In closing, let me also indicate that I am delighted that the Tour Down Under is coming back for a stage and finishing in Victor Harbor. It is a wonderful event, and it was highly successful and popular last time, and it will be highly successful and popular again. I look forward to seeing that next January. Likewise, I support the government in its push for a surfing competition at Vivonne Bay in November; it is a good step forward. I only hope that there is some surf; that is the major worry.

What does worry me is that there is a group that is trying to destroy the concept of the surf carnival. They do not want it to happen. I go back to my initial comments about the Greens, which I made at the start of this address. There is a group of people in this state, it does not matter where they are, they want to stop everything. They want to pull everything up, everything sacred, everything has to be protected. This surfing competition will be fantastic. It will be properly run and it will be an asset to the island and to South Australia, as indeed are the surfing competitions already being run at places such as Waitpinga and around at Boomer Beach and other areas. I support the bill, with reservations.


[Sitting extended beyond 22:00 on motion of Hon. J.M. Rankine]


The Hon. J.M. RANKINE (Wright—Minister for Families and Communities, Minister for Housing, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability) (21:37): I want to take this opportunity to outline for the house the budget for the Department for Families and Communities for 2011-12. I will give a very brief summary of that and then dispel some of the nonsense and rot that has been—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: —spoken in this house over recent days. The overall increase in the budget for the Department for Families and Communities is in the vicinity of $149 million over the next four years. This an amazing—

Mr Williams interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: —outcome in light of the tight financial straits we find ourselves in and an indication of—

Mr Williams interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Well, that's right. The member for MacKillop would consider providing funding for people with a disability and families struggling and children needing care and protection a waste of money, so I hope Hansard has that on the record.

Their disability budget will be increased by $56 million over the next four years, and this money comes on top of an additional $17.9 million in last year's budget. It will address key spending priorities, including accommodation support, therapy services, day options and respite. Some examples of that are therapy for children attending Novita services, a family support program for children at Novita and, importantly, a grant of $40,000 for Tutti Kids; $10.8 million over four years for the equipment program and home modifications, and I will go into some detail about that in a moment; and, very importantly, $7.7 million to relocate 32 of the remaining 63 residents of Strathmont.

The Families SA budget has an extra $69.1 million over the next four years. This is money for alternative care, providing residential care facilities, two new facilities for children, so that we do not actually have children in inappropriate emergency care. There is also nearly $19 million for a reunification program and support for parents to assist them make the changes they need to be able to keep their children at home with them safely.

Mr VENNING: I rise on a point of order. I believe the minister in making this speech should be making it from her ministerial spot rather than the duty minister, where she is.

The SPEAKER: Under normal circumstances that may apply but standing order No. 64 states that the Speaker may determine where a member stands when they speak and I am quite comfortable with the minister speaking from that seat, but thank you for bringing that to my attention.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am sure if I was at my spot as opposed to being the duty minister the member would be complaining about that as well, but never mind.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: In relation to concessions for financially disadvantaged people in our community, there is $23.9 million over four years; a medical heating and cooling rebate of $1.8 million over the next four years, which will double the energy concession for people who have eligible medical conditions; and an increase in the water rate concession that will take the concession from a minimum of 20 per cent of an account to 25 per cent.

Mr Williams interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, the member for MacKillop!

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: In dollar terms I think that is about a 55 per cent increase. So, that is a substantial increase and will benefit approximately 186,000 people every year here in South Australia.

I want to address some of the assertions that have been made during this debate. The shadow minister for families and communities has made the assertion that this government has totally dismissed the non-government sector. I think the member needs to have a serious look at the partnership between the state government and the non-government sector. In fact, we issue contracts worth something like $400 million a year to non-government organisations and they take up about 50 per cent of the disability funding. So, rather than dismissing the non-government sector they are, in fact, very valuable partners in all areas of the work that we do in our community.

The member for Bragg made a comment along the lines that the member for Port Adelaide had been consigned to the dustbin of history. I bet that after the 2010 election there were many Liberals who were thinking that would be a good place for the member for Bragg after her performance. She made comments—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: What performance was that?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Her lack of support for the leadership.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I rise on a point of order. The member for Croydon should not be interjecting on the minister during her contribution, particularly from the Leader of the Opposition's seat.

The SPEAKER: Order! We do not need you to discuss this. Thank you, member for Davenport. The member for Croydon will note that and I will uphold that point of order. You will stop disturbing the minister, who is making a very serious speech. It does remind me of old times when we used to regularly have Wednesday night sittings. It is quite an interesting night. It is interesting to see it from the chair rather than from the other side. Minister, I will try to protect you from now on.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: They are always frightened when the member for Bragg remains silent. She was very silent when she was asked whether she would continue to support the Leader of the Opposition, but that is by the bye. It helped lose the election for them, if I remember. She made some reference to privatisation—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: —in her address.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I rise on a point of order. The minister keeps using the word 'she'. It is 'the member for Bragg'.

The SPEAKER: Yes, I uphold that point of order.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: The member for Bragg happens to be a female and we generally refer to them as 'she'. Do you want me to refer to her as 'it'?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The members on my left will stop provoking the minister and behave themselves and if not they can go back to the bar. Minister?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: I will support that totally if you go. Order!

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: The member for Bragg—'it'—referred to privatisation. A 7.30 Report article from 2000—

Mr PENGILLY: Point of order, ma'am.

The SPEAKER: Point of order.

Mr PENGILLY: The minister is quite ridiculously reflecting on another member.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Sit down and behave.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: 'It' referred to the 7.30 Report article from 2000, which confirmed that the Liberals planned to sell the lotteries. This followed the Liberal's privatisation of ETSA, SGIC, the State Bank, the Adelaide Casino, the TAB, South Australian Ports, Modbury Hospital, etc.

Mr Pengilly: Is this the best you can do?

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: The member for Bragg claimed 'more money is being spent with more and more demand but less and less services being provided'. Since coming into office the Rann government has increased state disability funding by 93 per cent. Around 20,145 people receive disability support services in South Australia. This is an increase of over 5,000 new clients since coming to office and compares with Western Australia, which has a budget of in excess of $152 million more than South Australia and gets 4,000 fewer clients.

As of 31 May, 346 people are yet to have their needs fully assessed in relation to equipment. That said, this financial year no-one of the highest priority has been waitlisted, and we are well placed to exceed supplying 5,000 pieces of equipment and 700 home modifications this financial year. Since coming into government we have spent an unprecedented $50.5 million on disability equipment.

The government is also increasing the annual funding for equipment services by $2.6 million in 2011-12; and, due to our commitment, the 2011-12 direct spending on equipment, repairs and home modifications for adults and children will total $9.3 million. This is 95 per cent more than 2002-03. In 2001-02, under the Liberal government 1,393 new items of equipment and home modification were provided.

In 2010-11, more than 5,000 equipment items and 600 home modifications are expected to be provided. Home and community services have increased by 99 per cent since 2002. More people are receiving more services than ever before. Similarly, the number of people receiving HACC services is increasing. In 2009-10 it was 95,600, and this is increasing to a target of 99,500 in 2011-12. The number of ACAT assessments has decreased, but this is due to changes in commonwealth legislation, which has reduced the number of assessments that are required. If a person is changing from low care to high care, for example, they no longer require an assessment.

In relation to the Public Trustee, the 2010-11 budget included a savings initiative to transfer responsibility for disability client trust management from the Department for Families and Communities (DFC) to the Public Trustee. It is inappropriate for DFC as a service provider to also manage people's funds. That is appropriately the role of the Public Trustee or an appropriate third party. These changes are coming into place. A decision has been deferred until 1 July 2012 to allow people to properly plan for a transition and whether they engage with the Public Trustee, another third party, another organisation, or whether family and friends actually undertake that work.

In relation to concessions, the member for Bragg said something along the lines that utility service concessions are not even a pinch on what the increased costs are going to be. Since coming to office, the government has provided and significantly raised concessions for eligible seniors and other low and fixed-income people. Every concession in this state, as I understand it (and I am happy to be corrected), was introduced by a Labor government with one exception, the Emergency Services Levy. The Liberals introduced a tax and were forced to introduce a concession on that tax by the Independents in this place. We have announced a significant boost to concessions for something like over 200,000 South Australians and we have, for the first time, indexed concessions on energy, water, emergency services and sewerage by 5 per cent each year until 2012-13.

The cost of rising utilities and the impact this has had on those doing it financially tough has not been underestimated by our government. In 2011-12, we have committed a further $22.1 million to further increase water concessions from 20 to 25 per cent of the total annual water bill on top of last year's increases and, as I said, we have also introduced the energy, heating and cooling concession, which will effectively double the current energy concession for eligible South Australians.

I want to briefly conclude in relation to housing. The member for Bragg mentioned a $30 increase given to single pensioners that is now being included in housing trust rents. Let me make it really, really clear: South Australia provides more public housing per capita than any other state in Australia. South Australia provides a subsidy of more than $200 million—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Williams interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for MacKillop, it is not your speech. Would you please be quiet!

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Chaffey will behave as well.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: South Australia provides more public housing per capita than any other state in Australia. Housing SA provides a subsidy of more than $200 million every year to public housing tenants. No tenant pays more than 25 per cent of their income in rent. The Liberals sold more than 11,000 houses in eight years—and I hope the member for Finniss is listening to this: the Liberals sold more than 11,000 houses in eight years.

Since we have been in government, we have sold about a quarter of that. In no year has the highest—

Mr Williams interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: —number of house sales reached the lowest number that the Liberals sold in a year. Labor has also been at the forefront of the stimulus package, building 1,368 new houses and refurbishing 503 others—and the Liberals voted against this stimulus package. Labor created the Property Locator website so low and middle income buyers can get on to the property ladder and build a future. We have created the equity start loan, which has helped around 1,200 public housing tenants buy a home.

Money from 1,000 of the sales was placed in an affordable housing innovation fund which, amongst other things, is supporting 500 new affordable houses in partnerships with non-government organisations. Labor created the National Rental Affordability Scheme federally, and the South Australian government has committed to funding 3,800 new affordable rental properties in South Australia. The Liberals were too busy selling public housing to come up with any innovative new ideas. Out of interest, I would like to know: what are the Liberal's policies on housing?

Many things went down under the previous Liberal government, including its credibility. And who was the state director of the Liberal Party for most of the previous Liberal government? The member for Bragg. Where was the member for Bragg? On the record—

An honourable member: No she wasn't!

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: —speaking against her own trashing of public—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Point of order.

The SPEAKER: Order! Point of order, member for Davenport.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I do not want to unduly interrupt the minister, because I know that would be out of order, Madam Speaker, but the minister previously took a point of order correcting the member for Finniss on an error of fact that the minster alleged. So, in fairness, I should correct the minister, because I know she is not one to want to deliberately mislead the house. The member for Bragg has never been the state director of the South Australian Liberal Party—

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: —as claimed by the minister.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Thank you for your correction.

The SPEAKER: You are acknowledging that correction, are you?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Where has she been on the record speaking against her own party, trashing public housing here in South Australia? I venture to say: nowhere. She only squawks when there might be something in it for her. That is a fact.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Point of order. Madam Speaker, you have already corrected the minister: it is not 'she'; it is the 'member for Bragg'. Members should not be called by their names; it is the member for Bragg.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: The member for Bragg squawks when there might be something in it for her.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: That's what the member for Bragg calls a social conscience. And I think it was fair and reasonable for The Advertiser to pose the question today: what do the Liberals stand for in this state? I do not know.

Mr WILLIAMS: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Point of order.

Mr WILLIAMS: I think it is standing order 303. The minister has now used 17 valuable minutes of the house's time, and what the people of South Australia really want to know is—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for MacKillop will sit down. That was a frivolous point of order. You will behave. You did not quote me a standing order number.

Mr Williams: 303!

The SPEAKER: You were making a point yourself, so I think it is even both ways now. Minister, you have three minutes left.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I do think it was reasonable of The Advertiser to ask today what the Liberals stand for in South Australia, because I do not know.

Mr Williams: You don't know nothing.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for MacKillop, I suggest you go outside and cool down for a while.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! It is late, I know; however, this behaviour is not acceptable.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Finniss will not turn his back to the Speaker and stand in the way of another speaker. The member for Schubert.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (21:56): I too congratulate the Hon. Jack Snelling on delivering his first budget.

Mr Williams: Why? It was an awful budget.

Mr VENNING: I didn't say it was good. I said 'delivering': very careful choice of words. People expect that what politicians say is generally just rhetoric. I want to make some observations tonight that I think people will not just pass off as rhetoric. Now more than ever before, the decisions made by the Rann Labor government are seriously hurting and affecting everyday South Australians. Why else would they be so low in the polls? This budget is my 23rd and is yet another Labor document where the Rann Labor government cuts expenditure to vital areas and increases taxes yet again.

It is another Labor budget where one-third of South Australia misses out. Country South Australia does not rate in this Labor budget and has not since 2002. We were already the highest taxed state in South Australia. Now, after this budget, the situation has become worse. You, Madam, are the only government member representing a country area. I wonder what you think about what is happening in country South Australia because, not only do you drive on your own roads and look at your own facilities in the north around Whyalla, you also drive on some of ours as well, so I do often wonder what you think as the only member of the Labor party living outside Adelaide.

The cost of living in South Australia is Labor's legacy. We are now paying extra for the privilege of living in South Australia versus the other states, and it is becoming very obvious. This budget, Labor's 10th, turns an $81 million surplus last December into a $263 million deficit now. The huge over-employment in the Public Service is but one of the reasons for our economic malaise. Over 12,000 extra positions were not budgeted for, and that does not include the nurses and policeman and other essential public servants. You just wonder how that could happen. Now you have the problem of trying to downscale them, and it is very difficult to put them out. You have employed them, totally out of control.

The Treasurer said the other day after the budget, 'I think the community will understand that times are tight.' Well, the only reason that times are tight for the government is because of its own financial mismanagement—wastage, blowouts—and it will continue to get worse once they sell off our income-producing forests in the South-East and the Lotteries Commission. What a ridiculous thing to do: two cash cows looking after the future of our state and they are both going to be sold.

It is a budget for now and not for the future, certainly not past March 2014. It really is a budget that is all about maintaining the AAA credit rating—Standard & Poor's. The criteria for Standard & Poor's to make a judgment should stand a fair bit of scrutiny in relation to what a credit rating is. When you see the debt of this government, the intended debt, and when you see the essentials that are required for this, apparently the government pays for this credit rating—the shadow treasurer nods. You pay for the credit rating and then Standard & Poor's stand in judgment.

I wonder how, without the sale of the forests and the lotteries, our credit rating would have stood. If that is the reason, it is a pretty sad day for South Australia. I will be having a very good look at Standard & Poor's. I think it needs to come under scrutiny, as does the media in this place, about the debt we are running and what is actually happening.

Times are tight for many South Australian households and families, as the cost of living continues to rise, but there does not appear to be any relief for the hip pocket at all from the Labor government. You cannot fool all the people all the time. If you listen to some of the speeches tonight, particularly from the member for Mitchell—I could not believe that he and I were living in the same state. You would not believe the rose-coloured glasses the member for Mitchell must have on. I think you need to travel outside of Gepps Cross and have a look and, likewise, the member for Torrens. I could not believe the rhetoric that was coming from over there.

The people of South Australia are waking up. No wonder Mr Bignell spoke out the other day. I could not believe it. I was driving along in the car (on 639) when I heard the member for Mawson being interviewed. He was there talking away and he said those words and I thought, 'That can't be right.' Anyway, the man's got courage. He is fighting for his survival because he is in a marginal seat, and I can understand that. In the end, well, we will see what happens.

But South Australians are waking up. The rising cost of living through increased taxes is demonstrating to all South Australians that the Labor government does not care. There is a huge cost for businesses operating in South Australia. As one of my colleagues said earlier, very few of them, apart from the Minister for Primary Industries who knows a bit about business, have ever run a business. The cost of operating a business in South Australia is as high as anywhere in Australia and 22 per cent of the Australian business transfers interstate are from South Australia. These are facts from the Bureau of Statistics: 22 per cent of all the transfers are out of South Australia. Who can blame them? The big problem is that we have people going overseas but, worse for us, is that head offices are moving out of South Australia and going interstate.

We are being compared to other states every day, especially with land tax and investment housing. Why would you want to be in investment housing? I have some of these. Why would you be in investment housing here in Adelaide when you have to pay land tax to the point that you do? Your profit is all going in land tax. Why do you want the hassle, when you can go to Sydney and other places where the land tax is either nothing or minimal. We are losing. The people of South Australia who rely on rental housing are the losers. Most of these people would be supporters of the government, so that is—

The SPEAKER: Order! There is a lot of noise. It is very hard to hear the member for Schubert, who is very passionate.

An honourable member interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr VENNING: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The minister was right alongside me here. Can I make the point that a lot of the constituents of members on the other side rent their houses. Just consider the landlord who owns that place, who has to maintain it, and now you are seeing the levels of land tax that that person has to pay. Can you understand it when you see the 'For sale' sign go up and he has moved interstate? The problem then is: who wants to buy it? There are a lot of land rentals on the market and nobody is buying them. Believe me, that is what is happening. It is a pretty sad state of affairs.

Fifty-one per cent of South Australians did not want this government elected last March in 2010. Now, only 16 months later, this figure has certainly escalated. People have switched off this government and we know why. You can spin the matters of state importance so that people are unaware of the grave condition of the state economy, but you can only spin it so far. Now, even with a bloated public relations outfit in the Premier's department, the spin is falling on deaf ears. People have switched off, because they can see firsthand the huge cost that they all now have to meet. Rises to taxes, charges and utilities will cost the average household about $750 per year. You tell that to working class families who are battling with school fees, battling with their power bills and everything else. You tell them; $750 has got to come from somewhere. They will remember this in March 2014.

That $750 comes with no improvement in services, and that is what people are feeling. Families will hurt because of this. They do not want to hear spin from the Treasurer and family man. I pay credit for that; I thought the picture of the family was quite appropriate and I congratulate him on being a great family man, but it does not make it a good budget. The Treasurer claims to understand the impact that the rise in cost of living expenses is having on the average South Australian family. Well, I very much doubt that.

What about those on fixed incomes—the elderly, the retirees, the pensioners? How will they go finding the cash for all these extra costs? Just tell them. A lot of them—I would say more than half—are your constituents. People who have voted Labor all their lives are now feeling the pinch. Some of the increases in this year's budget include water bills, which have almost trebled, and gas and electricity prices have doubled. The cost of renewing a driver's licence has increased by 32 per cent—32 per cent! The first homeowners' payment has been abolished. What will that do to the housing market?

Speeding fines are to rise by 29 per cent. For example, the speeding fine for travelling at 58 km/h in a 50 kilometre zone will increase from $196 to $252. Why would you do that? Because that is the area where the revenue is raised, when people inadvertently slip in a 60/50. That is where the revenue is; they want to maximise it, so they up that bit. I have no problem with raising the fine over 110—no problem at all—because when you are doing that you know, but they are abusing people who do not happen to see the 50 sign on a major road. I think that is an abuse. That is harvesting the driver and it is proof again—proof positive—that this really is about revenue raising and has little to do with road safety.

There is the introduction of more fixed speed cameras to raise even more revenue, $24 million more in expiation fees. They really are now leaning on these cameras to balance their budget. Tax increases will deliver this government an extra $1.1 billion in tax revenue over the forward estimates. Madam Speaker, where has the money gone? Where is the money going? At the current rate, the interest bill that the government pays on its debt is approaching $2 million per day. Imagine what could be done for regional and rural South Australia if every day a different community was given $2 million to work on a project in their area.

What do we get for the increases in tax revenue? We get a new Royal Adelaide Hospital, built on the rail yards. We were promised it would cost $1.7 billion, going into the election, when it knew, and it has now been revealed, that it will cost not $2.8 but $3.2 billion. That is a cost of $1.1 million a day for 30 years. I cannot believe this could happen. If you and I, Madam Speaker, say, had planned to build a house in Adelaide today and we had budgeted for a figure of $400,000 and we got it quoted and it came back at $800,000, what would we do? What would the average person do? What would you do? You would say, 'I can't afford this. I'm backing off.' I would say no thanks and back off, and that is exactly what you should do. This is a figure that we cannot afford. I wonder how many of you on the backbench over there had a say in this matter. Who gave the permission to continue at this hugely escalated cost? You do not know, do you?

Mr Sibbons interjecting:

Mr VENNING: Member for Mitchell, did you have a say in that?

Mr Sibbons: The sky is falling, isn't it?

Mr VENNING: Member for Mitchell, was your voice heard in that opinion? Did you get a vote in it?

Mr Sibbons: The sky is falling, isn't it?

Mr VENNING: I am asking you directly: did you have any input into that decision?

An honourable member: It's not question time.

Mr VENNING: Well, you interjected, and I am asking you. I do not think they did. I think that the Premier, the Treasurer and minister Conlon would have had to make that decision, with no consultation with any of the others. I believe that you should have said, 'It's is too expensive, so the state cannot afford that at this time.' I am not asking you to shelve the project but to pull back and say, 'We can't afford it at this time,' or at least seek wider contracts to try to get the price pruned.

I wonder how many people actually tendered for it. The trouble is that you do not have a large tender pool anymore, and that is part of the problem. We do not have it because most of them are from interstate. The cost of their coming over here is expensive and they rip us off—they really rip us off. I firmly believe that at this point in time you should have said, 'At that price, we cannot afford it. The answer is no. We will give the current Royal Adelaide a minor spruce up,' and then planned it for another day.

I throw out that challenge because we really cannot afford it. Whatever the price was, are you just going to keep saying yes, yes, yes? A lot of you people are going to personally pay the price for this. When we are broke in 2014 you are going to pay a big, big personal price. It is going to get worse than the State Bank because we do not have the capacity to pay it back. We do not have the asset set to sell to pay the bill. I do not know how you are going to pay this debt off in the next 10 years, if this continues.

Labor did it in 1993 with the State Bank debt, and I was here. I was in this house when it happened and the members of the government were in denial, just like you are tonight. They were in total denial and, all of a sudden, the sky did fall in, member for Mitchell. The sky fell in all right and look what happened: only 10 of you were left—10 of you made it back here. The only thing I regret is that the Liberal Party did not form the opposition. We could have formed the opposition and had all the cars and all the perks of office. I was sitting on this side of the house actually, in government, because there were so many of us. That is one of those things you will read about in my book one day, Madam Speaker.

We had enough to form the opposition, but that can happen again. Seriously, that can happen again when you are into that much debt. I believe that the outcome this time will be worse than the State Bank debt, and what for? To build a hospital we do not need because the existing hospital could have been upgraded with a huge reduction in the cost. Our current Royal Adelaide has a wonderful reputation, in a wonderful setting offering a great service. Yes, I believe the plan that we had was sustainable and achievable.

I also think that to spend $535 million on upgrading Adelaide Oval is wrong at this time. I know some of my ex-colleagues do not agree with us, but I do not believe that it is what the majority of South Australians want at this time because, again, we cannot afford it. What is $535 million on a sports stadium going to do for the economy of South Australia? What is it really going to do?

We have accepted this decision on this side of the house. We have gone along with it now because it has gone too far, but why not bring in the codes two years earlier? Why wait four years? Bring them in in two years' time and put the footbridge there. I agree that that would make a big difference. Give the place a coat of paint, upgrade the food outlets and the loos and then see what happens. If it works, if it is a goer, then spend the rest. Our two local teams need to get their act together, really lift their standards and make the competition worth supporting, and that is the biggest reason: it has little to do with the facilities. I just think that $535 million is a huge amount of money, and I do not think it is justified at this time. I am sad to see that the ambience of the Adelaide Oval will be totally destroyed.

I do not make any speech on the budget without mentioning the Barossa. There is not a mention, not a sign, in the budget of anything to do with the Barossa hospital—nothing. What chance do we have now with these huge expenses on the new Royal Adelaide on the rail yard and the oval? What chance have we got of getting anything? Even though the government's own business case states that we need a new hospital, it is totally ignoring its own report. I do not think we can see anything inside 25 years. This hospital was on the top of the list when I was on the Public Works Committee right back in 2003. That is when it was on top of the list, and that was not bad, and very little has been spent ever since—very little. So, what are you going to do? Are you just going to keep on going with a hospital in a growth area like that? Nothing at all.

The question I now want answered is: will the Labor government spend the money needed to bring the existing hospitals—the hospital at Tanunda and the one at Angaston—up to standard? If you will not build us a new one, are you going to fix up the old ones, the two of them? The community has agreed to close two and have one, which I think is very commendable. It is a brave decision, as the member for the Barossa, because you know the parochialism between those two towns. If you are not going to build us a new hospital, I challenge the government to fix up the old ones. I am amazed that the Department of Health has not gone through there and put an order on it. I am also very concerned about the sale of the Lotteries, and the sale of the forests particularly, because I believe it is going to affect our economy in a very big way.

I will not continue on, but all I can say is that country people in South Australia have no joy in this. Yes, I did enjoy the contributions of the member for Frome and the member for Mount Gambier—country members—this afternoon. Look, there is no joy in this, and this government is so blatantly ignoring South Australians. I hope you, Madam Speaker, representing country South Australia, have a strong voice in the cabinet because it is not working for us; I certainly hope it works for you. I am very concerned that this budget just does not go where it needs to go. One-third of South Australians live outside of Adelaide. You would not think so looking at this budget.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (22:17): In this budget we see a $263 million deficit in 2010-11 and South Australia's debt rising to $8.2 billion over the course of the forward estimates. Of course, the $263 million deficit that we see in 2010-11 was initially projected to be a surplus. The last series of budgets and Mid-Year Budget Reviews all suggested that in that financial year there would be a surplus coming. Now that we have the figures in, the reality is that it is a $263 million deficit.

When the budget papers suggest that the debt of South Australia is going to rise to $8.2 billion over the course of the forward estimates, I would like to think of that as a best guess. I fear what may come and what that will mean for the people of South Australia and, in the years ahead, for my children and future generations.

The Treasurer talked about how South Australians cannot afford to run up debt, effectively running up the credit card so that our children will have to pay it off, yet he has delivered his first budget, eloquently as it may have been, that, in reading it, delivers nothing but debt and deficit and a massive credit card bill for our future generations to pay and look after.

Of course, financial liabilities go beyond the $8.2 billion of debt. Once you include the WorkCover liabilities and the government institutions, which do not show up in the books on that $8.2 billion, financial liabilities for South Australia are up to $20 billion by 2014. That is an extraordinary figure for a state like South Australia. That is an extraordinary figure for a state with a bit over 1.5 million people and the opportunities for prosperity that do not match up to those interstate where governments have been able to deliver better budgets.

The other concerning thing about this government is that we all know that the way to encourage business investment, better jobs and economic growth is to take every opportunity to reduce taxes and to make for a better business environment so that they can create jobs, create wealth for our state. Yet, over the forward estimates we see $1.1 billion worth of extra taxes. More than double the rate of inflation is our tax take increasing. This will have direct effects and indirect effects of the cost of living for people in South Australia.

I was interested today to read on the Punch website an article by Frank Zumbo, who is the Associate Professor in the School of Business Law and Taxation at the University of New South Wales. Frank Zumbo made the point that:

With survey after survey revealing how much financial stress that Australian families are being put under, it's time that all governments—

and I think this is particularly true for the government here in South Australia—

...start doing something about the escalating cost of living. What can be done? Well, two things stand out. First, Governments need to make sure that they don't increase taxes and charges and where possible they should actually be reducing taxes. The harsh reality is that struggling Aussie families are being bombarded by hikes in Federal taxes and fees and now face the prospect of new taxes...

That is just at a federal level. At a state level, this budget has delivered a whole raft, pages and pages, as in the regulations of increased fees, charges and taxes. We have compulsory third-party insurance up 2.7 per cent and motor vehicle registration up 4.3 per cent. A 10-year driver's licence renewal is going to cost 32.1 per cent more in 2011-12 than it did last year.

Public transport multitrips are up $47 over the course of a year. Of course, we know that occasionally, unfortunately, people pay that voluntary tax of a speeding fine for going 55 km/h in a 50 km/h zone. If they do, as many families will find that one driver in the family does over the course of the next year, they will be paying an extra $56 for the privilege.

All of these in and of themselves do not necessarily sound that scary but, of course, they all add up. They are all on top of those federal taxes, and I am not done with the state taxes yet. Water bills are up 40 per cent this year and, of course, we know that they are another 40 per cent next year and they have just been increasing year on year. I will be talking a bit more about that before the end of this contribution.

Sewerage bills are up 11.8 per cent; the average electricity bill is up $120 over the year; gas bills are up 5 per cent nearly; the emergency services levy is up; the NRM levy is up; the Save the River Murray Levy is up. Council rates are up an average of 12.3 per cent and, of course, there are other fees. All of those are just to have the basic running of the house. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out in her speech, we are talking about the average costs for South Australian households being $750, and that is only assuming that you have one person, one car, one speeding fine and all of those flow-ons. For many households it will be much more.

There are other costs. Say you leave the house. For example, you might want to go to the Hampstead Rehabilitation Centre or any other of our public hospitals where we are now going to be faced with the prospect of people having to pay commercial rates for parking. These decisions by the government that have increased the cost of living are actually have some fairly serious impacts on South Australians who deserve better.

I want to read into Hansard a letter that was sent to me by one of my constituents which illustrates the point particularly in relation to Hampstead, but bear in mind that it comes on top of all of those other increases in rates, taxes, fees, charges and everything else that goes along. I will name the constituent because she said yesterday that she would be happy for me to do so. Her letter states:

My name is Ms. Maxine Lane and I live [at an address in Paradise]. Sadly I am a sufferer of cancer and had to have my Left Kidney removed and leaving my right kidney working only at about 5%, because of all this I need to be on Peritoneal Dialysis on a daily basis for 10 hours. Because of this condition and the use of peritoneal fluid which contains 2½% Glucose I have put on 10 kgs. Of weight. My specialist has told me to have a specialised exercise program which I have started at the Hampstead Rehabilitation Centre. We have now been advised that in the near future we will be charged for parking my car, which is the only way to get to the centre from my suburb, I need to go to the centre twice a week for 2 hours. I just cannot afford this cost as I am on an Age Pensioner living by myself with the help of a carer. I also need to visit the R.A.H. and Q.E.H. on a regular basis both for my Cancer and Dialysis, and I also now believe that they too are to charge for parking. Could you please try to reverse the decision for this big grab for cash at the expense Of the people that can least afford this extra cost. If this does happen I will have to cut my treatments which will probably lead to my demise.

Maxine Lane pays $100 for a six-week session of being involved in that exercise therapy program at Hampstead. For two hours a session twice a week, let's say that her car park is there for 2½ hours. Now, $2 an hour does not sound like much to members of parliament or ministers on ministerial salaries but, for a pensioner who is going to be faced with an extra $12 a week there on top of her $100 for her six-week rehabilitation and therapy sessions, that adds to an extraordinary impost on her quality of life, and her inability potentially to pay that comes at serious detriment to her health and future prospects. It is a tragic situation that the government is leaving us with in South Australia.

Other fees and charges are up. Driver's licence renewals are up 32 per cent and, as expected in this budget, the government wants to reap in an extra $29.5 million. Of course, as I said before, those are largely just expenses in the home. It is now going to be harder to get the home because this government has now ripped out the state contribution to the First Home Owner Grant, which will reduce the opportunity for first home buyers to get financial assistance when buying their first house.

Those are all things the government is directly doing to people that reflects the cost of living. However, people's cost of living is not just affected by government-direct charges and imposts on them; it is affected by the federal government, the state government, by council and, of course, by the cost of goods and services. The cost of doing business in South Australia comes into it as well because, when businesses see increased costs and imposts, they have to pass that on, in many cases to their consumers. In many cases, where their consumers are unable to meet those increased costs, they have to potentially consider reducing their staffing, which has another flow-on effect on jobs.

The member for Finniss and other members listed businesses in their electorates that have indicated that they may have to shut shop altogether or move their investments interstate. Or, in the case that was put by the Leader of the Opposition, one of the small entrepreneurs in her area is moving his entire portfolio to the Northern Territory where there is a sensible land tax regime. The cost of doing business in South Australia has been significantly affected by this government and by this budget.

Earlier in the week, the member for Heysen, the Leader of the Opposition, Isobel Redmond, was kind enough to come out to my electorate to meet with Rob Mignone at the Adelaide Towel Service, a business which Rob runs with his brother Angelo and their wives. Angelo wrote to me on Facebook on the weekend asking me to look into his case. He pointed out that their water bill had increased so dramatically that it was sincerely affecting their capacity to do the business that they do. Adelaide Towel Service employs about 10 people. They collect, wash, dry, hand-fold and then return the towels to 300 hairdressers around Adelaide. They provide a vital service, and it is important that it be done safely so that the health standards of those hairdressers are met. They do not really have the opportunity to reduce their water consumption on health grounds, so their water is an inelastic quantity.

Their water bill due 29 June 2010 was $2,014.95 for the quarter. For 28 June 2011, it had gone from $2,014.95 up to $3,224.20, more than $1,200 more for the quarter or $5,000 more for the year, and this is just the start of the rises. This is before the water rise that will take place on 1 July and before the other 40 per cent water rise that will take place on 1 July next year. We have calculated that their annual water bill is going to go from about $8,000 a year to over $20,000 a year.

On top of all the other costs of doing business, on top of the incredible payroll tax and land tax and the other costs of doing business imposed by this state government, as well as other areas that are going up, this is the sort of thing that is really affecting this business. As Rob Mignone said on Channel 10 last night, it is the sort of thing that makes him and his brother shake their head and wonder what the hell they are going to do. If this sort of business shuts down, it will have a drastic effect on their employees and on our local economy and, quite frankly, we cannot afford it. They are being squeezed from every angle, particularly by this government and particularly by these water charges.

When asked about it by a journalist yesterday in the corridors of Parliament House, the Minister for Small Business said that South Australia was, in fact, the lowest taxed state for small business. He was asked about it in the chamber today. How on earth does this happen, given that his own budget papers include the findings that South Australia is taxed the highest?

We have seen on the record for the last couple of years that every time they do the analysis of the highest taxing states in South Australia—business taxes, payroll tax, land tax, all of those taxes that affect businesses and have flow-on effects for everyone else—South Australia is, in fact, the highest taxed. Our small business minister is living in a different state if he thinks that our state is the lowest taxing for small business in Australia.

That is not the story that small businesses tell, and it is certainly not the story told by the analysis that is, indeed, in the budget papers. Another tax that clearly affects businesses and has that flow-on effect for everyone else is payroll tax. Since this government came in, the payroll tax take has increased by 75 per cent—that is extraordinary—and property taxes have increased by over $1 billion, by 141 per cent. It is one thing to see figures on a piece of paper, but these have real effects on people.

Roslyn Jean Gabriel of Athelstone has contacted me on a number of occasions. She has had to pay a whole year's land tax on two properties that she sold in a year. Land tax is incredible in the way that it is collected. Panayiotis Iaonnou, of Athelstone also, whom I have had a bit to do with, gave me an example that his land tax bill has increased from $1,500 to over $15,000 in the last three years.

Given that in South Australia an overwhelming majority of our small businesses are operating out of rented premises, the land tax bill of their landlords are naturally passed on in rent to those small businesses and, to survive, they have to pass those costs on to their clients. It is not just small businesses—the shops and the tenants operating at the corner store: it is also engineering firms and others.

We have seen an extraordinary spate of significant government infrastructure projects in the last couple of years going to interstate firms that are competing on an uneven playing field with South Australian firms, which are priced out of the market because those interstate firms have much better tax regimes in their states and therefore can afford to underquote local South Australian contractors. It is an absolute disgrace. Taxes on insurance have gone up 74 per cent over the life of this government, and motor vehicle tax is up 57 per cent over the life of this government. As the cost of business goes up, we all pay more and there are fewer jobs.

As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out in her speech, the Dun and Bradstreet report came out recently showing that, of all the businesses in Australia that are moving interstate, 22 per cent of them are moving out of South Australia. Given that we have fewer than 7 per cent of the nation's businesses, for 22 per cent of businesses to be moving interstate coming from South Australia is an extraordinary result and demonstrates the lack of confidence that businesses in South Australia have in this government.

This morning on the radio I noted discussion about the problems besetting the Adelaide Zoo and the need for the government to step in and help the Adelaide Zoo meet its financial obligations. I should declare that, as a life member of the zoo, I have something of an interest in its future success if my investment in life membership is to bear future opportunities to visit the zoo.

Peter Vaughan from Business SA and the business consultant Ian Smith both pointed out that in South Australia the business environment is not capable of supporting the sort of corporate donations to zoos as happens interstate and in comparable overseas zoos when something like the pandas come along. It is an indictment on this government that we are not doing more to create the sort of environment for business to be able to deliver those sorts of things.

We have to remember that the state government taxes and charges do not exist in isolation, but the federal government's carbon and mining taxes are coming in and council rates are going up. My constituents in Campbelltown are very concerned because the Campbelltown council, in order to meet its increased costs, largely due to the state government's taxes, has had to introduce rating by tenancy, which a number of other councils have already done.

This means that many local businesses that are accommodated in blocks of shops, for example, had dramatic increases in their council rates because they are now charged the minimum council rate, which is something over $700, rather than a proportion of the whole building's council rates. For example, for a group of six units, the council rate has jumped from about $1,800, which it was previously (so they each paid $300) to about $4,300 now, and each of them pays the minimum potential rate of $700. The Campbelltown council has brought in that increase in order to raise $329,380 extra.

Do you know what the difference is between the Campbelltown council and the state government? The council is doing this because they need to, but the council actually is interested in the feedback from its constituents. I note in the East Torrens Messenger that came out today that council staff will be preparing a report that looks at the impact of the budget if the tenancy rate is introduced over a three-year period. That council listens to people, and that is something that is quite different from the government in this place.

The opposition is interested in how things such as the state budget affect individuals and businesses. Isobel Redmond, the Leader of the Opposition, listens to businesses, but on the government benches, all we see in its ministers are the arrogant, the ineffectual and the hammer—and they can work out which ones are which. The point is that governments and parliaments should be listening. We have two ears and one mouth each, and it is important to use them in that proportion.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Pengilly): Order! There is too much noise in the house.

Mr GARDNER: It will be interesting to see what the government does under its new leadership regime, whether it moves to that 'consult and decide' approach. I am seriously sceptical because I do not think they are up to it. The new broom in Treasury is just like the old one, except one or two policy differences and a gentler temperament. This government is not listening to the community. It is taxing the life out of South Australia and it is putting up the cost of living for all South Australians.

Time expired.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER: The member for Hammond will come to order. The member for Flinders.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (22:37): I rise at the end of this rather long day to make a contribution to this debate. I understand that we need to finish this debate by tomorrow evening because we cannot go on to the estimates until that has happened, so I will try to keep my comments succinct. But I would like to put on the record my observations of what I believe to be another quintessential Labor budget from what seems to be a divided, deceitful and downright dreadful Labor government.

We have a new Treasurer in the Hon. Jack Snelling. It is quite obvious that the ghost of the former treasurer haunts this budget. His legacy will be one of debt and deficit and, unfortunately, that is the story of this budget. The pretty pictures on the budget papers are, I believe, part of a charm offensive intended to present a change of style from a new Treasurer, but the budget itself does not paint a pretty picture of South Australia's economic situation.

Sadly, after a decade in power, this budget has delivered more debt and more deficit and, once again, is distinctly dismissive of South Australian families in both the city and country alike. The rising cost of living as a result of this budget and previous budgets will hurt individuals and families right across this great state.

As has been mentioned many times already in this debate, water bills, motor registration, driver's licence renewals, transport tickets and compulsory third-party premiums are up, and a whole raft of government charges and fees have gone with this budget. Interestingly, I have discovered that administrative charges are disproportionately high. One political commentator noted last week that up to 85 per cent of his water bill was for administration charges; just 15 per cent of it was for the cost of water.

All of these increases will hurt people and these rises, combined with increased state taxes and charges, will cost the average household a staggering $750 a year for no improvement in the services they receive. It is unbelievable and will have a massive impact on all families, particularly—and I note that the member for Schubert mentioned this—those on low fixed incomes—

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER: Order!

Mr TRELOAR: —those on pensions and disability incomes, low fixed income earners who have no room to move and no room to absorb these increased costs and charges. I believe this demonstrates how tired, arrogant and out of touch this government is, and it shows that it has no understanding of the financial realities for families and individuals and, indeed, businesses, and quite rightly South Australians have stopped listening, as the member for Mawson so succinctly put it the other day. Although I notice that the Minister for Education has been out listening today, and it must have been so because it was on the news and they said that he was out listening, so I take it to be fact.

This budget does nothing to ease the cost of living pressures for families and it does nothing to instil confidence in South Australian businesses. One of the most damning indictments, I believe, on this government to come out of the budget is the fact that an $81 million surplus has somehow been turned into a $263 million deficit. The budget papers themselves reveal that debt will rise from a current $4.5 billion to $8.2 billion within three years (2014). That will be this government's legacy, one of debt and deficit, and I fear its financial mismanagement will be the burden of our children.

It is a very bland and disappointing budget in many ways, not least of which are the disappointing increased taxes and charges, cementing our place as the highest taxed state in the nation. This high taxing government is driving South Australian businesses and workers interstate. Sadly, that is another indictment on this government's decade in power.

This government's taxes are up more than double the rate of inflation over the next four years. That is a staggering $1.1 billion in extra taxed revenue, and South Australians will feel the full impact of that on their household budgets and the bottom line of their businesses. Unfortunately, this is a government addicted to taxing and overspending. It does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem.

In the last nine budgets Labor has gone over budget by a total of $3.5 billion. This is since 2002-03. For ordinary business people and households I believe this sort of reckless overspending is no way to operate a state budget. This sort of economic vandalism is why the state finds itself in such huge debt and running a budget deficit in 2011-12. It is also why the interest bill that the government has to pay on its debt is fast approaching a massive $2 million a day. That is $2 million a day of taxpayers' money that cannot and will not be spent on country health services, education, police or road infrastructure.

I would like to place on the record just a few budget-related points for my own electorate of Flinders and, indeed, regional South Australia generally. I have spoken on a number of occasions in this place about the Patient Assistance Transport Scheme, or PATS as it is commonly known in country South Australia. PATS is a scheme which provides reimbursement for country patients to travel to Adelaide to receive specialist care that they need to access in the city when it is unavailable to them at the place they live.

It is a critically important scheme and I would argue that it is desperately underfunded. The number of constituents who come to me and indicate their concern about the level of funding that goes into this scheme is quite extraordinary. I would guess that there is barely a family living in regional South Australia that has not had to access this scheme at some point, and, as I said, it is desperately underfunded. As I understand it, there has been no increase in funding to the Patient Assistance Transport Scheme since 2001—that is the life of this current Rann government. Perhaps this scheme would receive significant levels of funding if the government were not weighing us down with a $3.2 billion Royal Adelaide Hospital. It would seem that we are going to have a new hospital, but we cannot get to it.

Country health services are critical for communities on Eyre Peninsula and the West Coast. The Port Lincoln Hospital redevelopment is welcomed. It has a budget of $33.25 million but only $4.96 million of that is budgeted for 2011-12, with an expected completion date somewhere in mid-2016. Will they be able to deliver this on time and on budget? Only time will tell.

The hospital needs doctors and nurses to provide the services as well, and, as I have said before, the challenge for this state government is to provide those services to fill a new building. I wonder whether the project in Port Lincoln will experience the delays that the Ceduna Hospital did.

I would like to talk about regional development funding just briefly. There has been a removal of roughly $4.1 million in regional development funding by 30 June 2013. It is a disgraceful decision as the Regional Development Association is there to support small businesses right across regional South Australia. That money is being pulled. The member for Chaffey spoke of the underspend in 2010-11 of the Riverland Sustainable Futures Fund. That is unforgivable.

They are asleep at the wheel when it comes to making investments in our regions. The fact that they seem to have a different regional development minister each year seems to me to indicate that there is no continuity or strategic approach to regional development. Goodness knows how many ministers for regional development we have had in the last 10 years. I also think that this lack of interest in meaningful regional development feeds into the reality that this government does not acknowledge the contribution to the state's economy that the regions make.

The capital expenditure into agriculture has been halved from $10 million to $5 million in this budget. PIRSA as a department is losing out each year. The investment priorities in primary industries are inadequate, yet primary industries are one of the drivers of the state's economy. This government loves to spruik the benefits of record harvests, etc., yet in the last budget and in this budget PIRSA has lost out. SARDI also has suffered a $2.7 million decrease in research funding. This is incredibly short-sighted.

I refer to a newspaper article that talks about the agriculture, food and fisheries budget, which has been cut from $216 million to $181 million in 2011-12. The Agriculture, Food and Wine program has dropped by $4.3 million—extraordinarily short-sighted, pulling investment from industries that actually generate wealth for this state. Are we shutting up shop?

It seems that there is inadequate funding into the small business program. Businesses are fleeing interstate. I want to mention education and schools' funding. In my own electorate, the Cleve Area School has welcomed the announcement of funding over four years to construct new learning centres. I certainly welcome any investment into our schools, but there are countless other schools in the electorate of Flinders—and the Minister for Education is aware of a number of these—that are crying out for similar project expenditure to get their facilities up to speed.

Tourism is a critical industry on Eyre Peninsula. Unfortunately, tourism has been targeted with program efficiencies. I see this as basically spin for cuts to regional tourism and the removal of regional tourism employees—a ridiculous move, a penny-pinching move. A number of meetings have been held across the regions to try to address this severe cut in funding and severe lack of confidence that this government puts into tourism. Once again, talking the talk but not walking the walk.

CFS volunteers are crucial to Eyre Peninsula and the West Coast in terms of front-line bushfire fighting. When fires do occur—and, unfortunately and tragically they do and will continue to do so—the volunteers in their budget submission were seeking $2.8 million per annum for training and to ensure that they are properly resourced. It is not a big ask for unpaid volunteers who are front-line bushfire fighters. Unfortunately, the government has committed only $2.1 million over four years. It is an obvious shortfall in what was requested and is simply inadequate.

We had a delegation in Parliament House today from the Isolated Children's Parents' Association (the School of the Air in old language). The School of the Air is an Australian icon. Almost all of the recipients of the School of the Air here in South Australia are using the Centra program and experiencing difficulties with service delivery, and their children are suffering because of it. This has been going on for 10 years, and I find it extraordinary that this has not been addressed and has not been fixed. It is obviously an IT issue, a service delivery issue, and it should not be that hard. These are children who are missing out on a quality education because of lack of service delivery.

This is a cash-strapped government. Its budget cuts have extended to the point where I am hearing stories of school cleaners having to be out of the school grounds by 6pm so as not to incur penalty rates. What that means is that they need to start their daily cleaning early in the afternoon. The cleaners are cleaning while class is on and while school is still in. They are cleaning around teachers, around students, and in some places (through no fault of their own) they are not able to complete the work adequately.

I believe, essentially, that governments should provide the framework within which business can thrive, but unfortunately this government, it seems to me, has become self-fulfilling. It has lost its focus and it is neglecting the needs of all South Australians. The member for Mount Gambier mentioned today—and I was not aware of this, but I took note of it—that now, here in South Australia, there is one public servant for every 19 residents.

I am wondering where the commitment to Eyre Peninsula's water security is. It is an issue I have raised in this place a number of times. It is an issue that the previous member for Flinders, my predecessor, raised a number of times. There was a commitment, I understand, in 2002 by this government to build a desalination plant on Eyre Peninsula. That still has not happened, and there is certainly no indication in this budget that it is any closer.

Nothing has been done to shore up our water security. SA Water has a debt of $1.7 billion which, incidentally, is not included in the debt figure quoted in the budget papers in the forward estimates. The member for Frome talked about the centralisation of services, and I can tell you that Shared Services has been an unmitigated disaster. There have been no cost savings and, in fact, the costs of delivering that service have actually increased and often the service delivery has fallen short of being adequate.

DTEI needs to address a $200 million backlog in the state's road infrastructure maintenance work. How critical is this? Our road network is essential to the movement of population and freight around this state—absolutely critical—and yet the government has allowed this backlog to build up.

Although it does not appear in the budget papers (and nor it should), I am considering the economic impact of marine parks. The minister and the government have indicated that they want no more than a 5 per cent economic impact as a result of the imposition of sanctuary zones, and many people are telling me that they believe this has already occurred through the fall in coastal land values and the fall in value of fishing licences and boats, so the impact of this is already being felt.

Mining royalties are down by $6 million, but they are expected to rise in 2011-12 to almost $42 million, and that is encouraging. I do believe we are on the cusp of a mining boom. This state has yet to realise the full potential of a mineral resources boom, and Eyre Peninsula will be a key part of the state's mining future. I truly believe that, but it is critical that we have the infrastructure in place to capitalise on what could be just a window of opportunity. What is needed is not in this budget. It is not in the forward estimates. It is, in fact, critical investment in infrastructure.

What is in this budget for the most vulnerable in our communities—the seniors and the pensioners? There is very little. The government has tried to portray this as a budget helping families but the pretty pictures do not match the harsh reality of a budget and a financial legacy which will in fact hurt families. It will hurt older people and ultimately hurt the most vulnerable in our society, and I believe this budget ultimately will hurt the government.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (22:55): I rise today to speak to the Appropriation Bill 2011. I would just like to reflect on issues that are affecting rural South Australia, especially out of the reckless spending of this state Labor government. We have a state Labor government spending $9.1 billion on infrastructure and 99.9 per cent of that will be in urban areas. We see the $1.8 billion desalination plant that will be coupled to over $400 million worth of pipes—a desalination plant that only needed to be half the size—and had it been built when we had the policy in 2007, probably at least $1 billion would have been saved.

We also have the new Royal Adelaide Hospital which is going to cost somewhere in the vicinity of $2.8 billion, when we were told before the election by Labor that it would only be $1.7 billion. Then it went up to $1.8 billion virtually immediately and then—surprise surprise—we see it heading north towards $2.8 billion. This will be a hospital that will cost all of us $11 billion just to operate for 30 years. It will cost $1.1 million per day for 30 years.

We also see major rail upgrades in the city costing billions of dollars and, yes, some of these are needed, but I look around my rural electorate of Hammond and I look around the state at infrastructure that is sadly lacking, such as railway infrastructure. I agree with the member for Frome's comments about the infrastructure in the Mallee, that I was well aware of and which we were also reminded of on our grain handling select committee, about how slowly trains have to operate on our Mallee rail lines out towards Pinnaroo.

This is the case right throughout the state, and I know that the member for Flinders is well aware of the shortcomings of the rail in his electorate, of the narrow gauge lines up there, and that there are vast areas and vast amounts of rail that need upgrading. I look at the country roads in this state and note that there is about $54 million put aside for road maintenance. It is still about $200 million behind what needs to be spent.

I reflect on issues like the $80 million—and a lot of that is federal money—being spent on overtaking lanes and rest stops on the Dukes Highway. I know I have mentioned this several times in here: why do the state and federal governments not just get on with the job of duplicating the Dukes Highway so that we do not get so many of these horror smashes on these roads? I am told it will cost $5 million per kilometre but it is still less than $1 billion to do the 191 kilometres to the Victorian border, and I just wonder how many lives that would save.

Speaking of lives, I came across the tragic accident on the Riddoch Highway near Padthaway several hours afterwards, and what a sad loss to the family from Keith losing all those children and losing the father of two of those children and a husband. My sympathies certainly go out to that family. I am certainly not aware of what the issue was there, but there should be more money spent on rural roads so that people travelling these distances, as we do to our country electorates—and I know the Speaker does to her electorate of Giles—have better roads so that we can get around this state and go about our business safely.

I reflect on how everything is focused on the city and about the cuts that happened with the agriculture section of the primary industries budget last year, where we saw 179 jobs targeted. We saw $80 million in cuts targeted over four years—$20 million a year. I want to reflect on the jobs that were cut. Good friends of mine were targeted with these so-called targeted voluntary separation packages. I think you can take the word 'voluntary' out.

It is interesting to see that PIRSA would send along its representative to attend the farewells, and then off they go. It is interesting that I have not seen the Chief Executive, Geoff Knight, at any of those farewells. He was probably the one loading the gun for these targeted packages. I will reflect on what has happened and the decline in the budget for agriculture in this state.

I look back to 2009-10 where it was $285,648,000. Then we get to the 2010-11 budget and it was $225,607,000. Then we find out the estimated result is quite a bit lower for 2010-11 at $216,337,000. To make matters worse we get to 2011-12 and it decreases to $181,746,000. It is approximately $104,000 less than was allocated to agriculture in the primary industries budget from 2009-10. It just goes to show how this government has no vision for the regions: no vision for one of the major wealth producers of this state.

Yes, we do have mining getting on its feet in this state, but it is only getting on its feet especially in comparison to Western Australia. We have a long way to go—a long way to go to come anywhere near anything like Western Australia produces, and I doubt we will ever get that far. I applaud all the exploration that companies are doing around the Yorke Peninsula and Eyre Peninsula. I know that the Terramin mine is well operational at Strathalbyn. I know with the Australian Zircon mine at Mindarie there are some new owners looking at whether to fire that up again.

People need to understand that agriculture is also a core supplier of funds to Treasury and of employment in this state. The Premier came into this place and carried on about the record harvest, the $3.4 billion harvest, as if he had produced it. He probably does not know what a wheat stalk looks like.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: That was a wheat stalk.

Mr PEDERICK: A wheat stalk. Yes, that was the only stalk. It is just incredible to come in here and take credit for the rain when farmers are losing services and there are cuts to the budget. I note some of the cuts that are happening: the South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) cuts, a $2.7 million decrease in research spending; a $4.1 million decrease in service expenses with SARDI; and we see a $12 million decrease in biosecurity funding.

What commitment does this government have for agriculture? Absolutely zero. We have an agriculture minister who announced in the Riverland that he was the best agriculture spokesman in the country. If he is that damned good, tell him—

An honourable member: In the world!

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, in the world.

An honourable member: In the history of the world!

Mr PEDERICK: If he is that good, send him up to Indonesia and get him to fix the live cattle trade. That would be the go. Send him up there. Perhaps he needs to get out there and he can direct Joe Ludwig, the federal minister, and get that mess sorted out.

People need to be aware—and now I have digressed a little bit—that there are two sides to the story of the live cattle trade. They were horrendous images that we saw on the news on Four Corners the other week, horrendous images, and I know for a fact that cattle do not need to be killed that way. If people look at the other side of the industry, at the industry players, the big companies that are managing their stock appropriately, and the abattoirs that are killing appropriately, they would see that the trade is being run effectively; and yes, the cowboys need to be cut out and there needs to be the proper regulation and it needs to be sorted out.

People need to be aware in this place that there are at least 700 Aboriginal stockmen's jobs at risk. Some of them are losing their jobs already. State-of-the-art live cattle boats are still being built and this is affecting the whole of the north.

Mr Williams: It will affect the south too.

Mr PEDERICK: It is affecting the south already, because it is affecting the price of cattle. I do not think any of these northern cattle have come down, but the markets already know that there is the threat of all these hundreds of thousands of cattle that cannot be shipped out. People carry on about the live trade. The live trade—live sheep and live cattle—have supported farmers in this country for many, many years.

Some elements say, 'Oh, we can just kill everything here and send the meat up there.' Well, I can assure you that not too many Indonesians out in the poorer areas have fridges. They just do not have refrigeration, so you cannot keep the meat. Unless all these do-gooders are going to start building power stations and sending refrigeration up there, it is just not going to happen.

I just want to make one final comment about the live cattle trade, because I am being egged on a bit here, and that is that these people in Indonesia will not go hungry. They will import stock from countries that potentially have foot-and-mouth. They could come down through other countries like India and come into Indonesia, and if foot-and-mouth gets there it is only a short way down the archipelago to New Guinea—and I tell you what, Australia is only a short mosquito flight from New Guinea.

I will just indicate to the house what I understand is the protocol for clearing up a foot-and-mouth outbreak in the north of this country. The protocol, from what I understand, is to poison every waterhole in the north—every waterhole! That will not just kill all the cattle; it will kill all the crocs, all the kangaroos, all the native animals. So people need to reflect on that and they need to perhaps do a little bit of research before they go straight out and bag the live cattle trade. People do need to have a look and see what goes on. That is the protocol.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! There seems to be an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease here!

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Hammond has the floor.

Mr PEDERICK: I am a shy, retiring operator. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am concerned about another couple of things that are going on in this state. It looks like the federal review about broomrape control is not going to recommend that broomrape can be eradicated. Now, look over at the other side: this is a state government that got in by the former member for Hammond signing away so that they would get his vote; but they agreed to eradicate broomrape. This government agreed to eradicate broomrape as part of that compact. Here we are; it is in the compact. Here we are 10 years later and there has been—

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PEDERICK: —there has been $45 million invested by state and federal governments—about $1.9 million annually by the state government, $2.6 million by the federal government—and yet here we see what looks like the federal government pulling out because, if they say it cannot be eradicated, the federal funding will have gone out of the broomrape eradication program.

I ask the government: will it step up and bring that funding up to the $4½ million per year? That is what needs to happen. We will have a major problem if broomrape escapes the area that it is in at the minute, in the Murray Mallee, and spreads out across this state and throughout the country. It has the potential to decimate our dryland agriculture, but also our horticulture, in this country—not just in this state, but in this country. People need to be well aware of that.

I want to speak about forestry and this government's shortsightedness with the forward sale they are planning for the three rotations of forestry in the South-East. It is interesting to note that, on this side, the shadow treasurer has found a $682 million hole in the budget which looks like about the amount that the government will potentially get for the forward sale. It will be a fire sale.

There have been some calculations made that the state could recoup over $4 billion over 111 years but it is a state government that is very short-sighted. They get the SACA vote in one night. Surprise, surprise! The next day there is a re-announcement that the forward sale is going ahead because there was a bit of confusion between who was announcing what and whether it was going to happen and we have had these different announcements since 2008.

We even have a Treasurer who gave conflicting comments in answers to separate questions in this place on whether the ACIL Tasman study that was done was a cost benefit study. You only need to talk to the people in the South-East. They know darn well what will happen. The member for MacKillop told the house about a Victorian company that is going against its code of conduct and practices in sending logs offshore in containers. You can get containers to Asia for $500 and less. It is pretty competitive to get empty boxes back to Asia because there are plenty of full ones coming this way.

Is this government prepared to sacrifice the whole economy of the South-East? I think they are. They are that shortsighted that they cannot see outside the bright lights of Glen Osmond and Gepps Cross. They cannot see past the bitumen and the concrete of the edifices that they are going to build as monuments—

Mr Williams: To their stupidity.

Mr PEDERICK: —to their stupidity. I agree with the member for MacKillop. Government members are saying that they are not into privatisation. Not only are they selling off the forward rotations and the forward generations of many people in the South-East in this state, they are also selling off SA Lotteries because there is a risk. What is the risk? People are going to give up gambling? I do not think so. Whether you like gambling or not, people love a punt. There is supposedly a risk. I think about $86 million that is contributed to the state's economy is going to be slashed. That is another privatisation by a party and a Premier who actually made a pledge that he would not privatise assets. So, it has gone directly against their ethos on—

Mr Williams: They have no ethos.

Mr PEDERICK: —yes—

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, the member for Torrens!

Mr PEDERICK: —what they were going to do. I just want to talk about biosecurity in regards to this budget. We have a government committed to what they call cost recovery. They have quite happily put a property identification code in by regulation that will drag in about $240,000 to the government, but the biosecurity levy, which has to come in by legislation, has been deferred by 12 months. This government must be fearful of whether that legislation will get through the house. I think that will contribute something like $8 million if they manage to get it through. It is interesting that it has been put off by 12 months.

I want to talk briefly about the Murray Bridge police station, which has had its funding deferred by 18 months before it is completed. I appreciate that we are getting something done in the electorate but, here again, so that the Treasurer can push the money aside, as they have done right throughout the budget, with hundreds of millions of dollars, they will just offset projects around the state. Here we go again—the Mallee will take the hit by not building the Murray Bridge police station for another 18 months. What we see is a short-sighted budget, one where the government does not reflect on the prosperity of this state and what people and producers can do for this state.

Mr PICCOLO (Light) (23:16): I would like to make a small contribution to this debate. In opening, I congratulate the new Treasurer on his first budget, which I am sure will be the first of many budgets that he will be delivering in this institution. I would like to also congratulate all the speakers who made a contribution to this debate. In particular, I congratulate the member for Mitchell on his well-balanced speech; mine will be shorter because I do not wish to repeat all the things he has said, but I concur with all of his comments.

I would like to provide some context to the comments because I think it is useful to provide some balance to what has been said here today, particularly by those opposite. I will put on the public record of this place some comments that are in the editorial of today's Advertiser.

The Hon. J.J. Snelling: It's a very interesting editorial.

Mr PICCOLO: They are very interesting editorials.

The Hon. J.J. Snelling: Very good reading.

Mr PICCOLO: Very good reading. I would just like to quote from it because it contrasts very strongly—

The Hon. J.J. Snelling: Just read the whole thing into the record.

Mr PICCOLO: No, I do not think I want to read the whole thing; I do not want to take up too much time.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PICCOLO: I will move on if people stop interjecting.

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

Mr PICCOLO: I cannot answer that unless I am listening. These are the comments I would like to put onto the public record in this place because I think they are clearly relevant to provide a balanced perspective of the budget. In talking about Ms Redmond's response to the budget, the editorial states, 'Ms Redmond failed spectacularly to take—'

Mr WILLIAMS: Point of order. As members well know, when we are speaking on a bill we have to actually speak to the bill. This is the Appropriation Bill. I do not know what the editorial of The Advertiser has to do with the Appropriation Bill.

The SPEAKER: Order! Thank you, that is enough of your point of order. As this is the Appropriation Bill and the debate is fairly widespread, I will listen carefully to what the member for Light says, and if I think he is out of order I will pull him into line.

Mr PICCOLO: Madam Speaker, members opposite have reflected on this government's performance over the last 10 years. Now, the last 10 years is not this year's budget. They have made a whole range of reflections on this government's performance over the last 10 years, so it is quite appropriate for me to provide some balance and contrast to what has been said.

The Hon. J.J. Snelling: They've even referred to the State Bank.

Mr PICCOLO: In fact, that is right—they have even referred to the State Bank. I would just like to put on the record what was said. I appreciate that the member has given me a second opportunity to put this quote in Hansard in case he misses it the first time. It states:

Ms Redmond failed spectacularly to take the fight to the Government in a speech which made only one mention of significant policy issue in eight pages of Hansard.

The Leader of the Opposition set the tone for the rest of the debate for the opposition. What was said there was all true of all the other debates from the other side. It is great to see that all the members followed their leader.

Mr WILLIAMS: Point of order. Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the editor of The Advertiser may not have a close understanding of the standing orders of this house, but the reality is that the opposition has been judicious in addressing the matter before the house—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WILLIAMS: —and we have been addressing judiciously the matter of the Appropriation Bill—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WILLIAMS: —and this, Madam Speaker, has nothing to do with the appropriation.

The SPEAKER: Member for MacKillop, I presume your point of order is relevance. However, as I said before, I will listen carefully to the member.

Mr PICCOLO: All the other members opposite actually reflected on our members' contributions today as well, so I am doing the same. I am happy to use up my 20 minutes. How long I speak is up to you.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.J. Snelling: How badly did she fail?

Mr PICCOLO: How badly did she fail?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PICCOLO: The editorial reads:

Ms Redmond failed spectacularly to take the fight to the Government in a speech which made only one mention of a significant policy issue in eight pages of Hansard.

Mr WILLIAMS: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I believe it is out of order for members to read their speeches and I understand that the member is actually reading.

The SPEAKER: Member for MacKillop, you can sit down. I have no idea whether the member was reading from anything because I could not hear a word because of the noise coming from both sides of the house. Sit down.

Mr WILLIAMS: In your determination on whether he was reading, I suggest you ask him to put the piece of paper on the table and see if he can continue his remarks because I doubt whether he can.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Madam Speaker, with all the hubbub, I didn't quite hear how much Ms Redmond failed. I missed that. Could the member for Light repeat it?

The SPEAKER: Thank you, Treasurer. You have made your point. Thank you.

Mr PICCOLO: I could quote it again, if you want me to: 'spectacularly'. However, I move on to read the next quote because I do not want to misquote the editorial:

Ms Redmond—

Mr WILLIAMS: Point of order, Madam Speaker. You just remarked that you couldn't tell whether the member was actually reading or not. He has just confirmed to the house that he is reading which I believe in out of order.

The SPEAKER: Member for MacKillop, members have always referred to copious notes in their comments in these speeches. I consider they are copious notes, and he is quoting from something that he may previously have read. They are copious notes he is referring to.

Mr WILLIAMS: Madam Speaker, he confirmed to the house that he is actually reading. I know that the member is incapable of original thought—

The SPEAKER: Order! Sit down. The member is referring to his notes.

Mr Williams interjecting:

Mr PICCOLO: I did a fairly good job last time, mate.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member still has 16 minutes to go.

Mr PICCOLO: Madam Speaker, can you chuck him out?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Members on my left will now behave.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Goyder, you are not in your seat.

Mr PICCOLO: The editorial goes on:

Ms Redmond has pioneered a 'no target' strategy, which can only be viewed as uninspiring to say the least.

Again, she set the tone for the rest of the speeches we have heard in the last couple of days. I go on:

In the background, the building blocks of significant achievements are being laid; the Adelaide Oval redevelopment, the Royal Adelaide Hospital—

Mr WILLIAMS: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to remind the member that somebody suggested that his car is in a disabled car park out the back.

The SPEAKER: Order! Sit down. Member for MacKillop, if you continue to make remarks like that, I will ask you to leave the chamber.

Mr PICCOLO: The editorial continues:

The Opposition does not serve itself well to ignore this and totally fail to develop its own narrative for voters. The performance of the Opposition is also a total disservice to the people of South Australia and the Westminster system which demands that the fight be taken up to the incumbent...The only message to be had from the election was that the Liberal Party must work harder to earn the respect and the votes of the public—

which they haven't done yet—

...for any South Australian—

Mr Williams interjecting:

Mr PICCOLO: That is what the poll said about the last election with me, too. I am still here. Sorry, I am still here.

Mr Williams interjecting:

Mr PICCOLO: Is that right? It reads:

For any South Australian who was asked what the Liberal Party stands for in this state, the only possible answer today would be 'I don't know'.

All of us can say the same. None of us know what the Liberal Party stands for.

Ms BEDFORD: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PICCOLO: Now, what has this government done? It—

Members interjecting:

Mr PICCOLO: I am happy to do that.

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Florey, are you trying to make a point of order?

Ms BEDFORD: There are any number, but 142 seems to be—

An honourable member interjecting:

Ms BEDFORD: I want to talk later tonight. I do not want to be here until two in the morning. It would be really nice if people could settle down.

An honourable member interjecting:

Ms BEDFORD: Be quiet. It is ridiculous.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! It is getting ridiculous now. Member for Light, get on with it.

Mr PICCOLO: In contrast to that editorial which reflected on the Liberal Party's performance, this is what we as a government have achieved. In terms of public education, we have delivered the biggest infrastructure spend for decades. For example, the new John Hartley School in my electorate, the Mark Oliphant College, the 12 million-dollar investment in Gawler High School, the redevelopment of Roseworthy Primary School, and four children's centres. This is the biggest investment in public education—

Mr WILLIAMS: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I really think that the member needs to be prevented from actually doing himself a disservice when he says, 'we delivered' when referring to federal programs, which are actually funded by the long-suffering taxpayers of this country. Debt.

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WILLIAMS: It is called debt.

The SPEAKER: Thank you. We do not need a debate in your point of order. The member will sit down.

Mr PICCOLO: Like I said, the John Hartley School in my electorate, the Mark Oliphant College, the Gawler High School redevelopment, the Roseworthy Primary School complete redevelopment, four children's centres. We have invested enormously in public education. We then come to public health in the region. We have invested immensely in the Lyell McEwin Hospital, which serves my electorate. We have invested in the GP Plus centres—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PICCOLO: —and we have also extended services to Gawler for oncology, etc. We then come to public transport: the rail electrification and the station upgrades which service my electorate. We are also going to have the introduction of a metro bus system in Gawler from 25 July, the first time Gawler will have a metro service in addition to the train, which we have delivered. Let us contrast the investment that we are making in public transport with what the Liberal Party policy was on transport for Gawler.

Mrs Vlahos: That would be very interesting.

Mr PICCOLO: That would be interesting. Their policy at the last election for providing an extension of public transport to Gawler was to start a community bus. That was their policy. That was their whole policy on public transport for my electorate. They wanted to start a community bus. Talk about an original idea. That is an original idea that the Liberal Party had, isn't it?

We have invested millions of dollars in our metro-ticketed bus service which will start on 24 July. But we did more. We also initiated public transport in Angle Vale. Contrast that with what the Liberal Party did. When they were in government, they ran a service which closed down in six months. That is what they did.

Mrs Vlahos: That's right.

Mr PICCOLO: Do you remember that? They did that. We have extended public transport to Angle Vale. We have extended bus services and greater services to Peachey Belt and Munno Para West. This is the huge investment that this government has made in public transport not only in the state but particularly in my electorate. I am proud of the investment that we have made in my electorate.

We go to transport again. This government this year is investing $500,000 to plan for the south-east connector road for Gawler to provide the infrastructure for the growth of Gawler. The Liberals were talking about it 20 years ago, I can remember. Never was anything done. We are investing there. Also, we are investing tens of thousands and millions of dollars in road improvements around the electorate.

Then we move to our investment in jobs and training. We are committed to creating 100,000 jobs and 100,000 training positions, which is, again, one of the biggest investments over the next six years to provide the foundation for this state. We have made the biggest ever investment in water security in this state.

What do these investments reflect? They reflect a major investment in infrastructure in this state. They reflect a major investment in the future wellbeing of this state. They reflect a major investment in the future of our young people in this state and they provide an important economic stimulus for our state. This government is building the capacity for the future of this state to grow and to provide a prosperous state for our young people.

Mr Treloar: You need to get out and look.

Mr PICCOLO: I do go around in my electorate and look, don't worry. In addition to that, we have a whole range of road safety measures throughout my electorate—road sealing programs, for example, and road shoulder sealing programs, to make our roads safer. There is the Hamley Bridge Road and the main Light to Gawler-Redbanks road, for example. Closer to home but not in my electorate is the Kapunda-Greenock road. Again on road safety, the government will be installing point to point safety cameras along the Northern Expressway, which are important to keep families safe on our roads.

I contrast that to the reckless indifference which the opposition has shown to road safety when they talk about road safety and they say it is okay to creep and it is okay to speed on our roads.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: Who said that?

Mr PICCOLO: Ivan Venning said that today.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: He did not.

Mr PICCOLO: Yes, he did. He said if you get caught speeding over 50 km/h it is an abuse of process. That is what he said. You should read what he said. In fact, he has said it before. In addition, this government is ensuring the delivery of a range of services to the regions in my area.

I will just summarise, and I will not go into any more detail because, as I said, the member for Mitchell covered most of what I wanted to say in his speech. We are building the foundation for growth of this state in the future. The Treasurer delivered a very balanced budget, one that showed care and concern for the most vulnerable in our community. We have increased the concessions for a whole range of programs to support those people who are most vulnerable.

Madam Speaker, contrast our budget, our vision and our philosophy with what The Advertiser editorial said about the Liberal Party response.

The Hon. J.J. Snelling: Let's hear it.

Mr PICCOLO: Do you want to hear it? This is what the editorial in the paper said today.

The Hon. J.J. Snelling: They won't like it.

Mr PICCOLO: They won't like it? In case they missed it the first time, this is comment about the response of the leader, which they all followed dutifully. It says:

Ms Redmond failed spectacularly to take the fight to the Government in a speech which made only one mention of significant policy issue in eight pages of Hansard.

She set the tone for all the other speeches we have heard from the opposition today and yesterday. It goes on:

For any South Australian who was asked what the Liberal Party stands for in this state, the only possible answer today would be 'I don't know.'

They don't know, we don't know, and the Liberal Party doesn't know. I commend the budget to the house.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (23:34): Members might want to look at my contribution to the Statutes Amendment (Budget 2011) Bill to look at my more formal response to the budget. I was lucky enough that the Treasurer brought on that bill straight after the Leader of the Opposition's speech, and I was lucky enough to have unlimited time, so I took my opportunity to deliver my response to the budget as part of the response to the Statutes Amendment (Budget 2011) Bill.

Ms Bedford: Clever; double dipping.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The member for Florey says, 'Clever.' In actual fact, it was not my doing; it was the Treasurer's own will, with the agreement of the whip, who wanted to design it that way. I just happened to be next in line to speak. Anyway, as luck would have it, that is what happened. For those who really want to see my response, they should go to that particular debate, but I do get 20 minutes to make a contribution.

I have deliberately left myself to last so that I can respond to some of the contributions from members opposite. I note that the member for Light took great joy in reading today's editorial. We all know that there will be good editorials and not so good editorials for all sorts of parties over time. We look forward to reading editorials about the change in Labor leadership in due course, because we know that one thing is for sure, and that is that we could run out today and pick up lots of media articles in the last week about how bitterly divided this government is. It is hard to tell, Madam Speaker—

Mr PICCOLO: Point of order, Madam Speaker: I am not sure how this reflects on the budget appropriation.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Sit down.

Mr Piccolo: Excuse me!

The SPEAKER: Order! No point of order; sit down.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: You could have a competition nationwide about which group is more divided, the federal Labor Party or the state Labor Party, because they are tearing each other apart. And here he is! The leadership hopeful is here, the Treasurer. It will be interesting to see whether he can get the numbers over his colleague the member for Cheltenham (Minister for Education), who, even today, was out there saying, 'Let's have discipline and unity.'

When his factional colleague the member for Mawson is out calling for the Premier's head, why would a contender stand up in front of the TV cameras and say to his colleagues, 'We need unity and discipline?' Well, there is only one reason they would do that and that is that the member for Cheltenham wants the story to keep running in the media that there is Labor Party division about the leadership.

To come back to the member for Light's reading of the editorial, I just want to make the point that I find this line humorous because, if you look at what Isobel Redmond has put out there in the public arena during her time, it has been quite a significant policy framework. There is the issue of the ICAC, which the government is playing catch-up on in relation to its announcement. The government spent a couple of years saying that you could not possibly have an ICAC because it would cost $35 million or $40 million. When we announced Isobel Redmond's initiative of an ICAC of a lesser amount, the government said, 'Oh, we can't possibly! You can't do an ICAC for that amount.' Now the government is announcing an office of public integrity which, frankly, for this government is laughable, of around $4 million. They have simply followed Isobel Redmond's lead on that issue.

Isobel Redmond as leader went out with a different view about the hospital, and the public, by majority vote statewide, voted for that vision. There was the issue of the oval—a different policy indeed on the oval. She announced some time ago the reversal of public funding for the community hospitals, something this government will not do. She announced the medical heating and cooling concessions, something this government again followed. She took an opposite view on the prosecution costs matter in this budget, something she addressed in her speech. She had a significantly different stormwater policy from this government, and this government followed Isobel Redmond's policies on land tax and payroll tax in the last two budgets.

The Editor of The Advertiser can write what he wishes, but the reality is that Isobel Redmond has a very proud record of putting policy out there for the South Australian public to consider, and this government has followed her lead on a whole range of issues—on land tax, the ICAC and payroll tax. Even on the riverbank issue, it was Isobel Redmond talking about setting up an authority on that matter. So, have your fun with your editorial, but I will just say to the member for Light: editorials come and go. What goes around comes around and we look forward to having some debate about some editorials that will come.

Let us talk about Labor's vision that is not in the budget, because the member for Light paints Labor as a party of some vision. Let us go through it. Where is the tunnel on Grange Road and Port Road that was promised, the six-kilometre tunnel? I cannot see it in the budget. It was a promise that came and went.

Then there was the underpass near my electorate, the Sturt Road/South Road underpass. It was front page at the 2006 election that this was going to be delivered. It is simply not there. Then there was the front page, at the 2007 budget, that the government was going to build new prisons. It is not there. That vision has gone. Then there was the vision in the next year's budget: 'We are going to duplicate Mount Bold Reservoir.' That has gone. This government has followed on the vision, not led the vision.

So, the member for Light can have his fun but I just make that point to the house. Even in his insipid contribution, where he has to come in here and quote from the paper, he talks about the Liberal Party 20 years ago, talks about the bypass road around Gawler. Well, 20 years ago it was the Bannon government in government and they were not talking about it. The member ought to get his facts right.

The reality is that the member for Light is nothing but a puppet of the leadership. He will snuggle up, because he changed factions; he got a bit upset, he did not get the right job and he was trying to swap factions. Which faction this way; which faction that way? Who will he vote for? It is pretty obvious who he will vote for. He will vote for whoever is going to give him a job. That is where he is going.

I want to touch on a couple of other contributions, because during the debate we had a couple of people who came in and tried to give some history lessons. I want to correct a couple of things for the record, and this is no disrespect to those people who mentioned these particular issues. I want to walk through the ETSA sale because some people are saying that the forest sale by the Labor government is the same as the electricity sale by the previous Liberal government. I want to tell you about the differences, Madam Speaker, and I want to tell you about the similarities.

Mr Piccolo interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I will tell the member about that as well, if he wants. I will tell him about the differences and the similarities between the forest sale and the ETSA sale. The difference is simply this: the government is selling the forests because it has committed itself to too much government expenditure. It is expending too much money. The debt is increasing and it needs to sell, as minister O'Brien said, its forestry assets to reduce its debt to keep its AAA credit rating. I am quoting the minister in saying that. I do not know whether the member for Light is going to dispute the minister, but that is what the minister said.

The difference with the ETSA sale is that the losses racked up under the Bannon government were essentially through poor investment results. I remember the stories about South African goat farms. I remember the stories about making losses in New Zealand forests. Do we remember the plywood cars? Do you remember scrimber, and they were going to make plywood cars, and every time I go to Melbourne I walk past 333 Collins Street just to introduce a South Australian who once lost a lot of money on it thanks to the former Bannon government.

The difference is simply this: the Bannon government racked up debts through its incompetence on the investment through Tim Marcus-Clark and the State Bank. According to the now Premier, Tim Marcus-Clark was a genius and we were lucky to have him. The State Bank debt was racked up largely through lost investments. The debt this government is racking up is through its own decisions. That is one of the key differences.

The similarities are this: the reason for the asset sales is because of the high debt levels racked up by Labor governments. The reason that they racked them up were different but the similarity is that they are both Labor governments. Let us talk about privatisation of the electricity sale for a minute. The state budget in 1993 was around $8 billion. The debt level was $11 billion. The parliament took a decision—and the Labor Party opposed it, of course—about leasing out the electricity assets, and it paid off the debt. In those years—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Sorry?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: It significantly paid off the debt.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: It significantly paid off the debt, leasing the electricity assets, and we always said that we would do that. If my memory serves me right, about $700 million a year in interest was being paid in that time. I was the police minister at the time, and I think that the budget for the police at that time was around $400 million. So, there was a significant cost burden in interest payments.

The reality is that, for those who say that the electricity assets should not have been sold and lament that fact, they have never been able to explain to the public or to the parliament how they were going to maintain that level of debt, maintain that level of interest payment, pay for all the capital upgrades that were required, enter a competitive market (forced on the states by the Keating government through the national electricity market through the Hilmer reforms) and regain the AAA credit rating.

That has never been explained, and the reason that they are not going to explain it is that they did not have a policy to do that. They were in opposition, and the editorial that the member for Light just read out could easily have been read back to that group at that time such is the nature of opposition. And then, ever since that time, the government could have reinvested in the electricity market any time it wanted.

The member for West Torrens makes some noises as to suggest 'as if they would'. Exactly right. You are not going to because you are not going to risk taxpayers' money in a competitive market. Their stance on privatisation is a fraud. They say that they do not support privatisation, and now they are selling 111 years of forward rotations of the forests. Well, if that's not privatisation, I do not know what is.

They are going to sell the Lotteries Commission so that the licence is run by the private operator. If that is not privatisation, what is? They say that they do not support the privatisation—they claim it is privatisation—as in relation to SA Water; and, when the contract came up for renewal, did they bring it back under government control? Did any of them argue to bring it back under government control? Of course, not. They left it under private control because it was a good deal for the taxpayer.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: You were too gutless to bring it back under government control. You did not have the courage of your conviction. And then, when we had the public transport contract up for renewal, and the member for Mitchell at the time moved an amendment to bring it back under government control, every single one of the members opposite, including the member for Light, sat on the side of the house voting against the government taking it over. You voted for the continued privatisation of that particular contract.

So, let us not have any crocodile tears by this particular government that somehow they are anti-privatisation. Their privatisation policy is a fake and a fraud. It has been exposed by their own decision-making over the years, and I just wanted to bring that to the attention of the house.

Some of the members have raised the BER projects, and somehow they say that was a good expenditure of money. I just want to give one example of the BER project in my electorate, at the Coromandel Valley Primary School. How can it be that it took the state government, through this BER program funded by the federal government, longer to build the basketball stadium at the Coromandel Valley Primary School than it did to build the new $125 million aquatic centre at Marion. How can that be?

How can your capital works procurement be so bad that it takes longer to build a less than full-sized basketball court at Coromandel Valley Primary School than it does to build the $125 million aquatic centre at Marion? Not only did it take longer, but they have built the basketball stadiums (and I am glad that the minister for sport is here, because he should be outraged), all these school sports stadiums (most of them, at least), one or two metres short of full size and they cannot be used for community competition. Why would you go out and spend $10 million, $20 million or $30 million dollars building all these school sports stadiums and not make them the appropriate size for competition? It was an inefficient use of taxpayers' money, Madam Speaker, and could have been used a lot better.

The other issue I want to just comment on very quickly, Madam Speaker, for the member for Light's benefit, is the issue that, when he talks about oppositions and policies, the government, when in opposition, never actually explained how they were going to reduce the debt if ETSA assets were not leased and the GST was not brought in, because the government, of course, opposed both of those measures.

If you took today's budget and took out the GST receipts and put back in the old wholesale sales tax receipts, and you left the State Bank debt where it was, I know all the cabinet ministers over there know it would be virtually impossible to run the budget anywhere near like it is in this particular budget.

They have raised some interesting points. The reality is that the budget will get through both houses. Isobel Redmond has put out, during her time as leader, a significant policy package. And it is not unusual for opposition to spend the early years in a new term in opposition internally reviewing their various policies, talking to various lobby groups to hear what they say and then, at the timing of their choosing—depending on the policy—make the various announcements. There is absolutely nothing new with that at all.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: It will take—for the member for West Torrens' benefit—as long as it takes, and each policy will be different; who cares what you think? The reality is—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: It will take as long as it takes; simple as that. So, the reality is that the government, through the member for Light, really has not made any significant contribution. I must congratulate the government, though, on at least making a contribution this year. As you might remember last year, Madam Speaker, they were a bit embarrassed.

They stood up in the party room and applauded the then treasurer for a great budget, but when it came to the public forum—where they actually had to stand up and defend it—not one member last year spoke in this particular section of the Appropriation Bill, to the great embarrassment of then treasurer Foley. So, we do congratulate the government on at least having the courtesy to come in behind the new Treasurer and saying some words of support, and we look forward to the grievance stage of the debate.

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