HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1)
2014-05-22 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Motions

Federal Budget

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier) (15:51): I move:

That this house calls on the commonwealth government to reverse measures in the 2014-15 commonwealth budget that will harm the provision of key services and benefits to the South Australian community.

This budget has a context and the context is a federal Liberal Coalition government that has already firmly established the value system by which it will govern for the people of South Australia. One that that has been absolutely clear from day one of this new federal Liberal government is that they govern for a very narrow and privileged section of our community, and this budget is framed with precisely that same set of values in mind.

There is an eerie resonance between the way in which this federal budget has been framed and the way in which those opposite would have framed their first state budget had they achieved office here in South Australia. It is based on this fundamental principle: that is, that they do not govern for the ordinary, everyday working men and women of this nation; they govern for a narrow, elite group of privileged people in the Australian community. It got off to a bad start: there is no clearer evidence than one of the early acts of—

Mr Marshall: There's been a ruling on that.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The former Labor government proposed two changes that made the superannuation system a little fairer: one would refund the tax paid to low income people, those 3.6 million people who earn less than $37,000 per year—the previous federal Labor government legislated that change. The other proposal would increase the tax on superannuation contributions for 128,000 people who earn more than $300,000. Their super concessions would be taxed at 30 per cent, not 15 per cent. This is still a concession but just a smaller one. So super contributions would remain subject to the flat 15 per cent tax for incomes between $37,000 and $300,000.

One of the earliest acts of the incoming federal Liberal government was to repeal the low income super contribution, effectively increasing tax on super to everyone who earns less than $37,000, and then, in the same breath, not proceeding with the higher tax rate for people on over $300,000. How could you make those two corresponding measures as part of the early decision of your government unless you wanted to send the clearest possible message about for whom you govern? Lower middle income earners actually receive no tax concessions for saving for their retirement, while people on high incomes receive very substantial concessions.

When the former assistant treasurer, the current Liberal senator Arthur Sinodinos, was confronted about that grotesque inconsistency in priorities he said this: 'We've always been on the side of those who are aspirational.' What warped value system sits at the heart of a remark like that, the notion that people on low incomes, people who might actually be a cleaner or someone who might be hospitality worker, do not have aspirations for themselves and their families, and that those who actually have high incomes—on many occasions due to the circumstances and privileges and opportunities that have been made available to them—are the only ones with aspirations?

What this betrays is a view about the distribution of wealth and opportunity in this nation, and a view by the Liberal Party that it is desirable, that it is a desirable distribution of wealth and opportunity, a desirable distribution of resources. It is not just that they do not think it is amenable to change through public policy, they actually believe in it. They believe in tradition, they believe in these things not changing. They believe in status, they believe that things are the way they are for a good reason.

We have never accepted that on this side of the house. We have never accepted that the unequal distribution of wealth and opportunity is something immutable, something that should not change. We are restless with that. Sure, we understand that these things are often resistant to change and that it requires the application of intelligent public policy to actually improve the quality of our community, but there are many programs that sit at the heart of striking at those inequalities in our community. That is what we spend all our time and effort dreaming about and thinking about, and that is why all of us on this side of the parliament got into this business of standing for parliament.

This is what is at the heart of the attack that exists within the federal budget. One only needs to look, for a moment, at the things that were chosen for cuts and the things that were chosen for protection to understand that the Liberal Party of Australia has made a choice about for whom they govern—and it is not ordinary, every day, working Australians. Look at the cuts and the way in which they fall.

There is the reduction in funding to young people. Newstart benefits for the unemployed: people under 30 will have to wait for six months to be eligible for benefits; the eligible age for Newstart is being raised from 22 to 25, costing people aged between 22 and 25 who previously qualified for Newstart $96 per fortnight. There are the higher university costs due to the uncapping of university fees in 2016 and higher interest rates on those, with increased fees. The minimum income threshold at which people begin repaying their debt will also be lowered by 10 per cent. In addition, there are cuts to public funding to South Australian universities.

In relation to those disposable incomes of people who are actually the subject of these cuts, a single person on Newstart of 23 years of age would have a loss of $47 per week—18.3 per cent of their disposable income. When one compares that to the contributions that are offered by other members of the community, it is a grotesque set of priorities to allow the burden of adjustment to fall so unfairly and so harshly on those who can least afford it.

When we look at the families that are affected by this, the cut-off for family tax benefit is reduced from $150,000 to $100,000. Previously, the family tax benefit B extended to families with children under 18, it is now cut off for families where the youngest child is six or older. Families will pay more for fuel, with excise increasing every six months. Families will pay $7 every time they visit the GP. Families will pay $5 more for medicines on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, 80¢ for those on concession cards. Families will also be expected to provide greater financial support for adult children for longer due to the changes to Newstart.

We also see, in some of the cruellest cuts, cuts to Aboriginal programs. There is a cut of $534 million from Indigenous programs across Australia, with $9.6 million in annual funding for municipal services and essential services in South Australia's regional and remote Aboriginal communities and homelands. This decision will affect more than 4,000 Aboriginal residents in more than 700 homes in 60 locations, from the Coorong to the Nullarbor, from Oodnadatta to the Flinders Ranges, and small, very remote homelands on the APY lands.

We have also seen deep cuts that will affect pensioners. South Australian pensioners will, of course, have to pay the $7 co-payment to see the GP, waived after 10 visits per year for concession card holders; $30 million per year in concessions will be stripped; seniors healthcare card holders will lose the seniors supplement; fuel prices; the Seniors Card harder to qualify for; and the pension age will rise to 70, affecting any Australian born after 1966.

We also know that in this very same budget there were promises made which were simply dishonestly and manifestly breached: $80 billion in health and education cuts without notice to the states, in direct contradiction of specific promises made by the Prime Minister in the lead-up to the election, not just promises that were the subject of agreements between sovereign governments (commonwealth and state governments), not just promises that were repeated ad nauseam in the election campaign but, just in case we did not get the message, promises that were actually reduced to writing and put on billboards so that when people went into their polling booths they could be expected to vote on the basis of those solemn assurances. They were reduced to writing so that the last thing you saw before you walked into the polling booth were those specific commitments, and they have been directly and dishonestly breached.

The dishonesty does not end there. When we were meeting a few weeks ago with the Prime Minister not a word was said. The largest single cut in generations to state funding, with direct breaches of agreements between the commonwealth and state governments, and not a word of it was breathed to the various state and territory first ministers by the commonwealth government. That explains, to some degree, the fury that has emerged from not only this state but also the state premiers and chief ministers of every other state and territory, with the possible exception of Western Australia.

What we know from this breach of promise is that it did not rest there. It was actually concealed from us on budget night. There was no reference to the $80 billion cut on budget night. It was not hard to find, it was in the budget papers. You would have thought the largest single cut announced in the budget papers might have got a mention in the budget speech, but no, Joe Hockey decided that that was not a matter that was the subject of comment.

Indeed, what did occur shortly after the budget was handed down is that the Prime Minister sought to assuage and minimise the nature of the criticism by suggesting that these cuts were not going to occur tomorrow, or next week, or even next year: they were going to occur beyond the forward estimates. What we now know is the cuts emerge from 1 July; the cuts begin deeply in 1 July and they amount to $898 million over the next four years. Almost a billion dollars of cuts to the South Australian government, and that is before they ramp up.

There is also a deep deceit at the heart of this federal budget, and the federal government has not made out its case; it has not even got to first base. There are two essential points it makes: we have got a debt crisis and we have got a budget emergency. It is simply false. Australia has recorded higher economic growth than our peers. According to the IMF, Australia recorded economic growth of 2.4 per cent in 2013, 2 per cent for Canada, 1.9 for the US and 1.8 for the UK; Spain's economy contracted by 1.2 per cent; and Germany grew by 0.5 per cent. So, a survey of the world tells you that we have, in relative terms, strong economic growth.

What we have, though, is a difficulty in relation to the recovery of receipts from a growing economy. What we know is that 10 years ago we were recovering, by way of receipts, 25.6 per cent of the economy; we now recover almost a full 2 per cent less: 23.6 per cent of that growing economy. That accounts for almost double the challenge for the federal government: not this mythology about 'blue-sky spending' by the federal government, but in fact a growing economy where there are sections of the economy that simply are not pulling their weight.

I can remember seeing a slide that Joe Hockey put up at one of our early treasurers meetings where he explained in pretty exasperated terms that we have this budget emergency. He actually showed these graphs, and it became apparent that the greatest level of the challenge was not actually on the spending side: it was actually on the receipts side. He also mentioned that one of the sectors of the economy that was not pulling its weight was in fact the mining sector, and I did mention at the time, 'Well, if we only had a solution to that, Joe; if we only had a solution to that.' There is a mythology about what the nature of this so-called budget emergency is.

What of the debt crisis? Australia has very low government sector debt compared with our peers. Australia's general government net debt to GDP was 13.5 per cent in 2013, and it is forecast by the IMF to rise to 16.1 per cent in 2014. This compares with the 2013 general government net debt to GDP of 73.5 per cent for advanced economies and 72.4 per cent in the Euro area—many orders of magnitude above what we experience here. So, the case is not made out.

What the case is based on is the value system that I spoke of earlier: it is pulling out your true agenda to actually hack into those programs which are about addressing questions of inequality—about making a fairer South Australia. If you do not believe in them—if, in your heart, you are there for the aspirational people—why on earth would you be spending money on these things? The great public sector projects, the great projects of civil society directed at the reduction of inequality, are our universal health care system and our universal public education system.

The great achievements of modern civil society are to put everybody on the same level in terms of their health and wellbeing, and their trajectory for learning and earning throughout their life. What we believe in is that you give everybody that opportunity; that is how you are going to grapple with the question of inequality. But, if you do not actually believe in the project—if you do not actually believe that inequality is something that is deserving of minimisation—why on earth would you spend money on it?

That is at the heart of their cuts. That is why they can hack into this in such a deep and dishonest fashion, and it is for us to stand up to it and resist it because it is about the nature and identity of our South Australian community.

What this means in real terms is something in the order of 600 beds in the healthcare system in just one year alone at the end of the forward estimates—equivalent to over 40 per cent of all hospital beds in regional South Australia if you wanted to turn it into another metric. These are the things we are going to have to grapple with in our upcoming budget, with very little time to grapple with what has been a catastrophic attack on South Australia's revenues.

The other element of deception in relation to this budget is the way in which there are just so many wires and mirrors that are actually produced, this notion of the $20 billion health fund which we are somehow all meant to cheer about. People are meant to pay with health and wellbeing now in relation to closing hospital beds and paying for the GP visits, somehow to get a photograph of a fund that may accumulate at some stage in the future, a fund which actually only accumulates on a drip-feed out of the interest savings that accrue through the $20 billion being taken to the bottom line of the budget. It is essentially an illusion, but to link those two things together just indicates that they understood that this was a budget that was going to have a sales problem, and it looks like a retrofit. It looks like some genius in the federal cabinet has strapped this solution on, to link the $7 co-payment to this fund.

If it is a fact, if it is, using their chain of reasoning, a budget emergency, how on earth can you afford $20 billion? Of course it is a wonderful thing to spend money on medical health and research, but do you do it at the expense of basic investments in health and education? You cannot simultaneously run the line that there is a budget emergency and then say you have $20 billion lying around to be able to invest in medical research. It does not pass the common-sense test. It is an illusion, just as the high income supplement is.

Obviously, when they looked at this budget, and somebody stood back and looked at it all, they said. 'Well, this isn't going to fly,' so the first thing they did was grab onto the fact that the politicians had a wage freeze (which was already recommended by the remuneration tribunal) and thought, 'We'll own that and say that we are doing that because that looks like we are all making a contribution, so we are really tough on ourselves.'

Then they thought they would reach into high-income earners because they thought it would be a bit embarrassing to be there on these extraordinary salaries and not look like they were making a contribution. But if you look at the relative contributions of somebody like Tony Abbott and that person on Newstart, you can see that it is a grotesque distortion of the burden of effort. It falls disproportionately on low-income earners in this community and actually rips away those supports for those people who are seeking to get a leg-up on the ladder of opportunity in this nation.

This is a budget that fails just about every test. It is dishonest, it portrays a value system which is not consistent with Australian values, which is a fair go, and it rips away at the programs that are central to our purpose as a political party. This will be known as a Liberal budget. So, when Tony Abbott comes to us and puts into our budget this poison pill, by ripping out $5.5 billion, and then says with a bit of a smile on his face, 'I'm open to a discussion if somebody wants to come and have a chat to us about GST. It won't be my GST; it will be their GST,' we are saying we are not having any part of it.

This is your policy proposition. This is your idea. You argue the case for it. You argue why we should be doing this in the first place, and then you argue every step of the way, every policy proposition and every natural consequence that flows from it. There is nobody with a straight face who continues in that federal cabinet who believes that state governments can consume these cuts. They think we are going to come trotting back to them and say, 'Please give us the GST.'

Whatever the resolution of this is, it will be owned by the federal Liberal Party. It will be their solution. They need to run this case and, for present purposes, what we are doing is resisting these changes because they are unfair, they do not make sense, and we will be resisting them as far as we possibly can. Obviously we are going to have to grapple with what emerges.

We do not know whether some of it or all of it will survive. We have to prepare a budget on the assumption that this is a budget that we are going to have to live with, or at least in large measure live with. We will be campaigning against these individual measures and we hope that there will at least be some, if not all of them, ameliorated but we have to be realistic. The commonwealth has set its sails on this path, but we will make sure that they accept full responsibility for them.

For those who are sitting here, just consider for a moment if those opposite had had the good fortune of occupying the Treasury benches at this time. We would be looking at precisely the same thing—massive cuts to jobs, an audit commission delivering similar recommendations and similar responses from the elected politicians here, saying, 'It is not me, it is these fellas. They are giving us all these recommendations. Sadly, we are just going to have to adopt them because we have this shocking budget emergency.'

What actually happened at the last state election was that the South Australian community, God bless them, put a massive spanner in the works in what was the biggest fit-up in commonwealth-state relations in the history of this nation. It was all on the way. There would have been a cosy deal between all the states and territories and the commonwealth government, and we would have been 'enjoying' life under an Abbott government with the opposition here in government quietly bringing in their support behind these programs.

Fortunately, we are in a position where we can stand up and resist these things. We are taking a leadership role in the nation. We have been able to cobble together a coalition; I do not know how long it will last, but I hope it will last as long as is necessary to defeat these cuts. I hope this house can send a very clear and certain message to the federal government that these cuts are unacceptable and that we get their reversal.

Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (16:16): I rise to speak on this motion, and I indicate to the house that I will be the lead speaker and the only speaker from Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, and we will be supporting this motion. However, I trust that this chamber will not be spending too much time on this issue. I believe that there are plenty of appropriate forums for the Premier, and for the opposition for that matter, to express their consideration and concerns regarding the federal budget. I do not think, given the fact that we have a supply bill before this house, that we should be spending an inordinate amount of time concentrating on this issue. If we do not pass the Supply Bill—

Members interjecting:

Mr MARSHALL: Well, the members opposite laugh, the Minister for Education in particular. How will her teachers feel if this government—

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

Mr MARSHALL: Sorry, it's just that you keep talking and I just assume you have something pertinent to add to the debate. Are you moving a standing order or—

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: number one, I did not laugh, I smiled pleasantly at the Leader of the Opposition, which I do often, and I have not been talking incessantly. I have been sitting here quietly listening to him.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am required to ask you what the point of order is.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I am being misrepresented by him is my point of—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr MARSHALL: Those opposite may smirk or smile lovingly at the opposition, as we have just had attested, but the simple fact of the matter is that the government opposite have asked us to consider a supply bill to approve the appropriation of $3,941 million. The government is asking those on this side of the chamber to trust them to spend that money without providing a budget. I come from the private sector—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am just saying it to myself, but I am hoping someone is listening. The leader is entitled to be heard.

Mr MARSHALL: —and we would not be asking for expenditure without providing a budget, but that is exactly and precisely what the government is asking us to do.

Not only that, but we have three days to get the Supply Bill through. So it is rather perplexing that the Premier wants to play politics with this particular issue and jeopardise supply being granted before the end of the financial year and jeopardise the cash flow of this government. We are not going to do that; we are not going to participate. I will be the only speaker and I will keep my remarks brief.

Of course, we have a history of this with this Premier. Only in March last year he moved a motion regarding the future submarines project where he made an extraordinary attack on the federal Coalition who were in opposition at the time. I believe that many of the comments that the Premier made in that clearly political debate were the start of a soured relationship between the now defence minister for the country and this government. I think that is one of the reasons why we still fail to have had a meeting between the Premier and the defence minister at a time—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr MARSHALL: You are not the Premier. This is at a time when defence spending is critical for this state. I do not think there is one person in this chamber nor one person in this state who does not appreciate the magnitude of the problem that we have in South Australia with the 'Valley of Death' that is fast approaching because of the inaction of the federal Labor government over an extended period of time to implement the white paper and the DCP which they promised to the people and most importantly, to the people of South Australia.

The federal budget handed down on 13 May was a tough budget. There is no doubt about that. I have already made it clear in my public statements that there are a range of measures in this budget that the opposition simply does not support. We certainly said before the election that we did not support the Medicare co-payment and we have made that statement publicly since. We do not support many of the cuts in health and education simply because in South Australia we cannot afford any diminution of the revenue flows from the commonwealth to our state. We do not have enough money to run our state at the moment because of the financial ineptitude of those opposite who have run our state's finances for the last 12 years.

We have also said in particular that we do not support the cuts to the supplementary road funding to South Australia. We have made those points and we have made them very clearly in the media—public comments—and privately to the Coalition in Canberra. We believe that South Australia is missing out without the supplementary roads payment coming to South Australia—about $17 million per year. Without that supplementary road payment, our share of the local roads funding under the federal assistance grants program is sitting at 5.5 per cent, yet we have 11 per cent of road length here in South Australia and of course, around 7 per cent of the nation's population.

The supplementary road payment which I believe was brought in by John Howard when he was prime minister of Australia took our share from 5.5 per cent up to 7.9 per cent. This was particularly important for South Australia. In addition to this, it was the Liberal government which asked the Commonwealth Grants Commission to look at a funding split and that commission recommended that South Australia get 8.9 per cent of the funds. So we certainly do not support this budget measure and I have made that very clear in my correspondence with minister Truss and also in conversations with minister Briggs, and we hope that there can be a resolution of this issue which would certainly help South Australia.

However, we are extremely concerned on this side of the house that those opposite will seek to use the federal budget as a smokescreen for their own chronic financial mismanagement over an extended period of time. Labor's record is nothing but appalling. Their record of rising deficits, increasing debt, massive debt interest being paid on a daily basis in this state, their appalling mismanagement of the Workers' Compensation Scheme, and the loss of our AAA credit rating, all occurred, not since September last year when the Coalition came to power federally but when the Labor Party was in power in Canberra.

So, it is a bit rich, quite frankly, to be given a lecture by those opposite about what we should be doing here in Australia at the moment. They have presided over a complete wrecking ball against our state budget and against our economy.

I am looking forward to the Treasurer's speech in this house on 19 June because I can tell you what he is going to say. You may be in the seat at the time, so he may say, 'Deputy Speaker, it is a particularly tough time at the moment, and there has been a deterioration in the accounts beyond our control—federal government, international issues, all of these things. It is not our fault but, don't worry, in two years' time—

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: There will be a surplus.

Mr MARSHALL: —we will be back in surplus.' This has been the narrative. This has been the embarrassing, repetitious narrative of this hopeless government over an extended period of time. We went to the polls on 15 March, and the government opposite said quite clearly that they would return this state to surplus in 2015-16. That is only 13 months away, and we are looking forward to them fulfilling that commitment, that promise, that they made to the South Australian people over an extended period of time.

I have taken a look at this federal budget, and I have compared it with the MYEFO which was handed down in December. Despite the incorrect assertions of the Treasurer—which were quite worrying, let's face it—that I had the numbers wrong, I had them right. I made it very clear, when I went onto radio that morning, that when we compared the MYEFO numbers which came down in December with the budget that was handed down last week, there was a—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just need to remind the Treasurer that, according to the Speaker's notations, there is not a lot of leeway here, and I want to hear him speak later. I just want him to contain himself until later on. The leader. Let's be careful.

Mr MARSHALL: Thankyou, Deputy Speaker. The Treasurer admitted on the radio that morning that he had been up nearly all night—a little bit like the Premier who fell asleep in the chamber earlier this week, according to media reports—but he got it wrong. So, I made it very clear that the difference between the MYEFO—I am sure he has got a briefing on what that is now—and what was handed down in the budget was a $1.4 billion difference. In fact, there was $60 million in this current financial year, $233 million next financial year, $438 million in the 2015-16 year and $666.5 million in the 2016-17 year.

Do you know what the Treasurer said? I will tell you what the Treasurer said. He said: 'It's a little bit embarrassing for Steven not to be able to read the budget figures.' That is what he said. He said: 'It's a little bit embarrassing—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I might have to call him to order in a minute. Leader.

Mr MARSHALL: He said: 'It's a little bit embarrassing for Steven not to be able to read the budget figures.' It must be not a little bit embarrassing: it must be humiliating for the state Treasurer to get it so wrong and repeat it on radio, with all of his Treasury advice, because, you see, Deputy Speaker, I was right—it is so humiliating.

I will point the Treasurer to this part of the budget. In fact, if you go to the 2014-15 federal budget, Budget Paper 3, page 93, table 3.22, and also the MYEFO on page 65, and do that comparison, you will see that there is an uplift of $1.4 billion. I will accept the apology whenever the Treasurer is ready to provide it.

We on this side are very concerned for many reasons, one of which is the Treasurer's numeracy skills. The second, of course, is this smokescreen that those opposite want to use to distract from their own level of incompetence going forward.

Even if we go to the Treasury figures, which compare the GST that was updated in February—not the MYEFO, as I was talking about on the radio, but the GST figures from February compared to the budget—there was again an uplift over those four years of $260 million, and when you add those to the uplift between the MYEFO and the budget for the specific purpose payments, there was an uplift of revenue into this state over those years of $855 million.

That is the situation here in South Australia, so we reject those opposite who want to say, 'All of our problems in South Australia are somebody else's fault.' We say to those opposite, 'Take responsibility. Take responsibility for your figures and deliver a budget which realises the promise that was made to the people of South Australia in the lead-up to the election.'

In fact, I understand that the state education minister advised the federal education minister that she was surprised to hear that the federal budget provided more education funds in the forward estimates than were provided by the former Labor government. State Labor, of course, as we know, in the documents that it provided in the Mid-Year Budget Review and the update that was received prior to the election, planned to cut $230 million out of its own forward estimates for education.

You do not see the Premier standing up in outrage at the Minister for Education and Child Development and saying, 'This is appalling. Do you know how many teachers we're going to have to sack?' We do not see the Premier doing that. We do not see the Premier calling a meeting of all the interest groups saying, 'These cuts are outrageous, minister. These must not go ahead.' No, we do not have that. We have absolute silence. That is the situation.

What about the Minister for Health? He delivered a very interesting speech in response to a question in this house only earlier this week in response to evidence that was provided to the Budget and Finance Committee of this parliament. The Minister for Health completely and utterly disputes the number which has been mentioned by the shadow health minister. Fair enough.

The Hon. J.J. Snelling: Rob Lucas lied.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sure the Minister for Health will tell us in his contribution later.

Mr MARSHALL: So he can say that people lied.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader, you're on.

Mr MARSHALL: Okay, that's a new ruling. Here we have a situation where the minister wants to accuse those in another place of being a liar, and he wants to do that repeatedly.

The Hon. J.J. Snelling: Yes.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will have to call the Minister for Health to order.

Mr Gardner: I think he has been warned, ma'am.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I can only read my own handwriting. I am calling him to order.

Mr MARSHALL: And yet, when the opposition asks the obvious next question, 'What is the size of the cuts envisaged by your government over your forward estimates delivered in last year's budget?' there is no answer; no answer whatsoever.

The Hon. J.J. Snelling interjecting:

Mr MARSHALL: No, no.

The Hon. J.J. Snelling interjecting:

Mr MARSHALL: And this is the problem. The government put together its budget. It has developed historically, and we will wait to see whether the Treasurer this year follows this convention, but historically, it has been put over a four-year period referred to as the forward estimates, so when we take a look at cuts to those planned expenditures in the forward estimates, they add up to an extraordinarily large number as provided in evidence to the Budget and Finance Committee.

Yet, when it is disputed by the minister opposite, he provides no evidence of what that cut actually is and yet he is happy to call a meeting. He in fact says that the budget cuts beyond the forward estimates here in South Australia will amount to the closing of a hospital. He might like to share with this house today in his contribution what are his state government's proposed cuts to the budget that was handed down in this place 12 months ago. He might like to do that, but I wonder whether he has the courage. I doubt it, but he could prove me wrong, and I look forward to that moment.

The Hon. S.W. Key: Why should he?

Mr MARSHALL: The member for Ashford asks, 'Why should he?'

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don't respond to interjections.

Mr MARSHALL: Well, the member for Ashford asks a very good question.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: She is not going to interject again.

Mr MARSHALL: I will tell you why he should: because the people of South Australia, I believe, deserve to know exactly what is in store for them. It is one thing for the government to stand out there and create this big scare campaign, but what is it going to be doing to the people of South Australia themselves? That is something which I think needs further explanation by the Minister for Health.

One thing that I was very pleased to learn about in this budget which came down was the federal government's commitment to the north-south corridor. You may recall prior to the election that this was an issue which was quite controversial and received a great deal of public scrutiny. Let me just take the house through some of the fundamental issues associated with this project.

Tony Abbott, the now Prime Minister who was in opposition, came down to South Australia, and he had a sum of money that he would like to spend. He took a look at the plans that the state government had offered to the people of South Australia. In fact, on its own website the number one priority was the Darlington project. This was a project that had been offered to the people of South Australia at the 2006 election and offered again at the 2010 election. It seemed a logical project and it was a high priority project identified by the government to move on immediately.

He came out and said he would put $500 million towards this state government-identified project, and we were very happy that the Coalition had committed to this if it won the federal election. What happened then just seemed incredible to us. We then had the state government backpedalling at a million miles an hour saying, 'That's not our priority project.' Well, it is on your website—lo and behold, it came down from the website. It came off the website; it was not their priority project and their priority project was of course the Torrens to Torrens project.

So, the Coalition won the federal election and we had the then minister out there, via the media mainly, saying, 'We don't want this project down there. This is our priority project: Torrens to Torrens.' Let me tell you what the state Liberal opposition did: we sat down with the Prime Minister and said, 'We don't think that we should deny the people of the south.' They have been denied and let down by state Labor over an extended period of time. They were promised in 2006, they were promised in 2010—it is a little bit like that project for the Grange Road underpass. These things get promised; they just do not get delivered.

So, we said to the Prime Minister, 'We believe that we should be doing the entire project'—and guess what? The Prime Minister backed the state Liberal plan to do the entire north-south corridor. Have I received a letter of thanks from those opposite? No. Have I received it, Deputy Speaker? Not a skerrick, not a call, not a note, not an e-mail—nothing.

I feel quite left out, because I put my heart and soul into those negotiations with our Prime Minister to deliver the north-south corridor while those opposite were playing politics on a daily basis through the media saying, 'We don't want the Darlington, we want the Torrens to Torrens.' The state Liberal team was sitting down with the Prime Minister saying, 'We want to do the entire north-south corridor' and that is why we were so pleased—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: So that's why you took it out of your costings and put it as a saving—whoops!

Mr MARSHALL: That, surely, Deputy Speaker—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I will have to call him to order.

Mr MARSHALL: So, just for clarity on this, there is a de-escalating warning system. He's on his final warning—what is he going to get next? The next castigation is 'Good morning, minister'—give me a break!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I can only read my own writing, and I am definitely going to call to order both the Treasurer and the Minister for Health. They are putting me in a very invidious position.

Mr MARSHALL: Deputy Speaker, I can only presume that these things are cumulative over the entire day, and I would have thought—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, but I can't see anything on this side.

Mr MARSHALL: I commend legibility classes to the Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hang on—it's the bright lights!

Mr MARSHALL: I feel that the best outcome for South Australia was realised. We are going to embark upon the north-south corridor. That is what is good for South Australia. It is going to lift our productivity, and I think it is precisely the sort of project that we should be working on here. It is a pity those opposite wanted to play out the negotiation via the media, which did not deliver anything for South Australia. It is disappointing, but I am glad that the Coalition and the state Liberal Party worked together on this important project.

I tell you, if you need any further evidence, Deputy Speaker, of the inability of this government to work with the Coalition, you only need to look at one piece of evidence, and that is the evidence provided by the total infrastructure funding to South Australia out of the long-term national infrastructure pool. South Australia received $2 billion out of $50 billion. That is well below what our state is entitled to. I put it to you, Deputy Speaker, that there is one very simple reason for this, and that is that we do not have a long-range productive infrastructure plan in South Australia. When I came out in the lead up to the election, in fact probably more than—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr Gardner: I think the Speaker has ruled on forced laughter, madam.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The federal Speaker has ruled on infectious laughter, I think. I didn't find that one infectious. I do not want to hear it again, though.

Mr MARSHALL: We do not have a long-range productive infrastructure plan in South Australia; it is disgraceful. The methodology this government has used to allocate our finite capital in this state towards our priority projects is nothing short of appalling. It is based upon marginal seats, electoral cycles, pet projects, and it has not delivered for South Australia. If you need any evidence of that, just take a look at the money we received from the federal budget compared with the other states of Australia. It is appalling, but we had no shovel-ready projects here in South Australia.

In fact, it should be humiliating to those opposite that the federal government had to provide the funding to even do the work for the feasibility study for the two projects. What had the department been doing for such an extended period of time? They have their nice glossy $36 billion transport plan but no detailed feasibilities on any of the priority projects. What we need in South Australia, as a matter of priority, is an independent statutory authority charged with the responsibility of developing a long-range productive infrastructure plan for this state. We need that over a 25-year period. It needs to be done independently of government so that we can have a plan for our roads, a plan for our ports, and our rail, and our electricity, and our water in South Australia so we can take this productive infrastructure handbrake off our state and start catching up with those who have much better planning regimes than we have in South Australia.

One of the other things I was pleased about in the budget that was handed down was the continuing commitment from the Coalition to abolish the carbon tax and to abolish the mining tax. I know, quite frankly, that in their heart of hearts those opposite—well, most of them—would realise that these two issues are a massive handbrake on our capacity as a state. There is no-one who does not see the very logical relationship between the carbon tax and our extraordinarily high electricity charges in South Australia.

For a government that purports to represent those people who are disadvantaged, those people who are struggling to make ends meet, the most practical thing they can do is to implore their colleagues in Canberra to support the abolition of the carbon tax. This issue was taken to the electorate in the federal general election held in September last year. The people voted: they do not want it. The very least they can do is to change their stance.

The Premier has spoken on many occasions, and he is wedded to the carbon tax. I do not believe for one second that those opposite, who are all hanging their heads at the moment, support it. This is a very important reform that we need, and so is the abolition of the mining tax, which is a further handbrake on this state's growth. I think this state Labor government should be encouraging their federal colleagues to support the abolition of the Mineral Resources Rent Tax.

One of the most worrying things about this budget from state Labor's perspective is that they did not receive what they thought they were going to receive, that is, the $333 million contribution to their jobs program. I do not think anybody really believed that it was going to come, but it does raise the issue that we now have a government without a jobs plan for South Australia at a time when we have an extraordinarily high and increasing unemployment rate here in South Australia.

The government abrogated their responsibility to the commonwealth. They said, 'Look, we haven't got any money, so if you give us $333 million we will have a $393 million dollar recovery program.' That money has not been included in the budget, so the question that now needs to be put to the government is: what are they going to do to stimulate our economy, to create employment and to keep our young people here in South Australia? We are yet to hear anything. We have heard a lot of protests of, 'This isn't fair,' but we are yet to hear anything from this government about what they are going to do differently.

We took a plan which was not reliant on the federal government but which was self-reliant on the people of South Australia to turn our economy around. We took a plan—in excess of $250 million worth of initiatives—that we would have put in place to stimulate our economy. It was a combination of important and long overdue tax reform here in South Australia, as well as specific targeted policies and programs to help those areas of our productive capacity in this state to get moving. A big part of that plan, of course, was the regions in South Australia. We were extraordinarily proud of the policy and the commitment in terms of dollars that we took to support the regions in South Australia.

Some cynical people opposite might say, 'That's because the Liberals have a lot of seats in the regions.' I make this point: we did it for one reason and one reason alone—because this state's economy has stopped dead in the water and we believe the regions are a powerhouse of opportunity to get our economy moving. The government, of course, have never had any interest in the regions and were dragged kicking and screaming by the member for Frome to make an investment in the regions, and we welcome that.

We welcome the commitment the government has made to the regions, but it was not something they wanted to do; it was something they were forced to do in their quest to hold on to government. They do not really believe it in their heart. You wait, if they are not reliant on the member for Frome's vote in the future, it will go just like that because they have had plenty of opportunity over 12 long years to show their support for the regions, and we have had nothing.

They are only interested in marginal seat programs. That is in contrast with what we took to the election, and I was very proud to take to the election, that is, we took projects in Hammond, a safe Liberal seat, and in Taylor, a safe Labor seat. Why did we do it? We did it because we knew that was what was best for the state, and we knew that, if we were going to get ourselves out of this mire that Labor had wedged us in after 12 years of economic mismanagement, we needed these sorts of programs. I was buoyed to read in today's Advertiser—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr MARSHALL: We have had all sorts of funny words coming out of the government today; I will not go into them now. It was an excellent article by Tory Shepherd, and she was talking about the tens of thousands of jobs which are going to come to South Australia as a result of the Coalition's medical research future fund, a $20 billion fund which the article states is going to be the largest in the world. It goes on to quote the federal Minister for Health the Hon. Peter Dutton:

For SA as the economy transforms, it really is going to provide tens of thousands of jobs directly and indirectly.

He also stated:

SA will be one of the main beneficiaries of the $20 billion MRF Fund, not just for the next decade, but for decades to come.

This seems to me to be excellent. I have not heard from those opposite who are very proud, and rightly so, to talk about the new SAHMRI building, but you have to have some funds to conduct the work in the SAHMRI building. There is no point in just having an edifice; there is no point in just having a facade—

Mrs Vlahos: Do you mean an edifice or an Oedipus?

Mr MARSHALL: A facade. I think this will be a great thing for South Australia. It is now over to the government and it will be interesting to see how it conducts this debate. As I said, we do not have a lot of time here in South Australia. The Premier himself, on multiple occasions, has said that we face very challenging times. I would rather refer to the wise words of the member for Frome who said in this house yesterday:

We have great issues out there, we have great challenges, we have great opportunities, and I am calling on all members of this house to work for the betterment of South Australia. We have lots of issues, and I am going to make certain we try to get the best outcomes for the people of South Australia, not for political parties.

I put it to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this motion is really going to slow down the process of the Supply Bill. I can think of no more important legislation at this point in our cycle. We started late this parliamentary year. We started late at the request of the Premier who was overseas at the time. We should have started much earlier in accordance with the draft program that was given to the opposition last year. We did not do that so now it is incumbent upon everybody to work as diligently as we can. We do not need stunts. What we need is a hardworking, diligent, focused parliament—focused on the important work of resurrecting our flagging South Australian economy.

[Sitting extended beyond 17:00 on motion of Hon. J.J. Snelling]

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Treasurer, Minister for Finance, Minister for State Development, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Automotive Transformation) (16:53): I rise to support the motion. I just want to first touch on a few matters of debate that the Leader of the Opposition raised. He said in his remarks to the house that the state Liberal Party wanted to do both sides of South Road; they wanted to do the entire corridor, that they were passionate about not only Darlington (because it was a state priority) but also passionate about doing Torrens to Torrens.

However, when they published their costings document during the election campaign and in all public remarks they said they would cancel Torrens to Torrens. I wonder how the Leader of the Opposition can stand up in this place and say he supported Torrens to Torrens when his own candidates in the western suburbs were saying things like:

The Liberal candidate for West Torrens Serge Ambrose said traffic issues along South Road needed to be looked at immediately, and looked at holistically—

These are really great words from the local Liberal candidate in West Torrens. He was really getting fired up about South Road. He continued:

—rather than these piecemeal solutions that the state Labor government was talking about.

It continued:

Mr Ambrose said his party would not commit to funding for Torrens to Torrens.

The Leader of the Opposition took it out of their costing document, showed it as a saving and they will spend money on Darlington, but comes into the parliament today and tells the parliament, 'Oh, no, don't look at my costings document. What I really meant to say was if we had won I would have done both, but forget what I put to the people.'

That does not pass muster. That does not pass a test, and I have to say, if that is the cavalier attitude people have to the parliament, what would they be like as premier? We all know that when the shadow treasurer stood up and did his costings remark a week before the election, in that document it showed a removal of funding from Torrens to Torrens, yet the Leader of the Opposition tells the parliament, 'Oh, no, we were right behind it all along—other than what we published, other than what we said and other than what we campaigned for.' There is a word for that in Greek: it is called hypocrisy. He also talks about GST—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Morialta?

Mr GARDNER: I refer you to previous rulings of previous speakers who have defined—you can sit down, Tom—hypocrisy when referred to by the statements in relation to a single member as being unparliamentary.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes; you may wish to think about withdrawing that.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Okay, I withdraw. He misled the public. He misled the public when he said—in the parliament today he said to the public that he supported Torrens to Torrens, other than what he put to the election. I leave members to make their own judgments about what kind of person goes to an election saying one thing and then after the election says, 'I never said that. Don't worry about what I put my name to, it's what I was thinking. It's the vibe; it's the gist.'

In terms of GST impacts, let us go through the GST impacts from the latest federal budget. References to a $1.4 billion increase in South Australia's GST grants in the commonwealth budget documents include changes to our GST share that are already factored in to the state government forecast. Over a billion dollars of the purported $1.4 billion gain the Leader of the Opposition speaks of to South Australia over the four years to 2016-17, based on commonwealth budget predictions, will not flow to the South Australian budget.

This is because the increase in the commonwealth is now projecting for South Australia's relativity from 2015-16 has already been incorporated in our government estimates for some time. Of course, if you read the state budget forecast you would know that, but of course you did not. For example, since the estimates for GST grants in 2016-17 were first published, the South Australian government has been consistently projecting that South Australia's 2016-17 GST grant would be over 9.5 per cent, whereas up until the 2014-15 budget the commonwealth has been projecting that South Australia's GST grant share in 2016-17 would fall below 8.6 per cent, and 8.54 per cent in the 2013-14 MYEFO.

But of course, in the 2014 budget, the commonwealth revised up South Australia's projected GST grant share in 2016-17 from 8.54 per cent to 9.43 per cent—an improvement of $540 million, compared to the government's previous estimates. We were right, they were wrong! State treasurers and state leaders should use the South Australian budget papers to make a point. It is a far cry from the $1.4 billion claimed by the Leader of the Opposition, and if he wants to talk about humiliating, that is humiliating. It is humiliating that the man who purports to be our Leader of the Opposition and the alternative premier of this state cannot get it right.

Let us be clear about what he basically said today in his remarks to the parliament: he supports this commonwealth budget. I did not hear him once say that Liberal senators should vote against these measures, remembering that the Senate is the states' house, and that the South Australian Liberal Party sends representatives to that senate on their behalf, and that their votes impact on South Australia. So, $898 million of commonwealth reduced funding measures across the forward estimates—$898 million. It is the equivalent, as the Premier said, of losing 600 beds in four years' time in the health system, or equates to around 43 per cent of all the hospital beds in regional South Australia. So the people who elected the members for Grey, Barker and Mayo, all those Liberal senators, perhaps regional members in this house, could raise their voice in opposition for once to their own colleagues.

Campbell Newman has shown what it takes to lead a state, because he puts his state first and his party second. Mike Baird is showing what state leadership is about by putting his party second and his state first. Our Premier always puts his state first and his party second, and that is a test of leadership and a test that the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition fail. I have not heard them once say, 'Do not pass this budget, Prime Minister.'

Treasurer Joe Hockey was in town today. He was in Adelaide. I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition took the time to meet with him and, if he did meet with him, I wonder if he raised opposition to the commonwealth budget. All I saw on Twitter on budget night was applause for the budget from the Leader of the Opposition; indeed, he scurried out to give a comment to TV very late on the day after the budget to condemn some aspects of the budget because he was the only Liberal left in the country.

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Well, I don't think he condemned it: he just said, 'This might not be nice.'

The Hon. J.J. Snelling: He wrote them a nasty letter.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That's right. He was so outraged he fired off a letter! He fired off a letter—and no-one has seen that letter, mind you. The Premier has made all his remarks about the Prime Minister public. The Premier is working with Liberal leaders around the country to try to bring some common sense to the budget.

The Premier spoke in his remarks about this fix that was in place had Labor lost the election. Imagine Australia with wall-to-wall Liberal governments in the aftermath of this budget. The tactic in this budget is clear: starve the states, starve them, hit them where they cannot possibly make up their revenue, and then they will come to us on their knees begging for GST reform. The last prime minister to attempt to GST reform, and be successful with it, was one John Winston Howard. He always knew, as did his treasurer, that the way you do tax reform is by spending money, not by starving people.

I think what he has done is callous, cruel and not in the best interests of the commonwealth or the federation, because no state premier, no state government, could possibly sign up to any tax reform—nor should they—that creates inequity and worsens the cost of living for ordinary South Australians on the basis of another government shirking its agreements, walking away from agreements, creating what I think is sovereign risk. If they had done this to anyone else, there would be court action.

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Well, yes, of course, there is the issue of private schools. So the Liberal Party has to take a long, hard look at itself. I cannot believe I am going to utter these words, but Cory Bernardi is right. Cory Bernardi has condemned this budget. He does not understand it, and he is number one on the Liberal Party's Senate ticket. In fact, he is held in such high regard within the Liberal Party that he was the man they put as number one on their Senate ticket. That is how highly they regard Cory Bernardi.

He thinks this budget has gone too far. He does not understand it, but I have not heard that from anyone else in the Liberal Party. Cory Bernardi is prepared to speak up. I often hear from Liberal members opposite, 'We are a party of ideas. We do not silence dissent. We allow 1,000 flowers to bloom. We are all out there talking about our ideas.' Of course, none of them are prepared to stand up to the Prime Minister and say that this is a bad budget for the country, other than Liberal premiers in other states.

You have to ask yourself: what kind of opposition cannot stand up for its own state? I will tell you what kind of opposition. One that has lost four elections in a row. Perhaps that is the reason they keep on losing, because they look inwards rather than outwards. They do not govern for the majority: they govern for a minority because, when they purport to put out policies to the public, they are targeted to a small group of people, their own constituencies, their own donors. They do not look beyond the horizon to look at people who need their assistance.

They put as their leader a man who says, 'I have no interest in social policies. I am not interested in health. I am not interested in education. I'm just not interested. I just want to cut taxes for my friends because I am from business.' That is just great; that is just dandy. What about our hospitals? What about our schools? What about our roads? What about the infrastructure we need to build our economy? What about some responsibility rather than blaming everyone else?

Then, to attack the pensioners—the people who grew this state, the people who built this state, the people to whom we owe a debt of gratitude. They do not owe us anything. They are the ones who built the factories, who built the roads and they are the ones who built the hospitals.

Picture the Australia Tony Abbott and Steven Marshall envisage. There has been a bargain in this country that pensions have been linked to wage growth. Why? We are an egalitarian country, because we want our pensioners not to be left behind—and they should not be left behind. They fought the wars, they grew our economy and they should be looked after.

This Prime Minister and this opposition leader support pensions being linked to CPI. On the face of it they think, 'Who could argue against that?' We all know wages grow faster than CPI, so what happens over a period of time? A whole generation of people who are on the pension—and the divide will grow more and more. We will then have what occurs in other countries: underclasses of people. That is the future that Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party want for our country.

Winning the last election in South Australia is probably the most important thing to have occurred in the last four years in this country, because there is a voice to stand up to those sorts of changes. I said it yesterday and I will say it again: former premier Dunstan said that the lights had gone out across the country in 1975 but a light flickered in this state, and that flicker would light the nation.

Our Premier is going to lead that fight against the very excesses that all of you have deep down in your DNA and that you believe in—survival of the fittest. Can't afford it? Bad luck. Pay. You are old; you are sick; you send your kids to school—tough. 'I'm a millionaire, why aren't you? I've made it in business, why haven't you? You want more wages? Bad luck! Productivity is not about improving operations, it is about wages and wages only.' I have to say this is the cruellest and most unfair budget I have ever seen.

The Liberal Party has to ask itself—after having lost the fourth election in a row—whether it can keep on toeing its own party line, whether it actually stands for anything, and whether it believes in anything, and this is its opportunity. Do you know what leader of the opposition Jay Weatherill or leader of the opposition Mike Rann would have done in this situation? He would have been standing next to premier Marshall condemning these cuts.

We would have flown to Canberra and demanded that our colleagues do all they can to try and stop these changes—hand in hand—but not our Leader of the Opposition, the only Liberal in the country who had to be brought kicking and screaming to condemn this budget, but deep down this is exactly what he believes. In fact, I bet you he thinks the cut in the company tax rate is the best thing in this budget and the $80 billion cut to health and education—well, that is inevitable; that is someone else's responsibility.

'Let them go to private hospitals; let them get private health insurance; send your kids to private schools. Why have public education? Why don't we just reduce it all to a service provision? We will just pay people a subsidy and they can choose what private school they go to—any one of them: Pembroke, Pulteney, St Peter's, PAC—any of those four will be fine. If you have a girl, maybe Wilderness or Scotch.'

We believe in building an equitable country and an equitable state, and our promise is to govern for all South Australians. Our Premier will lead the fight, because he needs to lead the fight. There needs to be an alternative voice and there needs to be someone standing up in the dark and saying, 'This is wrong' and 'This is unfair'. That is what this government will do. We will shine a light on what they are attempting to do, and the opposition should join us rather than fight us on this, because it is for the benefit of all South Australians.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE (Wright—Minister for Education and Child Development) (17:09): I was astounded to hear the Leader of the Opposition come in here today and start his speech by saying that we should not be playing politics with this debate on this federal budget and that he would be the only speaker on their side to speak on this debate. I think that goes to the heart of what this Liberal opposition is all about. They have been—

Mr GARDNER: Point of order, Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is your point of order, member for Morialta?

Mr GARDNER: The education minister is verballing the Leader of the Opposition, who clearly said that we should be debating the Supply Bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: What point of order is that?

Mr GARDNER: One of them, Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: So there is no point of order.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: That is really cute coming from the great artists of verballing. We heard that yesterday in here in question time, and we saw an apology have to come into this chamber this morning because they—

Mr GARDNER: Point of order, Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: What point of order would you like to raise?

Mr GARDNER: It is 128: irrelevance.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, now we do need to hear what she is leading into. I know she is leading into something.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a small-target strategy—so small that when we are facing the biggest crisis in South Australia, as a result of federal government cuts, we get one speaker from the opposition. The benches are empty—it is outrageous. They did not stand up to Tony Abbott and Christopher Pyne during the election campaign. They did not stand up to them when they were flagging what they were going to do.

Maybe the outrage of our school communities might give them some spine, when they see the schools in their electorates coming to talk to them about funds that are not going to be made available for their children—children who need help, children who need assistance. They come in here and bash the public education system day after day after day, but do they stand up for it ever? Do they ever come in here and talk about providing resources to ensure our kids can be the best they can be? Joe Hockey is talking about needing to restore the economy. There cannot be a bigger investment in the economy than our children.

I cannot imagine what it would be like to be a young person facing the cuts in this budget. Tony Abbott keeps repeating that young people must be either earning or learning, but because of the budget cuts he has made it is difficult to see how any of the young people can do either of these. Imagine facing six months with no income. Gee whiz, that is going to help you learn! That is going to help you earn! There is no support to help you get out and find a job, no support to help you get the skills you need, you are just on your own. You are cut off for six months. Do we hear anything about that? No, we do not. So, there is less support to stay in school and no support for six months for those who leave.

It is not just individuals who are suffering under this budget. Under Tony Abbott's cuts, schools and hospitals across South Australia will be $5.5 billion worse off over 10 years. I am going to keep saying that number over and over again until the people of South Australia understand—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Morialta has a point of order.

Mr GARDNER: No. 128: it is against standing orders to indulge in repetition.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: She is moving on.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Madam Deputy Speaker, I just said I will keep repeating the number; I did not actually repeat the number.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Okay.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: But I will repeat it: $5.5 billion.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you won't. You are just going to move on.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Over $30 billion in federal funding will be ripped out of schools across the nation over the next decade—$30 billion. If you are thinking about undertaking higher education, forget it. The Liberals have put the stoppers on that as well by effectively privatising higher education and pushing us towards a US style, where only the wealthy can afford tertiary studies. Universities will be able to set their own fees, which will drive up the costs of some of the courses and make university entrance for disadvantaged students even harder.

When I left school, going to university was not an option. I left school at 15. I had to go to work. It was not an option to go to university. That was for rich kids, and that is what this federal government wants to take Australia back to. They plan to decrease the government's contribution towards course fees, which is currently 59 per cent, by an average of 20 per cent, so students will have to pay more out of their own pockets.

Not only will students have to pay more but they will also have to start repaying their HECS-HELP debt earlier, and they will be hit with higher interest rates, which could be as much as 6 per cent. That is Christopher Pyne's version of helping disadvantaged people get an education they need. At every turn, the Liberals are making higher education more unattainable for Australia's young people. A generation of politicians who were the beneficiaries of free university education are now putting a university degree out of the reach of many young people across the country.

But perhaps what is most appalling is that the Liberal Party has gone back on its commitment to honour the Gonski agreement: $320 million that would have come into schools in South Australia will no longer come into our schools. It is a cynical example of government that promised anything to get elected and immediately went back on its word. A government that cannot be trusted cannot be trusted with the education of our children. At the very first meeting I went to with Christopher Pyne and other state ministers of education, Christopher Pyne flagged that he would only fund one year of the Gonski agreement—one year—sending our schools into absolute turmoil.

There was outrage by the ministers, so eventually we got a four-year agreement, but do you know what? He was also saying, 'Well, come on in, Western Australia. Come on in, Queensland. Come on in, Northern Territory. You can dip your fingers in the bucket of money that's been provided to the states that have already signed up.' Not only was he going to commit to only one year but he was going to give access to the funding that had been committed to the states that signed up and share it out amongst other states as well. We now know that they have signed up to an agreement which does not mean they cannot withdraw funding out of their education budgets. It is a really nice cosy deal: the federal government put some money in for their mates and they can rip it out the other end.

The cuts that we look like facing in South Australia equate to approximately $1,200 per student across 2018-19, or nearly 3,000 teachers—3,000 teachers. Imagine the difference that would make. Christopher Pyne said that Gonski was a blue-sky promise from the former Labor government. I say to Mr Pyne that there is nothing blue-sky about our six-year agreement. I would issue a word of warning to any state or territory minister who is contemplating entering into any contract with the Abbott Liberal government.

Joe Hockey said that the Gonski funding was a bonus. A well-resourced education system is not a bonus: it is a necessity. It is a fundamental right and it is the best investment any government can make. Mr David Gonski AC, a widely respected businessman, led the review into school funding. He is not exactly someone who could be described as a radical. Last night in a speech in Melbourne, Mr Gonski criticised the Abbott government's cuts to school funding in 2018-19. He said:

There needs to be a commitment to a properly funded needs-based aspirational system and a failure to do so will be to our detriment

He warned:

If the funding is wrong in 2017 it will be perpetuated and if circumstances and aspirations change after that date they will be presumably irrelevant.

The effect of Tony Abbott and Christopher Pyne's $320 million cuts to South Australia's schools is to shatter the aspirations of students from 2017 onwards. At every turn the Liberals are undermining the right of our children to a world-class education.

And that is not all. The National Partnership Agreement on Indigenous Early Childhood Development to close the gap has been terminated. In South Australia, we have built four children and family centres with a focus on improving the enrolment of Aboriginal children and their attendance at preschool and it has been a great success. We have achieved that in Ceduna, in Whyalla, in Christies Beach and on the APY lands.

Not only has this provided vital education programs for young children, they provide parenting and family support and community development activities, programs such as community playgroups, occasional care, and even cooking programs where fathers learn to cook together with their children—all of these now compromised.

I will never forget attending the opening of the centre at Christies Beach. We had Karl Telfer there to do the smoking dance—a very nice-looking, strong, proud Aboriginal man. He invited the four year olds to dance around the fire with him. One little boy took up the offer—a little Anglo boy—and what a vision, to see a strong Aboriginal man do his dance and the little white boy dance with him. That is what we want. We want Aboriginal children to come out of these centres being proud of their culture, proud of themselves and on their way to a good education. The heart of that program has been terminated by Tony Abbott.

Christopher Pyne said the states are sovereign governments and that we should run the schools. If he really means that, then his position is surely redundant and he should immediately offer himself up as a budget saving. We no longer need a federal Minister for Education, yet at every turn he tries to insert himself into every school gate around Australia, dictating how they operate. After the abysmal week he has had, and we have heard the talk of the nasty words he said in parliament, directing the supposedly impartial Speaker of the House to quell applause for the opposition leader's budget in reply, I am sure it is a cut the public of Australia could live with.

It really is time our state Liberals stood up to this federal Liberal government, who have absolutely no conscience. You cannot, after your disastrous election result, continue to play the small target strategy. It did not work then and it will not work for you in the future.

Mr GARDNER: Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: A quorum not being present, ring the bells.

A quorum having been formed:

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I thank the member for Morialta for ensuring I had a greater audience to hear some of these figures. As I was saying, the Liberal opposition played the small target strategy. They essentially lost the unlosable election. They had some seats that were essentially gifted to them and they still could not pick them up, and, I have to say, Ashford was probably one of them. They needed a 0.6 per cent swing to pick up the seat of Ashford and I understand the campaign, pretty much run by the member for Unley—

Mr GARDNER: Point of order, Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have a point of order, member for Morialta?

Mr GARDNER: Standing order 128 again—irrelevance.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll listen as the minister proceeds.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I want to congratulate the member for Ashford; she had a 1.3 per cent swing to her. When you are in opposition and you are coming up against a government seeking a fourth term, you are in a pretty good position. You think perhaps you have got the ear of the public. You think that it is understandable that sitting members on the government side, or ministers, might suffer a swing; but it is unbelievable that in this last election it was opposition members that had swings against them. There were swings in Dunstan, swings in Adelaide, swings in Unley (2.2 per cent in Unley, 2.9 per cent in Davenport), Heysen, Kavel, Hammond, Bragg, compared to a 3.5 per cent swing to Labor in the Labor-held seat of Croydon. Croydon is now a stronger Labor than Bragg is Liberal. So it really is time—

Mr Gardner interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Morialta has a point of order.

Mr GARDNER: The Premier has decided that it is more important than the Supply Bill that 'this house calls on the commonwealth government to reverse measures' etc., in this motion, and the Deputy Speaker is going absolutely nowhere near it; 128.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It has to be connected somehow so we are going to give you just a moment to connect it.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. It really is important that we have a Liberal opposition in this state that is prepared to stand up for South Australia and stand up to the federal government. It just goes to show the calibre of the opposition that only one person is prepared to speak on this motion. You are not prepared to stand up, you are not prepared to stand up to Tony Abbott, and you are not prepared to stand up to the leader's mentor, Christopher Pyne.

Mr Gardner interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Morialta is now standing to raise a point of order.

Mr GARDNER: The minister's grievously reflecting on you, and I think you should seek her to desist.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I don't feel under any pressure. Have you finished your comments? The minister is winding up?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Thank you, Deputy Speaker, yes. I was saying it really is time the leader stood up to Tony Abbott and stood up to his mentor, Christopher Pyne—his mentor. Come on, guys! Stand up for South Australia, stand up for kids in South Australia, stand up for the families in South Australia, and stand up for our schools! They are in your electorates as well.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Minister for Health, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Defence Industries, Minister for Health Industries) (17:27): Madam Deputy Speaker, why is the Liberal leader in this state unable—completely unable—to do what every other Liberal leader in the country has been happy to do; and that is, unequivocally condemn this federal budget. We have had Mike Baird, we have had Denis Napthine, we have had Will Hodgman; we have had them all. The Liberal premiers have lined up and in solidarity condemned the cuts to health and education as a part of this federal budget.

But, what do we see from the Leader of the Opposition? The Leader of the Opposition thinks that $8 billion torn out of the state's health agreement over a 10-year period is not that important. Leader of the Opposition, 'No, that's not that important.' Cut $600 million out of the health budget in the next four years for South Australia, 'No, not that important,' says the Leader of the Opposition in this state. What is it? What is different about the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Liberal Party, in South Australia compared to the leaders of the Liberal Party in every other state in the country? Well, I will tell you what's different. The Leader of the Opposition here is a lickspittle—a lickspittle.

Mr GARDNER: Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Just in case any members missed what I said, the Leader of the Opposition in South Australia is a lickspittle to the Prime Minister in a way that his Liberal Party colleagues in every other state in the country are not. The Leader of the Opposition said, 'This is not really a problem. What is all the bother about? Why are we debating a motion on federal cuts to South Australia?' I can tell the Leader of the Opposition why.

Mr Gardner: As opposed to your office's advice.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I know that the member for Morialta is very upset because his great mentor, the member for Sturt, Christopher Pyne, has not been doing too well lately, and I know the member for Morialta is deeply affected, but it nonetheless remains the case that the federal government is cutting $600 million from the health budget over the next four years. To hear Tony Abbott say that this is not something that will affect state budgets over the forward estimates just shows his complete ignorance of state budgets—$600 million.

In the 2017-18 financial year, South Australia will have $270 million less compared to what it would have had if the commonwealth government had abided by its commitments and kept the National Health Reform Agreement—$270 million. That equates to just under 600 hospital beds, roughly the size of the Flinders—

Mr GARDNER: Point of order, Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will speak to the whip.

Mr GARDNER: I realise the member for Torrens is new, but the ruling is—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will speak to the whip. Thank you. The Minister for Health.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: They do not like to hear it—

Mr GARDNER: Can I seek clarity on your ruling, Deputy Speaker, because—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not yet.

Mr GARDNER: —the ruling previously has been not only that flashes are not to be used but also—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will speak to the Speaker.

Mr GARDNER: —that cameras are not to be used in the chamber. Indulgence has been granted during maiden speeches, but we are a long way past that.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will speak to the Speaker for you and I will speak to the whip. The Minister for Health.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Six hundred beds is the equivalent of closing the Flinders Medical Centre. The Flinders Medical Centre also has just under 600 beds. I can only begin to imagine what that is going to mean for our public hospitals, to remove in the order of 600 beds. Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott said recently that the states had been at the honeypot.

I issue a challenge to Joe Hockey—in fact, I issue a challenge to any member opposite: come with me and spend a night in one of our emergency departments. Come and spend a Saturday night at the Royal Adelaide Hospital emergency department. Come and spend a day—particularly a Monday—at the Flinders Medical Centre. Come and spend a day and come and tell the doctors and nurses who work their guts out in those emergency departments that they have been at the honeypot too long.

What a complete show of ignorance from the federal colleagues of members opposite! The fact that members opposite will not rise to support this motion—they sit there in stunned silence—just goes to show the absolute lack of courage that we see in the South Australian Liberal Party. It is a lack of courage that is not seen in Liberal Party branches interstate, where Liberal premiers are willing to stand up and put their states first and put their state before their party.

There is one other matter that I will briefly raise as part of this motion on the federal budget, and that is the $7 co-payment, which Joe Hockey has compared to a couple of middies of beer. A couple of middies of beer do cost significantly more than $7, I can assure the house—we would call them a schooner here in South Australia but—

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: A pot in Victoria.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: And a pot in Victoria, the whip informs me. Nonetheless, $7. Seven dollars might not be very much to Joe Hockey—in fact, it might not be very much to me, but I can assure the house that if you have a chronic illness and you have to see the doctor regularly, or if you have a family where a couple of kids have a chronic illness and you are constantly visiting the GP or having to take the kids to specialists, or getting blood tests or x-rays, that $7 quickly mounts up.

Now, the Leader of the Opposition said, 'Oh', we should be grateful because all this money will go to medical research', and that we have the SAHMRI, and so on. Well, what the Leader of the Opposition—

Mr Gardner interjecting:

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: And here we see the same ignorance paraded before the chamber by the member for Morialta, exactly the same ignorance we have seen from the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon. Go to any medical researcher in Australia and ask, 'Do you want your research being funded from the chronically ill, from the elderly and from families with sick kids?'. I can assure the house that any medical researcher in Australia will say that we do not want our research funded by the frail, by the sick, by the elderly, by families with kids—this should be core business of government. This should not be something that is funded by a tax on the most vulnerable in society.

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It is interesting to hear the member for Chaffey support this tax on the frail, the elderly, on families with kids.

Mr GARDNER: On a point of order, standing order 128 to start with, that it is irrelevant, and further, the health minister is verballing the member for Chaffey.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Chaffey is right beside you. If he has a problem, he can stand up, can't he? He is in his place now and I would like to know what is his problem.

Mr WHETSTONE: Standing order 127, Madam Deputy Speaker—I do take offence.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I favour standing order 75; I want to arrest you.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, he's being frivolous—it could cost you $50, just be very careful. We are going to listen very carefully—we are not sure there was a personal reflection and we will ask the Minister for Health to be very careful.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I will be, as always, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will not be silenced by members opposite, because I know they do not want to hear this. I know that they do not want South Australia's to hear the truth about their gutlessness, complete utter gutlessness in that they will not stand up for South Australia.

Mr GARDNER: I take offence at that, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry, I was giving instructions to the whip—what happened?

Mr GARDNER: I take offence to the words used by the Minister for Health.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The advice I have is that the term was used more broadly than to you in the personal.

Mr GARDNER: Thank you, I am glad that it doesn't refer to me.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister for Health. We need to be very focused on the debate, I think. It is late in the day, I know, but it would be nice to have everybody working together.

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order, member for Chaffey! It would be nice to be able to finish the day on a good note.

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. You are already on a warning and two ticks.

Mr Gardner: Why do you read his warning but not theirs?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Because it is right in the middle of the page, as it turns out! Minister for Health.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The motion should be supported. This is a shocking budget. Never before in Australian history has the commonwealth government unilaterally reneged on solemn undertakings given to the states. These changes will mean a complete withdrawal of the commonwealth government from funding public hospitals in this state, a complete abdication of the commonwealth government's responsibilities to help share the load of hospital funding, not only with South Australia but with all the states. It is something that every Liberal leader around the country has acknowledged, but somehow the Leader of the Opposition and members opposite have shown a complete lack of ability to put their state before their party.

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Would the member like the call? If the member does not want the call, if I see his lips move again, he will be out. Yes, I know it is not much. If the Premier speaks he closes the debate, which means the member for Chaffey would be unable to speak. Is he clear about the consequences? The Premier.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier) (17:40): Thank you, sir. I will not traverse all the contributions that have been made up to this point, except to really correct one observation that was made by the Leader of the Opposition in relation to the South Road project. We do, of course, welcome the federal government's contribution to the South Road project. Properly understood, though, I think considered as a whole the budget robs as much money from infrastructure as it puts in.

I think that was amply demonstrated by the shadow infrastructure minister (the member for Grayndler), when he was able to effectively demonstrate that the federal government, through the shifting of moneys around the place, has not actually made a net additional contribution to infrastructure. Nevertheless, South Australia has been a modest beneficiary of some additional infrastructure funding. It also has had to suffer, of course, the cuts in the Tonsley Park urban rail project and of course the cuts to the Salisbury rail line project. So, in net terms there is not an enormous benefit, but nevertheless we do welcome that project.

I do need to correct a bit of contemporary history lest the Leader of the Opposition's recitation become regarded as factual. The truth is that shortly after the Prime Minister was elected we had a conversation on the telephone, and one of the topics raised was, of course, South Road because it was an issue of great importance. We had already started on the Torrens to Torrens section, and the federal election campaign amounted essentially to a cessation of that project and the commencement of Darlington.

We put the proposition to the Prime Minister that we should in fact do both projects. I was content when the Prime Minister came to town a few weeks later and stood up and said, 'I was speaking to my good friend the Leader of the Opposition, and he said to me, "Tony, why don't we do both?"' and he said, 'I think that's a great idea.' I was content to listen to that and allow the Leader of the Opposition to take the credit because I thought it was all to the best for South Australia if we get this project.

However, lest there be any confusion about the order of these things, we were talking to the Prime Minister about the very thing the Leader of the Opposition is now seeking to take credit for. I must say that it is a little hard to understand their point when they seek to rely upon a saving for the removal of some of our contributions to these road projects in their own budget costings. Nevertheless, the happy conclusion is that we are able to progress both the South Road Torrens to Torrens and the Darlington projects, and we will get busy on doing those two projects, which are two very important projects for the future of our state.

I commend the contributions of the house, and I look forward to strongly advocating on behalf of the people of South Australia for a reversal of these cuts.

Motion carried.

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