HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-05-01 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SUPPLY BILL 2013

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

The Hon. L.R. BREUER (Giles) (17:47): Today I have the pleasure of addressing the Supply Bill and some of the achievements of my part of the state and the role that the government has played in this. First of all, can I say to my colleagues opposite: emigrate, just emigrate. If it is that bad in this state, just go. I am sick of the whingeing, the whining, the putting down, and the attitude of the opposition about this state. This is a great place to live: it is clean, it is green, it is beautiful; we have a good quality of life; our kids have a future and jobs if we want them, so get over it! Try living in Greece or Turkey at present, or go to Kenya or the Solomon Islands. Go and get sick in America and see how you go.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. L.R. BREUER: Yes, we have some problems. The cost of living is going up and people on low incomes are finding it tough now, but on a world scale they are not starving, their kids go to school and they have a great health system. We are much the envy of the world, so get over it! You are some of the luckiest people in the world in one of the luckiest countries in the world and you are a bunch of whingey, whiney, wimpy, grumpy old farts! And now to my electorate.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Point of order.

Mr GARDNER: Sir, I object to at least four of the words there.

An honourable member: And 'old' as well!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member may continue.

The Hon. L.R. BREUER: Thank you. Some people are very sensitive about being called old. I want to talk about the $69 million Whyalla Hospital redevelopment, which is going ahead and is looking absolutely wonderful. Certainly, people in Whyalla are very excited about the prospect of what appears to be a whole rebuild of our hospital. Whyalla was one of the four regional hospitals that received upgrades as part of the South Australian health reform. Our hospital is apparently on budget and on schedule, and the project has been progressing very well. It has been interesting to watch it go up. I think most of us thought we were going to get a little building that was to house our cancer centre, but it has turned out to be something monumental and we are very excited about it.

Earlier this year, nine patient accommodation units were opened for use and also the new accident and emergency unit is operating from the western side of the hospital. Our new cancer centre will include six chemotherapy chairs, outpatient care, counselling, and space for research and training activities, along with an extra 34 medical, surgical and palliative care beds, three new operating theatres and a new day procedure unit.

Patients who come to our hospital, which will include a lot from the Eyre Peninsula and the north of the state—so it is good to see the member from Flinders over there—will be able to stay closer to the hospital. They will have nine new self-contained one-bedroom accommodation units on the site, which will also be available to patients' carers. That is an issue for us from the country. If you go to Adelaide or to another centre, you often do not have family there. Patients' carers will be able to stay there with them if the patients need to be admitted.

People who travel to Adelaide for treatment may also be able to return to our region earlier for their rehab and other outpatient services, and carers, as I said, who are there will be able to book into the units. It will make accommodation and travel costs much more affordable for our patients and their carers. I have had a look at the area; it looks nice. There are some lovely little outdoor landscape areas there. We also have two two-bedroom units for visiting medical specialists and their families, which will be opened as part of the redevelopment. We are very happy with this. It is a wonderful asset for our city and it is a great example of this government caring for our region.

Giles, of course, is not just Whyalla, even though the majority of the population lives there. I was very pleased today to see that the town of Hawker is going to get its desalination plant to improve its water quality. That is very exciting news because we have been trying for this for some time. Today I understand that the water minister, Ian Hunter, said that they have been able to identify an appropriate desalination solution that is suitable for that remote location, and it can be delivered efficiently. I know SA Water has had extensive discussions with The Flinders Ranges Council about improving the water quality to the town, and after significant research SA Water has determined the most appropriate solution is a reverse osmosis desalination plant.

The local community, the council and SA Water have arrived at a solution which applies the available funding in the most efficient way and gets the outcome that the community wanted. It will desalinate the existing groundwater supplies. Tenders are now being called for the construction of the project. It is due to commence later this year and it is hoped that it will be operational in the latter half of 2014.

Hawker is only a small community, but they needed that water supply. Water, of course, is very scarce in my electorate, being in the desert. It is certainly becoming a very big issue with the mining developments that have been happening, so I am pleased that this government has been able to find a solution for Hawker which I think will transpose to other areas of the state also in my part of the state. I am pleased also that they have been looking so carefully at the issue.

Recently I was very sad to say farewell to Scott Denny, who has been our Whyalla police operations inspector for over three years. He was recently promoted to the superintendent officer in charge of the Yorke and Mid North local service area, and he has relocated to Port Pirie. I was sad to see him go because I am very proud of our police force in Whyalla and I know Scott was a very popular inspector there, who certainly had the respect of the local community.

As operations inspector he worked across the Eyre and Western local service area in Whyalla, Port Lincoln and Ceduna. Over the three years he was there, he certainly took part in many operations which were aimed to make our communities across the area safer. His staff and their hard work were able to improve road safety in our region. The statistics now show that we have actually had a significant reduction in fatal crashes across the area, as well as a steady decline in victim reported crime.

I know Superintendent Denny spent a great deal of time and effort in taking drugs off our streets. With a crackdown on drugs, they were able to shut down a number of clandestine drug laboratories, particularly those associated with the production of methamphetamines. There were also a significant amount of cannabis hauls made across the local service area. By taking the drugs off the street, of course, it makes our community a much safer place.

I say good luck to Scott and thanks for your hard work, but also thanks to all of our other wonderful police force who are operating in Whyalla. I know they have some difficulties in attracting people there but, once they get there, they love the area. We can be very proud of our police force.

I am also very proud of the schools in my electorate and the work that the state government is doing in there. I am particularly happy with the way that the Coober Pedy Area School has moved ahead after its difficulties of the last few years. I am hearing good reports from there all the time and from the community about how pleased they are now that the Coober Pedy school has gone ahead.

I know that there is a motion on the books about these schools in country areas and the importance of them. I can only emphasise that, in small communities, the schools are very often the heart of that community, so it is good to see what is happening with the Coober Pedy school.

Stuart High School in Whyalla is an amazing school. They have a very high percentage of Aboriginal students there. It is probably in one of the lowest socioeconomic areas of the city and they have all sorts of difficulties, but they forge ahead and they do an incredible job thanks to their staff, including Veronica Conley, who is the principal there, and the local deputy principal, Steve Walker.

One thing that they do at Stuart High School—and even though we live by the sea, we live in the desert—is have an aquaculture program operating, which started off with just some simple yabby farming that they got their students to do in a couple of tanks in a classroom. As the years went on, they put a lot of hard slog into it. They raised funds and they expanded the project and now they have got a purpose-built shed, which is able to sustain an industrial smoker. They have several freshwater tanks to farm kingfish and salmon and self-contained water irrigation, where they irrigate a small horticulture area they have got.

This whole exercise has been great for students, who have learnt a very real and practical work situation of cultivating and producing food products, and many have gone on and developed an interest in pursuing a career in the aquaculture industry, which is, of course, so important on Eyre Peninsula. There are other areas of aquaculture that the Stuart High School is looking at—for example, things like marine radio courses, boat licensing and underwater welding—which will certainly expand the students' aquaculture skills and make them very competitive for work in the aquaculture industry.

So, my congratulations to Stuart High School, and particularly to Steve Walker for the hard work he has put in, but to Veronica and all the rest of her staff because they have got many other amazing programs going on—Aboriginal programs and all sorts. They are a typical country school who get on with it and get things done and are a real success story. Incidentally, recently, Stuart High School sold over 120 kilograms of smoked fish at the Whyalla Snapper Competition.

Mr Pengilly: How much did you get?

The Hon. L.R. BREUER: I didn't get any. I wasn't there on the day and I missed out, but I have had their product before and it is wonderful. They incorporate all the processes from the raw product right through to the sales and marketing and the preparation of the fish, etc. They are able to cover all of the small business principles.

I was also very pleased to hear recently that South Australia has agreed to implement DisabilityCare Australia. We have supported this and this will give 33,000 South Australians with a disability the support they need for a lifetime. We have a number of people with disabilities in Whyalla, of course, as does any community.

People with disabilities, along with their families and carers, will be able to make decisions now about the support that they need to live dignified and fulfilling lives. It is a fundamental shift in the way that we will support people with disabilities and, certainly, there has been a substantial increase in funding.

The South Australian Labor government has already almost trebled funding for disability services from $123 million in 2002 to $345 million in 2012-13. Upon full implementation in 2018, South Australia's contribution will have risen to $723 million, so it is an amazing investment and certainly very caring for people with disabilities in our state.

For families in Whyalla, this has been a long-awaited need. We certainly have our share of people with disabilities, and we also have a wonderful organisation there called the Phoenix Society Incorporated, which I am sure you have all heard of, and which has been a very important part of our city for a long time. I do have to declare a conflict of interest in this before I go on because I am a board member of the Phoenix Society in South Australia, and have been for a number of years, and I also have a very close family member working there. I became a member of the Phoenix board because I have had this close association with the organisation in Whyalla for many years, going back to the days when it was the Whyalla sheltered workshop.

Over the years I have regularly visited there, and in recent years I have had regular pizza lunchtimes with the workers. I also try to take any visiting politicians there when they are in town—and I love to see their reaction—and they make them very welcome. I do this because I am always impressed with the work done there by our local people, some of whom who have worked there for years, and I know one person who has been there for over 30 years. It is a great asset to our city, and a wonderful work environment for people with disabilities, the majority of whom have intellectual disabilities.

I know in Whyalla that we are one of the best performing branches in South Australia and we employ over 50 people. In Whyalla, the work includes outside maintenance on various businesses and properties; car detailing; and various projects on the floor including cleaning headphones for Qantas. Any headphones that come in on flights into Adelaide are taken to Whyalla and cleaned and prepared and put in sealed packages and sent away again. We have an amazing embroidery service which supplies many local and state businesses, clubs and organisations. In fact, Phoenix will look at any sort of work that is proposed and are always on the lookout for new contracts.

I am not normally in the practice of promoting companies but, in this instance, I am very passionate about Phoenix. I believe that the role they play in the lives of people with disabilities is essential in giving them employment opportunities, self-esteem and a social environment in which they can be comfortable and make friends, and of course any money that is made goes back into the business supporting this wonderful organisation. What Phoenix cannot do locally, their branches in Adelaide may be able to do: in Adelaide they do all sorts of things like making furniture, they have a call centre, they label wine bottles and process food—amongst their many other jobs—and their prices are very competitive.

There are many other state government organisations and departments in Whyalla and I will not have time to go into all of them today but the Public Service in regional South Australia is very important and they provide a presence there. Generally, local people are employed, so they are a big employer in our country regions and very important to us. I have to compliment Housing SA in Whyalla which does an amazing job. Prior to this, the Minister for Housing was sitting here, and I was hoping he would still be here. Irene Adair is the manager there, she is a local person, and she has been there for many years. She is caring, very empathic and very fair, and this is reflected in her staff who similarly do a very good job.

We used to have many houses which were vacant but now, like every area, we have a shortage of housing, and so there are all sorts of difficulties that have evolved from that, but they manage very well there, and we do not get too many complaints about Housing SA in Whyalla because we know that they are doing a good job and a very fair job. We have a TAFE campus and a university campus in Whyalla. There are so many other government departments that are based there and I appreciate the work that they do.

So, the sky is not falling in. We are doing okay in South Australia and regional South Australia. I am very proud to support this bill. The cancellation of the Olympic Dam project and the Arafura project—both vital to my communities and to my electorate—have nothing to do with this government's policy and I have to emphasise that. This government has gone out of its way to support these industries. They have done everything possible to keep them here, to keep them in South Australia and, certainly, I know in Whyalla and Roxby, etc., while people are hurting, it has not been the government's fault.

I do not know if the opposition has ever heard of the GFC. I do not know whether they realise that there are lowered oil prices all over the world. I do not know if they realise that there is a lack of finance coming in from overseas. That is why these projects were cancelled, not because of this state government. We will continue as a state government to encourage companies to come to South Australia, to encourage companies to come to my part of the state, and to keep those businesses out there that are reliant on the mining industry going.

It was a blow to lose the Olympic Dam project. It was certainly a big blow to lose the Arafura project. They were very good corporate citizens in the time they were in Whyalla, and they were there for about three years. They worked very well with our community and we really thought that one was going to happen, so it is a shame, it is a blow, but it is not the end of the world. We will get on, we will survive, we will manage and something else will happen. So I say to the opposition, be thankful that we live in this state, enjoy our assets that we have in this state, enjoy our lifestyle and stop your whingeing.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (18:05): I am pleased to take my place here in the house to speak to the Supply Bill. I always think it is important that when members do speak to legislation they actually provide some facts. I want to provide some facts in relation to the state's finances and the current situation that we find ourselves in here in South Australia. Let us have a look at some facts in terms of what has taken place in the one year since the Hon. Jay Weatherill has become Premier of this state, in the one year that the current Premier has been in the role.

South Australia's AAA credit rating was put on a negative outlook, then downgraded to AA+, again with a negative outlook, and then downgraded again to AA, which is currently the worst credit rating in Australia. That is my number one point. The second point—and the member for Giles spoke about this—is that the much anticipated Olympic Dam expansion has been cancelled, not put on hold, but cancelled.

The government themselves, over the course of the last week or so, have admitted that they over-spruik and oversell these projects. There are 4,100 fewer jobs in South Australia. This Labor government has budgeted for the largest deficit in the state's history totalling $1.2 billion. Labor budgeted for the largest debt in the state's history, peaking at $14 billion. They have mothballed the desalination plant that they doubled in size. It is important to remind the house that it was the Liberal Party's policy to construct a desalination plant here in this state.

We strongly supported and campaigned for a 50 gigalitre plant, but what did we see? We saw the then prime minister Kevin Rudd fly in and say, 'Let's make good fellows of ourselves and double the desalination plant to 100 gigalitres.' That is twice the amount of capacity that we ever needed, and now what do we see? We see it mothballed. What an absolute waste of money, time and effort. It went from 50 gigalitres, which was the Liberal Party's proposal, to 100 gigalitres and now it has been mothballed.

For the second year running, the state failed to meet the national average within the NAPLAN scores in all 20 categories and South Australia has the worst property sales figures in 27 years. That paints a pretty gloomy picture of the state of South Australia's finances and situation and that is just in one year of this current Premier holding that role.

Let us have a look at some other facts and figures in relation to the fiscal position and the outlook here in South Australia. Let us have a look at the deficit situation. In the 2012-13 Mid-Year Budget Review, there are budget deficits on all three measures, the first being the net lending deficit of $939 million, the second being the cash deficit of $1.4 billion and the third being the net operating deficit of $1.2 million for the 2012-13 year.

I have been in this place for nearly 12 years, and year after year we have been saying this, trying to tell the government that they are on the wrong track. The Auditor-General has warned the government repeatedly that it cannot rely on revenues to continue coming in over-budget to rescue its high spending habits. As I have said before in this place when I get the opportunity to speak to legislation such as this, when the budget is brought down and we get the opportunity to speak to the budget bill, this government and Labor governments ever since I can remember, since the 1970s when Gough Whitlam was the prime minister, Labor governments federally and at the state level are high taxing, high spending governments. I will broaden my comments in relation to those matters in a few moments.

Let us also have a look at the fiscal position and outlook and the historic deficit situation. We have had six deficits in seven years. In 2008-09 we had a deficit of $233 million, and in one of those seven years a surplus was forecast. That was in 2009-10 and, guess what, Mr Acting Speaker? What year was the 2009-10 year? That was an election year. We had a forecast in that year of a surplus of $187 million, but immediately following the 2010-11 year it plunged back into a deficit of $53 million and then in 2011-12 to $258 million. Then we hit the big time in 2012-13 with $1.169 billion (rounded up it is $1.2 billion), and in 2012-14 it is $868 million.

Again, that paints a pretty gloomy picture of how things have travelled over the past seven years. As I said, the only year that a surplus was predicted was in the election year. Call me a cynic, but that is the reality of the situation; they are the facts of the matter. Let us also have a look at the demise of our credit rating. The AAA credit rating has gone to AA+ and then AA. The then treasurer Snelling made the following commitment, and I quote from Hansard dated 28 September 2011: 'We are committed to making sure we retain the AAA credit rating.'

However, despite repeated warnings from rating agencies about unsustainable spending and high debt levels, we have seen the state lose its AAA credit rating and it downgraded it to AA. The loss of the credit rating in Queensland cost it an extra $200 million; that is a significant amount of money. The loss of the Queensland AAA rating cost it $200 million a year, and some financial commentators estimated that our downgraded AAA credit rating to AA+ could cost South Australia over $20 million a year. As I have stated, we have seen the credit rating downgraded even further to a AA position since then.

The former treasurer, the Hon. Kevin Foley, who has departed the parliament, said in 2010 that the loss of the AAA rating would 'send our state spiralling down into an abyss of debt'. And what have we seen? Those words have come true. We have spiralled into an abyss of debt, where we have plunged to a forecast debt position of $14 billion, and that equates to the state paying the equivalent of $2.2 million a day in interest payments on that debt. This afternoon, we heard the shadow treasurer (the member for Davenport) equate that to how much interest we are paying per hour every day, each and every day, for the ensuing period of time.

We have talked about deficits and we have talked about debt. Let's have a look at the other side of the ledger in terms of revenue. In the period this government has been in power, from 2002 to 2012 (a 10-year period), we have seen a massive $5.2 billion in excess of what the government has budgeted for. What we on this side of the house have said continuously is that this government has not had a revenue problem; what it has had is a problem with managing its costs. It has had a real issue in managing its expenditure.

Over the forward estimates, in relation to taxation, in the Mid-Year Budget Review, the government will collect over $17.7 billion in taxes. Under Labor, this state has the unworthy reputation of being the highest taxed state in the nation. That is a shameful legacy of this Labor government. I see the minister across the way pulling faces and so on. He can do what he likes, but the fact of the matter is that this is the highest taxed state in the nation, and that is a disgrace, given the revenue streams we have and shows the lack of will this government has shown in terms of managing its expenditure.

We can list the taxes—payroll tax, conveyancing duty, land tax, other property taxes, taxes on gambling, taxes on insurance, motor vehicle taxes and other miscellaneous taxes—that have all increased significantly. There has been a percentage change in general government taxation of 85 per cent and a percentage change against CPI of 36 per cent. So, the government has not had a problem with revenue: it has had a problem with its expenses. As I have stated before, the Auditor-General has warned the government over the years about controlling expenses. Standard & Poors told the media on 27 September, 'We are just not seeing evidence of cost constraints from the state government.'

As I have said, there has been a pattern of high taxing and high spending with Labor governments right around the state. There is a pattern of tax, borrow; tax, borrow; and tax some more. The most recent example of that is we saw the Prime Minister come out today and announce that a 0.5 per cent levy will be imposed to partly fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). So, we have seen that most recent example at the federal level.

The most recent example in the state has been the announcement of the toxic car park tax—$750 per car park per year in the CBD. If that is not a brake on the economy, particularly when we are trying to revitalise the city, I do not know what it is. We have seen the Liberal Party respond by stating that that tax will be abolished under a Steven Marshall-led Liberal government, and with strong support from the business community here in the city and from a whole lot of—

The SPEAKER: Member for Kavel, would you please not refer to members by their Christian name or their surname as it tends to make feelings rise and cause disorder. It is against the standing orders of the house and its long usage. The person to whom you refer is the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Thank you for that direction, Mr Speaker. We have seen that the Liberal Opposition has come out with a policy initiative stating that that toxic car park tax will be abolished when the Liberal Party forms government. As I said, the state has not had an income problem: it has had a cost control problem. Really, state Labor has certainly not controlled its expenditures and not had the will to manage its costs properly. I think I have spoken enough on that matter.

In the last few minutes (and I want to continue this in the opportunity I get after this particular debate) I want to turn my focus and remarks to the issues as a consequence of the government being re-elected in March 2010—supported by Greens preferences, I might add. It is another indisputable fact that this Labor government was re-elected in March 2010 supported by Greens preferences. I know they do not like hearing that, but it is the fact of the matter, and I will continue to keep stating that. In every key marginal seat, the Greens supported the ALP before they supported the Liberal Party, and that is a fact.

I want to make some comments in relation to the consequences of the government's being re-elected and the decision it made a number of months after that, in December 2010, to rezone that vast tract of land in Mount Barker—1,310 hectares—for residential development. I have been in this place continually calling on the government to provide infrastructure and services up to and since that decision, particularly since that decision because we know that that land has all been rezoned and that there is real demand for infrastructure and services.

The government has announced a second park-and-ride facility to be constructed in Mount Barker. The first the community knew about this proposal was when it hit the front page of the local newspaper a fortnight ago. The first the local community knew about this project was when it hit the front page of the local Mount Barker Courier. While I have been calling for improvement in infrastructure and services, what about the community consultation process? To me, this shows that the government has learnt nothing from previous mistakes in terms of consulting with the local community, particularly in relation to the proposed site of this park-and-ride facility.

I am also aware that a DPTI officer met with some local residents to hear their concerns and I am certainly aware of the issues that were raised at that meeting and I, as the local member, will be taking up those issues with the government and the council. I know the council does not necessarily have a lot of influence in these matters because it is a DPTI project on state government land. However, I am going to take up and discuss the issues with the council. So, really, you could call it another announce-and-defend proposition.

Has the government really learnt anything from its past mistakes? It did not listen to the community concerns when it pushed ahead and ignored any and every community concern in relation to rezoning the land, and, in relation to the first decent piece of infrastructure we have had proposed since that decision, the community has not been brought with it and has not been taken along the process. So, it is pretty clear that the government has not learnt anything.

We also have the issue with a private company looking to build a wastewater treatment plant, 20 kilometres east of the Hills, only a couple of kilometres away from the township of Callington to treat wastewater coming from this newly rezoned area in Mount Barker. Personally I think that is a ludicrous proposal and, to its credit, the Mount Barker council has come up with an alternative scheme. All in all, I know what the member for Giles has said that we have a lot to be thankful for, but we have a lot of areas to improve on as well.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton) (18:25): I rise to speak in support of the Supply Bill in a somewhat quirky necessity of this parliament to make sure that the machinery of government continues to operate. In my contribution I intend to cover a few areas. I have read and listened to the contributions to date of the opposition, and really it seems to me to be the same old, same old. They talk down our state. They are very negative. They cannot see a future for our state and not only can they not see a future but they refuse to articulate what it might be if they were in government and how they would contribute to that future.

The member for Giles made a very good contribution and I endorse her comments that we are lucky enough to live in the best state in the best country in the world. What differentiates this government from the opposition is that we do have a vision and strategies, and we are working through those strategies to ensure that that vision is fulfilled, not simply where we need to be in the next year or so but a vision that takes us 10, 20, 50 years into our future.

Of course, sir, you are aware as is this house of the seven priorities. I will not go through each and every one of those state priorities but it will be these pillars that will hold up our social, economic wellbeing and the wellbeing of all South Australians. They will form the foundation on which we will build this state's positive and productive future.

Let me now focus for a few minutes on a couple of those priorities. Advanced manufacturing is one, as well as premium food and wine from our clean green environment and sharing the benefits of the mining boom. Of course, there is a direct link between the food and wine initiative, advanced manufacturing and the benefits of the mining boom. That link is the establishment of creative industries, the diversification of our economy, the establishment of smart businesses that are to underpin this state and our advanced manufacturing sector.

We have already seen evidence of this occurring through those outstanding companies like SAGE Automation, Redarc and Osmoflo to name a few, and many others that exist in the wine and food sector and the water industry. Contrary to the views expressed opposite, South Australia has a positive, productive and inclusive future—a future that this government believes in and that we are committed to working towards with the South Australian community.

I want to turn now to some of the critical infrastructure projects that underpin this future that we believe in and that South Australians believe in. We see just down the road the construction of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital and alongside it the research centre. We are continuing to see in this state the work being undertaken at the Lyell McEwin, the QEH, the Repatriation Hospital, at Flinders and, as was mentioned by the member for Giles, our four regional hospitals. We have seen the ongoing electrification of our railways, including the Seaford rail extension and light rail, which will continue to grow. You need to take that first step forward and that started with the extension to our trams.

You can see the work being undertaken to rectify the former Liberal government's one-way Southern Expressway by turning it into a two-way expressway. We have seen the advantages that have arisen from the construction of the Port Adelaide Expressway, the Northern Expressway. In fact, you could leave here in peak hour traffic and get to Truro in an hour, the gateway to the Riverland. These are outstanding projects. We are seeing the work being undertaken on South Road. We are seeing the work that is being undertaken on the Riverbank project. That will indeed be part of the mechanism that will be the transformation of the city with respect to the vibrant city priority.

We have seen the construction of the desalination plant and the north-south interconnector that guarantees not just our future water security but also the security of our future economic well being. We have heard a lot from the opposition about their initiative of the desalination plant and, of course, how they would have built a 50 gigalitre plant, just as they would have built—and did build—a one-way southern expressway. However, I recall the comments of my friend the member for Schubert who at the time advocated for a massive desalination plant to be built. In fact, the bigger the better I think were his words.

When asked, 'How will you then transfer the water throughout the system and what if it is not big enough?', I think one of the former leaders of the opposition (the now member for Heysen) said, 'We'll just build another one up north.' These throwaway lines show that whilst it might have in their view been their initiative they really had not, like on many things, thought the process or the project through. There are many other projects that I could mention, but those I have mentioned will be transformational to this state.

We have also seen during the last few years significant social welfare programs, with additional funding injected into disability services, accommodation support and resources for our most vulnerable within our society and, of course, our younger children. We have seen additional funding to our emergency services and to our police and the significant growth in those particular sectors. That link to our healthy and safe environments is again one of our priorities.

In the area of higher and further education—and I acknowledge the presence of the minister for further and higher education—we have seen the number of international students advance over the last decade from 11,000 in 2002 to 28,000 in 2012. Whilst that figure has stabilised, as you would expect in the context of a more fragile global economy than we have had for some time, it is still a significant contributor to this state, contributing in excess of $850 million in export earnings on an annual basis.

It is an area that will continue to grow; I have no doubt about that. Why? Because of the fantastic learning institutions that we have in this state: our three outstanding universities and our very significant and vibrant VET sector, and the fact that this state and this city is a safe, friendly and welcoming place for international students to study. When they return home, or indeed if they choose to stay, they become great ambassadors for the state of South Australia.

I briefly want to turn to the environment. This is another area that distinguishes us from the opposition. We care for our environment. I do not believe that they do. Their record when in government shows exactly that. During their term—

Mr Gardner: What did you do for the purple spotted gudgeon?

The Hon. P. CAICA: We saved it. During their term not one extra square metre was added to the wilderness protection areas, the highest level of protection with which you would be very familiar, sir. I forget the figures and I do not want to come in and have to correct them, but it is like this. When Labor lost government in 1993, I think 70,000 hectares had been classified under wilderness protection. It was still 70,000 hectares when we returned to government in 2002 and it now stands—or will soon—at close to 2 million hectares.

There have been additions to national parks. We have seen the preservation and protection of Arkaroola. We have seen the establishment of marine parks despite the doom and gloom and the hysteria and the scaremongering of the opposition: that we would see the world as we know it collapse. It has not. The marine parks are a fitting legacy for our state's future.

We have also seen the Murray-Darling Basin plan, again, that very important plan that was based on both environmental and economic initiatives. Again, the attitude of the opposition when contrasted to what this government has achieved with respect to the Murray-Darling Basin plan is quite stark. What did they do and what did they want to do? They wanted to settle for a Mazda. They wanted to cave in at 2,750 gigalitres even though they knew it was not enough water to return the system to sustainable health.

They were willing, ready but thankfully not able to haul up the white flag that they surely would have done. South Australia, as a state, has been instrumental in delivering one of this nation's most significant and important reforms—the Murray Darling Basin Plan. It was never about the environment versus irrigation because those two matters and the health of the environment and irrigation are inextricably linked.

Another area demonised by the opposition is the natural resource management reforms that are critically linked to the premium wine and food priority. The success of this priority will only be as good as the health of the environment in which this primary production takes place. It is reform about whole of landscape management, realising that the landscape is linked and any consumptive use, as I mentioned, is dependent on the health of the environment in which this activity occurs.

This leads me to my next point, which is the vital importance of primary production to this state's economy. Not just our regional economy, but our state economy. Speaker after speaker has advanced that this government is city-centric and this is an absolute nonsense. If any government has neglected our regional and country area it has been, and was, the opposition when in government between 1993 and 2002. Why did it neglect its core constituency? Because it takes its regional and rural constituency for granted, and that is why we saw Independents in the Riverland, in the South-East and in the Mallee.

I loved my job as agriculture minister. It was a terrific job, but those people who I spoke to in the regions knew and understood the commitment of this government to regional and rural South Australia. During my travels throughout regional South Australia they spoke of the two greatest agriculture ministers that they believe have existed—John Kerin as the federal minister and Frank Blevins as the state agriculture minister, and that was mentioned ad nauseam whilst I was out in regional South Australia.

Alas, they never said that about me, but I am happy to have followed in the footsteps of those two great agriculture ministers. Why is it that they believe a Labor agriculture minister is far in advance of that that was ever proffered up or thrown up by the opposition when it was in government? Because Labor agriculture ministers can be relied upon to do the right thing and not pander to the louder political voices to which a Liberal government would, of course, succumb. So, we, as Labor agriculture ministers, can do the right thing, not the political thing that often Liberal agriculture ministers have no choice but to succumb to.

A lot of the opposition have spoken about the debt and the revenue, and I want to conclude on just these few points. All that I have spoken about has been undertaken at a time of global economic fragility, at a time of reduced revenue. All that I have spoken about—the infrastructure build, economic, social and environmental reforms—has put this state in a very good position. Our outlook is positive. Our debt levels are manageable. Revenues, whilst I have not got a crystal ball, are sure to rebound.

We have a plan for this state. We have strategies to deliver this plan. We live in the best state, in the best country, in the world. We will prosper as a state. Our community will grow in strength. Compare this, if you like, to the negativity that has been expressed by every opposition speaker. They have no plan. They have no strategies. They are bereft of ideas and policies. They do not believe in South Australia and its people. They do not believe in themselves.

I have listened to the three former leaders of the opposition speak almost in succession—the member for Davenport, the member for Heysen and the member for Norwood. It is a pity that the member for Waite is overseas because we would have had the quadrella of former leaders. Not one has been positive in their message for or about this state. At best it is sad and at worst it is pathetic.

We have our challenges and I do not deny that, but in no way are they insurmountable. If we compare Australia and South Australia to the rest of the world, we are in a pretty good state. Again, what would the opposition have us do? If we have a look at the skyline around here, admittedly a lot of the projects that are being undertaken are government projects. In fact, this town has been called by some people a company town at this point in time, and I am glad that it is. Not only are these projects able to stimulate the economy but they are transformational in their very nature.

What would the opposition have us do? Put money away for a rainy day when it is pouring. This is the exact right time to undertake this build. What would the opposition want us to do? Again, put that money away for a rainy day when it is pouring so that we would in turn have many thousands of people unemployed. We would be in a similar situation to Europe where some of these countries are sitting at 19 or 20 per cent unemployment levels. I understand today it was announced that there is a 12.5 per cent unemployment level across the European zone. Is that what the Liberal Party would want us to do and the position it would like us to be in? What do we get from the opposition? We get absolutely nothing. I listened to the member for Kavel and he talked about—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: There was your mistake.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I often think, 'How can we win the next election when the member for Kavel is so ruthless in the way he manages his approach to this parliament?' The member for Kavel stated that they have come up with a policy, and that policy is to oppose the car park tax. It is a position that I actually support. I think the car park tax is a good policy, but that is the only policy that it appears the Liberal opposition has: to oppose things.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Don't worry, the Property Council might think of another one.

The Hon. P. CAICA: They can think of other things themselves to oppose, I am sure, but the point is that the policy is to oppose things. I did not necessarily want to speak today but I was certainly compelled to, given the level of negativity that has been expressed by the opposition and the level of nonsense that was spoken. I and this side of the house believe that we have a positive future—well, we know that we have a positive future and we know that, working with the South Australian people, we will achieve this positive future.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (18:42): I am delighted that I am following the member for Colton, because there are a few matters that he has put on the record that I will be able to straighten up. It fascinates me that members of the government are using as an excuse for this government's incompetence the fact that we enjoy better circumstances in this country than people do in other countries. They are saying that, because other people are worse off, we should be thankful for their incompetence. It does not make sense to me.

What I think the opposition is saying is, 'Just imagine how much better we could be if we got even a handful of things right,' because this government has not got many things right. The member for Colton mentioned a number of things that this government has done, and I will go through some of them and put the record straight, because a heck of a lot of them they have not got right; they have made an absolute stuff-up of them.

The member for Giles had a similar theme: why are we complaining when we are so well off? We are so well off, but again I make the point that we should be a lot better off. What the government ignores is that the reason that places like Greece, Spain and a number of other European countries currently have problems with unemployment and have all sorts of financial problems and thus, flowing from that, social problems, is that they have been at it a bit longer than we have been here. They have gone further down the road that this government is travelling; that is the road of deficit on top of deficit on top of deficit, creating unmanageable debt. I remember treasurers of this government saying there was no way they would allow our debt to get over 50 per cent of the revenue.

Mr Gardner: It was not that long ago.

Mr WILLIAMS: It was not that long ago; it was probably only 18 months ago. But today, we have forgotten about that; the government has forgotten about that.

The SPEAKER: Would the member for MacKillop be seated. The member for Elder.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Can I ask the member for Morialta to stop interjecting so I can listen to the speaker?

Mr Gardner: I think that is frivolous and obstructing the house, sir.

Mr WILLIAMS: Are you ruling?

The SPEAKER: I am about to rule when the member for Morialta is paying attention. The member for Morialta was called to order earlier today and he was warned a first time. If I hear him interjecting again, I shall warn him a second time. The member for MacKillop.

Mr WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The member for Morialta certainly was not putting me off and I seem to think that the—

The SPEAKER: That is not the principal consideration.

Mr WILLIAMS: That may not be, sir, but the member for Elder's point of order just cost me a minute or a minute and a half of my allotted time and I think his point of order was frivolous and vexatious and deliberate, notwithstanding.

The SPEAKER: Member for MacKillop, would you be seated. That is a matter I will adjudicate. Member for MacKillop.

Mr WILLIAMS: I thought you were going to adjudicate on the matter, sir. I will continue. I was saying that the Labor Party fails to understand that those countries they are saying are so much worse off or are in such a bad state that we should be thankful, got to that state because they have been doing for a little longer what Labor governments in this nation are doing today—building deficit on deficit and creating unmanageable debt. That is the problem.

We have a government which does not understand the difference between inputs and outputs. Every time there is a debate about some public policy, we have ministers of this government stand up and say, 'We are spending record amounts on this particular problem or issue.' They never acknowledge that they are wasting money, because that is what they are doing. If they were spending record amounts, one would expect that they might resolve the problem, but they have not.

Because I was put off by the member for Elder, I did lose track of what I wanted to say about the member for Colton's comments regarding agricultural ministers. Can I put the record straight with regard to federal minister for agriculture, John Kerin. It is a piece of Australian historical fact that he actually presided over the demise of the greatest industry that this nation has ever had—the wool industry. He was the minister who presided over the destruction of the Australian wool industry, the greatest industry—the industry that built this nation.

I think if any farmer in this nation said that he was the best agriculture minister at the federal level this country has had, that farmer is either very young or has failed to read anything about agricultural history in this nation. He single-handedly brought the wool industry to its knees. Not only did he bring the wool industry to its knees, he destroyed it. Twenty-odd years later—almost 25 years later—the wool industry is still struggling and it will never recover from the things that he did to it. So, I am pleased that I am following the member for Colton and I am able to make that comment, so that it is now on the public record.

With regard to the member for Colton, I am sure some of his colleagues talked about infrastructure build, etc., the money that they are spending and the cranes on the skyline. He did acknowledge that most of the cranes on the skyline—I would suggest all of the cranes on the skyline in Adelaide—are as a result of public infrastructure. There is very little private construction happening out there. It is public infrastructure. But he didn't acknowledge two important facts. One is that a fair bit of that is being funded by the commonwealth government.

He talked about travelling out to Truro in an hour. Most of that work was funded by the commonwealth government: the Northern Expressway and even all the Port River Expressway and the bridges, etc. Most of that was funded by the commonwealth government. He talked about the electrification of the railway lines and the Seaford extension; there is fair swag of commonwealth money in there. He talked about the medical research building down here on the Torrens—more commonwealth money.

If you look at the numbers, the amount of money that is being spent on infrastructure in South Australia today by taxpayers, particularly that spent by South Australian taxpayers by the South Australian government, you will find that it is much less than the total amount of indebtedness that has been racked up by this government.

This government, as minister O'Brien famously said in Mount Gambier some years ago, is borrowing to pay its day-to-day running costs. This government has been borrowing to pay its day-to-day running costs. It is an absolute myth that the indebtedness that has been racked up in the last few years by this government is all about infrastructure. That is an absolute myth. The numbers just do not add up.

The member for Colton also talked about the desal plant and he seemed to be quite proud of that. He was the minister responsible for part of that project. That is one of those absolute messes that this government has made—a stupid, dumb decision to spend another lazy billion dollars to create something which I doubt whether we will ever use. He said that the opposition did not have a plan; it did not have a strategy.

I will tell you what we did have. We did decide a long time ago that a modest desal plant would give us a guarantee against actually running out of essential water supplies. It was not 50 gigs. The proposition put forward by the then leader, the member for Davenport, was 45 gigs, because it was based on the plant that we visited in Kwinana in Western Australia, which was a 45-gig plant.

The Hon. P. Caica: That was the logical way to do it, wasn't it?

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes, it was. You do not have in opposition all the benefits of being in government. You do not have access to the Public Service, but we did have access to the people in Western Australia and we actually got some numbers. We knew what it would cost to build. We talked to the people who were building that desal plant over there and we said, 'If we built the same in South Australia, what would it cost?'

I can tell you, from the answers we got, it would have cost a hell of lot less than what this government spent here in South Australia—a hell of a lot less than even if they had stuck to the original plan of building a 50-gig desal plant. That has been one of the biggest and most foolish mistakes that this government has made. I say one of them, because there are a number of them. That is one of the reasons why we have now this huge debt. It is one of the reasons why South Australians are paying huge prices for water.

It is a massively stupid mistake that the government made. It does not matter how much they try to spruik it up. Even though they are so good at over-spruiking things, they will never convince the people of South Australia that it was a good and clever decision, because it simply was not. Just to touch on some of the other problems: what a debacle the Royal Adelaide Hospital has been, and what a legacy it will leave to the people of South Australia. It has not even come onto the books yet and it is something which this state is going to struggle with for many years.

Of course, there is Adelaide Oval, another fantastic decision by this government. Remember, it was going to be not a penny more than $450 million; then there was another lazy $85 million, and that was going to include a footbridge. I think in those days the footbridge was going to be about $20 million; now it is $40 million—$40 million to build a footbridge across this puddle out here! It is unbelievable. This government has no idea about how to manage the state's finances. What it fails to understand—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

The SPEAKER: I call the member for Elder to order. The member for MacKillop will be heard in silence—

Mr WILLIAMS: Thank you, sir.

The SPEAKER: —unless the remark is genuinely funny.

Mr WILLIAMS: The government also fails to understand the importance of small business. It talks about advanced manufacturing over and over and over, but to be quite frank I do not think it understands what advanced manufacturing is. I am absolutely certain that it does not understand what small business is, and I am absolutely certain it does not understand the importance of small business to this state. We cannot continue to spend money that we do not have and continue to increase taxes on the productive sector of the economy. That is what this government has been doing.

The case that has come up most recently is the car park tax. I know a lot of people have talked about the car park tax, but today the Premier went to where the Labor Party often goes, that is, to the class war. When he was being criticised and facing a bit of pressure over the car park tax, he went to the class war and said, 'Oh, the Liberal Party has sided and teamed up with the big end of town.' That was where he was going. Well, the Liberal Party actually agrees with some of the things the Premier has been saying about revitalising the city, rebuilding some vibrancy in the city, but you cannot do that by imposing another $26 million a year tax on the very people who are going to come in and make it vibrant. What part of that does the government not get? How can it be so stupid?

In question time today the Premier also said that he suspected some of the instances of this tax are likely to fall on property owners. Well, how about that! They are property owners so we will bang them with another tax—the very people this government has already hit with ever-increasing land taxes. These are the same people. Land tax is up 311 per cent under this government—and that was at the time of the last budget—or 203 per cent after taking into account CPI, compared with the across the board tax increase of 85 per cent, which in itself is the reason that business in South Australia struggles.

The member for Colton also said that the opposition does not really care about South Australia and that we keep talking it down. One of the things that drives me is this. I have four children. One of the other members (I think it was the member for Giles) said, 'Well, if you don't like it, then get out, go somewhere else.' I have four children, and two of them are farmers. It is damned hard to get out if you are a farmer because you cannot pick up your farm and put in the trailer and take it with you. My two sons are both farmers and they are proud South Australians.

I also have two daughters, of whom I am extremely proud. They did their schooling here in South Australia and got their tertiary education here in South Australia. They are both very highly paid professional people today, but neither of them have worked one day in paid employment here in South Australia, not one day. A member of this government will say that I am not a proud South Australian, but it hurts me greatly that my children, whom I educated in this state that I love, cannot work here in this state because we have had too much of Labor governments that keep undermining the ability of business to prosper and employ people. That is the problem that we have here in South Australia. I am not talking down South Australia, the people of South Australia or the natural attributes of South Australia, but I will use every breath in my body to point out the failings of this incompetent government, and that is what it is.

As I am winding up, and I see the time is running away from me, let me just talk about something which has been dear to me for a long time; that is, the mining sector. Today I asked a supplementary question of the Premier, which the minister for mines got up to answer, about the Fraser Institute ranking of South Australia as a jurisdiction to attract mining investment.

The Fraser Institute is based in Canada. It surveys a little over 4,000 people in the mining industry with a range of questions to get their feedback and then they rank jurisdictions, under a number of headings, as to being a favourable place to invest. This government, many times when the ranking was high, was spruiking this and saying how wonderful it was. In the last couple of years, the ranking has nosedived somewhat.

There are 96 jurisdictions in the latest ranking. South Australia was about seven a few years ago and it now has dropped to around about 20, I think. When you look at the individual rankings, when we talk about environmental regulatory uncertainty, we come 30th out of 96. When you talk about uncertainty concerning disputed land claims, we come 43rd out of 96. When we left government, we had introduced the ILUA scheme, which was working very well. I suspect it has stalled somewhat.

For infrastructure to assist the sector, we rank 34 out of 96, and we had people here in the government saying what a wonderful place we are. These are rankings against countries in places like Africa, West Africa, Southern Africa, South America, and we rank 34 out of 96. For labour regulations and employment agreements, we rank 55 out of 96—that does not necessarily surprise.

The one that does not surprise me but shows where we are going as a state is tax regime. We rank 62 out of 96. We are the 62nd down the list where the tax regime is an impediment to investment in the mining sector in South Australia. This government for many years has been claiming that the mining sector will be the saviour. Our rankings, under the Fraser Institute system of ranking, have been going downhill.

I shuddered when the member for Colton said that agriculture is so important to South Australia and this government might try to do something to help it. If it has the same success as it has with manufacturing and mining in South Australia in recent years, I shudder to think of the outcome that we will have in agriculture because, when this government tries to help, it actually makes things worse.

The SPEAKER: Has the time on I have granted the member for MacKillop adequately compensated him for interjections?

Mr WILLIAMS: That was most generous of you, Mr Speaker. Although there are plenty more things that I would love to put on the record, I will conclude my remarks there, thank you.

Mr SIBBONS (Mitchell) (19:03): I am pleased to rise today to speak about the government's infrastructure program and the interactive public information campaign about it, called the Big Build. I am proud to be part of a government and a team which works to actually build infrastructure to equip our city and our state not just for today but also for the future.

Infrastructure is not a glamorous spend. New roads, bridges, rail infrastructure, crucial investment in health and medical research and investments in our city centres for sport and entertainment precincts are all major projects with long lead times. The proof, as they say, will be in the pudding. The long-term benefits will only be fully appreciated once those projects are completed and being utilised by all South Australians.

However, there are benefits in the short term for our state as these projects roll out as well. Building infrastructure drives economic activity, fosters private investment and, crucially, creates jobs. It is often said that the so-called 'crane index' is the best measure of the health of a local economy. It is pleasing to see so many cranes across our city skyline. I believe there are around 17 at the moment.

Our skies have been this way for some time, as we look forward to a brand new, state-of-the-art Royal Adelaide Hospital and a reimagined Adelaide Oval and river precinct, among other things. In fact, our state Labor government is delivering a historic level of infrastructure investment: a $9.3 billion capital program which underpins an average of more than 7,500 jobs annually. The projects in which we are investing include:

$535 million Adelaide Oval redevelopment, which creates 1,200 jobs

$350 million Adelaide Convention Centre upgrade, creating 300 jobs

$200 million SA Health and Medical Research Centre, creating 320 jobs

$1.85 billion Royal Adelaide Hospital, creating 3,000 jobs

$40 million Adelaide Oval footbridge, creating 170 jobs

$50 million Adelaide Railway Station and yard, creating 170 jobs

$842 million South Road Superway, creating 2,100 jobs

$407.5 million Southern Expressway duplication, creating 1,040 jobs

$291.2 million Seaford Rail extension, creating 610 jobs

$110 million Goodwood junction, creating 250 jobs

$100 million Adelaide-to-Melbourne road corridor, creating 150 jobs

In total, this adds up to 9,310 direct jobs created as a result of this infrastructure. That is without taking into account the flow-on jobs created as a result of these projects. As I said earlier, this is investment which provides for an average of more than 7,500 jobs on an annual basis.

The message from these figures is obvious: this government is pro development and pro jobs. We believe in building up our economy, not tearing it down as those opposite are so sadly adept at trying to do. Many of the jobs created by the government's Big Build are highly-skilled engineering and construction roles. These will enable South Australians to gain experience and capacity to be able to bid for and deliver future major projects both here and interstate.

The Weatherill government's show of faith in our future through this massive investment in infrastructure will potentially bring billions of dollars of private investment into our CBD. The government's reform in planning law and its construction grants have also played their part in this.

Making it easier to develop a clear picture of this massive and vital injection of our life is the Big Build. The Big Build is an online campaign designed to provide a graphic representation of the major projects underway across the Adelaide metropolitan area. These projects traverse health, entertainment, transport and other sectors.

By visiting www.thebigbuild.sa.gov.au, we can see where and how money is being invested in our state's future. The Big Build's aim is to explain how each project is part of the broader goal to create a vibrant city boasting world-class facilities. It is a 21st century model by which website visitors can take an online tour of what is happening and what is planned. Links and videos further flesh out the story of our city coming of age with all the associated colour and vibrancy.

Adelaide may not be the biggest city in the world but it is certainly one of the most liveable. This government wants Adelaide to remain one of the great places in which to grow up and grow old, in which to learn, in which to earn, and in which to do business. But we also want it to improve, to grow, to be more in tune with the great cities of the 21st century, and to continue to lead the world in the things we excel in.

Just sitting on our hands will not allow us to innovate or create. We need to continue to build on what we already love about Adelaide, as well as building on the new, fresh elements of its character. So, I ask a question that has been asked in this place before. Why do we invest in infrastructure, and why do we implement policy reforms to foster development? The answer is simple: because we want to see the state economy grow. To ensure that that happens, we need a government that will continue to invest in developing this state; and a government that believes in South Australia's potential and is prepared to lead the way in attracting private investment rather than relying on it just coming our way.

Unfortunately those opposite have, for many years it seems, been averse to investing in infrastructure. Instead they would let our assets age and deteriorate beyond their useful lives, with little thought to planning and building for the future. Of course, they did build a one-way freeway through my electorate and those of several other members here. That is the legacy of the Liberal government. The contrast could not be clearer.

The legacy of this government will be: 17 cranes on our skyline; a new hospital; a proper expressway to serve the southern suburbs in both directions, all day every day; an exciting new sporting and entertainment precinct in the heart of our beautiful, vibrant city; a modern and efficient rail network and, most importantly, South Australians in employment. The Weatherill government's Big Build is vital for our state's future economic growth. I am very proud to be part of a team that will be remembered in history for delivering these massive projects for the benefit of all South Australians.

The SPEAKER: The member for Schubert.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (19:13): Thank you Mr Speaker. I am, indeed, honoured, that you are here tonight to hear me make my last, historic, speech to Supply, after 22 years. As we do every year around this time, we need to ensure finance of government operations until the budget is handed down, and it gives us a good opportunity to look at the state of South Australia's finances.

State debt is increasing to $14 billion and the budget deficit for 2012-13 is budgeted to reach $1.2 billion. Labor has now budgeted six deficits in seven years. Just hearing this previous speech, sir—some members of this house are living on a different planet to me. He listed off all these wonderful projects and I just could not believe it. This member has only been here a short time—well, I am sorry, but he will probably pay the price for his own government's inaction and lack of performance, which is a bit sad because I think the gentleman is quite a nice man. Honestly, I have been around the place for quite a while and I think we are deluding ourselves if we think that things are good.

In just one year under the leadership of Premier Weatherill we have lost our AAA credit rating—and the honourable member did not mention that—and have been downgraded to AA, the worst in Australia. The Olympic Dam expansion has been cancelled, there are more than 4,000 less jobs, and we hear of more and more staff being laid off every week. This does not bode well for confidence in our state.

Many of the decisions the government made have gone bad. We have a desalination plant that has been mothballed, a plant that this government would not support at all and then, of course, went the full turn and built one twice as big as was needed. Even keeping it on standby now, because it is such a large plant, is a very expensive operation.

I shudder to think what the state economy is going to look like once the Royal Adelaide Hospital is built on the rail yards. It will cost taxpayers $1.1 million a day for 30 years, not including the cost of doctors and nurses, and will add $2.8 billion to the state debt—$2.8 billion with a 'b'.

Under Labor, South Australia has become the highest-taxing state in the nation which has impacted upon all South Australians—individuals and businesses—through increases in the cost of living. That affects all of us—even me. You make adjustments to your business arrangements just to try to avoid some of these huge imposts. Cost of living pressure is one of the biggest issues facing South Australians.

My office—and I am certain many other members' offices—receive calls every day from constituents who are struggling with increases in the cost of living: car registrations, licences, other government fees and utility charges which continue to increase, placing pressure on household budgets. Many South Australians have never felt financial strain before, and now they are.

Under this Labor government South Australia has the highest taxes in Australia. What sort of an accolade is that? I see the previous treasurer is here and I know that he made a comment that he did not want to leave a debt for his children. He has a lovely family—it might be the largest in this place—and I do not know what he thinks now about what he is going to leave for his children. It is the same for me, and the same for all of us.

I have been here for 22 years and it is a shame that I have to say when I leave that the economy is going to be much worse than when I came here. It is not a great accolade. I am afraid that I have a sense of failure about that because I think in the end we all have to take a bit of a rap for what we do and what happens in this state, as members of parliament, and controlling what we do in South Australia.

As I say to the then treasurer (and now Minister for Health and Ageing), who has five children, I do not know what sort of a state you are going to leave for those lovely young children. I remember reading a message I think your wife left about the buses, that your children could not catch the bus on time. We are all human, and we all have to make decisions that affect not just our children but everybody's children, the citizens of tomorrow.

As I said, this Labor government in South Australia has the highest taxes in Australia, the highest electricity prices in the world, the highest water prices of all capital cities, the highest ever state budget deficit and the highest ever state debt outlook. I do not know how you can make a rosy picture out of that. I was accused earlier this afternoon of having rose-coloured glasses but I do not think anybody could make anything out of that.

Since Labor came to power in March 2002 to December 2012, water bills have increased by 249 per cent, electricity bills have increased by 144 per cent and gas bills have increased by 110 per cent, while inflation was only 36 per cent over the same period. You do not have to be an economic scientist to work out the impact of that.

Why has the government had to increase taxes and other charges? Because of their waste and economic mismanagement over the last 11 years, including over $200 million spent on consultants and contractors, over $75 million spent on advertising and approximately $25 million spent on overseas travel every year. Even they were going to spend $630,000 to paint a bridge; $630,000 to paint a bridge in my electorate, which I painted for $2,000. Even though it was a joke—call it what you like, a stunt, whatever you want to call it—it happened. That is what it is. Then they had the gall to turn around and put the EPA on to me, and I told them, 'Cut to the chase; put me in gaol. You are on a trip to nowhere.'

It is ridiculous. You must question the process: just because some government bureaucrat said that this bridge needs to be removed, taken to Port Adelaide, sandblasted, repainted and rebuilt. Really, somebody should have woken up to this. But, no, your processes do not allow that: $630,000 against $2,000! I did it for that principle alone. If you go and look at it, it looks very nice indeed. You have squandered our opportunities with deals like that. The saddest thing for me is that, of all the great things I have done in 22 years, the only thing you will remember is that bloody bridge. That upsets me a bit.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Oh, no; your legend will live on.

Mr VENNING: That is the reality of it all. It was not going to be a gimmick, but that is what happened. The opportunities that have been squandered are unbelievable. When massive resources were coming to South Australia, particularly in the early 2000s—2002 to 2005—when we were flushed with GST funds, they just threw it away, with huge increases to the Public Service and other non-tangible assets.

I was on the Public Works Committee at the time Labor came to office in 2002, and there were no major public infrastructure works until at least until 2008, when the crunch was about to happen. All they did when I got on the Public Works Committee was finish off the major works that the previous Liberal government had in train. There were three or four years of no major works; that is where the problem was.

This goes on with a bit of history and what the Dunstan government did with the old MATS plan. We are paying a big price for that now, because you are doing the MATS plan at 50 times the cost. What you are doing on South Road is the MATS plan. Dunstan stopped it and sold off the land. Labor has a history of this, not just for now but for generations. They ruin and spoil the future of our state.

South Australian businesses are also suffering under Labor government policy, and we hear of closures almost every day, of job losses. Today we heard about Saab, the RDNS and others, and that is sad. We are not here to score points, to laugh or to say, 'We told you'; we are here to say that we are supposed to be responsible citizens. Collectively we should say that we do not want to accept this, because every day it is more bad news.

You try to get back these jobs in this climate! It is quite serious: having the highest taxes in the country increases the cost of doing business interstate compared with others. We have the land tax, stamp duty and WorkCover premiums in Australia. I do not like to be negative, but I have to say it how it is.

Members interjecting:

Mr VENNING: I am not a negative person—most people would say that I am not. I smile most of the time, but I have been here for a fair while. As a member of the opposition I have to join my colleagues and tell the people of South Australia how bad is this government's performance. I hear the criticism of negative comments: 'Why are you are putting down the state?' Mr Speaker, I was here in 1993, as were you, when we heard the greatest negative diatribes from the then opposition, particularly the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Kevin Foley.

One can pick up Hansard and read what he used to say about us in government, yet we were achieving things, winning, creating jobs and paying debt, yet look at what he said about us, the state and everything else, and now you are accusing us of being negative! We have every reason to be; we have to be. That is what people expect us to do, and with our shadow treasurer here I am very confident that when he becomes treasurer of South Australia he will be able to steer us back; it will be a very tough thing to do. He has the mettle and the wherewithal to do that.

I reflect back because I was here, sir. I was in this chamber, as were you, when the State Bank thing hit us. It hit us like a 10-tonne truck. I can remember very clearly when the Hon. Jenny Cashmore stormed out of that door and brought down the blind on the State Bank, and it was a pretty sad day.

The SPEAKER: Surely 'pulled up the blind'?

Mr VENNING: Well, all was revealed.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: Mr Speaker, stop interjecting.

The SPEAKER: I'm trying to help.

Mr VENNING: It is small wonder that now we have to highlight this parlous condition of our state. A recently released report from the Institute of Public Affairs shows that a medium-size sample business is paying more than $300,000 in annual state taxes, an increase of $9,000 on the previous year and $22,000 above the national average. That is hard to believe, so I checked it. It is correct. Many businesses are struggling to remain sustainable in the face of continual increases in state taxes and levies, and many have been forced to lay off staff—we have heard that today—and downsize their operation to try to survive.

State taxes, levies and increased regulations coupled with other factors, such as the high Australian dollar, have caused some businesses to close. One of our most important industries is primary industries, and our farmers are under great financial stress. Rural debt is as high as it has ever been and we are urgently looking for rain across the state.

Late last year, the general manager of Tatiara Seeds (a South Australian country business since 1976) wrote to all members of parliament, and I would like to quote a few lines from that correspondence. You may have read them, but you have probably forgotten. I will remind you because I think the points show how much business in this state is struggling as a result of the Weatherill Labor government:

This is the first time that I have written to a Member of Parliament, but doing business in South Australia has now become nearly impossible.

Mr Ramsdale points to correspondence he received from SA Power Networks 'advising of a 20% increase in our electricity account'. The letter goes on:

Three years ago, the Environmental Protection Agency (with whom we need to be licensed) advised that our fees were to be increased by 100% over the next four years.

Our WorkCover levy is equal to three peoples' wages per year. Our 2011-2012 payroll tax would pay for three peoples' wages. We are being encouraged to keep employing or employ people until they reach 70 years of age or wish to retire. However, WorkCover will not pay their wages if they are injured.

How ridiculous is that? I have been hammering that one for many years since being here. If they are over 70, they will not pay, so why should they be paying the premium? What a nonsense! Is it any wonder that there are so many cases of businesses in trouble in South Australia? Look at Spring Gully—it is only the publicity they received that saved them. Mondello Farms, also affected, has been placed in receivership and is now facing a cut of 140 jobs. Accolade Wines last year saw large-scale job cuts of 175 jobs with more set to follow to cut costs.

Larger businesses, as we all know, are struggling. Holden has cut 20 per cent of jobs since late 2012. Broens cut 60 jobs after the federal Labor government gave a key defence contract to an overseas supplier. BAE Systems faced more than 450 lost jobs. Priority Engineering collapsed in March with a loss of 86 jobs, and the list goes on. It gives me no joy at all to recall all this, but it just goes on and on and we do not seem to want to do anything about it. We do not seem to be very concerned.

The government stationery contract is another example of the Labor government failing to support local business. At least 10 staff members of ANCOL (the Associated Newsagent Co-operative SA Ltd) and KW Wholesale Stationers have been lost recently due to the loss of a contract, with other staff losing hours of work.

Business is integral to the state economy, yet it continues to bear the brunt of overtaxing by the Labor government. Now we see the state Labor government wanting to introduce a CBD car parking tax. What message is this? What will this result in? It will add to the cost of shopping in the CBD. Do they want a vibrant city? It is exactly the wrong message, and every country person coming to the CBD usually parks their car in the city.

They will park their car in the suburbs and shop in the suburbs, and what is that going to do to the centre of your city, the part we are supposed to be so proud of? It is a ridiculous thing, the wrong message entirely. There is not only a lack of government support for business, but there is also a lack of support for primary producers, which is causing problems in the country, and unless they are resolved it will affect all South Australians.

The Governor said in his speech which opened this session of parliament that the government would give priority to clean, green food production, and later to cut red tape. Well, that was over three years ago, and what do we see? The situation for our farmers is worse—far worse—almost desperate. Our farmers are being harassed at every turn by several outside bodies. These include a largely unsympathetic and often hostile media, noisy and nosy groups of city-based activists who want to stop farmers progressing with modern techniques, bureaucrats, mining companies and, worst of all, out of touch politicians who are not across the issues and nor are they interested; they bleat but act the opposite.

Well, it is now biting hard, very hard, and not only is our vital food production being affected, so too will the economy of South Australia. When you look at the number of imports, particularly vegetables, coming into our country right now, it is a disgrace. I remind the house that year in and year out the dairy industry is a most important part of this state's economy and vital to our state's GDP, and they are in serious trouble. Most dairy producers are producing milk below the cost of production. They are buying hay, buying grain, knowing they will not recover the costs. How long do you think you can do that for? They are using up their family bank accounts.

Agriculture accounts for 65 per cent of our state's economic activity, yet we give it 15 per cent of the economic resources. This is a fact, and this government should be condemned for this deliberate oversight. Agriculture needs to build on last year's Australian Year of the Farmer celebrations, which highlighted the profile of farmers and the rural sections in the wider community.

The federal government has finally announced a policy directed at our agriculture sector, a package of measures aimed to assist farmers alleviate their debt, comprising of low interest loans, tax deductions, more rural finance counsellors to assist farmers, and government negotiations with banks. This is too little too late. For many this is definitely the case, but I am hopeful that some of our primary producers can get the assistance they need to continue producing our food through this package to restructure their farm debt, retool, and to encourage more young people to go into farming and farm consultancies.

What is the South Australian government doing for agriculture, given that premium food and wine from our clean environment is one of their strategic priorities? What are they doing for agriculture, which the then treasurer announced was going to be the saviour of our state following the cancellation of the Olympic Dam project? Absolutely nothing; in fact, every year for, I think, 13 years, they have stripped money out of the budget from agriculture—totally ridiculous. Agriculture's voice is not being heard. This government has never listened, and therefore so many farmers have given up. What is the government's response? They withdraw funding to the Advisory Board of Agriculture. What an insult.

They withdraw funding from the Advisory Board of Agriculture, which is basically a group of volunteers who give their time. All this money covered was expenses for when they were living in Adelaide—mainly accommodation. It is a paltry amount of money: approximately $175,000. That is indescribable and absolutely ridiculous. What sort of message is that? The Advisory Board of Agriculture is also the head branch that controls our agricultural bureaus, the best practising farmer group in Australia. That sends a message.

I am quite disgusted. Everywhere you look there is very little to be positive about, particularly in developments. We know developments are happening in our rural areas. The planning situation is very bad at Port Wakefield. We have developments waiting to happen there. They always have a can't do attitude, and we need to change all that.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (19:34): I rise to speak on the Supply Bill 2013. It is a bill that the Liberal Party supports, to appropriate $3.205 billion for the running of the state between the hiatus at the end of the financial year until the budget is ready and the money is flowing from that. This will continue to pay for the running of the government until the state budget is ready.

As other speakers have noted, it is the sort of thing that strikes one as unusual if you have a background outside the South Australian government sector. However, there it is; the budget is happening on 6 June and, presumably, the government is concerned it will not pass the parliament and the money from that will not flow on 1 July; so we announce this $3 billion so the government can continue to do the things that it does. Much of the money will go towards paying the salaries, teachers, nurses, doctors, police officers and things that we are very happy for it to do, and that is why it is important that it be passed.

Of course, much of it is also going to be spent in the other ways that this government spends money so recklessly, as they have done for over 11 years—more than $200 million per year on consultants and contractors, more than $75 million per year on advertising, and about $25 million per year on overseas travel. But, there it is. We will support the bill because we must for the functioning of government. I think that in an ideal world we probably would not design it this way, but there it is.

I have listened to a great many contributions. It is a privilege being the Whip for the opposition and I get the opportunity to hear very many perspectives. I have enjoyed the perspectives of nearly all the members on this side of the house. I think they have outlined very well the situation in which South Australia finds itself, and they presented a compelling vision for the future of South Australia under a Liberal government.

I have also had the opportunity to listen to some of the contributions by members of the government. Some of them have chosen to defend the record, some obviously think everything is going terribly well and should continue to do so, and some have just decided to spend their entire time in an outrageous fashion attacking members of the opposition, which I think has been an waste of the house's time, frankly. I am particularly thinking of the member for Colton, who talked about vision. He said he had not actually heard enough vision from members of the opposition. I wrote it down. He said he would like to hear about vision 10, 20, 50 years ahead and then proceeded to offer exactly none. He spent his entire 17 minutes just bagging the opposition.

I want to think about vision for a moment, because the opposition does have a vision for the future of South Australia. The Leader of the Opposition has presented a vision for South Australia focused on South Australia's bicentenary, thinking about 2036 and how, after 200 years after white settlement in South Australia, South Australia will have an economy that has grown with small businesses and economic growth at the core of the government's focus, with infrastructure dealt with through long-term planning through a body called Infrastructure SA which would, in fact, scrutinise infrastructure projects, make sure that there was a rolling plan in place taking into consideration the economic times and the infrastructure needs of South Australia—importantly, productive infrastructure being at the core, not the sort of thing we saw with the government's new hospital, the sort of policy on the back of an envelope.

It would be a focus on productive infrastructure that is going to grow our economy, assist businesses and assist the South Australian people with things that we need so that the money that is spent on infrastructure is not wasted. Of course, to reach this sort of prosperity, a government needs to address the cost of living and the cost of doing business in South Australia.

Alternatively, as the member for Colton referred to, the government has, of sorts, presented a vision in a way of speaking. He mentioned the seven priorities that the Governor outlined in his speech last year and it is not a document that I have heard government members talking about a great deal lately. I was wondering why I have not heard about that. It was like the member for Colton's reference to it triggered it in my mind. I thought: what were those seven priorities and how is the government going at delivering them? This is the focus of the new Premier's government. The thing that was going to differentiate him from the previous 10 years of Labor government was these seven priorities. How are they going? Let us go through them.

The first one is creating a vibrant city. How do you do that? The government's answer is to put a car park tax on coming into the city, and I think the Rundle Mall Management Authority, the Property Council and the Adelaide City Council very clearly have articulated this week that the last thing you want to do if you want to create a vibrant city is put on a car park tax. But that is the government's plan, so, strike 1 on the first pillar of their plan.

They talk about safer communities and healthy neighbourhoods but, since that pillar was announced, we have had cuts to the police budget and, just this year alone, since New Year's Eve, we have seen 23 shootings, hardly the sort of thing to build confidence in creating safer communities and healthy neighbourhoods.

The third pillar was an affordable place to live, and I am going to come back to that later. I think it is laughable to think that the Labor Party is serious about making South Australia an affordable place to live if their own budget priorities and policies are anything to go by. We will come back to that one.

The fourth pillar was Every Chance for Every Child, which is a worthy goal. Of course, the Labor government after 11 years has only failure to point to in this area. NAPLAN scores are below the national average in 20 out of 20 categories. We are at the bottom of the class, South Australia. We used to be at the top of the class. The member for Torrens in her articulate contribution earlier, and I commend her for her articulate contribution (not its content but certainly the delivery), talked about how happy she was with how the government had gone with schooling in the 20 years she has been in this place.

Mrs Geraghty: Nineteen.

Mr GARDNER: Nineteen, I apologise to the member for Torrens for my mistake. Nineteen years—a period in which time we have gone from being one of the highest achievers in school education to being bottom of the class, below the national average in 20 out of 20 categories. It is a great shame and I think that she should take a good hard look at herself and she would learn a great deal by having a look at the figures and the facts as they are.

Of course, Every Chance for Every Child also relates to the Families portfolio which has now been incorporated into education, and I would like to focus on an area that troubles me greatly. When I was the shadow minister I spoke on a number of occasions about it, and I am referring to the opportunities for children in care to have a natural, normal domestic-style environment in which to be looked after once the government has taken the challenging and difficult decision to remove a child from their own parents' care.

In 2001, South Australia led the nation. More than 99 per cent of children in care lived in domestic environments. I realise that there were fewer children in care then but that has been the case across Australia. According to the Report on Government Services (according to the last 11 reports) in which this is one of the key things that is tracked, it was 99.9 per cent—and I will correct the record if it was not the case. We were first in the nation. Domestic based environments: they could be foster care, a foster family, a natural home based environment.

We are now either fifth or sixth out of states in the nation. We are down to 90 per cent. Something like 10 per cent of South Australian children in care no longer live in that sort of environment. They are in pods, holiday homes and units, serviced apartments. We are coming at the bottom of the class in this area and it is a serious concern that the government needs to address. Every Chance for Every Child, yes, it is a worthy goal and it is something that must form part of every government's vision but after 11 years of Labor the government should take a long hard look at itself if it wishes to see why these are such important goals.

The government's fifth pillar of its seven was to grow advanced manufacturing. How has that gone? Saab, Holden, Broens, BAE, Accolade Wines, Priority Engineering—this is just in the last few weeks, by the way, let alone all of the times since the new premier has been in, let alone the 11 long years that Labor has been taking the state in the wrong direction. Growing advanced manufacturing, yes, we would love to but this is the government that has created the very business environment under which these businesses have had to shed staff and take decisions that are very difficult for the workers of South Australia and their families.

The sixth plan is realising the benefits of the mining boom. You have to laugh. You wonder whether there is or is not a mining boom because it seems on different days of different weeks with different ministers and the Premier, you have entirely different answers to whether or not there is a mining boom. We had the Premier in here a little while ago arguing that the reason South Australia's economy was struggling was because we were not a resource state, despite the fact that former premier Mike Rann spent 10 years telling us that we were on the cusp of the mining boom. Then last week we had the Minister for Finance admitting that the mining boom may have been going on elsewhere but it just passed South Australia by. It is a real shame.

This week with the mining conference in town, apparently the new Premier and the minister for mines have a different view again. You have to wonder when the Premier admits that his own government is over spruiking, does he actually have a good hard look at himself sometimes? Olympic Dam, Arafura, all of these things—and Arafura is a case in point. The Premier says that that was an example of how, yes, he admits it is over spruiking, suggesting that it was the former premier Mike Rann or the former treasurer Kevin Foley who might have been doing the over spruiking.

I had a little look at the record and according to government press releases, yes, former minister Paul Holloway had a bit of a spruik on Arafura, but the other two ministers who were out and about, going hard on telling the South Australian public how many jobs would be created, how many billion dollars worth of investment this would create, were the deputy premier and the minister for mining in 2011, over-spruiking Arafura as they have over-spruiked Olympic Dam as they over-spruiked the salvation of Holden (all those jobs that they said they had saved except now we find that they did not), realising the benefits of the mining boom. Well, let's have a mining boom first and then we will realise its benefits.

The seventh grand plan of the government is premium food and wine from our clean environment. It was a revelation to this government that South Australia made money from agriculture after Olympic Dam shut down. We did not hear about it very much. All we used to hear about was how Olympic Dam was going to be this fantastic saviour for South Australia's economy: eleven years of over-spruiking. I can remember the former treasurer, the now Minister for Health, going on radio to talk about agriculture and how exciting it was that the agriculture industry was going so very well the morning after BHP Billiton made its decision on Olympic Dam last year.

It is very important that our premium food and wine goes well. A number of businesses are very close to my heart, as I know that they are to a number of people in the chamber and in the parliament. They are struggling. They are facing some very severe challenges. The government says that a pillar of its plan is to focus on premium food and wine and yet it seems like when there have been some challenges for a local food producer recently—and a number of them have grouped together to focus on a swap and shop platform and program—the best that the government can do is to re-tweet the work they are doing on social media.

There was a meeting of one business and the Minister for Manufacturing in which we were told that, 'not much was promised. Maybe if they get through their hard times there will be something more on the table'. It is difficult to have confidence in this government to deliver on these sorts of pillars when they have so little inspiration in what they can offer to the people of South Australia.

In March 2013, the Premier launched what was heralded as a significant economic statement for the future of South Australia. He said that there were going to be four areas in which the South Australian economy was going to be revitalised and everything was going to go terribly well. Of course, it had already been going terribly well according to Labor, but now everything was going to go even better.

With the four priorities, this grand economic plan, he took the four economically related pillars from the seven in the previous year and put them in a new document and said this was somehow a new economic statement. We have growing advanced manufacturing, creating a vibrant city, premium food and wine and realising the benefits of the mining boom—even with the same syntax and grammar. They are just the same four from the seven pillars.

It strikes me as an economic plan put out because the Premier decided that he needed to have something he could point to that was remotely able to be called an economic plan, but it is no such thing. The Premier and the government seek to look at the hard work and the endeavour of South Australian business and claim the credit for those which are doing well, but whenever one of them is struggling, it is never ever their fault and that is a real shame.

The fact of the matter is—and I will turn now to cost of living because that is one of the Premier's seven pillars and something on which the supply bill is very pertinent—the money that we spend on the Supply Bill is crucially focused on delivering outcomes for the people of South Australia. In my electorate office, as in many other electorate offices around the Liberal side, I know the key thing that we hear from our constituents is that they are struggling under the cost of living pressures. The key thing that we hear from our local businesses is that they are struggling under the pressures of the cost to do business in South Australia. Why could that possibly be?

Let us have a look at the costs that people are facing. State taxes have gone up twice the rate of CPI under this Premier, the member for Cheltenham. Water bills have nearly tripled since 2007 and 11 times the CPI under this Premier. Gas bills are seven times the CPI under this Premier. Electricity bills are five times the CPI under this Premier. State taxes or property charges are twice the rate of CPI under this Premier. Public transport fees are up. Car registration and licences are up. Motor registration is up. Liquor licensing fees are up 36 per cent. The EPA and solid waste levies are up. The Environment Protection Authority seems to have gone from being a service delivery function of the government to being a revenue-raising function of the government under Labor's watch. Of course, there is the car park tax.

The fact of the matter is that if you want to live in South Australia and do business in South Australia this government will put your charges up. It is more expensive to live, to do business and to drink. Whether you want to drink beer or water, your prices have gone up. While we are on water, it is more expensive to wash by a significant amount as well, which explains a great deal.

If you want to go into town and go to work, it is more expensive to catch the bus, or in fact if you want to drive it is more expensive to do that too, and when you get there it is more expensive to park. It takes a special kind of arrogance to have as a central theory or a central pillar of your economic plan that you are going to reduce the cost of living when you and your government are in fact deeply responsible for the very reasons that so many of these things are an issue for so many people in South Australia in the first place.

The member for Mitchell just said that, 'We believe in building an economy, not tearing it down as those opposite are so adept at doing.' That was an extraordinary statement that this side of the parliament could possibly be accused of tearing an economy down when in 1993, when the Liberal Party came to power, with an economy that had been torn down already by those opposite—and over a very difficult period of time economically—we fixed the economy, paid down debt and got the State Bank debt paid off to the point where I think on the chart it was a minuscule amount compared to what we found in 1993.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: Three billion dollars.

Mr GARDNER: Three billion dollars from $12 billion. This government came to power with that level of debt, had the rivers of gold from the GST revenues coming through throughout the entirety of the first six years of its government. Five billion dollars was spent in unbudgeted expenditure over that time under this government, and the current Premier was a member of the cabinet for every single day.

The fact of the matter is that it is this government, through its own choices, decisions and bad policies, that has increased the deficit to $867 million as it was at last year's budget, $1.2 billion as the Mid-Year Budget Review found, and God only knows what it is going to turn out to be come budget day. It is this government that has delivered a state debt that is going to reach $14 billion, and what have they had? They have had rivers of gold—$5 billion of unbudgeted expenditure that has led them there.

It did not need to happen. We are paying $800 million a year in interest bills. It is those decisions that mean that it is more difficult and more challenging for the budget to deal with the cost of living pressures or indeed to address some of the other issues that the government has in its own seven pillars. If only, if only, if only it had not made those decisions and we did not have that $800 million a year in interest or that $1 million a day that we are going to be spending on Labor's new RAH—what was briefly going to be called the Marjorie Jackson-Nelson hospital.

If only the government had not made the decision to double the size of the desalination plant and lay those pipes, which cost hundreds of millions of dollars, then perhaps they might have had a better chance now of delivering on their promises. It is going to take a Liberal government, led by the member for Norwood, to fix this budget hole. We have to get the South Australian economy moving again. We have to grow the economy and focus on making sure we can cut waste, live within our means, pay down that debt, and we will be able to deliver on the sorts of things that are important: cost of living, improving the business environment, reducing the cost of doing business in South Australia and creating a better environment for businesses to invest in South Australia. That is the sort of vision that we need for South Australia and that is the sort of vision that the Liberal Party will deliver. I look forward very much to 16 March next year when we can start delivering on this vision.

The SPEAKER: Alack and alas, the member's time has expired. I take it his 'If only, if only, if only' was a reference to Noel Coward's famous song Louisa.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. S.W. Key.

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