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

Debate resumed.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (21:58): I need to note the speech given by the leader tonight, which I thought was one of his finer moments since the house has come back after the election. He covered a multitude of issues in detail and, indeed, excelled himself on the floor of the house in his address regarding the Supply Bill.

Where this state is going, or where it is not going, to be more precise, really worries me. It has been discussed by members on this side of the house tonight; there seems to be a singular lack of effort to have government members speak on this. It is particularly interesting to me that we are now termed the 'rust bucket' mainland state in Australia.

Today, an electrical company went bust, and it just so happens that my son-in-law was employed by that electrical company, working on the Berri Hospital. I do not know where that will all end up. Fortunately, he is interstate actually, with my daughter and family, looking for work in Western Australia because they see no future in South Australia whatsoever. They just want out. They want to go somewhere where it is positive, where there is some hope for the future, where things have been put in place by the government (in this case, Western Australia) to promote growth and to actually keep that state pumping. Whereas here, it is a sad indictment on this government of 12 years that South Australia is dying—it is dying.

Members opposite can stand up and talk about, if they wish to, how well things are going here and how well things are going there; well, the reality is they are not. If I just use my electorate as an example, they are not going well in my electorate. Even in the town of Victor Harbor, a city of 14,000, there are businesses struggling to survive. They cannot afford the wage bills, even though they have a number of visitors come down from Adelaide to spend the weekend. They are still struggling, and the economy down there is not doing all that marvellously. Neither is it at Yankalilla-Normanville. They are survivors and they will keep going.

That is on the mainland side of my electorate. Kangaroo Island is a basket case—it is an absolute basket case, with something like 89 houses for sale, and very little property turning over. Once again, it is a sad indictment on what this government of 12 years has done to South Australia, and more to the point, what it has not done to foster the private sector and the small business sector.

Also, since we have been back—and we anticipated this—the South Australian government has only seen fit to bag the federal Coalition government and blame them for all their ills. At the risk of being repetitive, I have not heard the names Rudd or Gillard mentioned in here from the other side since we got back, and I am not likely to. Just bear in mind who created the mess. We have heard the Minister for Health, the Treasurer, the Premier and others criticise the current federal government for our problems here now. Well, I say: absolute rubbish.

When the state is paying over $2 million—I think it is $2.6 million—a day in interest, it does not augur too well for the future, does it? That is, in much greater terms, what the federal government has been landed with in Canberra. If you dissect what the federal government have done, they have not actually created all these terrible evils as some on the Labor side, the Greens side, etc., would like to have you believe. They have not done that by long stretch of the imagination, and they should be commended for taking action over the long term which will create a surplus in the federal budget and get Australia back in the position where she deserves to be, which is one of the powerhouse economies of the Western world.

Much of that is longstanding but has been progressively crippled by completely incompetent management by the former federal Labor government. It seems to me that there is a complete lack of will and a complete lack of skill by this current state government to actually grapple with the problems in the state and sort them out. We wait with bated breath for the budget to be handed down on 19 June, and we have had snippets of what may be coming, such as the cutting of hospital beds, etc. Fantastic, absolutely fantastic—what an incompetent mob of fools.

As I said, we have an inexperienced Treasurer who I believe will get caught out very badly in the long term, and I do not know what they are going to do then. Perhaps Mr Malinauskas and the member for Playford may go and tap somebody else on the shoulder and say, 'Well, this hasn't worked too well. We might have to have another experience with Don Farrell.' Perhaps they can bring Don Farrell in. Hang on, I do not think Don Farrell wants to come here, actually.

It is of enormous concern, when you look at the ministry in South Australia, of what is just not there, quite frankly. The fact that there is little or no business experience—in fact, it would be fair to say there is probably none. I enjoyed it when the former minister for finance, Michael O'Brien, was in the chair, because you could actually have a discussion with Michael O'Brien over particular issues relating to finance and he had enough business nous—

Ms Chapman: At least he could read a balance sheet.

Mr PENGILLY: Yes, he didn't need an abacus like someone might. He could understand the technicalities and the finances of the departments that were under his control, and he actually used to do something about it. It is probably fair to say that not everything went his way—printing contracts and whatnot—but maybe he was scuttled from inside on a number of those things. I found with Michael O'Brien that, if there was an issue where constituents of mine were getting delayed payments from government authorities or government agencies, a quick call to Michael or a chat in the corridor and it would be fixed very quickly, but that seems to have gone by the board.

In the last couple of weeks I have had a constituent who did some work on a school down on the south coast who has been waiting weeks, if not months, to get paid. It is simply not good enough. In private industry, you have to pay wages on time, just like the Public Service has to get paid every couple of weeks or whenever it is. You have to pay all your dues and taxes, but you have to have the money coming in. I think it is absolutely unbelievable that government departments withhold payment to private companies in South Australia that are doing the right thing and just want their good honest money for a good honest day's work, a week's work or whatever.

I have mentioned before in this place about where local government is at. I do not believe that this current government has the wherewithal to do anything about the rates issue. They do not seem to want to know about it. The subject of CEO salaries and rate rises has been in The Advertiser. Many councils in the local government sector are still putting up their rates 5 to 6 per cent at a time when CPI is around 3 per cent or whatever it happens to be at the given time when they set their rates. I believe it is inappropriate. I completely believe that it is inappropriate and something should be done about it.

It is no good the local government sector whinging that they are having everything thrust on them from state and federal governments. They actually need to learn to live within their means, to cut their cloth to fit their suit and to get over it. They need to get over it. I believe it is entirely unfair on the ratepayers of South Australia, who are also the taxpayers, to have to go on wearing rate increases of 5 or 6 per cent year after year after year, and the minister of the day—in this case the member for Frome, who is there now—doing nothing about it.

Unfortunately, the member for Frome has been politically emasculated by the events of last week and he is no longer anywhere near as relevant as he was in the last sitting week in this place. Given that we now have a quisling in the house—for those of you who wonder what I talk about, Major Quisling was in the Norwegian army in the lead-up to World War II and he decided to side with the Nazis when they invaded Norway and was given the senior role as Prime Minister, I think it was, of Norway. He thought he had backed the right mob. He went over to them, and he was caught out badly because, as we all know, the forces of evil fell over, the forces of good prevailed, and the Norwegian people, after World War II, summarily executed Quisling. It might be a salient lesson for a couple, actually. We might have to—

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Point of order. I think that I am understanding that there is an accusation that a member of the house is essentially a Nazi. I know that it is late at night, but it is a pretty distasteful suggestion if that is the case.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is a distasteful suggestion, and the Chair is listening to the debate very, very carefully.

Mr GARDNER: Point of order, ma'am. To be clear, it would be a distasteful suggestion if it was the case, but I am not sure that is, in fact, what the member said.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is what I just said. So, there is no point of order. The member for Finniss.

Mr PENGILLY: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. No, that is exactly right; it was nothing to do with that. The fact of the matter is that Major Quisling went over to the Nazis, who happened to be in charge of Germany at the time, as you may recall, although you probably don't, because you probably weren't around, and neither was I. But that is the simple fact of the matter. All traitors come to grief in good time.

I heard the member for Bragg speak a few minutes ago about exports. Exports have been the great saviour of this state and, if it was not for that sector outside the metropolitan area, I do not know where we would have been. If we had not had a couple of reasonable seasons on the land, I do not know where we would have been. Of course, mining, although somewhat embryonic, is certainly assisting South Australia in regard to those exports.

Let me say that I would like to see someone as the minister for primary industry who knew something about primary industry. I do not think that it serves our purpose any good whatsoever with the minister for primary industry standing up in this place with his mates in the Greens railing against GM crops. The GM crop issue has been debated loud and long, and it will be for some time to come. It went down like an absolute lead balloon in my electorate, I can tell you. Why the minister even chose to go there leaves me scratching my head. It did not serve any useful purpose and, as I have said, to line up with the Greens and other left-wing people out there was not all that smart.

Exports have been the great saviour of South Australia for a long, long time. Indeed, copper, early in the piece, was a great saviour of South Australia. It had its ups and downs. When we were ship building at Whyalla, for example, what a great industry that was. That has gone to the keeper; that does not happen anymore.

We have the capacity to enhance our primary production sector considerably, and let me refer again to the fishing industry. Why on earth would you want to cut off the hand that feeds you? We in Australia, this nation of just over 20 million people, produce enough food a year to feed 70 million people around the world. It is not a bad effort, yet these lunatics in the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources and those who supposedly direct them want to wipe out large sectors of the fishing industry. It is absolutely crazy. The other states must be laughing themselves sick.

At least the federal government had the nous to get in there and say, 'Right, we're going to revisit the federal marine parks, start again and get some common sense back into this argument.' It would be a great thing if the commonwealth could take over the state waters and rip this outfit into gear here as well. For the life of me, I was completely frustrated by the pitiful attempts of the Premier in the last sitting week, trying to make excuses for the marine parks in South Australia.

What an absolute load of codswallop—and then to say that John Howard was the architect. Well, the architect of the marine parks legislation, the original people who brought it into South Australia, was the Liberal Party. Indeed, I believe that it was the member for Davenport who brought forward the idea. It should have been done properly and it has not been.

We are going to do huge damage to the fishing industry. I may be wrong, but I think we have one professional fisherman in the Victor Harbor area now. They have just all gone. They have given up. Where we used to have a processing factory on Kangaroo Island under the late Nigel Buick, that is all gone. SAFCOL was fantastic: it employed people. That has all been buried. It is a tragedy for South Australia that the incumbents in government for the last 12 years have slowly buried the private sector and, for some bizarre reason, decided to push these things downhill.

I referred earlier to the member for Frome and the member for Waite, and this is what I have found in this place since we have come back. I used to get on pretty well with most people in this place. There are have been a couple on either side now and then who no-one really trusted, or whatever, but that is life. But I find now there is an absolute toxic air in the parliament building between many members. I think that is unfortunate. That is sad. It was never like that in the last parliament, but it is toxic in here now. You can feel the despising and lack of trust between members, and that is most unfortunate.

On this side of the chamber, we are actually getting on pretty well, I can tell you. We are getting on really well. That might come as a bit of a rude shock to the other side, but we are getting on particularly well. The toxic atmosphere that is now present in here—and probably in the other place as well, given the events of a couple of weeks ago, with everyone airing their dirty linen in public, so to speak, up there—I really think needs to change. I put a lot of the blame on the incumbent ministry and the Premier for that. Their scruples leave a fair bit to be desired, let me say that. It is unfortunate.

I look back to members who were in this place, even when they were at their noisiest, loudest, most belligerent selves—people like Mike Rann, Patrick Conlon and Kevin Foley. You could go and have a giggle or a laugh with them afterwards. That just does not happen any more, and that is sad. It is unfortunate. You used to be able to go out and have a cup of tea or coffee, or a beer or whatever, with them, but that has all gone.

The toxicity that exists in this place now I do not believe is going to go away for a fair while. That has been aided and abetted by events in the other place a couple of weeks ago and it has been aided and abetted by the events of the last week. I believe it is a sad indictment on where the parliament is going and it needs to be addressed. Madam Deputy Speaker, with those few words, I resume my seat.

Mr BELL (Mount Gambier) (22:18): I rise to speak on the Supply Bill. Just the other day, I came across a quote which I thought was quite appropriate for the Supply Bill, and it reads as follows:

The budget should be balanced, the treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance. Cicero, 55 BC.

It is quite apt because over 2,069 years later we find ourselves in a very similar situation and it appears that we have learnt very little in that period of time. In terms of my region, that is, the South-East of South Australia, which is obviously a very productive region, we were faced with the forward sale of the forestry assets. I want to talk a little bit about that tonight because it is not just a bad deal for the residents and local community of the South-East. It was a terrible deal for the people of South Australia.

The reason I say it was a terrible deal is contained in the next little bit. ForestrySA was generating $44 million a year in pure profit to the state coffers every year—so, year in, year out, $44 million in pure profit. In selling the asset, an asset worth over $1 billion to our state (that was its book value), the government sold it for $670 million—just a little bit over half the book value. What it could have done, and what has been argued long and hard, was go to any commercial bank in the world and said, 'Listen, we've got an asset worth $1 billion; it's generating $44 million a year pure profit. We would like a loan because we want to build a stadium in Adelaide, and we want to bring football back to the CBD of Adelaide.'

If they had gone to any commercial bank in the world, they would have given you a loan based on the asset value of $1 billion. So, you would have had your $670 million to build Adelaide Oval and attract football back into the CBD. But, no, instead of doing that this government decided to sell the asset for 100 years. So, instead of a return to the state of $44 million a year, we now have zero. On top of that, the state government still pumps in $8 million to $9 million a year to prop up the wages for ForestrySA. The turnaround for revenue for this state has not dropped by just $44 million: it has actually dropped by $52 million with the added input going back into it.

Any bank would have given you a loan over 30 years, and $44 million over 30 years is $1.3 billion, so it would have been paid off within the 30-year life span of that loan. Instead of having it back in our control within my lifetime, it is unlikely that it will be back inside our control in my grandkids' lifetime. This is a terrible deal for South Australia, a terrible deal for the people of South Australia and our state.

Not only have we lost an asset that generated pure profit for the state but we had a mechanism that, with a few financial smarts and a few people who knew what they with were doing, could have achieved the same result. It could have built Adelaide Oval, because that was important to the government of the time, and paid off the asset over 30 years just based on the profit it was generating, without any further efficiencies. That is the situation we faced. Instead of that, it will be 100 years until those assets come back into our control, 100 years of lost opportunity—absolutely disgraceful!

Not only that, but we are starting to see job losses. When the forest was sold, the community was not against supporting the government in what they wanted to do. The community was concerned with three primary things: massive exports (so China inadvertently would be buying the forest via exports), massive job losses, and, of course, a reduction in fire services. Eighteen months to two years on, we are seeing the impact of this dreadful decision on the people of the South-East and the confidence that was ripped out of my community for the sake of an Adelaide Oval, which everybody in the CBD seems to enjoy and get a great deal of benefit from.

Quite rightly, there is a lot of anger in my community over this, not necessarily because it was sold, but because we had an opportunity to have it back in our control within 30 years, but, no, we decided to let it go for 100 years. I hope that my grandkids get to see the asset come back into government control; I severely doubt that, but I sincerely hope it does happen.

The other important point I want to put on the record tonight (and this has been spoken about, but nobody in the government has picked it up)—and I implore the Minister for Forests to understand this point—is that if they allow the intellectual property of ForestrySA to be transferred to OneFortyOne, the deal is over, the game is finished.

They can go to any provider and get the forests managed, and if they own that intellectual property, and not ForestrySA, it puts us in a very dangerous position. That is a critical point we need the government to understand. This intellectual property was built up over 100 years of ForestrySA. If it is given away, the deal is done. It will not be 60 job losses, as we are seeing at the moment, it will be all the jobs in the region. They will go to the lowest bidder. They have the intellectual property, they have the charts, the forward rotation estimates, and the graphs which show plantation rates, clearing rates, the whole lot. The game is over. We must ensure that ForestrySA is the owner of that intellectual property, not OneFortyOne. That is a very important point that I cannot stress strongly enough.

I can accept now that the forests are gone for 100 years; commercial deals have been done. It could have been done in 30 years and repaid and that $44 million kept coming back into our coffers. Those 60 job losses we are seeing at the moment did not have to happen. I accept all of that is going to happen, but I implore the government to take this one note out of my speech tonight: the intellectual property has to stay with ForestrySA, otherwise we are stuffed. My community has taken a big knock in confidence. We are rebuilding, times are looking up, but the state is the loser. The state does not have that $44 million coming back into its budget, and it could have.

In terms of manufacturing, what we are seeing at the moment obviously is that job losses are occurring. If you talk to sawmillers at the moment, and you talk to anybody in my region, you will see log truck after log truck after log truck—and I will say it one more time—after log truck driving out of Mount Gambier and into the port of Portland. Nearly every log that can be harvested and shipped over is being harvested and shipped over, so in a way the Chinese and Asian markets are buying the forest and taking it with them. This is disgraceful for our region, disgraceful for our sawmillers.

The point I want to make here is that we talk manufacturing, we talk value-adding, and they are beautiful words. We want to value-add, we want to manufacture in this state because this is where the jobs are, this is where we claim the GST, this is where we keep the revenue. Yet, here is a prime example of raw product being cut down, shipped out to Portland and we do not collect anything off it. We do not even collect the shipping rates off it because the Victorian government claims those. Here we are, we have manufacturers (we call them sawmillers, but for general terms let us call them manufacturers) wanting to produce product in my community that is starved of the raw product because the spot price is so much better over at the port of Portland.

If you think I am making this up, have a look at what is happening to New Zealand. Have a look at how their mill operators are operating over there when they are totally dependent on a spot price for the export market. Mill after mill is closing. Mill after mill is getting rid of their full-time workforce and putting on casuals. Why? Because when the spot price is down the mill will fire up. When the spot price is up, the mill will shut down and those people are out of work. That cannot happen in my region. That cannot happen in this state, and I would think a Labor government that believes in jobs, and so do I, that believes in looking after the workforce, and so do I, will have to work together to make sure that that does not happen in our region because again the game will be over.

In terms of other products related to timber, we have an amazing opportunity. With a little bit of investment, we could be the national institute for research and development in timber products. I openly say to my timber millers that the future does not lie necessarily with them. Their technology is getting to a point where cutting timber to planks or 4x2 is reaching its optimum level. They are getting as much recovery as they can. The future of the timber industry lies in innovation and technology. The future of timber relies on nanotechnology.

I was reading a review from Finland the other day on a process over there where they can replicate polystyrene in a wood-based product. Think about how much packaging is shipped around the world at the moment in polystyrene, which is toxic to the environment, a petrochemical offshoot. If we could replace that with a wood fibre based replica that has all the properties of polystyrene that can do the job but biodegrade in our environment, that is where the future of the timber industry is in the South-East. That technology needs investment. We have the ability with some federal help to be the national centre for research and development in timber or fibre or nanotechnology, whichever you want to call it. That is where the future lies. That is what I am passionate about.

Mount Gambier is a unique place and it throws up some unique individuals as well. It is a unique place because it is not reliant on Adelaide. It has its own water supply, it has its own transport companies, it has a size about it which means that it can be self-sufficient to a degree. It does not need to be dependent on the state, it does not need to be dependent on other communities like Adelaide. It can be self-sufficient. An investment in nanotechnology or an institute down in the South-East is where our future lies. It is more likely to happen because we already have economy of scale. We have a large surrounding population with all the transport and infrastructure needed.

One issue that came up during the election campaign is an intersection on Penola Road and Wireless Road. It has been highlighted by the RAA as the most dangerous intersection in regional South Australia. If any ministers or members of the opposition want to come down, you are always welcome in my electorate.

An honourable member: The government.

Mr BELL: Yes, we are the opposition—in government, thank you. If any members who are opposite to me in government want to come down, I would welcome the opportunity and I will take you through the intersection. I will guarantee that you will hold onto the door handle like there is no tomorrow because it is out and out dangerous. I have committed to my electorate that I will do everything I can to find a solution to that intersection, whether it be traffic lights, a roundabout, I do not care.

My conscience will not rest if somebody gets killed on my watch on that intersection. I will never forgive myself because it is the most dangerous intersection in regional South Australia. It has been an ongoing sore point for 10 years, not one or two years, not a quick fix for an election, not an election promise, but for 10 years. That is disgraceful. I need help. We need to work together to make that happen and I will be doing everything in my power to do that.

In terms of our community, we have a rich and diverse community. We have characters of all sorts. We have people who just roll their sleeves up and get into it and have a go. Believe it or not, they do not want money from the government. Well, actually that is not true. Some of them want money from the government. But what they really want is for the government to get out the way so that they can get on with doing what they want to do. I will give you an example to do with the drains. I met a great farmer down there, Mr Paltridge, and his farm borders the Eight Mile Creek Drain which has not been dredged or drained in over 10 years, so at the moment his property floods from about this time—and I was down there two weeks ago and it was completely flooded—right through until about September.

We are not talking about one or two acres; we are talking about hundreds of acres—hundreds of acres of lost productivity, hundreds of acres of lost opportunity. When I go to the Minister for Water, his response is: 'We've got $2 million for the drains; it's going to cost $7 million. You need to raise a levy.' I can tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that trying to impose a levy on the farmers of the South-East in these tough economic times is not going to be an easy task and it is something that, on the record, I will not support.

The drains are there for a reason. They were being maintained adequately for many years, and now they are not. The only reason that it keeps getting thrown up time and again is that there is no money. We need to work together to find a way through. Unfortunately, there was $6 million and it has now been reduced to $2 million, but I suggest that the money is there; it is just not a priority of this government.

I would like to spend two seconds talking about Peter's Project. Peter's Project is a project based in Warrnambool that deals with people who are suffering from cancer. It was instigated by the wife of a man who had suffered from cancer quite late in his life. Eight or nine of the last 20 weeks of his life, from when he was diagnosed, were spent in Melbourne. The impact it had on the quality of his life and the impact on his family during his last 20 weeks were quite extraordinary. From that, his wife, Vicki Jellie, organised a group and started fundraising for a cancer centre. They have received $15 million from the state government, $10 million from the federal government, and the community has raised $5 million, and that was their commitment to it.

A small community like Warrnambool being able to raise $30 million for a cancer treatment centre is to me the epitome of what true collaboration can do, and I am talking about collaboration between the federal government, the state government and the community. When a community buys into a project like that great things can happen. That is where I would like to be pitching some of my ideas and where I would like to seek support from the government in working together with the federal government, the state government and, of course, our local community.

For too long many people in the South-East have had to travel to Adelaide or Melbourne for cancer treatment, and it is a time, in a very critical part of their lives, when they are away from family and their loved ones, and in the final days, I could not imagine being in a worse place than away from your family (I am not saying the Adelaide is the worst place). They are just some ideas, and I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (22:38): What a disappointment to be speaking on the Supply Bill from this side of the house.

Mr Picton interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: Well, one thing that has come to my attention—and I get the jibes from those on the other side, and, I must admit, if I was sitting in their shoes I would be doing the same—is that there is nothing better than to be on a sure winner, and these guys are on a sure winner. I make that comment because since 1989 there have been seven elections in South Australia, and, do you know what, Madam Deputy Speaker? The people of South Australia, in six of those seven elections, have not wanted a Labor government. They have not wanted a Labor budget, they have not wanted—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WILLIAMS: —the supply—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I remind all members of standing order 142, and I remind all members that interjections are out of order and responding to interjections is out of order. I ask that the member for MacKillop be able continue his comments in silence from the rest of the house.

Mr WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; a very sound ruling. The people of South Australia do not want a budget delivered by a Labor government. They did not want it in 1989, they did not want it in 1993, they did not want it in 1997, they did not want it in 2002. Lo and behold, in 2006 they accepted a Labor government, but in 2010 and 2014 they wanted to get rid of this lot, and for very, very good reason. It is interesting that the people of South Australia are of sound mind and are quite wise, and in recent history six times out of seven they have rejected the policies put forward by Labor. Yet members opposite say 'Ha ha ha aargh, and you're over there again.' Well, the reality is—

Members interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: I do a good pirate. I left my parrot at home.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am not ruling on 'aargh'.

Mr WILLIAMS: Madam Deputy Speaker, what the members on the other side do not care about is the will of the people of South Australia; they do not care about the will of the people of South Australia. The will of the people of South Australia is that 53 per cent of the people of South Australia said 'We do not want another budget brought down by this lot.'

I was at a seminar a week and a half ago given by Associate Professor Haydon Manning on the most recent election. After he had given his address someone asked a question, and in response one of the things he said was that the Liberal Party, notwithstanding the fact that it did not increase its vote, did not increase it enough to win the election. Well, there is a door that has been opened. I happened to get the next question, and I said 'Professor Manning, I was really interested in your comment. What vote do you think the Liberal Party would have to achieve to win government, if 53 per cent is not enough? How many of the people of South Australia do you think need to reject a Labor government before we actually get a change?' There was no answer forthcoming to that particular question.

The reality is that we have a system here in South Australia that rejects the will of the people. That is a very dangerous system. It is a gerrymander. Members of this house will, I am sure, remember the situation that occurred in Queensland 20 years ago. Those opposite would say that that was an outrageous situation. Let me put to the house that the situation in South Australia today is far more outrageous than ever existed in Queensland.

Members interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: 'Ha ha' they say. Go and look at it, my friends; it is more difficult for the people of South Australia to get rid of the Labor government than it ever was for the people of Queensland to get a Labor government. Go and look at the numbers; they do not lie. Yet the Deputy Premier would say 'But that is just based on two-party preferred vote numbers, and that really does not exist. It is a mathematical construct.' Why was it that premier Frank Walsh, in 1962, was able to claim that he had a mandate—notwithstanding that he could not form government—from the people? Why was it that former Labor leader and premier Don Dunstan was able to successfully prosecute a case over many, many years to change the electoral system in South Australia?

In 1968 the Labor Party lost an election insomuch as they did not win enough seats to form government, notwithstanding the fact that they received a two-party popular vote not dissimilar to what the Liberal Party received back on 15 March, and that infuriated the people of South Australia.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Point of order of relevance: about 1968 not really having a lot to do with what we are here to discuss.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are listening and we are hoping that it will come back to something more relevant. The supply debate is a wide-ranging debate. The member for MacKillop.

Mr WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; another wise ruling. The reality is that the member has not been here all that long and would have us believe that he is all knowing. The relevance is that the people of South Australia had their opportunity to speak, and they have spoken, yet they are thwarted by a system which corrupts their will. That is the reality. If we had even a half decent electoral system in South Australia, you would expect a group that won 53 per cent of the vote would be in government and providing the budget for this state. That is the context in which I make those remarks.

At the election campaign the government ran the line that they were re-building South Australia and this was providing jobs. Let me look at the most recent budget, because I remember standing in this place and making the claim to former treasurer Foley, the former member for Port Adelaide. I used to say to him, 'You're just a borrow-and-spend treasurer.' Anybody can go out and borrow and spend. There is no real skill involved in that; anybody can do it. The skill comes in managing a budget in a sustainable way and spending the money on something which is going to bring benefit to the future of the state.

When I look at the budget, if I go back to the year 2008-09—and again I am delving back into history a bit, but that is the context of the situation we find ourselves in—the net borrowings or net lending, as it is called in the budget, is $1.456 billion. So in that particular year there was a net operating balance of minus $207 million even after we had borrowed $1.456 billion, and we still had a deficit of $207 million—hardly what I would call prudent budgetary management.

The next year, 2009-10, lo and behold, was an election year. In March 2010 there was an election. Lo and behold, we had a budget credit, a budget surplus of $636 million. How did we do that? We did not borrow $1.4 billion. We borrowed $1.7 billion. We borrowed $1,725,000,000 to bring down a budget surplus of $636 million.

The following year, 2010-11, we had a surplus of $21 million. How did we achieve that? It must have been a good turnaround. No, no, no, we borrowed $1.898 billion, almost $2 billion of borrowing, and we had a surplus of $21 million.

Mr Treloar: Smoke and mirrors.

Mr WILLIAMS: Smoke and mirrors—a hell of a lot more—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are not going to respond to an interjection, are you?

Mr WILLIAMS: No, absolutely not, Madam Deputy Speaker. In 2011-12 we were back into deficit budgeting—only $41 million. I can see why we could not balance the books that year—we only borrowed $1.4 billion; $1,424 million of borrowings, and we still managed to spend $41 million more than we had in revenues. There is a pattern developing here, but it gets worse: the next year (2012-13) the financial year finished less than 12 months ago, a budget deficit of $1.313 billion. Oh, dear, we only borrowed $1,295 million that year. That is not much; we could have done a lot better than that.

The next year (the current financial year) we are looking at a deficit of $1,148 million. That is on the back of a borrowing in the current financial year of $1,771 million. It gets worse: next year (the last budget predicted) in 2014-15 we would have a deficit of $576 million but we will only borrow $260 million. Wow! Because the government went to the most recent election trying to say that we are on top of the problem. But the year after, 2015-16—this is getting to when the new Royal Adelaide is going to come onto the books and the government wants to show that it is on top of the game, 'Oh, we'll have a surplus of $222 million. How fantastic will that be?' Whoops, we will have to borrow $2,342 million to achieve that—$2,342 million of borrowings.

The state of South Australia is rapidly going bankrupt. That is the cold, hard reality. No wonder the people of South Australia rejected this government. No wonder the people of South Australia four years ago rejected this government. The people of South Australia are quite smart; they know that this lot are useless; they know that they are hopeless and they know that they are driving them broke.

They know that those sitting opposite do not give a damn. In a couple of years' time they will swan off into retirement with their pension, and who will pick up the bill? The hardworking mums and dads of South Australia . They are the people who will pick up the bill and that is why they rejected this lot four years ago; that is why they rejected this lot a couple of months ago. That is why those very people are saying, 'What the hell can we do? What's going wrong? Why can't we get rid of this lot?' That is why they are saying that.

South Australia is in a very unfortunate position. We have been a mendicant state for far too long. We receive, and have for many years, about $1.30 in GST payments for every dollar that is paid by citizens in South Australia to the GST, through horizontal fiscal equalisation. The Premier complains that other Premiers are saying, 'Let's change the way we redistribute the GST.' I have to say that I have some problems with the argument that we put forward.

I really have some problems, because our argument is, 'Look, we have no fiscal responsibility. We don't control our expenditure. Our revenues are falling because we've destroyed the capacity of the private sector to operate in this state, yet we want you to keep handing us money.' I can understand premiers in other states getting a little bit angry about that. I just hope that they hold off for long enough until we actually get a decent government in South Australia and we show the rest of this nation what we can do, because we can do it, but we cannot do it under a Labor government, because they have no damn idea.

I heard my colleague the member for Mount Gambier, and thank God he is in this place. We had an Independent down there a few years ago who said he was fighting for the local community and the government made him the minister for forests. He sat at the cabinet table and the cabinet took a decision to sell the forests. That did the people of the South-East a lot of good. I invite every member of the government to drive down to Portland over the border in Victoria and have a look at the wharf and see what is there ready to be shipped out: giant stacks of timber, giant stacks of whole log, which used to be processed in South Australia.

They used to provide jobs. They used to provide value-adding in the community represented by myself and the member from Mount Gambier. They are now shipped out. Why? Because this government took a fire-sale price for a very valuable asset that had been built up over more than a hundred years. We did not owe anything on the asset. It was providing important jobs and we flogged it off at a fire-sale price and now we see the whole logs shipped out and we have the minister standing up here today saying, 'No, no the timber industry is really going gangbusters.'

It is going gangbusters. I talk to people in the logging industry and they have never had it so good. Do you know why? Because every tree that can be felled is carted down to Portland and put on a ship and shipped off to China or Korea. They are flat out carting logs out of South Australia, logs that used to be processed in and around Mount Gambier, Tarpeena and Nangwarry. It is going out of South Australia, and this lot on the other side of the house would have us believe that they are interested in jobs.

Go down to Nangwarry where there are barely any timber worker jobs left. Walk around Mount Gambier where hundreds and hundreds of people have lost their jobs in the timber industry and explain to them the sense of flogging off an asset with, as the member for Mount Gambier explained, a book value of over $1 billion for a little over half that. Explain to them why all those logs are being carted down to Portland and shipped overseas. It is disappointing that I have run out of time because there are many more things I would like to talk about.

Time expired.

Mr WINGARD (Mitchell) (22:58): I rise today to speak on the Supply Bill and note that we are authorising the appropriation of $3.94 billion for the Consolidated Account for the Public Service of this state for the financial year ending 30 June 2014. We will be supporting this as a matter of course so that the state can function until the budget is brought down later this month. This allows me to outline some of the truths about the overall state of South Australia's finances and, much like the member for MacKillop, I will be running through a few numbers just to get things clear.

Under Labor, SA's debt has grown from just over $3 billion 12 years ago to almost $14 billion now. That is an increase of $11 billion or $11,000 million. It can be argued that in this state you need to carry some debt, but surely if you are going to have a debt like this, an amount like this, you want to be growing in key areas of economic prosperity, but sadly we are not here in South Australia, and that is a big concern for all South Australians. South Australia lags behind the rest of the states in Australia in so many areas. We sit fifth and sixth in so many key economic indicators released by respected institute CommSec.

I would like to use a sporting analogy here to put in context how dire the situation is for South Australia. I would like to talk about economy in football terms—why not? I would like to talk about the State of Origin scene. It was not that long ago, and I know those opposite would remember. A few of them might be too young, but I know there are a couple there who are old enough to remember State of Origin football. South Australia played against Victoria, and we would have great battles with the big V. In fact, South Australia loved nothing more than beating the big V. That was in sport, and that was across the board. It gave South Australia great pride to be able to mix it with the best, and in particular to mix it with Victoria.

Economically now it is a totally different ball game. In fact, we are not even on the same playing field as Victoria these days. We have been relegated to the second tier competition and we are playing against Tasmania—that's right, Tasmania. In economic terms, Tasmania has just taken a mark 25 metres out directly in front and they are lining up for goal. When they kick this goal, they are going to go to the front, and that is the problem we have. We used to play the big V and now we are in the second tier comp, tackling Tasmania.

That is where the Weatherill state Labor government has positioned us. The Weatherill Labor government has led our South Australian team to a position where we look likely to be beaten by Tasmania. The South Australia I remember, the South Australia I want to be, should be back in the top division taking on the big players, and to my mind we should start knocking off Victoria again when and where we can.

The question is: why is South Australia performing so badly economically? I am getting off football now. I have mentioned the debilitating death that the Weatherill government has imposed on this state, and that is the start. The Premier and his team are not kicking any goals at all. They are not doing anything to bring sustainable growth to our economy and what is more, they are blaming everyone else, especially the federal government. There are blaming everyone else and anyone else, and they are taking no responsibility for their own poor performance.

The facts are that the state Labor government's poor management of South Australia's finances has us playing in the second division these days and it is its uncontrolled spending that has us performing so badly in so many of those key economic indicators. The state Labor government has delivered six deficit budgets in the past seven years—that's right; six deficit budgets. It promises surplus budgets every time, but only once did it deliver a surplus and that was in 2010, when it received over $1 billion in handouts from their mates Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd in Canberra. It was a massive gift and they still fell short of their promised budget figure.

Six deficit budgets in seven years: SA Labor just cannot balance the books and that is the worry. They have no control of spending, and it is a major concern. In 2013-14 they promised a $480 million surplus and they actually produced a $1 billion deficit—a $1,000 million deficit That is almost a $1.5 billion miss. That is like taking a shot at goal and putting the ball out in the full and off the planet. That is not a little bit wrong; that is not a little overspend; that is alarming, and South Australia should be worried.

What happens when there is so much reckless spending, when there is so much overspend? Labor just cannot help themselves. They recklessly throw the credit card at everything and think that is the solution, but this Weatherill government continues to rack up debt, and they are thinking about how they are going to pay it back. I am not sure, but even they must understand that money goes out and money has to come in. If billions keep going out, then you have to get more coming in or you get into very big financial trouble.

That is where they have put this state in trouble. As I said, they have struggled to get the balance right. I stress again, after promising a surplus budget for the last seven years, only once have they delivered, and in 2012-13 they missed their mark by more than $1 billion both times. They missed the mark by more than $1 billion. It fascinates me, it staggers me and it staggers those out there in the community as well.

This is a monstrous blowout—two years in a row. If you missed your budget by that much in business, you would not last long, but we let these guys get away with it. If Labor had delivered on what they had promised, our state would be $5.5 billion better off. Imagine what we could do with that money.

A lot could be bought in South Australia with $5,500 million. Just imagine the projects we could be investing in. A $5.5 billion error in seven years of budgets is inexcusable. Do not worry, though; they know. They are well aware, and that is why they pass the buck. They are doing everything they can to avoid taking responsibility for their shameful mismanagement of our economy.

You will hear them blame the federal government. In fact, you probably have over the past little while—buck passing at its best. Remember, it is the state Labor government that has produced the six deficit budgets in the past seven years—no-one else, them—and they are the ones who have racked up the state debt. The Premier cannot hide from that fact and neither can his team.

This passion for overspending by the state Labor team leads us to taxes. We know Labor are good at moving money out of the state budget coffers. I have outlined the recent multibillion dollar deficits. The Premier and his team have no worries there. They can shuffle the money out, but how will they go about bringing the money in?

That brings us to the Labor Party's love of taxes. Payroll tax is one. This is a tax that is crippling business in this state. It is killing off incentive for people looking to start or looking to grow their business in SA. It is a tax on jobs. With all the overspend by the state Labor government, they love payroll tax. That is what is crippling businesses: all the taxes here in South Australia.

Land tax is another that puts people off moving or investing in SA—another tax that Labor loves. They have got to pay for their overspend somehow. Do not start me on the proposed car park tax; that is just another money grabbing exercise for the Weatherill Labor government to try to take more money out of the pockets of South Australians to fix up their 12 years of financial mismanagement of the South Australian economy.

History shows that SA Labor has had 12 years of spending our money. Remember, the state debt has risen by almost $11 billion in that time but, even with all the excessive spending, there has been no growth in economic prosperity. The only growth we have seen under SA Labor over 12 years has been in the cost of living that hurts families and hurts businesses. These are factors that prevent growth and economic prosperity.

Electricity prices are up more than 150 per cent after 12 years of state Labor. Gas prices are up more than 130 per cent after 12 years of state Labor. Water prices are up—wait for it—more than 225 per cent after 12 years of state Labor. State taxes are up 92 per cent—the highest in the nation. CPI is up 40 per cent. They are the cost of living factors that are hurting all South Australians. Everyone in South Australia is feeling the pain of these rises, and it all stems back to mismanagement of the state's finances by Premier Weatherill and his team.

These imposts hurting families also hurt businesses as well. Higher electricity, gas and water prices deter so many businesses from starting up or expanding here in South Australia. The member for MacKillop has just talked about it in the South-East, as did the member for Mount Gambier. Businesses are doing it tough down there, and they are doing it tough right across South Australia, because of those imposts that are slowing up opportunities, slowing up families and slowing up businesses. They want to grow and want to expand in South Australia, but they cannot. Those imposts are in place because of the overspend by this state Labor government.

At worst, we need to create a level playing field with the rest of the country. Under this state Labor government, business in South Australia has been competing with the handbrake on. Only last month, The Advertiser described South Australia's retail environment as 'anti-business, uncompetitive, inefficient, over-regulated, overtaxed and out of touch with economic reality'. They are words that we just cannot have associated with South Australia as we go forward.

Gilmour's Comfort Shoes reported to the Productivity Commission that, 'It is easier to start up a business in the US than it is in Adelaide.' They have businesses in other major capital cities here in Australia, but that is what they are saying. Those opposite me have to start listening to what business is saying.

It has been said before, but I have got close friends who experienced it last weekend. They were in town for the footy. The Crows beat the Suns in the early game on a Sunday afternoon. They wanted to go for a drink and a bite to eat in the city. The cafes and the restaurants were closed. I do not know what business does not want to make money when it is there to be made, but clearly the environment is not right. Even with a $600 million investment in the new Adelaide Oval, this government has failed to create an environment that allows businesses to flourish.

Why and how do these businesses not open up on a weekend when there are people in town? The only thing you can put your finger on is the cost of doing business. That is why they do not open: there is nothing in it for them; in fact, they have a loss if they open on the weekend. That is something this government has to look at. They must create a better environment for businesses to operate here in South Australia.

The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell: We put 50,000 people past their business every week.

Mr WINGARD: This state Labor government just does not agree. They do not get it; they do not understand. You can put them all by, but if they do not want to go in—

The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell interjecting:

Mr WINGARD: If it's not worth their while opening, it is not worth their while opening.

The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell interjecting:

Mr WINGARD: They have got to understand that if it is not worth their while opening, it is not worth their while opening.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind the members present that it is out of order to interject and it is out of order—I am on my feet, which means you sit down—

Mr WINGARD: Sorry.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: —to respond to interjections. I remind you all of standing order 142 and that it is getting very late at night and we only have a little while longer to go, so let's finish off on a really good note. Member for Mitchell.

Mr WINGARD: My apologies, Deputy Speaker, it is—

The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Be quiet.

Mr WINGARD: —just very obvious that if it does not stack up, it does not stack up. If it is not worth opening, if it is going to cost you money to run your business, why would you open? You cannot just keep handing it back. You cannot keep handing it back, and those opposite have got to work it out. You have—

The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell: You've got no idea—no idea.

Mr WINGARD: —to create a business environment that people can work in. You would argue that if people do not get that—

The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have to call the minister to order, I am afraid.

Mr WINGARD: If those opposite do not get that, they do not understand business, and it is becoming very evident right here, right now. This state Labor government has created a negative spiral for business in South Australia, and it is continuing to spiral downwards and further downwards, pushing South Australia's business confidence to some of the lowest levels in the nation.

I know when I speak to people in my electorate and we talk about South Australia's economy, it is not sexy, but the fact is that people must be made aware of what is going on. The facts are that South Australia has been held back for too long and they have to be moved forward and moved out of the second division. It is now SA versus Tasmania; no longer do we talk about us taking on the Big V.

The mismanagement of the economy by this government has also had an impact on employment. People want opportunities to help themselves, and under this Labor government these opportunities have dried up all over the state. While doorknocking and talking to people at supermarkets and around the electorate of Mitchell, that is what they tell me: they want opportunities to work and they want opportunities to grow.

It is hitting hard in Adelaide's south and in my electorate, where unemployment is steadily rising because of the lack of opportunities. Unemployment has grown from 4.2 per cent to 7.9 per cent in the past 12 months. Youth unemployment has risen to almost 15 per cent. What does the future hold for young people? What does the Weatherill Labor government offer young people of the future generation?

SA apprentice and trainee completions were the worst performing in Australia, with SA apprentice and trainee commencements slumping by 50 per cent in the past 12 months. The sum of $15 million has been cut out of the Skills for All training budget, and a further $15 million will come from other saving measures by the state Labor government. They will start to blame other people, but history shows that it is their debt; they have racked it up, they have to pay for it. That is a fact.

The Premier is just happy to watch on as the next generation withers on the vine. They have the debt, they are burdened with the debt, and they are going to have to pay the debt, but none of these opportunities is being presented. Again, the next generation will not even know of the rivalry we had with the Big V. They will not even know of the rivalry we had with Victoria because they will never get to play them; they will be too busy playing against Tasmania.

What you will hear over the next few weeks, if you have not already, is the state Labor team, as I said, blaming everyone for the financial mess they have put South Australian in. The Treasurer is blaming the federal government at every opportunity for South Australia's rising state debt, when the reality is that the largest deficit budgets for SA came when the Rudd-Gillard Labor government was calling the shots in Canberra.

Labor state, Labor federal, and the deficit across two years was almost $2 billion. Whose fault is that? I will tell you: it was the state Labor Premier's and his team. Do not be fooled by the rhetoric you will hear from the Premier and his team; they are the masters of pollie tricks, not politics. They will push the blame and accept no responsibility for their 12 years of financial mismanagement.

The Weatherill Labor government is trying to hide the fact that late last year they asked the education department CEO to cut $230 million from his budget—a fact that CEO Mr Tony Harrison admitted on FIVEaa radio late last year. That is nearly a quarter of a billion dollars that is being cut out of the education budget here in South Australia. The SA Labor Party is cutting a quarter of a billion dollars out of the education budget to cover its mismanagement, and the blame will be put on the feds. The deficit is from before.

There is also a billion dollars in cuts to health. The Premier himself confirmed this on radio just last month. The Premier and the health minister have their knives out and they are cutting the health budget by $1 billion, again to cover their long-running mismanagement of the budget.

There is $150 million coming out of SA Police, but watch them dodge and weave when they are confronted about this. Again, they will blame the feds because of their poor mismanagement, and it has been going on for a long time—12 years. You cannot cover up 12 years of mismanagement. They take no responsibility and they blame others.

They want to have a crack at us when the member for MacKillop talks about the Electoral Commission and perhaps some changes that could be made there. They say that we have to take responsibility for our own actions, yet when we talk about the 12 years of debt and deficit from this government they want to dodge and weave, and pass the buck to the feds. It astounds me.

They have also tried to be tricky when it comes to the Public Service and they have tried to blame everyone else, but they are planning to cut there as well. The Public Service has grown by 20,000 full-time employees over the 10 years of the state Labor government, and even the state Labor government is worried about the growth being out of control. That appeared to be backed up by the Treasurer today when he refused to rule out closing down Service SA centres across the state, so it is alarming and it is concerning.

We also look at other factors that come to bear in this: we talk about people wanting to be in this state and opportunities being here in this state. That is what people keep telling me they want. They want opportunities to be able to perform and compete on a level playing field with everyone across the nation.

When it does not stack up to open their business on a weekend, when the numbers do not stack up to be able to turn a profit because of the poor economic situation and the poor business conditions that are created by the highest state taxes and the most debilitating conditions to do business in the country, it has to be looked at by those opposite. They have to understand that businesses want to survive. They want to work. They want opportunities, but they are not being given them by the government of the day, and the state Labor government must take responsibility for that.

With that comes net interstate migration and, over the course of this Labor government, net interstate migration is at 33,000 over the 12 years of this government. People want to leave. They do not want to stay. The opportunities are not here. It is alarming. It is worrying. I have children and I deal with a lot of kids through coaching footy, young people who are now becoming adults, and you see it every day: opportunities are not there for them. It is concerning, alarming and worrying. We must go to battle for these people. We must go to battle for the younger generation. We are leaving them with debt and no opportunity.

At some stage we have to draw a line in the sand and say, 'We are giving you a fair playing field. We are giving you a level playing field. We are giving you the ability to take on the big V again, and mix it up with the Victorians, the New South Welshmen and the Queenslanders.' At the moment, as I said, Tasmania is where we are playing, and Tasmania are lining up to kick that goal and go in front of South Australia.

We cannot accept it. We have to stop it and we have to work harder to create opportunities for businesses, for people and for young people to get ahead. They want opportunities to work, to create more for this state and move South Australia forward. In closing, while I support the Supply Bill, I do not support the waste of this state Labor government. It is hurting the state and it is hurting the future prosperity of our young people and businesses alike.

Time expired.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (23:18): I rise, too, late this evening to support the Supply Bill. I will not be using the sporting analogies that the member for Mitchell has.

Members interjecting:

Mr TRELOAR: It was a very good analogy at the time though. We have had lots of contributions from this side. I would particularly like to congratulate our leader, the member for Dunstan, on his speech. He stood on his feet for two hours this afternoon and did an outstanding job highlighting the shortcomings of this government and also the problems that we are confronting with regard to the budget in this state. Of course, the Supply Bill asks for an extra $3.94 billion to ensure that the operations of government continue. As was alluded to earlier today, a big part of that, of course, is to pay wages.

There are essentially no strings attached to this funding. Convention dictates that it is agreed to by this house and, of course, we support that convention and support the Supply Bill. What we do not support, and it was announced by our leader today, is the car park tax; we will be opposing that when it is before us in this parliament. It is yet another hit on business, yet another hit on the CBD, and I think goes against the government's stated aim of a vibrant city centre.

This is the fifth Supply Bill that I have made a contribution on, and it is always a good opportunity, I think, to outline some of the funding priorities for my electorate, the electorate of Flinders and, of course, as all of the speakers from this side have done, also to highlight the government's deficiencies, of which there are many.

Sadly, as I have gone back through my speeches on the Supply Bill 2010, when I was first elected, 2011, 2012 and 2013—of course, we have been in opposition all that time—I have realised that the funding priorities remain the same and that the government's deficiencies remain the same because, of course, it is the same Labor government that we have had to endure since 2002.

I have spoken previously in this place and will continue to speak about the lack of investment in infrastructure right across the state but also in the seat of Flinders—roads, in particular. Obviously, the RAA has identified a $400 million road maintenance backlog. This leaves some of our country roads, some of our prime freight routes, in a desperation situation. In fact, it is holding back our industries and the efficient and safe movement of freight right across this state, right across this nation. This country rides on the back of a truck. If the freight task fails, this state's economy fails completely.

I have talked about the lack of investment into the ports on Eyre Peninsula, particularly the Port of Thevenard, where it has been highlighted for a long time the deficiency, the lack of depth and the lack of ability for that port to service effectively the grain industry, the salt industry, the gypsum industry and the mineral sands industry. We make do. We have one belt on the wharf at the Port of Thevenard, and it is simply inadequate to progress those industries any further than where they are.

The power infrastructure on Eyre Peninsula is desperately in need of investment; it is barely adequate to meet current demand. In fact, there are fish processing facilities in Port Lincoln within sight of the wind farm at Cathedral Rocks which are unable to access any greater supply of power, so much so that they are restricted in the amount of refrigeration they can run in their business. It is a ridiculous situation.

I have talked about the Tod Highway, and it has been my primary focus as far as roads go on Eyre Peninsula. It is a state road. In particular, I highlight the 100 or so kilometres between Karkoo and Kyancutta and the dangerous nature of that road due to its lack of width. The government department assures me that it meets all safety requirements, but I would suggest that they go out and have a drive on it.

In fact, a friend of mine had an accident on that road just last week, and this is a very serious situation. A friend of mine was travelling northwards towards the township of Lock. Her wheels fell off the verge of the road and into the gravel. She had the presence of mind not to over-correct, but all the same the car left the road, spun around, she went into the trees and wrote off the car. Fortunately, she was not hurt, but this is a very serious situation, where the condition of the road puts those road users at risk of accident and in danger of their life. I do not know what is going to happen. The member for Mount Gambier made a similar assertion, that we must take some responsibility for accidents that occur when the safety of the road, the intersection or the infrastructure is inadequate.

The health budget is a third of the state's budget. It is an incredibly large burden on the state. It is also a primary responsibility of the state. For much of the life of the last parliament, I and other country members spoke about the importance of the Patient Assistance Transport Scheme. The government were dragged kicking and screaming into conducting a review. Finally, they were forced to do that, ironically, after a motion by the member for Frome, who was then sitting on this side. Finally, we have seen an increase in that funding promised by the government.

Whether Labor follows through on its promises is always a question, but this scheme is of paramount importance to country people. It enables people who have a very serious long-term illness or one-off condition to travel to a specialist which is not available in their own small town. It supplements their travel costs so they can receive adequate medical treatment. It is a scheme that has been sadly underfunded for the last 14 years, in fact, so we wait with interest to see whether that increase in funding comes through.

One of the challenges we face in health in the country is the future of small country hospitals. In the seat of Flinders we have seen significant improvements and investment in the larger hospitals at Ceduna and Port Lincoln and, also, in the seat of Giles at Whyalla, and I give credit where credit is due: they are fantastic facilities. I do fear that the long-term future of the smaller country hospitals is under a bit of a cloud. Make no mistake, Deputy Speaker, that the people of those communities will fight tooth and nail to hold onto those services.

One of the real challenges—and this is a challenge for us all—is being able to access GPs who are prepared to live and work in a small country community, often on their own. I fear that the country GP really is a dying breed, and many of the doctors in that role now will tell you as much. It is really difficult for them to find locums, it is difficult for them to find partners in business and it is difficult for them to find a buyer when they want to sell their business and retire. Many of our country doctors are at the age where retirement is approaching.

It is a challenge for us all. I think we have to be a bit flexible and think laterally about how we continue to supply that. Unfortunately, it is a reality that many of our medical graduates are specialising immediately. It is not a career of choice to become a general practitioner and, even less so, a country GP.

We have heard a lot from this side about the costs of doing business in this state. I came from the private sector: I was in primary production for a long time and still have an interest in it. Time and again we see that the cost of doing business in this state really is having a direct impact on our competitiveness—our ability to compete with interstate jurisdictions and overseas jurisdictions. I will use the sector as an example because I know it best and it is one we can use. As primary producers in grains or livestock, we compete directly with interstate counterparts, we compete in a global market and we compete directly with overseas competitors.

I export wheat and I compete directly against the Canadians, the Americans, the Europeans and the Argentinians, and against the emerging agricultural powerhouse of Brazil and the old Soviet Union. All of those people, if they have a competitive advantage, are in the box seat. Unfortunately, the cost of doing business in this state, in agriculture or any other business, is such that we are becoming less and less competitive.

Regulation and red tape are things that governments talk about all the time. Governments always talk about reducing regulation and red tape, but it never seems to come to pass. In the last few weeks I have been talking to the aquaculture industry on the West Coast about the cost recovery regime that this government is implementing on that industry. This government has developed a business model whereby it creates a service and provides that service to a sector, in this case the aquaculture industry, and the government gets to a point where it believes it is an essential service and can no longer provide it free of charge, so it begins to charge the industry participants themselves to recover the cost and cover the cost of providing that service. So, we finish up with a service being supplied by the government, which the sector never asked for, does not need but has to pay for. It is a bizarre situation, but it is a business model I have seen this government implement time and again.

I will talk about marine parks, which have been topical for some years now and came up again in question time today. I cannot for the life of me understand why the government is implementing so many sanctuary zones and excluding fishing from the very productive waters of the West Coast, when a well-managed fishery is already in place and there is no identifiable risk or challenge to the integrity of that environment. It simply does not stack up. This is the biggest snow job of all time. Immense consultation was carried out—the government says that and I saw it myself.

There was an incredible amount of consultation—community members, fishing industry members, recreational fishers—all came to the table and all contributed in good faith and in the end the government did not listen. It was brutal in its cynicism. We are on the cusp of some of our most viable and profitable fisheries being excluded from their most productive fishing grounds. Despite the rhetoric we hear from this government, there seems no interest whatsoever in maintaining or growing jobs, and in fact this particular move will see jobs being reduced. It will in fact have devastating economic effects on those coastal regions.

Do members realise that 22 per cent of the land area of this state is under national park or under government control of some sort? That has increased markedly in the last 14 years of Labor. I understand it was about 8 per cent in 2002. The government is proud of this figure. I would say that this is an embarrassment. The government actively has taken land out of production. I know very well that in the seat of Stuart, in the north-east pastoral zone that I was visiting just 12 months ago, there are productive and profitable sheep stations up there that have been bought by the government and they shut the gate—lock them up, taken out of production.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: Bulldozing dams.

Mr TRELOAR: Bulldozing dams. It is a ludicrous situation. When this state is crying out for economic activity they buy a property, shut the gate and close it down! Who looks after it? Who looks after the weeds, who controls the vermin? Nobody! It is a bizarre situation, and they are proud of what they are doing. I am a firm believer in our having the ability and capacity to have a productive and sustainable landscape. The days of 'shut the gate' conservation are well and truly over. This is bipartisan.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I can hear it rattling around the room.

Mr TRELOAR: Thank you, member for Newland, you are very kind. I owe you one.

Members interjecting:

Mr TRELOAR: It is 11.35. To get back to marine park sanctuary zones if I can for a moment, the Premier said this week, in response to a question, that buyers of our fish and marine scale product would be prepared to pay a premium for that which has been caught or grown in a marine park environment. Now, I do not know what land the Premier is living in, but this seems to me pure fantasy. It is part of that séance economics that seems prevalent amongst socialist governments that they will all sit around in a circle, hold hands and think of an idea and everything will be fine.

The truth is that most of the people I know go to a farmers market a couple of times a year, buy a bottle of olive oil and a tin of pickles, go home happy and that is a wonderful thing to do, but the vast majority of people shop to a budget. Most people shop at a supermarket and they do that out of necessity. I ask you: why would anyone pay more than they ever had to for anything? It does not happen.

Our leader spoke about his visit to New Zealand last week and I will very quickly in the closing minutes reiterate some of the things he said, because I accompanied him on that visit. I am proud to say it was the first time either of us had accessed our travel budget for the 12 months, so we decided to take the opportunity to travel to New Zealand and see what a good centre-right government can do in a difficult situation.

We saw that in 2008 the National Party in New Zealand came to power and took a deliberate strategy of not cutting spending, but maintaining spending and increasing growth, and they have got to a point now where they are delivering a surplus in their budget for the first time since 2008. It took some commitment, it took some effort and it was quite deliberate. They have been focused on growth, focused on exports. They have had 4 per cent growth on an annual basis and they are working towards a point where 40 per cent of their GDP will come from exports.

Now, this is something that South Australia could do if the economic settings were right. We do not have those economic settings right at the moment. Essentially, New Zealand is a country, it has an economy about the same size as Victoria so it is larger than this state, but it is very limited in natural resources. It has good rainfall, it has reasonable soils, and its economy is based on agriculture.

They exist on the far side of the world quite some distance from markets and yet they are punching above their weight, so we have to look at what successful economies are doing and see if we can learn from that. It is a great story and it is something I am sure we will hear more about, because in so many of the economic indicators in this state we are just not ranking, and I will run through some of them in this last couple of minutes.

South Australia is generally sixth or seventh on most of the key economic indicators; that means just above or just below Tasmania. At least Tasmania has got a Liberal government now. I suspect we will probably be coming in at seventh for most of them in the next little while, particularly after the upcoming budget on June 19. South Australia's jobless rate is up almost 28 per cent on the decade average. In 2012-13 South Australia was the only state to record a decline in exports, and exports are forecast to continue to decline in each of the next two years.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: Up by 12 per cent last year.

Mr TRELOAR: This is from Deloittes March 2014; that is what they are saying. South Australia's economic growth is forecast to be up to four times slower than the national growth average—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Flinders does not have to respond to the interjections. He is doing a very good job and he is going to continue his remarks—

Mr TRELOAR: I am highlighting the shortcomings of the current government's economic settings.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: —until his time expires which is now, unfortunately.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (23:38): At 20 to 12 this evening I expect I will be the last speaker tonight, and I am sure everybody will be pleased when I finish so that they can all go home. I would like to first of all congratulate some of the new Liberal MPs who have made their supply speeches. I think they have done an outstanding job and I have been very pleased to see some very genuine, very well thought out, very passionate speeches on behalf of their electorates. I take my chance now to speak on behalf of the electorate of Stuart on the Supply Bill.

As we all know, the bill is about allocating money and giving permission for the government to spend the money they need to get through. I note that it is $3.941 billion that is being asked for, and I also note that it was $3.205 billion that was asked for last year—a 23 per cent increase in 12 months that the government is asking the permission of this house to continue to spend. I think that is illustrative of the way the government is going about running this state and illustrative of why our finances are in such poor shape. A 23 per cent increase is significant.

Unless a family home happened to get a significant pay rise, which could happen and good luck to them if it did, it would be unlikely that they would increase their spending in that way. I think that speaks volumes about why our state is in the situation we are in at the moment. Let me be as fair as I can about this: I recognise that we are speaking in a very positive nation—Australia. We are not dealing with the types of difficulties that Russia and Ukraine are dealing with at the moment, we are not an African nation where 200 schoolgirls have been stolen essentially. We are fighting about ideas to improve where we are, but if we do not do that we will not stay good and we will not stay as fortunate as we are. We have to fight for those ideas, and we fight passionately because we believe we have a much better way of running this state both socially and financially than the government does.

The basics of budgeting cannot be avoided. You cannot spend more than you earn for very long. It comes back to bite you. That is exactly where we are at the moment. This government has promised surpluses every year for the last seven years but delivered a surplus once in the last seven years. You do not have to be Einstein or a CPA to recognise that that is just not sustainable. The issues with regard to debt, income spending, relativity to equity, interest payments, they all come back. They are basic. It is the same thing that affects households and businesses. They all affect government as well.

This government seems intent on continuing to borrow and build until there are even fewer jobs, fewer services and fewer people living here. People are leaving this state in droves and it is a great shame. The Treasurer knows this; he is a smart guy. It is not a popular thing to say, but he is a smart guy, and he understands this. Labor keeps focussing on elections rather than what is best for our state, spending on big, impressive, glitzy, glamorous infrastructure, rather than on what is best for our state, and I understand those things because they are nice, shiny positive things that the majority of people would like to use.

I understand the appeal, but the reality is that every member of parliament, regardless of where they sit in this chamber, has to make up their own mind about how long this can go on for, about whether they think that is sustainable. If they think it is not sustainable, and I do not think it is sustainable, then it is immoral to continue to support it. I think that is a challenge that even Labor government MPs are going to have to face eventually. I think that the two Independent MPs are going to have to face that probably sooner rather than later. Our job is to do what we believe is best for the state, and I cannot accept that even members opposite believe that continuing to spend more than you earn for an extended period of time is good for the state.

The Treasurer told parliament that he will keep all of his election promises. He said that a week after the federal budget when he had enormous amounts of advice from all of his staff. He said that this Labor government would keep every single one of the promises that it took to the election. However, he has started to change his language. He is seeming to backpedal on that, and he is trying to start to blame the federal government for some of the decisions he is going to have to make.

I think that is wrong on two levels. I think it is wrong because all of the information that we had available to us before the federal budget gave us a very good indication on where this budget was going. However, I think it is also unacceptable for the government to say that they are very disappointed with the federal government for changing its commitments because it received new information when it came to government—new, more accurate and more disappointing information about the condition of the nation's economy when they replaced Labor at the federal level.

Our state government wants to say that is an unacceptable reason for the federal government to have changed its course. And, yet, when exactly the same thing happens to the state government it wants to say, 'Oh, but it's okay for us to change our course.' You just cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that the federal government should have kept all its commitments, complain that it did not, and then proceed to do exactly the same thing yourself. You cannot have it both ways.

It is also important to point out that the federal government will pass on successive increases in funding to our state over the forward estimates. We are not going backwards; we are going forwards. We will get more money from the federal government in upcoming years than we do currently. It is also important to point out that the state government, before the federal budget was announced, said it would take over $900 million out of health, about $230 million out of education, $150 million out of police, and many more cuts. So it would be completely disingenuous, and the public, the media, and South Australians very broadly, will not accept the government blaming their budget situation on the federal government.

When you add to that the reality of the successive deficits, the overspending over the last 12 years that this government has undertaken, the story that the Treasurer, the Premier and the government are currently trying to paint just does not wash, and people will not buy it. The reality is that the government is having to eat its own mess at the moment.

I suspect that is largely because the government predicted that that would be our job. The government predicted that we would be the ones left in this very difficult situation after the March election and we would be the ones trying to balance the books after so many years of financial mismanagement. However, as fate would have it, they have to do it now, so that pressure is really focused on them.

The Treasurer was asked in question time today whether he agrees with the former treasurer and also with the former finance minister that the government is borrowing money to pay wages. He replied that it was all okay because the big spending was actually on infrastructure projects. He said the new RAH is the biggest infrastructure project in the nation right now.

Bragging about that is terribly concerning to me because we could have had exactly the same hospital but could have spent $1 billion less over the life of the project. It seems really peculiar to me that the Treasurer wants to brag about the biggest infrastructure project going on in the nation at the moment when we could have spent $1 billion less and received exactly the same in return. It does not make sense that the government is locked into big spending commitments, so we have very little flexibility at the moment. The government's only choice now is to cut even more services that it should actually be providing to the people of South Australia.

Every time the Premier or the Treasurer, or any minister, is asked they say, 'Wait for the budget.' Now, they did say two weeks ago, 'We will fulfil all our promises,' but now they say, 'Wait for the budget.' When it really gets sticky for them they change their language again. The Minister for Correctional Services was asked in question time today about rumours that the government is looking into privatising services in prisons. He was not allowed to answer probably because they thought he would spill the beans.

Instead, the Treasurer answered, and implied that the opposition has such a policy. That is just not true. I was the shadow leading up to the election. You will find no such policy, you will find no such proposal for a policy, and you will find no minutes or notes or suggestions anywhere of such a policy; it is just not true. However, it is a very poorly kept secret that the government is looking at privatising the operation of our prisons.

The Liberal opposition is not but I am told, on good authority, that the Labor government is considering outsourcing the operation of prisons in our state, and it is worth looking at some of the detail of the question I asked the Minister for Correctional Services today in question time and the answer that the Treasurer gave on his behalf. In his answer the Treasurer talked about assets, but the question was actually about operations, about jobs, about people. The Treasurer, in his answer, said:

The government has made its views on privatisation of public assets very clear, and we stand by those pronouncements.

However, the question was about operations, the question was about jobs, and the question was about people, and the Treasurer did not address that question. The Minister for Correctional Services was not allowed to answer, and the Treasurer answered a different question.

The fact that the government is considering this at the moment is indicative of where this Labor government has taken our state's finances over the last 12 years. This government cannot blame the GFC, this government cannot blame the federal government, it cannot blame climate change, it cannot blame any excuse it might like to drag up. It cannot blame anyone else. The government has to blame itself for where we are heading.

On June 19, when the Treasurer stands up and tries to blame anyone and everyone except his team he will be flat, dead wrong and people will not believe him, because we have been heading here for several years. We have been heading to the point that we are going to reach on 19 June for a very long time, and, seemingly, we are heading towards at least some privatisation of operations in our prisons. As the shadow minister for correctional services, I think that is a great shame. It is particularly a great shame because it could have been avoided with better management of our state's economy.

With regard to regional development, let me say quite frankly that I welcome the added attention that the member for Frome has brought to this issue. I have said before, and I have said to him face-to-face—he is my friend, and I have said it to him quite directly—that I believe he has made a mistake going with the Labor government rather than potentially going with a Liberal government. However, he has made his decision, and I nonetheless appreciate the fact that he has brought attention to regional South Australia through his decision.

All South Australians should value our regions, absolutely every South Australian—regardless of where they live—should value our regions. The government is doing everything possible to make it look as if it values our regions at the moment, and let me just say that I know that some members opposite do. I know that the member for Giles does, I know that the member for Frome does, but most do not. What concerns me is that the most senior members of the government do not value regional South Australia.

Nonetheless, I am grateful for the added focus and I am grateful that the Premier and three more ministers have put aside time to visit my electorate in the last two weeks. I very genuinely welcome ministers, members of the Labor Party, anybody from the other side, when they come to my electorate; I very genuinely welcome them to the electorate. As the member for Stuart, it is my job to achieve the very best I can from the government, regardless of who it is. It would be exactly the same if it were a Liberal government.

So I value the time and effort they put in, and I am pleased I was able to be there with the Minister for Primary Industries and Forestry and the Minister for Regional Development. I was not able to be there for the Minister for Manufacturing or the Premier, and let me say very clearly that I did not have a pizza with anyone while they were there; I did not have a pizza with any of them while they were in the electorate. However, I appreciated the visits greatly.

My real message here is that I urge them to keep it up. It cannot just be early days' business along the lines: 'The member for Frome has sort of put us all under a bit of pressure. We promised him we would look good coming in to the electorate, good ministers coming in to the electorate.' I urge them to keep it up and I urge them all to come back with positive solutions. It is okay to say, 'I've come for a look. I want to see, I want to talk to people, touch and feel the country areas and I want to find out what needs to be done.' You get full marks when you come back with answers. That is when we know that the government is genuine. We do not want to be part of a merry-go-round of key milestone visits just to say that you have been there.

Let me express my very genuine disappointment in what is likely to be the financial recording, at least in the upcoming budget, of the arrangement that the Premier and the member for Frome came to. My disappointment is not that the money that was agreed will be spent; my disappointment is that so much more should have been committed.

So much less will come to regional South Australia out of the agreement that the member for Frome has reached with the government than would have come to regional South Australia had a Liberal government been elected or had the member for Frome even just taken on board our election commitments. So much less will go to regional South Australia now.

I express my disappointment that Regional Development Australia throughout South Australia does not yet have assured funding from the government for their ongoing operations. There is lots of talk about money that will be spent here and there, but the key bodies that work in regional South Australia to support and advance regional South Australia do not have any ongoing funding. They have no ongoing security about the work that they can do.

Let me also just say that I am a bit concerned about the $150,000 per year that was announced today by the member for Frome for regional community cabinet meetings. That all sounds good on the surface—and I am pleased that the cabinet will come and meet in regional South Australia, that is a good thing—but I am very concerned about that $150,000 per annum to support the three communities that host country cabinet meetings over the next four years for project proposals that will assist communities meet economic and social needs. It is great to have the money. Any region will gratefully accept that money, but do you really think you have to pay $50,000 each to get to go to a region? Regional South Australia will be pleased to have you.

I do not think this is actually the best way to choose how the grant funding is going to be spent. Three fortunate communities will get $450,000 per year spent in their communities and every other community will not get a look at that money simply because those are the three communities that the government chose to visit that year.

Let me tell you that those choices, those locations, will be chosen based on politics, based on where they think there will be good media, based on where they think they will get bang for their buck politically. It is really concerning that the government wants to spend $150,000 for the right to be hosted by a community for regional cabinet.

I am also very concerned about some of the issues facing regional Australia, which I am sure will not be addressed in this budget. Many of my colleagues have actually touched on these issues: health, small schools and special needs education, which are very important. While it is easy to forget, public transport in regional cities and smaller communities is very important. There are the issues of roads and tourism. National parks and reserves are completely underfunded, putting more and more impositions on businesses and local councils. That is a great imposition on regional South Australia.

I am particularly worried about employment. It is a problem throughout our state, but particularly in regional South Australia.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sadly, the member's time has expired.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. S.E. Close.


At 23:59 the house adjourned until Wednesday 4 June 2014 at 11:00.


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