HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject 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

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (15:54): Just getting back on track, I would like to talk a little bit about health in Chaffey, and today we are hearing a lot about people in government talking about the federal government's policy and yet they are not looking in their own backyard. Let me assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the budgeted upgrade to the Berri regional hospital of $41 million, yes, was wound back to $36 million—a $5 million saving on a hospital redevelopment.

The health minister stood here today praising the construction of both the Whyalla and the Berri hospitals, about the chemotherapy unit. What he forgot to mention was that there was not any funding there for the chemotherapy chairs. We had a unit but no chairs. Where did the money come from for those chairs? It was fundraised by the local community. We found a $5 million budget saving in a regional hospital that was desperate for an upgrade and yet this government continues to cut the funding.

I just listened to the member for Reynell and I have listened to the member for Kaurna talk about the $7 co-payment. Let me tell you, to go and visit a doctor on the weekends at the Riverland hospital costs you $60 co-payment—$60 not $7. That is what happens in the regions of South Australia and yet no-one even knows about that, do they? It is $7 here but $60 in the regions. You ought to check up on your facts and figures when you start to bag the federal government.

On a positive note, what that will mean now is that fewer people will have to travel to Adelaide for surgery and medical treatment. In doing that Labor must commit the full $2.5 million annual allocation to the promised PATS. There are many inequities in the PATS. The $2.5 million is putting some balance back into the argument that when people travel from the country to the city they take someone to help them down to their medical procedures—I would like to see that implemented.

Again, the South Australian government has cut back on tourism, particularly regional tourism where we see that local government has stepped in and picked up the slack. I would like to congratulate Destination Riverland for its tireless work in promoting the region and getting that tourism industry back on track. The tourism industry is one of the leading and growing industries in the electorate of Chaffey and the recent publicity around winter on the river has gained great support. It is great to see that the Chair of Destination Riverland, the Hon. Joan Hall, is working wonders within tourism. I would also like to acknowledge the general manager, Tony Sharley, who is leading by example with his passion and his direction in steering the tourism industry the right way.

Again, we look at roads and the condition of roads. I would be very happy to accommodate any ministers or any government people when they come up to the country cabinet, if they would like me to take them and show them the condition of some of the roads that have been neglected over the last period of time. I note that the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure is here and I offer him an invitation to go out and have a look at the condition particularly of the Karoonda Highway.

It was recently revealed that the rail lines from Loxton to Tailem Bend and Pinnaroo to Tailem Bend will cease operations. My numbers tell me that that will increase truck operations on that road by around 6,250 extra truck operations after the removal of that rail service. Again, I ask the minister to give consideration to an invitation to come and have a look at the condition of that road. Also the Mallee Highway has ever-increasing traffic—particularly with heavy vehicles down there with broadacre horticulture—with the cessation of the rail line down there. Again, it is going to put more pressure on a road that is already in serious trouble. The degradation of that road due to the increased traffic has become more and more obvious—and yet we only see small patches—but the increased lack of safety on that road is of paramount importance.

As I said earlier on in this contribution, Chaffey is open for business. Yes, its roads do need maintenance, but it is a great lifestyle and the cost of housing and the services are there, albeit negated. But what we need is some confidence and we need people to come up to a region that is looking to give people an opportunity to be part of a small business world that is begging for them to come up and set up in the region.

Again, we look at the cost of power, and over time I know that all sides of the house have mentioned river reform, water reform, but it has come at a great cost to South Australian irrigators. Not only have we got little confidence in this government actually pushing through water reforms in their current form, but we are now dealing with power. As I have said, the cost of pumping that water into pressurised pipes—relifting it out of the river into the faraway fields—has come at a great cost.

While we throw stones and rocks at our eastern counterparts about being inefficient, and while we say that they need to get rid of their channels and get rid of their flood irrigation, they are now looking at us and laughing because they are using the gravity feed, they are using their open channels, and they are not paying the power bills that we are. So again, I ask the Minister for Energy to look at ways that we can govern and we can put ceilings or caps on the price of power because it is crippling an industry that is begging to be a part of the state's economy.

Again, looking at solutions: salinity targets are hindering the future viability of food production, particularly in the Riverland and the Mallee. We look at the water allocation plans that are being unfairly imposed on particularly the underground irrigators. As we have seen, when something is taken away from you by government, as a business there is normally some form of assistance or some form of transition package.

We are seeing the River Murray irrigators being compensated and given incentives to improve their efficiencies, yet in the Mallee they are having between 30 and 50 per cent of their water taken away—it is being compulsorily acquired. That water is going back to the environment, and I do not have a problem with that. But what I have a problem with is that these businesses are being set up with a working model around a water allocation that is now being taken away from them—compulsorily acquired—and I think that we need to have a good look at that.

The other salinity targets are that we have a Murray-Darling Basin Plan that is being phased in by the year 2019. We have site-use approvals that are hindering the viability of our economy and we have red tape and green tape. The basin plan, the salt interception schemes and better on-farm use are prime examples of why we need to readjust our salinity targets. To readjust our salinity targets, we are exporting 2 million tonnes of salt out of the mouth; we are exporting high-salinity water into salt evaporation basins; and we are looking at better farm efficiencies and better farm practices. I will continue my remarks at another time.

Time expired.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The leader, and I remind the house that the leader is the lead speaker.

Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (16:03): Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. It is my pleasure to speak today on the Supply Bill currently before the house and I indicate that I will be the lead speaker for the opposition and also that we will be supporting this bill. We are supporting it reluctantly, and I say that because it is an incredible situation to me, coming from the commercial sector that we should be asked to essentially—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr MARSHALL: We have just been asked by the member opposite what company.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Please don't be distracted by interjections, which are out of order.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: He is out of order, and I ask you to continue.

Mr MARSHALL: There are plenty of companies that I have been involved with and I have a very proud history—I see the member scuttling from the chamber because he asks a question and then he does not want to hear it. But that is just so typical of those opposite. So typical—ask a question and run off. When we ask a question from this side of the house, what happens? They also run off! I have just sat through question time. Let me tell you it was question time; it was called question time and there were plenty of questions. I tell you what it was not called—it was not called 'answer time', because there were no answers from those opposite. It was a complete and utter waste of time of this parliament—but that is what we are used to.

There were such high expectations, Deputy Speaker—and I am sure you shared those high expectations—when a member from your, let's just say, side of the spectrum, for those opposite, became the leader. He came into this house and he said we would have a new period of civility in this house. He said that reasonable questions would get answers. Well, let me tell you, we asked a series of questions today and the answers that we got were a combination of obfuscation and gross incompetence. That is what we had from those opposite, and I do not see it getting any better any time soon with recent additions. Anyway, I digress, Deputy Speaker, back to the Supply Bill.

The Supply Bill is that odd time of year when the government says to the opposition, 'We would like you to give us some money.' In fact, I will tell you, Deputy Speaker, how much money the government is currently asking for: $3.941 billion. The government is saying that we should grant this money, this cash, to the government to spend in accordance with their wishes without providing us with a budget, without providing us with an indication of how they are going to spend that money.

Now, we have asked questions in this house, and we asked a series of questions in this house today, and we heard from the Treasurer, 'You'll just have to wait. It is unfair to ask any questions before I put out my first budget.' I do not know why he thought that. How dare the opposition ask the Treasurer a question about matters in his portfolio? Anyway, we have got to wait until the19th, but what an odd situation. People opposite say, 'Well, this is the convention.' Well, I say I am not sure it is a good convention. I am not sure it is a convention which has served the people of South Australia well over an extended period of time.

Imagine going to a bank and saying, 'I would like $3.941 billion.' I think the bank manager would be within his rights to say, 'Well, what would you like to spend that money on?' I think that would be a pretty reasonable question from the bank manager. Yet, when the opposition asks questions of the Treasurer, or the government, they say, 'You'll have to wait and see.' Imagine, if I sat down with the bank manager and I said, 'Can I please have'—I will put in all of the niceties—'May I please have $3.941 billion?' There is no please in this bill, but if I went to the bank manager and I asked, 'May I please have $3.941 billion?', I think it is reasonable to ask, 'What would you like to spend that money on?'

We have had threats from the Treasurer, via the media, in recent weeks saying that this is going to be a tough budget, that there may be additional taxes. Interestingly, the Premier has not said that, but the Treasurer has intimated towards it. It begs the question: what is going to be in this budget that we are today being asked to grant this money for, going forward? It is a convention. I am not sure it is a good convention, but I do indicate that reluctantly we will be supporting it on this side of the house.

I really do hope that we have a good budget this time, because I do not think there is any time previously in the history of this place—and by 'this place' I am referring to South Australia—in which we have needed a competent budget to be delivered, because we are in a mess. After 12 years of Labor government in South Australia, we are in a mess. The centre point of that mess is a jobs crisis which has enveloped South Australia. Do not forget—and I want to remind the house as many times as I possibly can—that when this government went to the 2010 election they made a promise to the people of South Australia. They said, 'If we are elected we will create 100,000 new jobs in the next six year period.' Well, we are over four years into that period, and let me tell you it has been an absolute disaster.

Whilst the rest of Australia has been increasing employment, South Australia has been going backwards. In fact, since the last budget was brought down 12 months ago, we have lost in this state 18,000 full-time jobs. It is a disgrace, it is a crisis, and, let me tell you, the worst thing about it is there is no plan. When we went to this election, of course we had the Premier who was out there and he had a document which he called 'Building a stronger South Australia', and it outlined his job creation plan.

The centre point of his job creation plan was $393 million worth of expenditure over the forward estimates. The detail of that, of course, was covered off in the document and never really, I do not think, accurately spelt out for people. The crux of the issue was that $333 million was coming from the federal government; of course, it did not come.

So, $333 million of the $393 million that were required to implement the jobs plan that the Labor Party took to the election to address our perilous employment situation in South Australia—we have had 18,000 full-time jobs lost in the last 12 months—was coming from the federal government, and it did not come. In fact, only $60 million was coming from our state coffers, and even this money has now disappeared from their jobs plan and gone to the federal government's auto transition program.

This was an announcement which was made without the normal flair of this government by press release. There was no press release put out. There was no ministerial statement made about supporting this plan. Before the election they said, 'We will not be supporting this plan.' After the election, 'Here is your $60 million over the next four years.'

It begs the question: what has happened to the government's plan to create jobs here in South Australia? I would put it to you, Deputy Speaker, that this is a government which has no plan. They have no plan whatsoever to deal with the biggest crisis confronting the state of South Australia, which is the jobs situation. They have got no plan whatsoever. They had a plan, they took it to the election, it was unfunded in their own forward estimates, they were reliant on the federal government and the federal government did not come up with the money.

They have given $60 million of their own money for their jobs plan to the federal government's plan, and we have got nothing. We have got no plan and we have got no money, and that is why I say this is an absolutely critical time for our state. We are really hoping that we get a decent budget coming down on 19 June.

I had the good fortune to travel to New Zealand last week. Alright, it was delayed by a day, but I travelled to New Zealand and, let me tell you, it was a very informative visit. I enjoyed going to New Zealand.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon interjecting:

Mr MARSHALL: I do not know what that member over there is shouting, probably something about rugby because he seems more obsessed with that than—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind members of standing order 142.

Mr MARSHALL: Thank you, Deputy Speaker.

Mr Gardner interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It will be from now on, I think.

Mr MARSHALL: It was a very interesting trip. What I learned was that New Zealand had a very different approach to many of the Western countries of the world to the financial crisis which enveloped the world. They came to power in 2008, and rather than being seduced like our federal government was under Labor into a mass amount of stimulus expenditure, they were quite the opposite. What they showed was real financial constraint in terms of growth in their expenditure and a single-minded focus on growing the size of their economy.

They did not put money into a range of pink batt-type stimulus programs: they put it into reforming their taxation system, lowering taxation in that country, providing stimulus to the productive component of the economy and growing the overall size of their economy. What a spectacular success it has been. I certainly do not pretend to this house that I am an expert on everything that has occurred in New Zealand over the last six-plus years, but I will say that, when we look at their forecast growth rate of 4 per cent, it is a long way from where we are here in South Australia.

When I look at their slowing to almost a stop the migration out of that country, which was running at 3,000 persons per month when they came to power and which is now down to a trickle six years later, when I look at their audacious goal to create 40 per cent of their GDP from exports, I say well done. Well done, New Zealand. Well done, John Key, the Prime Minister. It was a great honour for me to meet with him in New Zealand last week. We have got a lot to learn from New Zealand, especially around their focus on exports. It has been an area of real weakness here in South Australia for an extended period of time. I make this point: 4 per cent growth is extraordinary.

The Hon. S.W. Key interjecting:

Mr MARSHALL: The member for Ashford makes some good points regarding their social agenda, because a lot of people think maybe this centre-right party in New Zealand was only there for economic benefit, but I make the point that in their most recent budget they provided free health care for children under the age of 13; they also provided increased paid maternity leave for women—a significant increase. I see the member for Ashford shaking her head on that one; we will seek a personal explanation a little bit later as to why she is not standing up for women on that issue, but she makes a good point with those—

The Hon. S.W. Key interjecting:

Mr MARSHALL: She makes a good point, and that is that the New Zealand government has been a government for all people, and they have taken a lot of people with them. But, an improvement in the economy has been a benefit to the greater New Zealand population, and we can learn a lot from that. Four per cent growth is extraordinary—it is absolutely extraordinary, especially when we compare it with our growth here in South Australia. I use the term 'growth' loosely because our domestic economy contracted last financial year.

There is no growth in a contraction. I know this is news to some opposite. There is no growth in a contraction, and the size of our state final demand last financial year contracted, as did our exports last financial year. Our exports also contracted because we just simply have not had this focus in South Australia, and we need this focus. We need, more than ever, to build our economy, and that means a constraint on our expenditure; that means that we need to have a focus on growing our economy.

When you think about how we are going to grow our economy here in South Australia, you have to say to yourself, 'Well, there are only a few ways in which we can grow the size of our economy.' The first, of course, that we spoke about in the lead-up to the election was the issue of population growth, which was rejected by those opposite. We said that we wanted to create a goal to significantly increase the number of international students studying in Adelaide. This would create economic stimulus, and that is why we talked about re-funding the university program to promote our state to regions right throughout the world.

The other issue is start-ups. We have a very low rate of start-ups in South Australia; in fact, it is the lowest on mainland Australia. Again, I had the great fortune when I was in New Zealand to visit some of their incubation spaces. What they are doing to support entrepreneurial activity is absolutely outstanding. We talked, on this side of the house, in the lead-up to the election, about the need to have entrepreneurships taught in our schools. I know that the member for Unley, who is our shadow minister and is listening intently as I speak, is a strong supporter of teaching entrepreneurship in our schools, because we have got an unemployment problem at the moment here in South Australia.

We do not have a line-up of employers waiting for our school leavers to finish, and we have got to make sure that our school leavers are not just job takers, but also job makers here in South Australia. Clearly, the most important thing we can do is to have a focus on exports out of our state, and this is an area where this government has completely and utterly failed the people of South Australia.

In 2004, the Labor Party developed our State's Strategic Plan. To be quite honest, the people in the Liberal Party made it clear that we thought it was a good idea to have a state strategic plan. We did not agree with every single on their State's Strategic Plan, but we did think it was a good idea to have a plan. The government decided that they would set a goal to increase exports out of this state, and a good goal that one was; that was one which was wholeheartedly supported by members on this side of the house, and we decided to support it because it was good policy.

The goal was to increase exports out of this state to $25 billion by 2013. For those of you who have not looked at your watch recently, 2013 was last year, so how did the government go against their plan to increase exports to $25 billion? Let me tell you: not very well. They knew that they were not going to achieve it before 2013, so they adjusted the goal and they said, 'We'll achieve it by 2014.' Well, here we are in 2014. Let me tell you the sorry state of our exports: exports out of this state fell last financial year. They are in complete disarray. We have had—

The Hon. S.E. Close: Grew 14 per cent over the last 12 months.

Mr MARSHALL: What's that, sorry?

The Hon. S.E. Close: Fourteen per cent over the last 12 months.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, interjections are out of order and you should not respond to interjections.

Mr Gardner: Throw her out!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I may have to.

Mr MARSHALL: I make the point about last financial year. If members opposite would like to come and do a personal explanation—

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: That was almost year ago.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind all members of standing order—

Members interjecting:

Mr MARSHALL: But we haven't finished this financial year. Give me a break! We haven't finished this financial year.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am on my feet. I remind everyone in the chamber of standing order 142. Please respect the speaker on their feet: no interjections and no responding to interjections. The leader.

Mr MARSHALL: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Those opposite are a little bit tetchy. In fact, two of the three people who have been responsible for this area in the last three months—in the last three months, this government has had three separate ministers, and two of them are sitting opposite. Let me tell you, it has been a hopeless performance. In fact, they have had four separate ministers in this area in the last 18 months and none of them have done a good job.

Now, I would say that the member for Port Adelaide had only just got into the role, so we are not going to hold her responsible. In fact, she showed all the flair and aptitude of somebody who might have been able to make a fist of it. Unfortunately, that opportunity was wrenched from her by the Premier, all designed in his desperate attempt to prop up this tired, divided, dysfunctional 12-year-old government. It is a government which has not delivered on its commitments: $25 billion worth of exports by 2013—whoops! 2014—whoops! Guess what it is now? 2020. If you cannot achieve your goal, just push out the time frame.

I cannot wait for 19 June when the budget comes down. I have already written the speech and it is like I am going to be lip syncing with the Treasurer, because I know what he is going to say. He is going to say, 'Well, this was a particularly tough year and this is a particularly tough budget, but don't worry, in two years' time we are going to rebound back into surplus.'

I know this is going to be what he is going to say because this is what those opposite say every single year, because there is not a jot of fiscal discipline on that side of the house, and that is precisely why we lost our AAA credit rating. We lost our AAA credit rating because there was no fiscal discipline on that side of the house over an extended period of time. Of course, we need to have that focus but, anyway, I digress.

I was talking about exports. Those opposite said, 'Look, don't worry, we are going to come up with a plan and it's going to revolve around China and India.' Forgive me for being cynical about this, but those two countries have enormous growth rates, well above and beyond any impact that the South Australian government's expenditure in this area would have. I think it has been a very cynical exercise, and they have ignored some of the great opportunities that we have had right throughout the world.

That is why we took a plan to the election for seven regions to be focused on. I was very pleased when, during the live debate that we had on the ABC and the moderator said, 'Is there anything about the Liberal's policies that you like and that you will adopt?' the Premier said, 'Yes, there is. We like the policy of having a focus on South-East Asia.' Hallelujah! Fancy a government wiping out their entire approach to South-East Asia. It was shameful. It is frightening that this has been their approach. They have talked a lot about this—they have talked an enormous amount about this—but the figures always speak for themselves.

Today's debate is actually on the Supply Bill and on numbers, so let's bring it back, Deputy Speaker, and look at the numbers contained in last year's budget, because we have not had an update regarding these numbers since then. But I can tell you that, in the budget last year, they said we spent last financial year on this program (which is called program No. 4, Globally Integrating the South Australian Economy) $18 million. You would expect, for a government that is going to focus on exports and achieving $25 billion worth of exports, that we would see a massive increase in the money being diverted to this program.

There is plenty of waste in government and they have been identifying a lot of it themselves, but there are plenty of good programs, and you would think, if we were going to achieve $25 billion worth of exports, that you would do this by putting some expenditure into programs which are going to yield results for South Australia. So, $18 million last financial year. What did it go up to this financial year? Wait a minute. I do not think I have got this right. I had better check with my glasses.

Ms Chapman: Down.

Mr MARSHALL: The deputy leader has pointed out, and she is quite right, it went down. Can you believe it? We have got a focus on creating exports and we are going to slash money going to this program. This has been the problem for this government for an extended period of time. They say they have got no money. Let me tell you the budget, in round terms, is $16 billion a year. They have got plenty of opportunities and they set the priorities but, when it comes to growing the size of our economy, they have no interest in it whatsoever.

Deputy Speaker, I put it to you that, if we are going to grow the size of our economy, if we are going to keep our young people here in South Australia and if we are going to create jobs here in South Australia, we have to grow the size of our economy through a focus on exports. New Zealand has done it. They have got a goal. Forty per cent of their GDP comes from exports. Our situation here in South Australia is hopeless. It is absolutely hopeless.

Every time we send a product or a service out of our state across our borders—whether it be into Victoria, Queensland, South-East Asia, China or India—we bring money back in and we grow the size of our economy. Why wouldn't this be our focus here in South Australia? Why wouldn't we be trying to do everything we can to export goods and services across our borders, grow our population, invest in starting companies and grow the size of our economy? That is what we will be looking for. That is exactly and precisely what we will be looking for when the budget gets handed down on 19 June.

However, I am extremely worried. I am extremely worried about the protestations those opposite have made over the last four weeks that they are going to try to blame somebody else for their fiscal ineptitude. In the past, it has been the global financial crisis. Often, hilariously, those opposite have said the real problem with our performance has been the currency out of the country. This is what has held our exports down.

When we have said our export performance is the worst in Australia and we have gone from having 8 per cent of the nation's exports down to less than 4.5 per cent of the nation's exports, they said, 'Yes, but our currency is really tough,' and then we have to point out to those opposite that the currency is actually the same for the entire country. We don't have our own mint here: we don't have our own currency here in South Australia. It is precisely the same currency which is used in Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia. It is even the same one that is used in Tasmania. So they have used a raft of excuses.

The one, of course, that they seem absolutely focused on using at the moment is the federal government. This is a beauty, of course, because it is one that they can blame on a party that is not their own. I put it to you, Deputy Speaker, that the budgets they have delivered in previous years have had nothing to do with the budget that the federal government has put down, yet in six out of the last seven years they have presented budgets here in South Australia we have had deficits presented to this house, and they are getting larger and larger. Last year, of course, was the year that we were famously going to return to surplus. Of course, as it turned out, it was the largest deficit in the state's history. This year when it was originally forecast—

Mr Gardner: Was it that much?

Mr MARSHALL: Yes, exactly. This year was another year predicted by this government that we would be returning to surplus but, again, what happened? We are now heading again towards the largest deficit in the history of this state and that has been the picture of this government over an extended period of time. Well before the Coalition grabbed power in that wonderful election win in late 2013, we had the Labor Party running the country, and increasing deficits year on year being delivered here in South Australia.

Debt, of course, is increasing at an alarming rate. In fact, if we look at the last eight years of this government, debt has increased by $4 million per day. Now, I do not know whether that scares you, but I find it very frightening indeed, and I find it particularly frightening when I look at how it is made up. I do not think anybody on this side of the house would say, 'Well, look, we do not like having any debt whatsoever,' because there is some debt which, of course, is extraordinarily productive. It is the sort of debt that gives you an asset that will appreciate over time or a productive asset that is important for improving your productivity. We do it in business all the time.

Businesses will make a decision to go into debt to purchase a piece of, let us say, capital, a piece of plant that will be used to improve the productivity of that company, and there will be what we refer to as a return on that investment, but let us have a look how the debt has been run up here in South Australia. Has it been actually run up by investing in productive infrastructure or appreciating assets? Well, the answer is unequivocably, no.

Let me tell you what the vast majority—over 50 per cent—of the net debt of this state as of 30 June last year has been run up by, and that is unbudgeted spending by this government, starting in 2002-03. In that year there was $184 million worth of unbudgeted expenditure in one single year. It is extraordinary, isn't it?

Mr Gardner: It couldn't get higher.

Mr MARSHALL: It could not get higher said the member for Morialta, but he would be wrong, because the very next year the unbudgeted expenditure skyrocketed, in the 2003-04 year, to $467 million in a single year. So, each year the Treasurer comes into this house and he says, 'This is what we are going to spend.' Well, that year he blew it by $467 million, only to be followed up in 2004-05 by $487 million. This is half a billion dollars in a single 12-month period; I mean, this is a lot of money. I am sure that those opposite could probably do the calculation of what this is per day. Well, let me tell you, it is absolutely extraordinary—2005-06, $370 million over budget; 2006-07, $374 million over budget; and 2007-08, $304 million over budget.

Now, I have got to say, if you have been waiting for what the biggest year was, that the biggest blowout occurred in the year 2008-09. In the 2008-09 financial year, unbudgeted expenditure by this government reached $670 million in a single year. It is almost impossible to believe, but it is true, and I make this point: this is spending. This is not capital, this is just spending on the income and expenditure statement; it is departmental spending. It is not money to buy an asset. It is not money to build a bridge or fix a road. This is money which has been spent on our expenditure each year and it has been appalling.

I go on, Deputy Speaker. In the year 2009-10, $599 million over budget; in the 2011-12 year, $174 million over budget; and in the last financial year, 2012-13, it was $356 million. That comes to a grand cumulative total, over the life of this government, of something in excess of $3.5 billion worth of unbudgeted expenditure. That is the problem in South Australia. The fundamental problem that we have in South Australia is that we have got a government with no fiscal discipline whatsoever. It really does not matter what sort of budget they bring down. They have got no ability to deliver on the budget that they have provided. If you want any proof of it, I am happy to table this document and it shows the budget overspend each and every year since they came to power, totalling $3.5 billion in that 12-year period. It is absolutely shameful. They should hang their heads in shame.

That is the reason why we have found ourselves in this situation, and that is why to my absolute despair I found out last year that not only did we lose the AAA credit rating but we are the worst rated budget in the country. I travelled to Sydney to meet with Standard & Poor's with the shadow treasurer (member for Davenport). We went up there to meet with them about our credit rating here in South Australia and we were appalled to learn that our credit rating in South Australia is now lower than Tasmania. When did this occur? It has occurred because of the ineptitude of this government over an extended period of time.

There is no plan in South Australia, there is no plan to create jobs, there is no plan to create wealth, there is no plan to improve the productive capacity of our state, there is no plan to bring our budget back to surplus. There is a fantasy plan. It is called a budget. They bring down this fantasy plan every year with these heroic assumptions of what they are going to be able to achieve, but have they got close? They have not even got close in any single year.

Let me tell you about some of these heroic assumptions they have made in the past. In this current year's budget, the one that was brought down in June last year, they said there were going to be payroll tax receipts averaging 7 per cent per annum. They said we were going to have stamp duty receipts averaging 12 per cent per annum over the forward estimates. This is what the government said.

I cannot believe that they bring down these budgets with a straight face. What was the driver? We asked these questions. We said to the government, to the Treasurer at the time who was also the Premier: what is your basis for predicting that we can increase payroll tax receipts in this state year-on-year at 7 per cent per annum over the forward estimates or stamp duty receipts averaging 12 per cent per annum over the forward estimates?

No answer from those opposite. I think they just believe in this whole seance economics where they hold hands and they think really hard, 'Come on, come on, we can do it,' then magically a surplus will appear. Guess what? It has not appeared for an extended period of time in South Australia and matters seem to be going from bad to worse. That is why those of us on this side of the house are very keen to ensure that this government is not let off the hook with this budget.

They cannot be allowed to use the federal budget situation to disguise their own chronic financial ineptitude over an extended period of time. They have been out there talking about cuts to the federal budget; in fact, one report that was in the paper recently said it was $80 billion worth of cuts to South Australia—well, that was for the nation—then the Premier was out there talking about $5.5 billion worth of cuts, and they were over a 10-year period. Most recently they have been out there saying that over the next four years it is going to be $898 million worth of cuts. They are gross cuts, but what are they actually bringing back to the equation in terms of the net cost to South Australia?

We have heard nothing from the government whatsoever in answering decent, reasonable and responsible questions about what the net cost to our state is, so we are left in a situation where we have no clear indication. However, what we do know is that between the MYEFO delivered several months ago and the federal budget which was announced weeks ago, there was a $1.4 billion uplift in GST. Well, that did not appear in the $898 million cut number—no mention of it. In fact, the Treasurer went on the radio to argue with me that the $1.4 billion was actually a figure for the entire country. He said on the radio, 'This was a little bit embarrassing for the Leader of the Opposition who has read out a number for the entire nation.' If it was a little bit embarrassing for me it must have been humiliating for the Treasurer, who had his entire department there to advise him.

Ms Chapman: And he got it wrong.

Mr MARSHALL: And he completely got it wrong because the $1.4 billion difference was between the MYEFO brought down in December last year and the budget which was brought down in May. That is the simple fact of the matter: a $1.4 billion update. Even since the February update the Treasurer has had to admit that there is a $355 million additional GST uplift coming to South Australia—$355 million. So there is no point in talking scare tactics with the people of South Australia about the $898 million gross cuts. They need to be reasonable and tell the people of South Australia what the net cuts are. They are a much smaller number and, in fact, we have a very reasonable chance of that money for the Darlington project, which is $496 million, coming in over our forward estimates.

Of course, historically in South Australia we have treated those commonwealth grants as income to our income and expenditure statement in the year in which they are received. If this is the case, it is quite possible there will be no cash cut to South Australia over the forward estimates. I think the Premier and the Treasurer really need to be quite specific with the people of South Australia. What is the true case? We do not want scare tactics about what is going to be cut in seven, eight, nine or 10 years' time. The people of Australia will get an opportunity to go to the polls and if they do not like what the Coalition is doing in Canberra they are free to vote in any way they like.

In most other jurisdictions (apart from South Australia) if the majority of people do not like the government they will get rid of the government. Here in South Australia, of course, in the last four elections, the government has only won the popular vote once but has formed government in each of those four. However, for the rest of Australia, who are focused on having a quality electoral system, this has not been a problem and they will get their opportunity as we come to the next federal election.

It is critically important that the budget coming down on 19 June is a fair budget for the people of South Australia. It has to be a budget which provides incentives for the productive component of our economy and it has to be a budget which shows constraint. We believe that this budget needs to have an element of tax reform in it. In the lead-up to the election we made it very clear that if we were elected there would be no new taxes and no new levies here in South Australia.

We do not know what those opposite are going to do. At the moment the Treasurer is circling around, giving menacing messages to the people of South Australia about what a horror budget this is and the need for potentially increased taxes. Well, that is not good enough. The people of South Australia did not vote for increased taxes. We have never had a taxation-led recovery in this country. We do not need any more taxes; we are already the highest business tax state in Australia and we have been for the last five years, and it is time we had some reform.

At the top of that agenda, of course, is payroll tax reform. We spoke about this at length in the lead-up to the election. I believed it was a critical issue for the people of South Australia to consider and I remind the house that we on this side of the house received 53 per cent of the two-party preferred vote and I think people wanted genuine tax reform here in South Australia. They voted for change, they did not get change, but it is really now over to the government to deliver some real tax reform for the people of South Australia. We suggest starting with payroll tax.

We are hoping that this is going to happen because Peter Malinauskas from the SDA strongly supports this policy of ours. In fact, he agrees that payroll tax is just a tax on jobs. We all know it is a tax on jobs. It is a hopeless tax on jobs and it is one that holds our state back. We need payroll tax reform and we call upon the Treasurer to offer that in the budget that he brings down later this month.

In relation to land tax, it goes without saying that land tax is an insidious tax. We are the highest land-taxed state in Australia and we have been for an extended period of time. I do not mean we are a little bit higher—we are order of magnitude higher than any other jurisdiction in Australia. This just results in a flood of investment capital flowing across our borders into other jurisdictions with better regimes in terms of land tax in their states. It is very important.

Regarding car park tax, it goes without saying that every single person in this state knows my position and the Liberal Party's position on the car park tax. We do not want to see that car park tax in this budget when it comes down on 19 June. The government first started talking about the car park tax in December 2012 in the Mid-Year Budget Review and it said that it was going to put on a transport development levy—in fact, I am not even sure if it used that term at the time, but we all know what it is: it is a car park tax. It is going to put that on from 1 July this year. Here we are, less than a month before 1 July 2014 and we have no indication of what is going to happen.

There was some draft legislation which was put out last year, but when has it been progressed? There is now zero chance that any legislation they bring to this house can be passed before 1 July so that it can be in place to effect a transport development levy or a car park tax on 1 July. Why? I think it is a very legitimate question to ask. If you have been talking about it since 2012, why have you not told us what you are going to do? Why have you not introduced legislation into this house? It is completely and utterly disrespectful. It is very difficult on the businesses, of course, which operate car parks. They have no idea of what they should be doing to plan for the introduction.

Should they put on what they think the levy will cost—the $750 per year—making an assessment of how much it is going to cost them? Should they take it back to an hourly rate and put that on from 1 July? What if it does not come in? What if the Premier of South Australia is true to his word, saying in the house today that he needed to respond to the will of the people at the election? He made that point in his address today to the house that he wanted to respond to the will of the people at the election. Let me tell you, the will of the people at the election was very clear: they do not want a car park tax in South Australia. That is the simple fact of the matter.

I hope that the government does turn away from this tax, but what is the situation for the car park operators at the moment? They do not know whether it is going to come in or not. Do they put their prices up; do they keep them down? If they keep them down and it comes in on 1 July it is going to be a massive hit to their bottom line. If they put their prices up, they bring in that additional revenue and then the tax is not put in place, are they collecting money under false pretences? Do they have an obligation to try to return that money?

There are a lot of issues which this government has had more than ample time to address and in fact it has been helped in that task to address these issues by those members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition who sit on this side of the house who have raised questions consistently over an extended period of time, raising the concerns of people in the small business sector and people who use the car parks to come in here to shop and for those people who come in here to park and go to work. We have been raising these questions, but we have had no answers whatsoever.

The government has been out there and talked about city vibrancy. Yes, we know they have blue lines on Bank Street and they have planted a couple of trees on another street—it is all good stuff. For some reason, the Deputy Premier thinks that we should be writing letters of thanks—isn't it great? You finally caught up to what other states were doing 10, 15, 20 years ago. Well, thanks very much—thanks for catching up! But let me tell you, all of this focus on creating greater city vibrancy will come to nothing if this car park tax is implemented.

Of course, car park taxes do not come in at $750 per year and stay there. Car park taxes that have come in around the rest of Australia have started out low and have ended up many thousands of dollars per year and the prospect of that will strangle investment in our CBD and that is why we do not support it. You need more than to just talk about city vibrancy, small bars, blue lines and trees on streets. You have to talk more than that and listen to the people who know about these things.

Well, let me tell you, the Adelaide City Council is against the car park tax. They confirmed this at the council meeting last week. The Rundle Mall Management Authority is against the car park tax. They have stayed with their position over an extended period of time. They know that it is extraordinarily bad for South Australia. The Property Council in South Australia has been vehement in its objection to this tax. They represent property owners and tenants in the CBD, and they know this is going to be extraordinarily difficult for people to cope with.

Then, of course, I thought it was particularly appropriate when the Premier said, 'Well, I know what we'll do—there's all this objection to this—what we will do is we will call a citizens' jury.' I was not familiar with outsourcing this responsibility to a citizens' jury. Anyway, we went for the citizens' jury. It was extraordinarily expensive, by the way, but it was all designed to come up and support the government's push to introduce a transport development. But, guess what? It did not. There is now nobody that I have met who actually supports a transport development levy, and we do not support it on this side of the house.

I make it very clear to those opposite that we in the Liberal Party will not be supporting the car park tax in the Appropriation Bill, or in any other format that they put it to us. If they introduce it as a separate piece of legislation, as they indicated in 2013, we will vote against it. If they put it in the Appropriation Bill, we will do everything we can to remove it from the Appropriation Bill and vote it down. Why? Because we are on the side of small business in South Australia, we are on the side of those people who are travelling in to use the CBD and use our car parks in the CBD on an ongoing basis, and we are on the side of the shoppers.

The government says, 'Well, catch a bus in.' Well, you try to do your Christmas shopping on a bus with 40 big packages either side, Deputy Speaker. I am sure you would be a frequent user of city car parks; in fact, you are probably parked in a city car park today. The Deputy Speaker is indicating that she did not drive in to work today, but I put it to you, Deputy Speaker, that most people in this house are using a car park today, and it is going to have a massive effect on all people right across the state. We will not be supporting the government's push to increase taxes in South Australia, in particular the car park tax.

More than tax reform in this budget we need capital expenditure reform. We desperately need capital expenditure reform in South Australia. What we have seen in over 12 years of Labor is a focus on spending our very finite capital in South Australia on a range of projects, often personal pet projects, around marginal seats and electoral cycles. Well, it is not a good way to spend our money in South Australia.

In the Liberal Party we have been out there saying that a better way to spend money would be to set up a separate stand-alone statutory authority, Infrastructure SA, charged with the responsibility of developing a long-range productive infrastructure plan for South Australia. We think this would be a particularly good way to go for South Australians. That way we could get them to do an independent due diligence on each of those projects, so that we can make sure that when we spend our finite capital in South Australia we are spending it on the highest value, highest return projects for us here in South Australia. That just simply has not been the case in South Australia.

Of course, many people in the regions have completely and utterly missed out on that productive infrastructure that we so desperately need in South Australia to grow our exports out of this state. This is, again, getting back to the New Zealand example. They have prioritised their expenditure, prioritised their capital, to projects which are going to improve their productive capacity. We have not seen that in South Australia, and it is absolutely critical.

Some opposite might think, 'Well, why should we do this, why should we follow this Liberal suggestion?' I make two points: one, because I think it is an excellent suggestion and, two, it is not a Liberal suggestion. The model of a separate stand-alone statutory authority, Infrastructure Australia, was set up by the former Labor prime minister, Kevin Rudd. He is the one who wanted to put this process in place to independently assess projects and make sure that we have a long-range, productive, 25-year plan.

We know that, if we had this in South Australia, we would have done far better out of the federal budget than we did. In fact, when we look at the money that came to South Australia, out of the total of $50 billion worth of infrastructure money that the commonwealth spent, only $2 billion of that money came to South Australia—$2 billion out of $50 billion—and that is because we do not have a plan that the commonwealth can buy into. We do not have a long-range plan.

This was evident to everybody who looked at the situation when the federal Labor government were spending stimulus money right around the country. They came to South Australia and they said, 'What are your priority projects in South Australia? What are the projects that you need in South Australia to get your state going?' We did not have a project.

We did not have a project, so do you know what we said? We said we have got this O-Bahn; why don't we do an extension to the O-Bahn? Minister Albanese went up in a chopper with the former minister Conlon. They went up and they said, 'What is that down there?' 'That is the O-Bahn.' 'Do you need any money for the O-Bahn?' 'I suppose we could extend it.' 'Have you got a plan for it?' 'No, but we can do it. We can make up a plan.'

Let me tell you: by the time they got around to coming up with a plan and doing the feasibility study on it, guess what? It did not stack up. So, what did South Australia do? We returned the money to the commonwealth. We had missed out on tens and tens of millions of dollars of important infrastructure money from the commonwealth because we do not have a plan. We do not have a plan for jobs, we do not have a plan for infrastructure here in South Australia, and we have been missing out.

But it is not just commonwealth money. If you have a plan, you can take the private sector with you. The private sector needs certainty, and we have got anything but certainty after 12 years of Labor here in South Australia. If we did have infrastructure SA in place, and we did develop a long-range productive infrastructure plan with a plan for our roads, a 25-year plan for our ports, our rail, our electricity and our water, then I put it to you, Deputy Speaker, that not only would we be better at investing our own finite state government capital into projects of priority and being able to better harness federal government capital into South Australia, but also—and, I think, most importantly—the private sector capital would be coming in to look at our projects because there would be certainty, and that is what we do not have at the moment.

We have very finite private sector capital investment in South Australia, and it is shameful. It is absolutely shameful. So, we have got all of this money being spent around Adelaide. The Premier loves pointing out a crane here and a crane there, but they are all state government cranes. It is all debt that will go onto our balance sheet here in South Australia.

What about sharing it? Plenty of people wiser than I am about infrastructure investment make it very clear that there are more infrastructure dollars in Australia than there are projects at the moment, but we do not have a plan. So, I implore those opposite, in the budget which comes down on 19 June, to look very, very carefully not just at the need for taxation reform in South Australia but also at capital expenditure reform here in South Australia.

The third area that they really need to focus on in this coming budget is productivity reform here in South Australia. Our productivity in this state lags an extraordinarily long way behind the national average, and there is absolutely no mechanism that they have in place to improve that productivity.

We have said that what we need in South Australia is to have a state-based productivity commission—independent of the ministers, independent of the government, independent of the departmental heads—that is driving a reform agenda throughout our Public Service and, indeed, throughout that relationship that exists between our Public Service and the business sector here in South Australia. It is absolutely crucial, and I want to come back to talking about that in a few minutes' time.

On the fourth issue, what we would like to see out of this budget coming down on 19 June is fiscal discipline. What I mean by that is: if you are going to set a budget, stick to it. I do not understand why other jurisdictions around Australia can come up with a budget and then spend less. In South Australia, it is not like it is a budget that you have got to keep below: it is like a target that this government tries to blow out of the water each and every year.

This is a real problem for us in the business sector, for good reason. For a very good reason, we set budgets each year so that shareholders, employees and banks know what the direction is going to be. We put a budget out each year, but I do not even know why we bother to do it sometimes. When you consider that we have had in excess of $3.5 billion worth of unbudgeted, unplanned expenditure by this government in 12 years, what is the point of doing it?

The actual performance bears no relationship whatsoever to the budget that is presented. Quite frankly, it has not served us particularly well. There is a lot of work that needs to be done, and each department, each minister, needs to start thinking about how they can arrive at a budget, prioritise their expenditure and then stick to a budget.

Mr Griffiths: Take responsibility.

Mr MARSHALL: Take responsibility; do not be a victim. Of course, one of the things that we have been talking about over an extended period of time is the need for an organisational review within our Public Service, and that is why I am so pleased that the minister is—I know we are all always present in the chamber, Deputy Speaker, but this minister is here, present and engaged. I am a strong advocate for our public sector here in South Australia, but it is time for renewal.

It is definitely time for renewal here in South Australia. Part of that renewal is the overall structure of our government departments. Who has heard of a structure which has got one chief executive reporting to up to seven different ministers? The confusion is huge. Imagine that in the private sector. Imagine, in the private sector, you are the manager of your division of a company and you report to seven different people; you would never know what was going on, and that is exactly and precisely the situation in South Australia.

We said there needs to be simplification. There needs to be a situation where you have one minister, one chief executive and one department so that there is a logical reporting line, and people will take responsibility. When there are such confused reporting lines, nobody takes responsibility; 'Oh, well I couldn't deliver on that because somebody else impacted upon my sector,' 'I couldn't do this because he did that,' or, 'I couldn't do this because she did this.' It is completely unacceptable; it would never fly in the commercial sector and we should not put up with it here in South Australia.

Our Public Service in South Australia should be a model of organisational excellence. Let me tell you, there are plenty of people in the Public Service right across South Australia who do an outstanding job and they are frustrated. They are frustrated, every single day that they go to work, with the ineptitude of the ministers that they report to, and with the crazy organisational structure which does not deliver any logical reporting to them.

I would like to talk about a couple of these departments in particular, and I will start with Health. I will start with Health for the very good reason that it represents about one-third of our state budget—an extraordinarily large sum of money of around $5 billion per year. Around $5 billion per year, but it is a mess; it is an absolute, complete and utter shambles. That department is a shambles, and it has been a shambles for an extended period of time.

We had a change in ministers in recent times and we were hoping for big things; in fact, it has gone from bad to worse. First of all, let us have a look at the unbudgeted expenditure in Health. These are the blowouts year on year. Every single year, we seem to have a blowout. Last year, we had a massive blowout of $160 million. So, we had $160 million worth of unbudgeted expenditure in a single year. Did heads roll? No. Did the minister resign? No, he is still there, happy as Larry.

In 2011-12—we will go back to the previous year—perhaps they achieved budget in that year. I am sorry to say that they did not: a $235 million blow-out in that year. The year before, a $21 million blow-out. The year before that, $223 million. The year before that, $174 million. It goes on and on. In fact, there is only one year in the last 12 years where we have had below $100 million worth of blow-outs in the health budget—only one year, the 2010-11 year. If you look at the total health blow-outs in this state over that period of time, it is $2.2 billion. You could have built a new Royal Adelaide Hospital without going into debt—no debt, none whatsoever. These are the choices that we have to make.

What are we going to do in South Australia? I will tell you, unequivocally, what the government is going to do: they are going to slash and burn. They are going to slash and burn health expenditure in South Australia. Let me tell you how they are going to do it, because it was all very nicely laid out for us in the Budget and Finance Committee. It was interesting today on the radio, when I was on FIVEaa debating—well, let's at least say chatting with—the Deputy Premier about effective committees in this parliament that, to my surprise, he had very disparaging things to say about the Budget and Finance Committee.

I think that the Budget and Finance Committee does an excellent job. Of course, it is chaired by the Hon. Rob Lucas, a former state treasurer and somebody with an outstanding financial brain. He asks a series of questions to different chief executives. Last year, in September, he had the chief executive of the Department for Health appearing before that committee. That is what they do in the Budget and Finance Committee: routinely, they bring a department before the committee and they ask a series of questions, and so it was on 30 September 2013 that Mr Swan appeared before the Budget and Finance Committee.

The question was asked by the chairperson—and I am going to go through this in some detail because I think those opposite are listening and interested and I think it is of interest to the house, because we have asked a few questions about this and the government have not given us any answers and they have disputed figures. So, I am going to lay it out, and I am happy for them to come back to this house at any point in time in the future and apologise if they have got it wrong.

I am going to lay it out for you, because we asked the question on 30 September 2013, 'Can you clarify again the required savings task for the agency for the 2013-14 financial year?' We are in the 2013-14 financial year and, just so you know, the budget for health that was brought down—we were only three months past when the budget was brought down and the government was already talking about savings measures that they had to implement. Let me tell you: the savings measure that they had to find was $160 million—in fact, $160.8 million this financial year. That is how much they had to find.

We went on to say, 'Can you provide the information on each of the forward estimates from 2014-15 onwards?' We know that last year was $160 million. We know that next financial year, starting in less than a month, the chief executive has to find $258 million—a quarter of a billion dollars next financial year in savings. The year after, the 2015-16 financial year, the chief executive is going to have to find—are you ready for this—$339 million in a single year, and in the 2016-17 financial year $379 million. This takes us to a total of $1.138 billion, as outlined by the chief executive of the department to the Budget and Finance Committee on 30 September last year, of savings that would have to be found in the health budget. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but $1.138 billion out of our health budget seems to be a lot larger than we have been hearing about from the commonwealth recently.

We have had this hysterical situation where the Premier and the minister have been running around saying, 'This is the equivalent of closing the Flinders Medical Centre.' Let me make this point: if that is the case—if $269 million in federal government cuts to the health system is going to deliver a 600-bed cut—you have to accept that these cuts that the state government itself is embarking upon are much larger again; they are catastrophic. That is why we need an answer from the health minister as to what is the total size of these cuts.

If his chief executive was wrong on 30 September last year, the minister should come into this house, castigate his chief executive, and tell the house exactly what the cuts are going to be. He will not do that. He said, 'Well, the numbers that you put forward are wrong.' We say, 'Well, what are the numbers?' 'Well, your numbers are wrong.' 'Okay. Well, what are your numbers?' The numbers that we are working off are the numbers that have been provided by the chief executive of the department, Mr Swan, who presented to the Budget and Finance Committee on 30 September 2013.

Of course, there was a little bit of reprofiling, and I will give that to the government. In the Mid-Year Budget Review, they said, quite rightly, that the $1.138 billion worth of cuts they had outlined were too much. Well, hallelujah! They finally worked out that $1.138 billion was too much, so they reduced that amount down by $103.6 million over the forward estimates in the Mid-Year Budget Review, Deputy Speaker. So, they are much lower. Do not worry about Modbury Hospital; there is money. The total cuts the government planned to implement over the forward estimates are only $1.34 billion, but we have not seen anything from the government, those opposite, about how this is going to affect the people of South Australia, and that is very disappointing. What we need in South Australia more than anything else is reform—

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

Mr MARSHALL: I don't know what she's on about.

The SPEAKER: I remind everybody of standing order 142 and ask the leader to continue.

Mr MARSHALL: Thank you very much. So, back to what we do need here in South Australia, and that is not a slash and burn budget on 19 June. What we need is an outline by this government of reforms. We have been calling for reforms for an extended period of time, and in health they are needed more than anywhere else. In health, we have this hopeless arrangement in terms of their organisational structure. The rest of the country moved to the arrangement of devolving into what they call the LHNs, the local health networks—devolving them down into a lower budget arrangement. So, instead of having a $5 billion health budget, you would have a series of five LHNs in South Australia, each with their own budget of around $1 billion.

I hasten to add and remind the house that these reforms were put in place by the federal Labor government. It was not a Liberal initiative at all; it was the federal Labor government. They did this because they believed that you want to create and sustain an economy of scale, and a billion dollars of expenditure each year gives you an economy of scale, but it does not give you a diseconomy of scale.

When you have got one massive department of $5 billion, it creates diseconomies of scale, and that is exactly what we have got here in South Australia. Although we have created LHNs—we have got the central, northern and southern LHNs, the Women's and Children's and, of course, we have got country—it is in name only. Because, above the LHNs, we have a massive health bureaucracy. This is the problem here in South Australia.

I speak to health professionals here in South Australia—our doctors, nurses and other allied health professionals in South Australia—and they say it is a mess. They say it is a complete and utter mess. I was speaking with one doctor last year who was working in the southern system, a very senior doctor who was in charge of his unit, and he said that to put on an additional person in his unit requires seven separate levels of approval from those people in the bureaucracy. This is absolutely outrageous—seven levels of approval. Of course, it creates an enormous amount of additional paperwork, it chews up an enormous amount of time, and the bureaucracy, believe it or not, costs a lot of money.

Those public servants who are forced to administer these hopeless systems that have been put in place in South Australia think it is non value-adding time as well. They do not want to be doing it. There has to be some system improvement in South Australia. That is why we need to devolve our health system down to the LHNs. We need to have boards put in place in each of those LHNs. We need to have those boards coming up with their own budget each year, not a centralised budget, and be held responsible for their performance against those budgets.

This was the basic understanding of what came out of the Generational Health Review which was done by Mr Menadue. He said that we need to move away from a massive centralised system into a devolved, decentralised health system with a focus on primary health—and he was right. Let me tell you, at the time, the government said, 'Excellent, that's what we'll do.' Those opposite, many of whom are still here today, said, 'That's great. We will support you.' For once, in health policy, in this state we had consensus—a devolved, decentralised healthcare system focused on primary health.

But what then happened? I will tell you what happened. They did a backflip. The government did a backflip against their own review—the Menadue Generational Health Review, commissioned by this government, at huge expense and effort put in by people over an extended period of time to come up with this best practice set-up for South Australia—and it was ignored and we moved towards the most highly centralised, bureaucratised system in all of Australia.

This is why I say that we do not need cuts to expenditure in this budget. What we need is reform. That is why we spoke at length about the need for a Productivity Commission in South Australia, a state-based Productivity Commission, to work with our excellent public servants in South Australia, to come up with ideas, to provide enhanced services and offers to the people of South Australia in a constrained fiscal environment.

We want enhanced services. What have we got from those opposite? They want to slash and burn. They want to cut services to the people of South Australia at a time when they should be supporting the people of South Australia. But the only way that is going to happen is by looking at what we do in our health system in South Australia. I come from the private sector and, let me tell you, in the private sector we listen to our employees.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I need to remind all members of standing order 142 and ask the leader to continue his remarks.

Mr MARSHALL: Your day will come, 19 June.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr MARSHALL: You listen to your employees. Why do you listen to your employees? Because they are close to the action. They have got incredible ideas of how to improve productivity, do things better, do things cheaper and enhance services to your customers.

Yes, the Public Service has customers. Let me tell you, the customers of the Public Service here in South Australia are not satisfied, and that is why we say you need a Productivity Commission in South Australia to work with employees to drive a reform agenda, not just in health but in every sector in South Australia. We are very worried about the government's focus on slashing and burning, the $1.33 billion over the forward estimates. That is their focus—cut, cut, cutting.

We saw this first come to light in October 2012, where the government brought down the McCann report, which was done by Warren McCann, and he looked at non-hospital services. He said that if we cut out all of these services, what we would refer to on this side of the house as preventative programs, we could 'save' $14 million per year. I put that there was never going to be any saving about cutting out preventative measures in our health system. It was always going to cost us, whether in a year, two years or three years, cutting out expenditure to preventative services will only end up costing us more down the track, and of course that is precisely what has happened.

We were meant to have this centralised health system so that we could reduce our costs in the health budget each year—they've blown out. We were meant to cut out preventative programs to save money; well, of course, our health costs increase year on year here in South Australia. We should have a focus on preventative medicine in South Australia.

To give perfect evidence to the house on why this is so ineffectual, just take a look at the massive backflip the government was forced to perform over its support for the Quit program. A year ago we were going to cut out that money because we needed to slash some money out of our budget and save money. Guess what! There was a massive increase in the incidence of people taking up smoking, and we know that so many of our health costs in South Australia can be directly related back to people smoking in South Australia. It was a complete and utter mistake. We did not hear an apology from the minister or the Premier, but we could hear the backflip, but we did not make a point of it because it was good policy to put that money back in to support Quit programs across South Australia.

I was very disappointed to read, as part of the editorial in The Advertiser today that the government is planning to cut expenditure to the Operation Flinders program. Again, so short-sighted. I was very privileged to travel up to the Flinders Ranges to look firsthand at what they were doing with young people who are at risk of falling off the rails. Ultimately, when somebody falls off the rails they end up costing—costing themselves and their family, often victims, state government services, federal government services and local government services. Every time we have a failure with a young person it ends up costing us, and that is why the Operation Flinders program is such a good investment. It is not a cost, it is an investment.

I was pleased to be able to see firsthand when I travelled to the Flinders Ranges with the member for Morialta the fabulous work that John Shepherd, Jonathon Robran and their incredible team do to help young people who are at risk of falling off the rails. In fact, I was so inspired that when I came back I said that I think we should try to create a city chapter, a Norwood chapter, to raise money for Operation Flinders.

Lots of country areas have these chapters, but there were no metropolitan chapters when I looked at this project. In fact, I was inspired by the chapter in Clare in the electorate of Frome. I am sure the member for Frome is very familiar with this chapter and it was led by a wonderful person, Katherine Vincent. Katherine Vincent set up a chapter for Clare and she and her team have supported successive groups to go up on Operation Flinders. They have taken kids at risk and put them back on the rails by supporting them when they are on this trip and when they return back to their environment.

I was inspired by Katherine Vincent and by the Clare chapter and I spoke to people in my community about whether they would have an appetite for some fundraising to have our own Operation Flinders chapter in Norwood and, I must say, I am extraordinarily pleased that they decided to support that. We have sent two groups up to Operation Flinders since I came back just 18 months ago. The first group was a group of boys who went from the Norwood Morialta High School and the second group was a group of girls who went from Marryatville High School. Both of those groups when they returned did a presentation and the word 'transformation' is the word that I would best use to describe the experience that those young people had on that trip. It was absolutely fantastic.

We have raised now in excess of $36,000 for Operation Flinders over the last 18 months and we have more money to raise to send another group this year from Marryatville High. I commend the program to anybody and I am particularly pleased to acknowledge and commend the member for Chaffey, who I know is a strong supporter of Operation Flinders. He has his own group that is forming in the Riverland.

Mr Whetstone: A chapter, yes.

Mr MARSHALL: He should be commended for that. I also commend the member for Adelaide, an outstanding member, because she has also created a chapter for Operation Flinders.

Now, some might think this is a bit of a digression, but it is not. It is an example of what we should be doing in our budget and that is spending money on programs and policies which will ultimately lead to lower expenditure for our state down the track. There is no point in cutting out these programs highlighted in the McCann report that are going to keep people out of hospitals and keep people away from utilising our services and having a short-term gain, but a long-term increase and that is exactly and precisely what we have seen over an extended period of time.

Another preventative program in the health sector which we should certainly be looking at in South Australia is the program around Parkinson's specialist nurses. I was very privileged, when I was the shadow minister for health for those four months of intense work, to travel to Western Australia. I went to Western Australia because they were doing very innovative things in terms of health care. I spoke to the minister for health who was also the deputy premier of Western Australia and, indeed, himself a GP and I said, 'What sort of programs are you getting your best return on investment on?' and he highlighted providing six Parkinson's specialist nurses in Western Australia. It was extraordinarily successful because it kept people suffering from Parkinson's out of having to go into hospital.

We know that the average admission cost is around $5,000 per admission; it is extremely expensive. The Parkinson's specialist nurses are doing an extraordinary job for our community, and it is just one example. I know it is a small example, but it is one example of what we are talking about on this side of the house, which is spend a little bit of money, save a lot of money, and that is only going to come with a reform agenda, not a slash and burn agenda like we have seen from this government. That is why we have been talking about these programs; enhanced services in terms of mental health in South Australia.

We have not put anywhere near enough focus on mental health in our state and that is why I was very pleased and proud to lead a party to the election which said that we would reopen the 10 acute mental health beds at the Margaret Tobin Centre, which had been closed by this government; a shameful act. It was an act which, of course, has meant massive additional cost because they were closed permanently, demand was high, they had to open temporarily, and guess what? Casual wages and all the costs of opening and closing beds was hugely expensive, because they do not do the work that is necessary.

We also said that we would provide $2.5 million per annum to increase short stay acute mental health beds at the Lyell McEwin and the Flinders Medical Centre—absolutely critical. We were the ones who went out and said, 'For God's sake put some money into Lifeline.' The government in South Australia had never provided ongoing recurrent expenditure to Lifeline, the only state in Australia. What are the good people of Lifeline, the volunteers, doing? They are helping people in crisis, they are diverting people from state government emergency services, they are reducing our costs of operating.

The very least we could be doing is support them. Have they had any support? No. We went to the election with this promise, and I was very pleased—I will be the first one to say it—that the government followed our lead and has now finally been dragged kicking and screaming to this position of providing some ongoing recurrent money for crisis support to vulnerable people in South Australia. I was also very proud of our position regarding suicide prevention. Suicide is a massive cost to our community—

Mr Knoll: Especially in the regions.

Mr MARSHALL: We do not do anything near enough in this area and, as the member for Schubert points out, this is a problem which is particularly acute in our regions in South Australia where we are not close to services like people living in metropolitan Adelaide, and that is why I was very proud to say that we would put $350,000 into this important program.

Now, you can say, 'There are the Liberals over there saying to go and spend more money.' But again, I make this point that it is not about spending money, it is about saving money—a bit of money in, a massive return on investment will reduce expenditure down the track, and this is what would happen if the government took up our policy to establish a productivity commission.

I will repeat this point I made earlier: it is very important to look at how we can increase our services in support of the people of South Australia in a constrained fiscal environment, not slashing and burning but looking at better ways of doing it. That is not what we have been doing in South Australia in the health sector. We have had massive blowouts which I have outlined to the house previously, massive budget blowouts over an extended period of time. In fact, I made it clear to the house earlier that it was in excess of $2.2 billion worth of unbudgeted expenditure in health since they came to power.

One of the things I am most concerned about going forward is their complete ineptitude when it comes to any form of useful reform, and I think everybody knows what I am referring to in the health department, and that is IT. The department dipped their toe in the water, let us say, with the upgrade of their financial system. They were the most hopeless payers of bills known to man, I think. They were absolutely hopeless. If you put in a bill to the health department, good luck. The health department said this is not good enough so what we are going to do is upgrade our system. Interestingly, they did not use Shared Services because they were not good enough.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now, there have been rulings on laughter in the past, so let's not get to that tonight.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind everybody of standing order 142.

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr MARSHALL: I am glad the Minister for Education finds what I have to say funny. I am getting on to education.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do not respond to interjections, and I remind the house that interjections are out of order. I ask the leader—

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

Mr MARSHALL: She just thinks I am funny.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I ask the leader—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would hate to be the one who has to draw on this piece of paper. The leader.

Mr MARSHALL: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I appreciate that ruling. What a complete and utter chaotic mess! Of course, they are going to upgrade the system. Did they use Shared Services? No. I mean, it begs the question why they did not want to use their own services, but they knew better. They knew better; the people in the health department knew better. They were going to put in their own system—it was called the Oracle system—and they came into this house with a flourish because they were going to have some reform; finally some reform here in the health system in South Australia, a $20 million Oracle reform.

An honourable member: Did it work?

Mr MARSHALL: Did it work? More to the point, has it even been fully implemented yet? What we do know is that the original $20 million budget did not quite cover the entire project; it missed it by this much. It is now up to $62 million, so there is a small increase on $20 million. It gives you a perfect insight into the ineptitude of this department. This is what worries me; this is exactly and precisely what worries me.

At the moment they are implementing not a $20 million system, not a $62 million bungle, but the $408 million EPAS, the Electronic Patient Administration System. And what a mess this is turned out to be, let me tell you. When the former minister came into this house he sold it as a great reform, it was going to transform health care in South Australia and lead the way to the new Royal Adelaide Hospital. Oh dear.

As part of the due diligence for the business case the government said that this would provide a replacement for all the legacy IT systems that sat in individual hospitals around the state; it would replace them all. I must say that we were a bit shocked and surprised when we found out that instead of this EPAS being implemented in all the hospitals, it is going into only 12. What are all the other dozens of South Australia's regional hospitals going to do without the EPAS?

The EPAS was going to deliver this return on investment that I was talking about; spend some capital up front and get a return that will lower the money down below. They have just taken this to a completely new definition. Spend a shed-load up front and get nothing back in return! We still have to keep every, single one of those legacy systems because the EPAS will not be implemented as originally promised by the minister; it is not going to be implemented.

It has already had one significant blowout and we are now told that it will be $422 million. We have never had one decent answer from the minister; he has been ducking and diving every time I have asked a question. It is meant to be finished and fully implemented this month. Give me a break; if it is implemented in my lifetime I will be surprised.

Dr McFetridge interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I remind members on this side of the house about standing order 131. I ask you to remain silent, and I ask the leader to continue.

Mr MARSHALL: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I must say that the member for Morphett makes a very good point, as he often does. He points us to an article that was, of course, covered off in InDaily yesterday. This article reported on the survey that was conducted into people who were using the partially implemented EPAS in Port Augusta. InDaily reported that SASMOA surveyed 35 medical practitioners working in facilities where EPAS was in use; that is, 35 medical practitioners. Phew; let us hope they gave it a good rap! Let us see what they said.

Thirty-three had experienced problems with EPAS—

that is 33 out of 35; that is not good. But wait, it gets better—

Twenty-nine were dissatisfied or extremely dissatisfied with EPAS—

so that is 29 out of 35 who were dissatisfied or extremely dissatisfied—

Twenty-eight had received inadequate training in EPAS; and

Twenty said that their concerns weren't addressed quickly.

That is the situation we have here in South Australia. It is an absolute debacle. That is what we have come to expect from this government. One person quoted in the article said:

EPAS is enormously time-consuming, so it takes away time from patients, it takes away time from other tasks.

This was all meant to reform the situation, reduce costs, and improve professionalism. In fact, it is quite the opposite. It is really a mess, and something we are going to keep a very close eye on. I have personally been asking questions on this matter for a couple of years, as I said. We asked questions in question time. We appreciate question time, we would just like an answer time, which would be just novel in this parliament.

One of things that worry me about the EPAS system is looking at what they have done in other jurisdictions. In other jurisdictions, namely Victoria, they have gone down the road of putting an EPAS system in. After they had spent in excess of half a billion dollars, they reviewed it, and do you know what they decided? They decided to walk away. I wonder when the day will come—and I am predicting it right now—when the Treasurer (sorry, he was the treasurer but he got the flick), the Minister for Health comes in and says, 'We're not going to proceed with this', because you cannot get an EPAS system wrong; you will cost lives. This system is not up to scratch.

These are complex systems; I give you that. However, when the Victorian government reviewed the EPAS system, it walked away from it. Of course, the movement into the new teaching hospital in Western Australia has been held up not because the building was not ready, not because there were not enough stick patients in Western Australia, but for one reason: their system, like our system. I think this is an enormously complex issue for South Australia and, if we get it wrong, we are in enormous trouble. I think we are heading in that direction.

I am extraordinarily worried about the ineptitude of the government in making IT decisions here in South Australia. IT people can be extremely convincing. They come along often and say, 'Look, we've got a product. It's going to eliminate all your problems, and here is the price.' For some reason our government completely and utterly fell for it. They did not do their due diligence. They did not look at the complexities of putting in the EPAS. They probably should have taken a much harder look at the PCEHR, the personally controlled electronic health record, which is being simultaneously implemented, and might I say implemented successfully by the federal government. We should have been looking at tagging onto something like that but, no, we had to do our own program here in South Australia. We chose Allscripts.

I just made a quick due diligence of my own to see what other successful implementations of the EPAS system Allscripts have done in Australia. It is fair to say that I did not have to spend a lot of time on it because there weren't any, which was a bit disturbing in that we went for a program that was not proven in Australia. There is complexity to the system in Australia. Just because you have implemented it somewhere else does not mean it is going to necessarily transfer directly over here.

Anyway, I have spoken at length on health. Why? It is a third of our state budget. If we do not get it right, we will be in all sorts of trouble down the track. However, let me tell you: every single indicator, every single possible indicator points to the fact that there is no reform agenda in terms of health. We are going to continue having these year-on-year blowouts in our budget, and this is not going to serve the people of South Australia well.

The other big-ticket item of course in the South Australian budget is education. Again, in terms of education, the government, in their own chief executives' words, have in excess of $230 million over the forward estimates that they have already factored in—$230 million worth of cuts to our education system here in South Australia.

If we actually look at the difference between the federal government's MYEFO (Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook) and the budget they brought down, there was an uplift. There was not a cut in education expenditure: there was, indeed, an uplift, and that uplift was $570 million. Forgive me for being cynical, but when the minister went out there with her comments in the media that this was an unprecedented attack from the federal government on education spending in South Australia, I thought, 'I wonder whether she's read it.' As I said, when we looked at the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO) and we looked at the budget which came down a few weeks ago—

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will have to call her to order.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As has been the practice all this afternoon we are reminding everyone of standing order 142 and asking the leader not to be brought in by interjections and remind people that interjections are out of order. I ask the leader to continue his remarks if he really wants to.

Mr MARSHALL: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. As I said, I must say I was shocked and amazed that the minister sitting in this chamber opposite had not taken the time to actually have a look at the difference between the MYEFO and the budget which was brought down. That would have clearly shown the minister that it was an uplift. It was an uplift in federal government education spending here in South Australia.

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Continue.

Mr MARSHALL: It was $570 million over the forward estimates, so it was not correct for the minister to go out there and create this impression across South Australia that our budget being brought down on 19 June was in absolute peril: schools would have to be closed. She should hang her head in shame. She should hang her head in shame for the consternation which she has caused people in South Australia, because there is no such impact on the budget which is going to be brought down on 19 June.

There is no such impact because, as she would know, if she spent five minutes before calling her press conference—dud press conference that it was—it was an uplift in expenditure. But it is what we have come to expect from an education minister of this government, which has had an extraordinary number of education ministers over an extended period of time. They have all been very consistent.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Point of order, Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, minister.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: We have had, I think, the same number of education ministers as they have had leaders of the opposition.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If we want to go backwards and forwards in this way we will waste 15 valuable minutes before the dinner break. I just remind everybody to remain calm and remember standing order 142, and I will ask the leader to continue his remarks and refer to the minister as 'the minister' rather than 'she'.

Mr MARSHALL: Well, the minister has just—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, just continue with your remarks.

Mr MARSHALL: The minister has made a comment in the house, while you were speaking—quite disrespectfully I would have thought—that there have been five separate ministers for education in this state. Five separate ministers in the last four years—who is next?

The Hon. J.M. Rankine: Nine leaders in 10 years.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are all speaking at once as well, which is a—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, let's all remember that we will not hear the leader's remarks before dinner, and I would really love to hear his remarks.

Mr MARSHALL: The government is responsible for running this state. It has had five separate ministers for education in a four-year period. I think they have had nine separate chief executives or acting chief executives in a similarly short period of time under this government. It is chaos, absolute chaos. If you do not believe that, take a look at the results. In 19 out of 20 categories on the NAPLAN test results we are below the national average. That is shameful; that is absolutely shameful. Every important reform put forward by this side of the house has been completely rejected by those opposite.

Does the minister honestly think that it is a good idea to keep the year 12 research project compulsory? Let me tell you that there are few issues in my electorate which attract as much criticism as this issue; it is absolutely a hopeless situation. The Liberal Party did not say to scrap the research project. There are some people who I think would legitimately benefit from the research project. In fact, there would be a few opposite who could do with a research project. I have read some of their travel reports and quite frankly they could have done with a research project in year 12. I am not sure many of them finished year 12, but there you go.

I think that it should clearly be made optional. This is what the people of South Australia tell us. Parents, students, teachers, principals and governing councils—everybody tells us: make it optional. What does the minister say? 'No way. We know what we're doing.'

Let me tell you, they have no idea what they are doing and the minister has not even been able to read the difference between the MYEFO and the budget and that we are going to have $570 million of additional money coming into our education system over the forward estimates. She cannot even read that document.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We talked about 'she' a bit earlier, leader.

Mr MARSHALL: The minister cannot read that document and that is really worrying for South Australia, which is already struggling with numeracy skills as highlighted in the NAPLAN test results. I am cognisant of the time so, appealing as it would be to highlight some of the issues in the education department, I might move on.

One of the other important sectors that this government has spoken about over an extended period of time is the importance of manufacturing and innovation. I love the manufacturing sector; I come from the manufacturing sector. It is an important driver of our economy and it is disproportionately important here in South Australia, relative to many other jurisdictions in Australia. I think Victoria has around about the same percentage as us, but it is extraordinarily high and therefore I was delighted to serve as a member of the state government's manufacturing industry advisory board. I served on that body for five years.

People who are on boards get paid a certain amount of money and I proudly report to the house that I paid mine back. I said, 'Put that into a program that is useful to people in the manufacturing sector.' A lot of people would be advised to do that, quite frankly. I was very pleased that we were going to put a greater focus on manufacturing because I believe that you need to make items. You need to add value and you need to send goods and services interstate. Manufacturing is a great driver of that innovation, so I was pleased when the government said, 'We're going to have a Thinker in Residence who is going to focus on the manufacturing sector,' and Goran Roos did that important work.

I was delighted with his final report. He worked diligently, he was consultative, he spoke to many people right across the industry. He sought input from right across the state and he referenced that to benchmark sites throughout the world. 'What does best practice look like? What should we be doing here in South Australia?' He came up with a plan and, of course, we were delighted with his plan and we supported it on this side of the house.

Unfortunately, like so many reports that have been put forward by those opposite, it was never implemented. It was just never implemented, and this is the sad and sorry tale. We see the Premier jumping up ad nauseam, telling us about his report, telling us about his manufacturing ministerial task force—I mean, has that group ever met? Give me a break. Has that group ever met, and what have they done if they have met? Not much, I would put it to you.

Most informative of all is where the rubber hits the road, to use an auto expression that I am sure someone in the house would be happy with me using at this point in time. When the rubber hits the road is in the budget. We have program 3 and the Department for Manufacturing and Innovation and Trade Resources and Energy, or whatever it is called this week. This program is called 'Manufacturing and innovation' and this has really been one of the most hopeless programs of this government. They have had plenty of hopeless programs, but this is the program where they would close something down, they would open it up again, they would close it down. Have a look at Innovate SA. What a mess that has actually been!

In particular, the government speaks about this manufacturing program all the time: 'We're doing a great job!. We want to add value. We want to send products out of South Australia.' Well, what are they putting into it? Let me tell you what they put into it in 2011-12: they put $18.5 million into it. Now after this became one of the seven key priorities of the new government—when the current Premier got his mates to knife the previous premier and he came up with these seven new priorities and one of them was manufacturing—what did it go up to? From $18.5 million, was it doubled? Was it $37 million? No.

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

Mr MARSHALL: Any advances on 37?

Mr Gardner: Fifty million.

Mr MARSHALL: Fifty million. Have we heard any more? Fifty million into this important program? No, and this is the sorry tale here in South Australia. Lots of talk, not much action. Lots of talk, not much action, because the budget this financial year is just a paltry $15.3 million; it has gone down. They talk tough, they talk about the importance of the manufacturing sector and creating jobs and keeping young people here in South Australia, but what do they do, Deputy Speaker, to actually help us? I would put it to you not very much at all.

So, we are coming up to the budget on the 19th,and most importantly, some time either this week or next week, we will be coming up to a final vote on the Supply Bill. The information that we have been provided by the government to assist in our deliberations and make important decisions regarding supporting the money that they have sought in this Supply Bill is completely inadequate. However, we are going to pass it.

For the reasons I outlined earlier in my address, we on this side of the chamber will not be supporting the government's toxic car park tax. We think that we are already taxed enough in South Australia. We have been the highest business-taxed state in Australia for five years in a row, and eventually you have to say enough is enough. No other issue was canvassed for as long as the issue of the car park tax. We have been talking about that tax since 2012. We made our position extraordinarily clear in the lead-up to the election.

The government made their position extraordinarily clear, and the people of South Australia voted, and guess what? The people of South Australia voted for change. Fifty-three per cent of people said that they wanted the Liberal Party to be elected; 53 per cent of people rejected the Labor Party's toxic car park tax. In fact, if you look at their primary vote it was less than 36 per cent. One in three people said they wanted the car park tax, others did not. I make the following point to the house—and there will be a lot of blustering from the Treasurer later tonight and tomorrow that this breaks the convention. Well, I will tell you a convention that I like, and it is called the convention of democracy, and in a situation in which the majority of people in a jurisdiction vote for something they should get it.

Well, they voted not to have a car park tax, not to destroy city vibrancy. They voted for a Liberal government to move away from this high taxing, high spending government position that we have had over an extended period of time. It is with great pleasure that I announce to the house today our position, which is that when this bill comes up for decision we will be voting against it. We will vote it down, and we will seek the support of the crossbenches in the upper house to make sure we do not inflict any further pain on the people of South Australia.

In taking that stance, we will be supporting not only the Adelaide City Council's position, the Property Council's position and the Rundle Mall Management Association's position, but, indeed, the thousands of South Australians, the extraordinarily large number of people, who signed the petition. In fact, if I brought them all down here in their bags they would fill up this entire bench. The people of South Australia did not want it, they do not want it. It is bad for jobs in South Australia, it is bad for the city vibrancy, and we will be voting against it.

[Sitting suspended from 17:59 to 19:30]

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (19:30): I obviously wish to make some comments in relation to the Supply Bill. I do not think I have to outline the legislative requirement of this particular piece of legislation, and I think members on both sides of the house have spoken in relation to why it is necessary for it to be before the parliament.

I listened to the leader's remarks, and he made, I think, an outstanding speech for close to two hours leading up to the dinner break. It was a wideranging speech, covering a lot of very important issues and making a lot of very important points. He went to the issues in relation to the excuses this government will find when it brings down the budget in a couple of weeks' time and the blame it will lay at the feet of the federal government's budget.

I want to take some time in my remarks this evening to put on the record some facts concerning the federal budget and how it is quite a nonsense to suggest that the federal budget has caused this year's state budget crisis. As I said, we know what is going to happen. The Treasurer has basically told us all what is going to happen, that any problems with the South Australian budget and economy are a consequence of the federal budget. That is not true.

We know on this side of the house that the federal economic situation was an absolute mess. Hard decisions had to be made by the federal government. It is completely unsustainable to borrow money to pay for the interest on your borrowings. Anybody in this place knows that that is economically and financially unsustainable, and that is exactly the position the previous federal Labor government has put the current Coalition government in.

Hard decisions had to be made in Canberra, and we have seen that. Some hard decisions have been made in the federal budget but, as I said before, it is a nonsense to suggest that the federal budget has caused this year's 2014-15 budget crisis. I want to share some information with the house in relation to some facts and figures concerning the federal budget.

The total specific purpose payments for health, education, community services and GST are up significantly over the forward estimates between the MYEFO (the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook) and the federal budget. In relation to the special purpose payments, if we go through year by year, the 2013-14 figure is $113 million; the 2014-15 year is $153 million (so it is an increase in revenue); the 2015-16 year is $216 million; and then the 2016-17 year is $113 million. So, in total, over the forward estimates it is $595 million. For this state government to try to sheet any blame home to the federal government for the current financial situation it is in is wrong.

Let's break it down into some of the specific areas of responsibility and talk about transport and infrastructure. The commonwealth will contribute 80 per cent, or $496 million, to the $620 million cost of the Darlington upgrade to be completed by 2018. The $896 million Torrens to Torrens upgrade remains unchanged, with a fifty-fifty funding split, and is also planned for completion by 2018. The Premier has only secured $2 billion for the state out of the $50 billion long-term national infrastructure pool. Part of this failure can be attributed to state Labor being unable to plan and deliver federally funded projects; for example, the Gawler line electrification, which was promised three times and has been scrapped twice.

We have seen increased funds to the state for Roads to Recovery and blackspot programs. They are contingent on South Australia participating in the asset recycling programs and are only for one year and two years respectively. The money for the Torrens junction road grade separation project has remained in the federal budget despite the project not being in the state transport plan, so this suggests that the tramline to Outer Harbor may be off the state Labor government's agenda. Those are some key points in relation to the federal government's continued commitment to transport and infrastructure.

Now we come to schools and the education sector. From 2013-14 to 2016-17, payments to this state for education will increase by $570 million compared with the December MYEFO; however, the state Labor government is cutting $230 million out of the state education budget over this period. Nearly $244 million is going into the national school chaplaincy program (approximately $20,000 per applying school), obviously for valuable counselling to students. Many state schools have struggled to get similar resources from the state government.

We have $11.6 million to encourage uptake of other languages, including $9.6 million for an early learning languages trial. There is $6.8 million to assist non-government schools with Indigenous boarders from remote areas to boost attendance and engagement. There is also $5 million over a four-year period for education programs encouraging students to study STEM subjects.

In relation to tertiary education at our universities, with universities setting their own fees from 2016 the government will be requiring the universities and other higher education providers to spend $1 out of every extra $5 in additional revenue raised on scholarships for disadvantaged schools. This is obviously addressing some social disadvantage—so much for the bleeding heart lefties who say that on this side of the political divide we do not look to people who are disadvantaged.

The federal Coalition government is also extending commonwealth funding to all Australian higher education students studying bachelor courses in non-university higher education institutions, as well as continuing with the HELP loans for up-front students on student tuition fees. Again, looking to help those who may experience social disadvantage, those in low-socioeconomic areas and regional students will have extra opportunity through a scholarship and equity initiative. There is further expansion of the demand-driven commonwealth funding for higher education diplomas, advanced diplomas and associate degrees, which is costing $371.5 million over three years.

There is also $139.5 million for 100 new research positions per year under the Future Fellowships scheme, and $26 million to accelerate university research into dementia. I think that is a pretty clear indication, and one that has been stated previously, that the federal government is certainly committed to funding important projects for infrastructure, transport, schools and universities and also, in particular, health.

In relation to health, a co-payment of $7 is being proposed for visits to GPs which will go into a medical research future fund. We have heard a lot of discussion and debate about this medical research future fund, and I think it is a good thing. There is another fact that I think the government purposely looks to misrepresent, and that is, from 2013-14 to 2016-17, payments to the state for health will continue to increase. My understanding is that it is $1.14 billion this year, $1.21 billion the following year, and $1.31 billion the year after; however, the state government is cutting $1.033 billion out of the health budget over this period.

There have been questions put to the Minister for Health on this particular issue, but he conveniently evades and avoids answering and addressing those issues. I have heard government members and ministers squealing about the cuts, particularly about the cuts to health and education, but as I have said before and as has been explained, it is my understanding that the funding for health and education will continue to increase into the forward estimates; it is only in those years beyond the forward estimates that we will see some funding cuts.

It is my understanding that, because those funds are forecast beyond the forward estimates, the government has not actually worked out where they are going to spend the money. I can guess where they will spend the money, and that will be in that black hole—that money pit—that they are building down on the end of North Terrace: the new Royal Adelaide Hospital. That is where that money will be sunk into. We know, on this side of the house, that they have put a financial noose around probably three generations of South Australians to meet those commitments.

In relation to primary industries and regions, the Regional Development Australia (RDA) committees will continue to receive federal funding support, and funding will be delivered against contract milestones. An additional $20 million over four years will be provided to strengthen national biosecurity and quarantine arrangements.

There are a whole lot of other dot points that I can raise in relation to regional development and primary industries. There are commitments to continue funding to environment and water, justice, emergency services, community and social inclusion, disabilities, and Aboriginal affairs and reconciliation, right across the responsibilities of government. For this government, and particularly this Treasurer when he brings down the budget, to try and blame the federal budget outcome on the budget that he is looking to bring down—for him to suggest that the federal budget is the cause of his budget pains for this year—is a complete nonsense.

I want to talk, in the few minutes I have left, on issues relating to economic management. I have stood up in this place over the past 12 years and everybody on this side of the house has continually highlighted that the government's approach and strategy to economic management is wrong.

We heard the leader highlight the fact that in pretty much every budget the government has not met its expenditure targets but has actually exceeded its expenditure targets. In the early years, the only thing that saved the government from the economic mess it has got itself into now is the windfall revenues through the GST. We all know that. Even the Auditor-General, in his reports over a number of years, highlighted the fact that it was only the windfall revenue through above GST targets that kept this state's economy cranking along.

The government states that it is the GFC that has caused a downturn in economic activity, but I have highlighted in the house previously that then prime minister Rudd had this idea of the stimulus package. That was meant to shield us from the effects of the GFC, but clearly that did not work. All that did was rack up the massive debt that we see, which the federal Abbott government has had to try to tackle in its pretty tough budget that they have brought down.

As I said, the government's economic approach and strategy is all wrong, and it has been for years. Their strategy has been to tax, borrow and spend. I have stated in this place before that it has been a hallmark of Labor governments right around the country to tax, borrow and spend. It started off with Gough Whitlam. That's pretty much as far back as I can remember, back in the 1970s. He was an incredible expender of funds, and it does not work. It is an old economic model of taxing, borrowing and spending. It does not work anymore.

I want to quote something from an article that I picked up in a newspaper report back on 1 February, before the election, and it was written by David Penberthy, a well-known newspaper journalist. It is an analysis that talks about all the problems within the ALP, but there was one sentence that caught my eye. I quote:

…the disquiet among…MPs—

he is talking about Labor Party MPs—

who regard Weatherill as a Whitlamite state socialist who somehow believes that public spending (with nothing to spend) can get our economy out of the mire.

I think that pretty much sums up how this government has run the economic and financial affairs of this state over its 12 years in government, and it is an old model. In his speech, the leader highlighted the fact that he was in New Zealand last week where he met with and spoke to the Prime Minister of New Zealand, and understands firsthand how a modern, successful and sustainable approach can be made for economic recovery and health. This government never learns and, as I said, they tax, borrow and spend.

I note in the ministerial statement that the Premier made this afternoon, where he was waxing lyrical about one thing and another, that he said, 'Another important focus for our state at this time must be the business sector.' Goodness me! It has only just dawned on them that small business is the engine room of the economy.

Dr McFetridge: Twelve years.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: It has taken them 12 years to come to the realisation that they have to focus on the business sector. Goodness me! If it has taken them 12 years, heaven help this show. That is pretty much what the real situation is. The government has taxed the business sector to almost the point of extinction. We are the highest-taxed state in the country and we all know that we have record debt and deficit. The Treasurer is going to have to bring down a budget, in his way, to try to remedy it. I want to make my final point: as I started out in my contribution, this government will endeavour to lay the blame at the feet of the federal government for the state budget, but in no way can they suggest that that is the case.

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