HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1)
2014-06-03 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Supply Bill 2014

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (20:55): I have spoken on a number of budget bills and supply bills in this place over my 12 years. Yet again, we are here to debate the future supply of, in this case, $3,941 million for the first three months of the 2014-15 financial year. The size of the state budget is such that you are talking in the thousands of millions all the time. People find that amount of money very difficult to comprehend, but each of us in this place is obliged, by being elected to this place, to examine the budget in detail, to look at the reasons for granting supply and also to ensure that the government's use of taxpayers' money is being put to the very best use.

We all remember back on 15 July 2002 when the then treasurer said to this place, 'You do not have the moral fibre to go back on your promise. I have...' The then treasurer, Kevin Foley, was talking about the taxes on gaming machines. There had been a promise made about levels of taxation before the election and then the treasurer came in and changed that whole circumstance. What we saw was the treasurer trying to justify him going back on what the expectation was before the election.

This government has raised expectations on many occasions and has failed to deliver on just about all of them. A prime example is the infrastructure around South Australia. How many times have they said, 'This is the budget we are going to allow for this particular infrastructure project,' and the budget has been blown time after time. As the member for Kavel said, the most particular example we can point to at this stage is the new Royal Adelaide Hospital, where I think the original cost was $1.8 billion and it is now about $2.5 billion, and the cost will keep going up, I understand.

I will give one example of one of the cost blowouts with the new Royal Adelaide Hospital, and that is the cost of the quadruple glazing for around the helicopter pad, which I understand is $30 million. That is an outstanding amount for soundproofing a particular area like that. We are all obliged to make sure that we are not wasting people's money or being frivolous with taxpayers' money. We should never come into this place, having raised the expectations, and then just doing an about face. Whether it is moral fibre, courage or discipline, or whether there is an urgency to change your attitude, then that should be the very rare exception rather than the rule.

What we see now is this government saying that we are going to have a really tough budget coming up and a very, very difficult time ahead of us. It is trying to blame the federal Liberal government for its woes, but let us have a look at what has happened to the state of the state over the last 12 years under this Labor government. The classic example is WorkCover. WorkCover started out with about a $62 million deficit when we left government in 2002 and now it is well over a billion dollars. Who knows what the unfunded superannuation liability is. When you add in the government WorkCover unfunded liabilities, you are talking about billions and billions of dollars.

On the matter of the deficit and the debt that the government has run up, as the member for Heysen said, we are paying nearly $3 million a day in interest on that debt. I think this is about what we were paying way back in the State Bank days, not to Belgian dentists now, as it was back then—I am not sure who we are paying the $3 million a day to, to cover the debt that this government has accrued.

I should say that I understand that the federal government's interest bill on their debt is about $30 million a day in interest alone; it is about $1 billion a month in round figures, they tell me—and that is not paying off the capital of that debt; that is just the interest. The state interest debt is about $3 million a day, over and over and over again. As the member for Heysen said, imagine what we could do in this state if we had that money to give to various projects around this state rather than paying it on interest.

I do not have any problem with paying interest on debts if it is good debt, if you are building the business. I used to run on a couple of principles in my business, and you have probably heard them in here before, that turnover is vanity and profit is sanity. You need to be making some profit. It does not matter whether you are turning over millions of dollars in your business, as a relative of mine was doing. In fact, he was spending more—his costs were higher than that—he was losing money, he was not making any profit, and he could not continue on in the business.

The other saying I have is that it does not matter what it costs you, it is what it saves you or makes you. I am more than happy to have large mortgages and, by gee, I have had large mortgages. I have bitten off big chunks and chewed like hell until I had a sore jaw, but you have to have the income to pay that capital, to pay that interest.

When you start paying your recurrent debts, as we know this government has been doing for many years now—according to the former member for Napier, the then minister for finance, who told a public meeting in Mount Gambier that, if this government was a business, it would be trading insolvent. The bank would not give them an overdraft, and they were borrowing to pay the wages. When you are in that situation, you are going down the gurgler fast.

What do we see this government doing? They say that they are going to build the economy by spending more money, spending more money, spending more money. If there is a return on an investment, if you are actually building the business, if you are building the economy, I could live with it, I could understand it, but I do not see that.

When you look at the ABS stats on what is happening in South Australia, what is happening with the businesses in South Australia, what is happening with the employment rate in South Australia, where this state is going, it is just atrocious. Let us look at some of the latest facts and figures about the state of the economy. You have heard other members in this place talking about similar statistics, but I will just go over some of them that have been brought to my attention.

According to the ABS figures in April 2014—so just gone—there are 18,000 fewer full-time jobs since the 2013 state budget. South Australia's jobless rate has risen from 4.8 to 6.3 per cent. I am not quite sure exactly what it is at the moment, but this was back in April. The national rate was about 5.8 per cent. There has been some change there, a slight improvement, I think, in the national rate. There may have even been a slight improvement in the state unemployment rate, but we are still way down the bottom on a scale of the states. I think that we might be just above Tasmania in some areas. But now, with a Liberal government in Tasmania, you watch that state turn around; that state will put South Australia's economic performance to shame.

The need to focus on where we want to be in the future for jobs, for business, for the whole of the South Australian economy is something I encourage this government to look at very seriously and not just putting the political spin on that we are the biggest, we are the best, we have built the greatest. The hospital is the largest building that has been built in Australia for many years; in fact, it may be the largest building to have been built. It is like Adelaide Oval; technically, it is a wonderful building, but there is the cost to the state, the impact it is going to have on the economy of the state. The oval may bring in more sporting events, it may encourage a lot of people to go to the oval, and I hope that it is a success.

The problem with the hospital is that I do fear that, when you add in the nonclinical support contracts (that is, the cleaners, the cooks, the bottle washers and all those ancillary staff, the lift attendants, the lift operators and the car-park attendants), it is going to cost South Australian taxpayers a serious amount of money not for the next five or 10 years but for the next 30-plus years. It is going to be a real drain on the economy, and I really do worry about that. We all want the best hospital and health services, but you have to live within your means. We all want new shiny toys to play with but, if you cannot afford to buy them, you just cannot afford to buy them.

Going back to some of these statistics, the jobless numbers in South Australia have increased by 33 per cent since Labor promised 100,000 jobs, the worst performance in the nation and worse than Tasmania. Last year, SA's jobs growth was the worst in the nation, a trend decline of 1.5 per cent.

We heard the promise of 100,000 new jobs by the various Labor governments over the years but Labor must create 4,000 jobs a month to meet its promise and, so far, there are only 2,900 more jobs since that promise was made by the then premier Mike Rann how many years ago now? As for the youth unemployment, it is just a deplorable situation.

I have heard the federal government say, 'You've got to take any job.' I can say that I have taken just about any job that was out there. Members may have read comments today in some of the media where I was raising questions about the federal government's budget and taking any jobs, and I said, 'I have taken no jobs beneath me.' I remember earning very little money for sweeping out chicken sheds and sweeping up chicken poo, and I worked at trash and treasure. I have done lots of jobs which are quite unsavoury compared to the work we do now, but it is a job, and you do those jobs if you need to do those jobs.

When you have young people out there who cannot get a job because the jobs are not available, you have to ask: how do you overcome the situation? It is easy to say that they should be in learning or earning, but I will be speaking to my federal colleagues about this and I have some concerns about it. I know they are well-intentioned, and I have great faith in their ability to achieve a much better economic future for Australia than the former Rudd-Gillard governments ever did. Internet job vacancies in South Australia fell by 1.1 per cent in March 2014, the worst performance of all states. It is just an atrocious situation to be in.

In relation to economic ranking, according to the CommSec April 2014 economic ranking, South Australia generally is sixth or seventh on most of the key indicators. South Australia's jobless rate is up almost 28 per cent on the decade average level, the worst performance of all states. There are a whole lot of indicators—economic forecast, economic growth, state final demands, small business conditions, small business confidence, business investment, business competitiveness, business counters, minerals exploration spending, capital expenditure, retail sales and building works. South Australia is right down the bottom in a lot of these, or really struggling, or investment, sales and expenditure have decreased to levels that are completely unacceptable, and we do not see the future being really rosy.

We hear the state government blaming the federal government for the massive cuts, they are saying, to the federal spending. I remember having this argument with the then minister for police about the police budget cuts. The then minister for police was saying there were no budget cuts in the police budget in the future. I said, 'Yes, there are. There are massive cuts. You told them they were getting (I forget what the exact figures were) hundreds of millions of dollars over the forward estimates,' but then when we saw the budget come out they were still getting an increase each year but it was not what we were told, and what the police were expecting was not being achieved. That is exactly what is happening now.

We have a federal government that has come into power, and they have only been there a matter of months after the Rudd-Gillard Labor government which just spent, spent, spent and did not put money into the forward estimates for many projects (such as the homelessness program) but raised all these false expectations of the rivers of gold continuing. That was never going to happen. They set the trap for an incoming government. How they would have dealt with it, I do not know, and I do not know how this state government is going to deal with the predicament they have created.

They have created the debt and the deficit. How are they going to deal with the future? They are going to be the ones inflicting the pain on South Australian taxpayers. They did it in 1993 when the State Bank failed as a result of their inability to manage the economy and to keep their eye on the ball and where various businesses, particularly state-run businesses, were going, and we are seeing it now. They have lost their ability to manage this economy.

Whether it is utility prices, taxes, levies or stamp duties, this government has just been raking it in, at what cost—at a great expense to small and medium enterprise businesses and some of the larger businesses that are just having to think about what they are going to do in the future. We have seen Holden's announce their closure. I understand that many of the businesses that were supplying Holden's were gearing up for this change, so they will continue to go on with alternative ventures.

The end of Holden's is very sad. I remember living at Hogarth Road, Elizabeth South in a housing trust house when I was a kid and watching them build the Holden's factory, so it has been part of my life for many, many years. It will be a sad reflection on the economy of South Australia that Holden's is no longer there, but it is not the federal government's fault. It is not completely the state government's fault—there are world factors here—but the state government could have done a lot more over the last 12 years to look to the future of large companies such as Holden's.

I want to move on to another area of government expenditure that I think is very important to each and every one of us in this place. There is no conflict of interest in my speaking about this, but we see areas of government expenditure that are of particular importance for all of us to look at and say, 'Do we really need to spend that money there?' I talk about the contract issued by the Department of Treasury and Finance for the provision of a one-stop shop for all travel management services, including booking of domestic, intrastate and interstate travel, international air travel and accommodation.

That is just the booking of it and not the paying of fees. It is for the associated travel service, such as arranging visas and the management of subscriptions, arranging corporate club memberships (not paying for them but just arranging them), for assistance with group bookings and conferences, for the management of travel and financial reporting tailored to agency requirements and the government analysis and advisory services of state government, the whole-of-government travel, including the travel of members of parliament.

This is a five-year contract for the management of the whole-of-government travel. What do you think it is worth—any guesses around this chamber? I will tell the house what it is worth: $80 million a year to manage government travel over a five-year contract—$80 million. That is a lot of money in anybody's language. Part of that is the management of the travel for members of parliament. I have used Carlson Wagonlit, the contractors at the moment, and I understand they still have this contract. They are a very reputable travel company. They are in 157 countries around the world and they have 22,000 employees. I have no issue with Carlson Wagonlit per se.

Having said that, I would much rather see this government using South Australian companies, such as Phil Hoffmann Travel down the Bay, which was, in 2013, Australia's best retail travel agency. They have many employees and are available 24/7. I implore this government to look at the spending on government travel, do what the federal parliament and the federal remuneration tribunal has done and put the travel for members of parliament into our salary package and allow us to manage it, allow us to do our bookings and to do what many people around the world are doing now—booking online, saving the fees and certainly saving some of this $80 million.

It may not work for all government departments, but if members of parliament are allowed to book their own travel, we will get it much cheaper, see a lot more and do a lot more. We can take whoever we choose with us, as long as we can explain ourselves to not only the tax department but also to our constituents.

It is the same as we do with the global budgets of our offices: as long as we can explain ourselves to our constituents and we are happy about that, that is what we should be doing with our global budgets. But, more importantly, in this case, instead of spending $80 million on managing our travel, allow the intelligent people in this place and their very hard-working staff to manage our own travel, because I can guarantee that instead of spending hundreds of dollars on an airfare you can get it much cheaper if you go online and book it yourself. It is much easier.

We will be debating travel agencies' insurance legislation in this place shortly because most people are booking online. Let us look at what we are doing with the government's travel agency and at the way we are managing that and let us, as members of parliament, be responsible for our own actions. Put that travel into our salaries as part of the salary package and let us be responsible to our constituents and to the taxation department for how we spend that. Nobody thanks you for not spending it.

I tell all the new members of parliament: use your travel allowance, use it wisely, do the reports that are expected of you, do them diligently, and take with you whoever you like. If you want to take your partner, your wife, go for it, because I guarantee that they work just as hard as you do in this place. There would not be one member in this place who would begrudge their partner's contribution to their effort in this place. So, when it comes to saying that your wife or partner should not travel with you unless he or she is invited, then that is something about which there is a real argument.

If I can justify it to my constituents, if I can justify it to the taxation department, I should be able to do it. If I can save the taxpayers of South Australia thousands and thousands of dollars, in fact, some of this $80 million here, then I think we should be allowed to do it. It is a false premise to say that we have to keep doing it the way that we have in the past. This is just one example of how in 2014—not 1914 or 1940 or 1980, this is 2014—we are a mouse click away from the rest of the world.

We have our new tablets so we can have every file that we have got in this place available with us all around the world. We never leave our offices any more, yet we still have to go through a travel agency like this. Let us book it online. Let us save the taxpayers some of this $80 million. Carlson Wagonlit, if they have still got the contract, great; Phil Hoffman, if they have got it down at the Bay, even better for South Australia, even better for the Bay, but let us make sure that we do it fairly. Trust members of parliament to do it correctly because we will have to answer to our voters, we will have to answer to our constituents and I have no problem with doing that at all.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (21:15): As an avowed early riser and as someone whose business normally starts at 6am I normally do my best work before midday, but I will plough on deep into the evening tonight. This is actually the first bill I have risen to speak to in this place and it is a very scary piece of paper, to my mind; a single piece of paper that appropriates from the Consolidated Account to the government $3.941 billion worth of revenue.

I understand that I am only a humble backbench first-term MP and in trying to understand what it is that this bill says I have summed it up as the following: 'We, the government, would like the parliament to allow us to spend $3.941 billion of state money. We will spend it on what we said we would spend it on, except where we change our mind, in which case we will spend it on what we feel like, but at least you can trust us that we will not spend more than what we did last year.'

Now, I understand that this is being used as a mechanism for the fact that the budget will not be passed before the end of the financial year but, given my opportunity in this place we will certainly be supporting the motion but also providing caution and hopefully a sense of responsibility and advice to the government on the way that this money should be spent.

This government over recent weeks and during the election campaign before has come into this place talking about governing for all South Australians. As someone who stands here representing a regional area I can say that this is simply not the case. In fact, the backflips with which I have seen members opposite come and try and explain their various agreements with Independent MPs in this place and speak about an election result that meant that they, for the first time over the life of this government, have had to recognise regional South Australia, I find quite politically opportunistic and very disingenuous to the regional communities in South Australia.

Regional South Australia is hurting. In my electorate, the Barossa and Schubert more specifically, we are hurting. With unemployment in the Barossa/Yorke/Mid-North area increasing from 5.6 to 9 per cent over the past 12 months, we are hurting. That is the equivalent of 1,900 more unemployed people in my electorate and the neighbouring areas to my electorate. We have seen very public and very real examples of this in recent months and in the last couple of years with job losses at Angas Park, job losses at Pernod Ricard, the closure of Linke Contracting, and the question mark over the future of the Penrice quarry in light of Penrice Soda being placed into administration.

There have been many hits that my community has taken with regard to very public increases in the unemployment level in our area, and we are hurting. In South Australia, youth unemployment sits at 27 per cent and in northern Adelaide it sits at 45 per cent and these areas tend to be feeder areas either for people coming up to work in my area or for people from my area going down to the northern suburbs to work, and this is a real indictment on our economy and on the people leading our economy and managing our economy.

Often in my community I am asked, 'Where is the hope? Where is the saving grace? Where is the positive news that we can take and hold onto so that we are able to progress forward with some level of confidence?' Unfortunately there is not much positive news that I can give them. South Australia will record a jobs decline this year of 1.3 per cent, almost double the jobs decline of 0.75 per cent that was forecast in the budget update.

South Australia's economic growth forecast in the budget update is up to three times more optimistic as the DAE forecasts in the forward estimates. It was .7 compared to 2.5. South Australia's economic growth is forecast to be up to four times slower than the national growth forecast in the forward estimates (.7 to 3.1) and, in 2012-13, SA was the only state to have recorded a decline in exports, and exports will continue to decline in each of the next two years. As someone whose local economy is focused on exports, I go back to my community and unfortunately do not have much positive news that I can bring.

However, worse than that, I cannot even tell my local community that this government is trying to help them. Schubert has been ignored by this state government. The Premier and the ministers opposite are happy to come to visit. In fact, I had the Minister for Agriculture in my electorate only this week. He was happy to have a visit, to be wined and dined, and we did have a beautiful lunch out past Angaston and it was a fantastic afternoon.

The minister was welcomed openly into my community but, as soon as we were finished, he was happy to drive back to Adelaide, ignore us, ignore any of the issues we brought up and was not able to give us anything concrete that he was doing to help our local community. There was nothing that we talked about that was in either the Labor Party's election platform or anything since that talks about local upgrades, nothing for rural health, including nothing for local dialysis and chemotherapy or indeed the need for a new hospital in the Barossa in the election platform or anything since.

At this point, I say that Schubert is very important to the state economy, and one of the most significant export industries is very much centred and based around my electorate. The wine industry in the Barossa processes 80,000 tonnes of local grapes each year, exports about $120 million of Barossa branded wine in addition to $200 million to $300 million a year worth of domestic sales, and most of that is interstate. My electorate also processes fruit for other regions that gets turned into wine and exported both domestically interstate and also overseas. The wine industry contributes somewhere between 25 to 40 per cent directly of my local GSP. It is a huge industry in my local area, and it is hugely important for South Australia.

The tourism industry is the second biggest game in town and contributes over $100 million. It is also very closely linked to the wine industry. The wine and tourism industry in my electorate is one of the key industries that this government looks to when it looks to promote our state, whether it be food from our clean green environment, which would obviously encompass the wine industry. The importance this government places on my local industries, but does not give back, gives rise, I think, to a very disingenuous government when it comes to offering things to my electorate.

Schubert is a very productive region. We pull our weight, and in fact most of the time we pull well above our weight; more than that, what we have learnt, especially over the past 12 years, is that we need to just go off and do our own thing. We cannot wait for a government to turn around and give us a hand with anything, so we go off and we do it ourselves. In some senses I am very proud of that, but in other senses, especially as someone who stands in this place, I am very disappointed by the fact that this has to be true. All we ask in Schubert is that we get investment commensurate with the productivity and with the gains that we helped to deliver for the South Australian economy.

An investigation into the Labor Party's policy platform, such as it was, does not offer much concrete for regional South Australia in general. I can update the house on the exact moment that the government realised that something existed beyond metropolitan Adelaide. It would have been at about 8.30pm on 15 March when a hung parliament was looking likely and the member for Frome turned into a kingmaker.

Evidence of this hubris and evidence of the disingenuity of the government can be seen in the Address in Reply speeches that I had to sit through from the members for Colton, Newland and West Torrens. Each one of those three stood up here and berated members of the opposition about the fact that we ran a grassroots campaign across every single electorate in the state, which I believe is part of a political party that aims to govern for all South Australians that you would seek to win the votes of all South Australians. Those three members opposite especially in their Address in Reply speeches were all too happy to point out the folly of that electoral strategy and, by inference, were very pleased and chuffed that their 'Adelaide only' strategy worked.

The blatant way in which they talked about this 'Adelaide only' marginal seats strategy confirms that they do not care about the people who do not vote for them. So, when they come into this place and talk about being here to govern for all South Australians, it is simply not the case. The words of the members opposite mean the same as what I am intending. They do not care about what is in the best interests of South Australia. What they are very clear in saying is that they will do whatever will keep the Labor Party in power, and if that is ignoring regional South Australia then so be it.

Can I say that, after the election result, I do applaud member for Frome for helping this government to see that there is a South Australia beyond the city limits, but his agreement falls short. He is very proud of the $39 million he has been able to extract from this government for regional South Australia. I say to the member for Frome, 'I see your $39 million and I raise you $139 million,' commitments that the Liberal Party gave over the forward estimates in the lead-up to this last election campaign—$139 million. That is $100 million in excess of what he was able to secure. To the member for Frome I would say, 'Mate, I think you need to go back and renegotiate.'

Unfortunately, the deal that was done last week will see the influence the member for Frome has in this parliament diminish. The member for Waite has now essentially given the government an out. I look forward to the member for Frome actually delivering on the commitments he has been able to secure. However, what I unfortunately cannot look forward to is a situation where we can work with the member for Frome to actually deliver more for regional South Australia, which is a commitment he has given during the numerous times he has been in my electorate, and the commitment he has given to me to work together to get more things done for regional SA.

Even today, the Premier's response during question time was that they are taking heed of the election result and that the trigger, being the election result, was the reason they decided to look beyond the Adelaide metro limits into regional South Australia. However, I would contend that regional South Australia is worthwhile in its own right. Regional South Australia has 29.5 per cent of the state's population; that is over 490,000 people. Regional South Australia also has 25.4 per cent of the state's economy; that is over $20 billion—25.4 per cent. I would have considered that normally a state government would not ignore 25 per cent of its own economy.

The regions—and this is the real kicker for me—supply over 50 per cent of the exports that come from South Australia. The regions are responsible for over 50 per cent of the state's exports. Again, we have heard much deliberation from the members opposite about the fact that in order to grow the economy we need to become more export-focused economy. I would say that the export-focused economy has always been there in regional South Australia; it just took 12 years for the members opposite to realise that it is worth investing in. If we talk about trying to find hope for the South Australian economy, much of that hope and much of that recovery can be found by investing in the regions because we are productive, we are efficient, and we can deliver good returns on investment.

The Labor Party will use the recent federal budget to deflect from the mess of its own making in South Australia. So many members opposite in their Address in Reply speech, and in other speeches to this house—in grieves and so on—I believe, show that they think they are in the federal parliament. I rise to say that you are in the state parliament of South Australia, that you are the government of South Australia. You need to start acting like it, and you need to start taking responsibility for the decisions of the government of South Australia and stop pretending that you are part of the federal Labor Party opposition in Canberra.

The Labor Party is scheduled to cut, of its own accord, $230 million from the education budget over the forward estimates. The state Labor Party is scheduled to cut $1.033 billion from the health budget over the forward estimates. The state Labor Party is scheduled to cut $150 million from the police budget over the forward estimates. None of this has anything to do with the federal government. None of this has anything to do with the federal budget. This has everything to do with the South Australian government, a government that needs to take responsibility for its own decisions.

As a member of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition here in the state parliament, we must ensure that the people of South Australia are reminded of this, and reminded of this often, that the comments of members opposite that deflect to the federal budget cannot be left ignored. This government, in power for 12 years, is lying in bed of its own making. There have been six deficits in seven years, and in the only year that they were not in deficit, in 2010, there was a great extra GST kicker from the federal government and a record $14 billion debt. The failure of this government has been its inability to assess the opportunity cost of its decisions. A $14 billion debt means $1 billion a year in interest. That is about $3 million a day in interest, and I would like to detail to the house some things that could be done with $3 million a day, if that debt had not been racked up over the last 12 years.

With 12 or 13 days' worth of interest payments we could have built a Barossa hospital, something that has been talked about for 20 to 25 years, that has been necessary for 20 to 25 years, to replace a facility that celebrated its 100th birthday a number of years ago. A new facility is needed, and 12 or 13 days is all we ask for. A couple of weeks' worth of interest could seal and reseal the worst roads in Schubert: the Daveyston to Freeling road, the Rosedale Road, Moculta to Keyneton, Stelzer Road, to name merely a few.

Only one to two days of the interest repayments could be used to fund the construction of the Barossa Grand Cellar that has been proposed by the Barons of Barossa. Only one or two days of interest repayments could fund a new multipurpose recreational centre for Freeling, and give the town a new space for the community to come together and engage. A mere 13 days of interest repayments could deliver the south-eastern link road that the member for Light has been championing but that he has not been able to deliver for the last decade, only 13 days. Opportunity cost is something I think members opposite need to learn about and understand so that we can actually deliver some better outcomes outside of metropolitan Adelaide.

The state of our South Australian economy has been well canvassed in this place, the superlatives used about how bad things are: the highest-taxing state in Australia, the slowest-growing state in Australia, the largest increase in jobless numbers in Australia. Quite frankly, it is depressing. Instead I would like to talk about a number of leading indicators, to talk a bit about the future and see if there is some hope, but here in South Australia we have the lowest level of internet job vacancies in the nation, population growth of only 0.9 per cent (half the national rate and the lowest on the mainland), a 36 per cent decrease in venture capital investing companies, which is the worst of all the states, and a 15 per cent increase in the number of insolvencies in 2013, again, the worst of all the states.

While the current system shows systemic signs of weakness, it is the leading indicators that worry me most. The leading indicators tell me that the issues we have are not a thing of the past; they are a thing of the present and, unfortunately I think, of our future. I ask: where is the confidence and where is the hope? Where are the indicators that the business community can cling to in order to start talking up our economy, in order to start investing in our economy and helping to create the turnaround we have now been waiting for for quite a long time?

There is much that we can do to restore confidence, and we must restore confidence if businesses are to invest. I think the first way we can give our economy—and especially our larger employing businesses—confidence is to deal with the vexed issue of WorkCover. In my maiden speech I talked about fixing the fundamentals; it is the best way to bring confidence to our economy and give confidence to our business community. The NAB business report released in March shows that our small to medium businesses have the worst business conditions on the mainland.

We can fix this. If we are truly to get South Australia back on track, our commitment to fixing the fundamentals cannot waver, and the first cab off the rank is WorkCover. To give a bit of a lesson about where we are at the moment, our average levy rate is at 2.75 per cent. That compares with a 1.76 per cent average across the nation, and, even though our scheme is the most expensive in the nation, it is still only 67 per cent funded compared with a 112 per cent national average. WorkCover has been nominated by the government for reform to help give savings to the South Australian economy. On that score I applaud the government, and look forward to seeing the bill introduced into this place to finally start to redress some of the fundamental issues that our economy has in order to help restore confidence to South Australia and, indeed, to our business community.

In my last couple of minutes I would like to talk about education, and the fact that we have some very poor NAPLAN results here: in 19 out of the 20 categories South Australia is below the national average; there has been no progress in 18 out of the 20 categories since 2008; and the worst results in six out of the 20 categories, including years 3 and 5 numeracy and year 5 reading. On that score, I can say that the importance of improving literacy and numeracy skills here in South Australia is, again, another thing that we can do to help strengthen the South Australian economy.

From a recent Productivity Commission report into literacy and numeracy, can I say that if this government, through better education outcomes, was able to increase literacy and numeracy by one skill level. the increased likelihood of employment would be between 2.4 and 4.3 percentage points for men and women respectively.

An increase in literacy and numeracy skills is associated with a similar increase in the probability of employment, whether a person had a degree, diploma/certificate or year 12 education. An increase in literacy and numeracy by one skill level is associated with about a 10 per cent increase in wages for both men and women. Again, that is a second area that the government could look at that would help improve the fundamentals of the South Australian economy and help us to restore confidence and get us back on the right track.

In closing, I would say that I am reluctant to support the bill as it stands before us because I think it amounts to a blank cheque, which makes me very uncomfortable. Having said that, I will reserve judgement on the future of this government and on the way the budget is handed down and look forward to seeing some of these fundamentals.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (21:36): I rise to speak on the Supply Bill 2014 and, as has been indicated by other speakers, this is to approve the provision for funding largely to pay our hard-working public servants and to ensure that the operations of government continue pending consideration of the budget and the legislation to support that. Essentially we are being asked to provide for and give permission to the government to draw from its reserves up to nearly $4 billion to undertake that task. I will support the bill.

There are a few matters I would like to touch on in relation to the situation that we currently face, and that is the substantial debt that this government has run up in the last 12 years, a continuing of what appears to be a fiscally irresponsible approach to the budgeting of the government and the consequences of that. My contribution tonight will address the personal and direct consequences of that behaviour, and that is that we now face a very significant exodus of the brightest, smartest, sharpest, most talented and energetic of our younger generation from the state.

Last night I gave the David Tonkin Memorial Scholarship Award to Sarah Abell. She is a 17 year old from Seymour College. She qualifies for consideration for her own academic, sporting, cultural, artistic, debating and community service achievements and being someone who either lives in or attends a school in my electorate and is aged between 16 and 18 years. She is an exceptional young woman and I think she has a huge future.

She told me that she proposes to undertake a commerce degree in the first instance at a Melbourne University next year. That is a great disappointment to me, and I think it should be to the eternal shame of those who are in office to enable a situation such as this: where one of our brightest young people—whose parents have lived in South Australia, invested in their children, made provision for a private education for their daughter and a very significant contribution to her upbringing—leaves this state, along with many others.

In the last 12 years some 35,000 people (net migration) have left this state. Some go and some come back, but many go and do not come back, and that is that net 35,000 in the last 12 years who have left South Australia. I think that is a waste and a shocking loss of resource, of human capital, from the state.

The population growth that we have in South Australia, for a number of reasons, is about half the national average; it is less than 1 per cent. At the moment our children are having less than their replacement. We have a situation where, fortunately, we have a positive and more sympathetic consideration in migration as a place of destination so we do attract some extra allocation in that regard. However, the loss of South Australians born and bred, particularly our young, is shameful and it is a major problem.

It is particularly a problem because we have a very significant economic challenge. Many other speakers have raised these matters but it is clear to say that we have a big problem in generating overall income for South Australia. Unless we get serious about generating greater income opportunities—that is, income into our state, not what we spend on each other or not what we might circle around in South Australia—to grow our state we have to have investment from outside of the state. People do not come and just drop money into South Australia but if they buy our products and services or they invest money here in the expectation that there is a return for them we have a chance to grow that economy.

Not surprisingly, a number of speakers have spoken about the loss of talent from the state and the very parlous situation we have in respect of jobs or job security. I do not think we need to remind ourselves of the importance of the value of work. We do not need to have lectures about it. We understand the significance of this for social cohesion, financial independence, self-worth—all of those matters which are significant. However, we now have a situation where we have a very high level of unemployment, particularly with our youth. We heard from the government in 2010 a promise that within six years we would have 100,000 extra jobs—new jobs they say. We are now four years down the track and we are going to need some 4,400 jobs a month just to meet that promise. Unfortunately, there have only been 2,900 new jobs since the Premier made that promise. We know that the promises they are making are not being delivered, quite clearly.

They allocated funding in the address of the Governor for a commitment to understand the significance of increasing our export income, to make provision for these jobs, to maintain the social cohesion in our state, to maintain some economic viability for the state—all of which, unfortunately, is going to evaporate to naught if we do not actually have it applied.

We have moved in South Australia from a time when our leader was born (in the late 1960s) from being the third most significant state in the country—the third most significant state economically in the country. Brisbane in Queensland was a bit of a bush town; in Western Australia it was before they were digging up iron ore. We were a serious player. We had been significant in the last 100 years in contributing to the development of our constitutions, in the development of our economy and we were a serious player at the federal table. I am ashamed to see that South Australia is now, in an economic sense, below Tasmania. That is a situation that just cannot continue if we are to have an environment that is not going to result in even more of our children leaving. That is a very serious situation.

I can say that one of the most concerning aspects of the budget, because we have seen now so many in this parliament, is that there is going to be a failure to address the expenditure side and there will be a failure to provide a contribution sufficient to inflate the income side. I see a very disappointing aspect to that which is going to come and that is going to have some very serious human consequences. What I ask the government to do is this: in whatever time we might have in having any influence whatsoever, they address in this year's budget for once a direction of funding towards things that are going to create income and that are going to support us having some economic growth. Unless they do that, we will have a very grim future for our children.

In doing that, I ask them to address the questions when they spend very big money—usually about $1 billion a year out of our current state government budget of around $16 billion a year—that they ensure that what they build is going to have an economic return. It is not unreasonable to say that any piece of infrastructure—even a footbridge over the Torrens—has some benefit. It might have some social benefit. It helps people get out of the grounds of the new stadium; they could walk down King William Street or they could walk over a footbridge. That is not to say that it is not a bad thing but there has to be some prioritising of the funds that are allocated in this year's budget.

Obviously, already, as a result of commitments of state and federal governments in announcements that have been made, the Prime Minister has maintained a commitment to the completion of the north-south corridor. That is significant. The state government has made some statements in that regard. I applaud that because we really must deal with what is clearly an area of infrastructure build which will have some productivity associated with it. The business cases are now confirming that, and we have a commitment from governments to progress it, but it does concern me that they make announcements on other projects without consideration of their having an economic value to support further productivity.

I would also ask the government to understand one fundamental area that I think they have ignored—they seemed to touch on it in this year's Address in Reply—and that is that they understand the significance of exports. I am a great believer in identifying what we do well and committing to do more of it. We do great things in South Australia and our economy is very much cemented in what we catch, what we grow and what we dig up. The recognition of those who reside in metropolitan Adelaide or major regional towns needs to be expanded further to appreciate the significance that over half our economy is generated outside the metropolitan area of Adelaide and that it is significant to understand that, in respect of our exports, that is where we have an opportunity to develop it further.

My spending more money at the Burnside shopping centre might help some retailers, but it will not generate more income for South Australia. It is very important to understand that. If the government gets that through the cabinet's collective skulls then we have some chance of ensuring that our funding from our budget as a state parliament, which we are going to be asked to approve, will be effective. If they do not do that, if they do not understand and recognise the importance of our primary agricultural and fishing industries, for example, and of course mining, then we have no hope.

I will not go into the detail of those because there is one other important matter that I want to address tonight. Today the parliament received the Ombudsman's report titled 'An audit of state government departments' implementation of the Freedom of Information Act' and it is a very concerning report. I have said in this chamber on a number of occasions that I am concerned about the government's conduct in not being responsible in ensuring that there is an open and transparent approach to the government.

I have spoken before of my concerns about ministers and particularly about the Premier who, over the different portfolios I have watched him in, has become almost a control freak in respect of the centralisation of power. There are a number of areas that I have raised in that regard. I and, I am sure, other members of the parliament receive correspondence from concerned members of the public, some of them in the employ of the government—that is, in the Public Service—who are terrified at letting anyone know that they have raised an issue of concern or that they have raised an issue of concern with members of the government and that there has been no action and they come to seek our assistance. I am sure that Labor and Liberal members of the parliament outside of the government ministers are often in this category. It is not exclusive to our side of the house. When you have a situation where the population is responding in a fearful manner to the way that the government is operating, that is of great concern to me.

No more evident of the government's dismissal of concern about the general public was when it announced that it would dismiss, or discontinue the contracts of, Mr Rod Hook and Mr Fred Hansen. I do not want to make any comment tonight about whether I think they were good employees or bad employees. They were in senior positions in the government. They held very significant areas of responsibility that they were contracted to oversee. They were both appointed by the government. They were not anywhere near the conclusion of their contracts and they were dismissed.

If the government had any respect whatsoever for South Australians, it would explain to the people of South Australia why it will put the taxpayers to hundreds of thousands of dollars of expense just to pay out these contracts. If it had good reason to dismiss them, and there was good reason to say to the public of South Australia, 'Look, we are going to pay out these contracts; we are going to put in acting personnel. It is going to be quite an expensive process, but we are justified in doing that for these reasons,' the public at least could make some assessment.

But no, it does not even tell the public why it has done that. It does not even answer to the public, the public whom it expects to pay for the termination arrangements for these people. That is the height of arrogance of a government that has no respect for the people it is supposed to be serving. I think that is a disgrace. It concerns me as I pick up today's report from the Ombudsman, who has done an audit on state government departments' implementation of FOIs.

Most members, if they have not done so already, will learn in the time that they are here that there is a Freedom of Information Act and it makes provision for ensuring that the public has access to information held by governments. That information is a resource of the public, not something to be hidden away by governments and the act protects the public's right to have access to it. That is central to the functioning of an opportunity for the public to know what its government is doing and to be able to participate in the democratic process.

This report outlines a number of recommendations as a result of interviewing a number of the personnel in each of the government departments to consider how that is being actually implemented. Members would be familiar with this process. You put in an application for a document. There are appointed freedom of information officers within each agency and within each department. They have to follow a certain process and, except for protection against statutory protected interests, that information is to be made available.

Very significantly, the Ombudsman makes the finding that the policies and statements of government about having a proactive release of documents has been timely, relevant and necessary. The Ombudsman makes a finding that in fact there is a disconnect between these initiatives and the act, and the audit generally found it to be the agency's approach to information disclosure under the act.

One of the other aspects that the audit revealed, which I think is shameful, is that in interviewing the freedom of information officers particularly, under the process where the documents are identified and sent to the minister's office for them to review whether there ought to be any other consideration for the documents not to be released, for example, for the determination of the freedom of information office to be varied or changed, and that is to be done through a timely process, this is what the Ombudsman found:

it is common practice across all of the agencies to provide copies of FOI applications, determinations (draft or otherwise) and documents to their Minister to 'get the green light' prior to finalisation of access requests. While the Act permits a Minister to direct their agency's determination, evidence provided to the audit strongly suggests that ministerial or political influence is brought to bear on agencies' FOI officers, and that FOI officers may have been pressured to change their determinations in particular instances. If a ministerial decision or direction is involved, it should be clearly set out in the agencies' determinations.

It goes on to say:

the agencies' Chief Executives are not providing FOI or pro-information disclosure leadership.

This is not only a damning indictment of the senior leadership, but an assertion that there is political interference with the process of freedom of information, so much so that the Ombudsman recommends that there should be penalties and, under recommendation 26, that there should be offences included in the act to be created for improperly directing or influencing a decision or determination made under the act. I urge all members to read this, to appreciate how serious it is and to ensure that we have the recommendations translated into legislation so that we can have at least some opportunity to have access to secret government information.

Time expired.

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