HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1)
2014-07-01 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Appropriation Bill 2014

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr WINGARD (Mitchell) (16:05): I have already pointed out a number of broken election promises from this Weatherill Labor government. There are too many to mention them all right here right now. I must mention that they have impacted on my electorate. State Labor has confirmed cuts to the tune of $100 million to the Flinders Medical Centre and $31.5 million to Noarlunga Hospital. Again they have tried to pass the blame for this onto the feds, but state Labor has not been financially responsible for the last two budgets at least and could have committed to these projects 20 times over had they not run such big deficits.

I also call on the Labor government to honour the Seaview High School promise, the Sheidow Park toilet block and the Trott Park dog park. I look forward to working with the government to deliver these as soon as possible, but the big concern in the Mitchell electorate is jobs, employment and opportunity. In the last 12 months 23,500 jobs have gone and the unemployment rate has risen from 4.5 per cent to 7.4 per cent in southern Adelaide. SA Labor promised 100,000 jobs by 2016—another mismanaged commitment from the government that has struggled to add up. To meet this target the government needs to create 4,800 jobs a month to meet the target that they promised a number of years ago.

The people of Mitchell voted for a Liberal reformist government, and for that I thank them. On their behalf I am committed to turning this state's flagging fortunes around. No state or jurisdiction has taxed its way to prosperity and, as hard as the Weatherill Labor government has tried, the numbers show it is not working. Reform is needed and a reduction in payroll tax, the tax on jobs, would be a great place to start. I note this government is withdrawing its payroll tax relief in 12 months' time, giving business no surety or certainty to grow and employ. I call on this government to stop ignoring business and start helping. SA investment contracted by 2.6 per cent in the March quarter in 2014 and by 5 per cent in the past 12 months.

I urge this government to take the lead of the Liberal reformist governments right around Australia, and over in New Zealand as well, and ensure fiscal responsibility for the good of South Australians. That is what I ask for from this government and that is what the people of Mitchell are looking for as well. I mentioned at the start that ensuring the expenses growth does not exceed long-term revenue growth is one of the key overarching themes this government must look at. Investing in cost benefit analysis on major projects is another thing the government must assure the people of South Australia of, to ensure spending is not forced out of control again.

Working towards gaining a AAA credit rating to reduce the cost of borrowing is another key facet this government must address, and ensuring fiscal responsibility as part of every action they do is something this government could aspire to, as I said, like so many of the Liberal reformist governments around the country that are turning their jurisdictions around and giving hope to their constituents. We hope that can happen here in South Australia as well and we will be working very hard to make it happen.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (16:08): I take the opportunity to make a few comments in relation to the Treasurer's speech and appropriation and budget bills. I picked up on some comments by Professor Dick Blandy on the radio in the last week or so when he actually pooh-poohed the Treasurer's speech and the state budget and indicated it was for all intents and purposes a sham, although I do not think those were his words, and that the people of South Australia were being hoodwinked.

I also find it interesting that we now find that the state has gone that far backwards and they have killed off the private sector so much that we are now being drip-fed by other states through the GST. Instead of proudly contributing even more to the GST, we are siphoning off money from the other states, which they are not all that happy about, and you can hardly blame them given the fact that the leader spoke this morning about the situation the other Liberal states now find themselves in. What a pathetically sad state we live in.

I want to make some broad comments. I think the very fact that South Australian families are now going to be $1,100 out of pocket as a result of the Labor government’s budget is appalling. I wonder where on earth they are going to find this money. I could not believe that on Friday the member for Waite, when speaking to the Press Club, said that Liberal Party parliamentary members need to get out and talk to working class families. Let me tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the house, that you can rest assured that every member on this side talks to them pretty regularly.

I do not know how often the member for Waite goes to country footy or suburban footy, or whatever—I suspect he would sit up in the grandstand, in the corporate box at Adelaide Oval—but I talk to people and, more to the point, I actually listen to people in my electorate all the time. Country footy or country netball is a great place to listen to what people are saying. If I go up and down the main street of Victor Harbor, Yankalilla, Kingscote, or wherever, I get constant feedback. So I take some offence at the member for Waite’s comments last Friday, but I am not sour, bitter and twisted, I might add.

The increased taxes and charges on bus tickets—that is if you have public transport by way of buses; we do not have them in our area, I can assure you—electricity bills, the emergency services levy and motor vehicle registrations are going to hurt ordinary everyday South Australians. Regarding buses, let me just say that I do not have public transport, but through the auspices of the KI Futures Authority they have put in a highly unsustainable bus service, which appeals to some people (and I appreciate that), but they spent $100,000 putting a bus stop in the middle of nowhere. So, if that is the answer, it is a damn stupid question in my view; however, I will move on.

If we delivered six deficits in seven years in private business, we would be broke, we would be out the door and gone, but this mob seems to think they can get away with it. I think over and above anything, the reintroduction of land tax on the family home is a disgrace. The Tonkin government did away with this tax when they were elected to government in 1979, in the period 1979-82.

They actually went in, as I recall, on the back of a catastrophic bus strike in the lead-up to the state election and they got into government and did quite a few good things. They removed the land tax on the family home. This state Labor government, under Premier Weatherill and Treasurer Koutsantonis, has reinstated a land tax on the family home. Nothing is more certain than the fact that the people of South Australia will not forget that. They will not forget it. They will not be allowed to forget it. I think that both the member for Frome and the member for Waite will have a bit of explaining to do in their constituencies over that.

I was interested to hear the Treasurer’s response today to some questions on the ESL, which he referred to fairly rapidly, but then he could not answer some other questions. We will wait to see what comes back to the house on that. There is no doubt that the rise in the emergency services levy as a land tax is an outrageous impost on the good people of South Australia. How the government has the nerve to put that in place absolutely defies comprehension. They say that under the act it must go under emergency services. I will be very interested to follow that through, and I am sure that the opposition will follow that one with a great level of interest.

Equally, the removal next year of a $190 concession on council rates will also be a huge impost on pensioners and people on low incomes who cannot afford the rates. On that issue, this is a government with successive local government ministers (and God knows how many we have had lately) who have not grappled with this issue of councils going along swimmingly and sticking up rates 5 and 6 per cent year after year after year when the CPI is down around 3 or 4 per cent. It makes my blood boil. I have to say that in a former life I was in a position where we put up rates, and one year we actually held rates static. Now, however, they seem to think it is a badge of honour to be able to put up rates double the CPI or around that amount.

I was interested to read in InDaily recently a printout of the salaries of chief executive officers of local government authorities around South Australia. I have no doubt that many of them probably earn their money but, more to the point, I do not know how small communities can subscribe to large salaries for CEOs, and I will give a couple of examples.

In a couple of councils in my area, the salaries are pretty close to $200,000, and both these councils have around 4,000 people as residents. We just cannot afford it, so I have given my university intern this year a study to do which should be quite interesting. I have asked him to do a study on amalgamating the Kangaroo Island, Yankalilla, City of Victor Harbor and the southern portion of the Alexandrina Council into one council to see what he comes up with.

I am sure there will be some snorting and roaring and whatever, but this is a project for a university student; it is not set in concrete that it is enacted or anything else, but I think it will be a useful exercise for the intern to go out and speak to councils, to officers, to mayors, to elected members and to the general community and just see what sort of a report comes back, and I look forward to reading it.

I have no preconceived ideas of what the intern will bring forward, but it is constantly put to me (indeed, I think the member for Bright talked about this just recently) that we need to get rid of more councils and bring some councils together. It is not policy the opposition is not pro amalgamation, but I think in this instance I look forward to that report.

Another thing I find highly interesting is this misguided approach, particularly by the Treasurer lately, that all South Australia's financial woes are attributable to the federal government. Given that the federal government has only been there since September last year, I think it is a bit rich to try to put all that on the federal government. They were left with an unholy mess by the successive disasters we had in power in Canberra—Rudd/Gillard/Rudd and the assorted entourage they had behind them and what they did to the nation.

The federal government has to make hard decisions, and some of them are not popular decisions. I am sure that they are very firm in their intent to fix up the national economy, but it is time that the Treasurer and this state government stopped blaming the feds for the mess they have got themselves in: it has been all their own work.

They go on about infrastructure. That is fine; however, it is fairly useful if you have a few dollars to pay for this infrastructure before you roar into it. Adelaide Oval has been highly successful—Kevin Foley's pet project. I did hear that Kevin wants a statue of himself put down there, but that probably will not happen, given the current Premier's love for Kevin Foley. Adelaide Oval is successful: tens of thousands of people are going there, and a million people have been there. We will see what comes of that in due course.

However, let me tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that infrastructure is sadly lacking in regional South Australia and that is the issue I pick up on. I am going to find it hard not to continue keeping the government to account on their absolute failure to spend money in regional South Australia, apart from the electorate of Frome, I might add, which seems to be getting its fair share. However, we need some incentive. Useless things like spending $1 million to appoint a commissioner for Kangaroo Island (which will come up in some legislation) is one thing, but that $1 million could have been far better spent.

As to the Fleurieu side of the electorate, I note that some money has been put aside for investigating the road system, Adelaide to Victor Harbor, and I look forward to discussing that matter with the Minister for Transport. I look forward to seeing just what comes out of that. I have been of the view for some time that the worst part of that road is the Cut Hill section from the top to the bottom of the approach to Victor Harbor. The rest of it is not too bad in many spots.

As everyone in this chamber knows, without being political about it, a lot of the problems on the roads relate to many of the drivers, and that is a major part of the problem. I read in the paper, I think yesterday, about the poor couple from the Riverland who were hit by a driver, and the lady is paralysed and the gentleman has sustained major injuries. These things are not going to go away, but I commend the money put to the Adelaide-Victor Harbor road, and I will be interested to see what happens.

It is like trying to get blood out of a stone when trying to find out what will be done about problems such as the Encounter Centre and the Southern Fleurieu Cancer Support Group, matters which I have raised in here before. The Encounter Centre, which caters for people on the South Coast with disabilities, cannot get an answer about future funding. It would be an appalling thing if it had to shut down or substantially curtail its activities which are in the best interests of those people who need it most.

The centre has been there a long time and it fulfils a great need. It has great people, volunteers and paid staff who work there. I say to the Minister for Health, 'Get the review done quickly,' because his department is doing a review, 'and keep that functioning properly'. Likewise, I want to see some answers around the Southern Fleurieu Cancer Support Group, a transport system that brings people back and forth to Adelaide.

Just on the issue of blowout costs, while the state government wants to blame the federal government for everything, one issue that needs substantial investigation, in my view, is the Royal Adelaide Hospital project. It was outrageous that this was never brought to Public Works where it could keep some sort of monitoring. They said it would cost $1.7 billion originally (the former premier of blessed memory Mike Rann and his treasurer, Kevin Foley), but it is now going to cost about $2.8 billion. If it is true that it is 10 months behind schedule—and I do not trust the union officials very much on their statement and I would like to get to the bottom of it—there should be an investigation. Whether one of the parliamentary committees involved in finance can get into it I am not sure, being a public-private partnership, but it does need some investigation.

Likewise the Southern Expressway: there were initial budget costs there of $370 million and now it has blown out to $407 million. Just while we are on the Southern Expressway, let me remind—

Ms Hildyard interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: Well, speak up; you can have your turn. Just let me remind those on the other side that this was a key, core election promise of theirs in 2002, that they would move straight in and do the Southern Expressway—12 years later and it is still not open. It was promised in the 2002 election but it still has not happened—12 years late. You can shake your head and do what you like but it was a core promise in 2002 and you failed to deliver, even now.

I was on the Southern Expressway several times over the weekend, and I would suggest it looks to be as far away from opening as ever. The cost has blown out so there is another one—that has blown out $37 million on the initial budget cost. They just do not seem to be able to count. I thought about buying the Treasurer an abacus for a present before the budget.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: An abacus?

Mr PENGILLY: An abacus, yes, but I do not think he would have been able to count even with that. Madam Deputy Speaker, let us turn to the Motor Accident Commission. This was never going to happen. We were never going to privatise anything more. That is going—going, going, gone. Car registrations will probably cost extra out of that: $400-odd, nearly $500. Jobs growth has decreased to minus 1.25 per cent in South Australia. I am just appalled at what is happening with jobs in this state. The only area of jobs growth seems to be in ministerial officers, appointments to those positions and to the spin crew in the Premier's own office. That seems to be the only employment around the place.

We have the highest unemployment rate compared to any other mainland state in Australia. To me, that is just a disgrace, quite frankly. Just on jobs, the current 2014-15 budget reveals that the current government is not doing anything to create jobs and investment opportunities to help places like Victor Harbor, Yankalilla, the South Coast and Kangaroo Island—nothing at all; nothing at all. 'Aha,' they say. 'Yes, but we are putting in a walking trail on Kangaroo Island.' Let me tell you, that the $5 million or so to put in the walking trail will only benefit the government's own business activity in Flinders Chase. That is what it will do; it will benefit their own business activity.

It is a great place for a walk—if it has not burnt down due to the incompetence of the Department of Environment—but it will benefit their business enterprise. Yes, it will also benefit the carriers, the sea carrier or the air carrier, to the island so people can get there, but that will be a minimum cost compared with everything else. I have no doubt that what a lot of those people will do is they will bring their own supplies. They will have specialised suppliers. It will disappear; that spending will take place on the mainland before they even get there.

I cannot see them spending a lot. My view is that they will come over on the ferry (let us use the ferry as an example), they will disappear down to Flinders Chase, they will do this several-day walk over the 50-odd kilometres, they will take their time, they will camp in the government's own camp grounds along the way, they will pay a fee for that, and then when they have finished they will jump back into their vehicle, drive back and go back to the mainland.

It is worth what Paddy shot at, quite frankly, to the island and the economy. I cannot see that they will have guides. I do not know; we will get more information on this in due course, I would suggest. I spoke earlier about infrastructure needs on the Fleurieu. What the island needs is infrastructure. I will have more to say on this in a debate on another bill, but infrastructure is the thing that is missing and infrastructure is the thing that we have to have.

I mention the $190 pensioner concessions that are disappearing next year on council rates. I think this is a really important issue because I can see a double whammy here. Not only will people struggle to find the money, but councils will struggle to pick up that revenue because it will be lost when they cannot pay it, so that will be built into council rates. There will be, no doubt, outstanding rates and interest charged because many people simply cannot afford to pay that insidious cost. I could go on for a long time, but my time is up.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, it is. The member for Mount Gambier.

Mr BELL (Mount Gambier) (16:28): I would like to rise to make some comments and support my colleague the member for Finniss in his comments. Before the budget, I was really looking forward to a build, build, build budget, a budget that would stimulate our economy, a budget that would have this state moving forward in the right direction, and a budget that would deliver for all South Australians, in both metropolitan and regional South Australia. I was mildly excited to see what type of investment and developments were going to be made by this Labor government. In their own words, 'Build, build, build.'

It will come as no surprise that I was mightily disappointed with the budget handed down a fortnight ago and disappointed for a number of reasons. I will concentrate locally to start off with, but it ended up, in my opinion, being a cut, cut, cut budget with undoubtedly no real upside at all. I think what the government needs to realise is that people will endure some fiscal pain, some inconvenience, if they can see that in the long term those cuts and adjustments to fiscal policy needed to be made to get our state going again, to get the jobs occurring, to keep South Australians in South Australia and to keep our young people engaged in this wonderful state.

Disappointment comes in many forms, and first of all it came in the form of local cuts. As people may or may not know, there is some funding for the drainage scheme down in the South-East. People need to realise that the drains there comprise 2,500 kilometres. That is an amazing amount of drainage network that needs to be maintained year in, year out—2,500 kilometres. It is like driving from here to Mount Gambier and back, and back to Mount Gambier, back up here again, and then back to Mount Gambier a fifth time. It is an inordinate amount of drainage network that needs to be maintained.

The estimated costs for maintaining that drainage are around $7 million a year. What does the state government put in? Prior to this budget, it had been putting in $2.1 million, so a shortfall of about $5 million, give or take $100,000. But after the budget did we see an increase in funding for the drainage network anywhere close to the $7 million that is required? No, the complete opposite: we saw a $500,000 cut to the drainage network scheme. So, that takes the budget from $2.1 million back to $1.6 million.

I work with many constituents in my area, many of them are farmers, and the complaints that come out of a poorly maintained drainage scheme are enormous. Productive farmland is now being flooded. Farmers for generations have owned and been using pastoral land that is now underwater, and it all comes down to a lack of maintenance. There is no doubt that there is a deliberately-run scheme by the Labor government, and they are deliberately withholding funding from this scheme.

Why, you might ask? Why would a government do that to a community? Why would a government do that to the rural community which it has a newfound love affair with, which has only been sparked due to Mr Brock's joining their group? Well, the reason is that they want to put a levy on farmers. They want to make up the $5.4 million shortfall with a levy.

The people of the South-East contributed to the River Murray levy scheme, even though we never use the River Murray for our water supply. We have a wonderful resource called the Blue Lake, which is where our water comes from but, through a time of drought and state need, the people of the South-East (I would say reluctantly; I would not say openly) paid the River Murray levy, even though we had no connection at all to that source of water.

I have had conversations with minister Hunter about the $5.4 million shortfall, and the only word that comes out of his mouth is 'levy'; that is, 'You need to convince your community that a levy is needed to raise the $5.4 million.' In my opinion, there has been a deliberate act of withholding funding so that the only way forward for our community, the only way forward for our farmers to get that land back under productive use again, is the use of a levy. In Mr Hunter's own words, 'Why don't you just convert the River Murray levy into a drainage levy?'

The true intent of raising a levy on the farmers of the South-East or, may I say, the whole community in the South-East, is there for all to see. Beyond that, we have the South East Forestry Partnerships Program, with $10.5 million still in the fund that needs to be allocated. I encourage the government to allocate this money at its earliest convenience, because our community is reeling at the moment and we need that infrastructure.

The forest was sold in 2011, and the Forestry Partnerships Program was established in around 2012, and we are now into 2014, with $10.5 million unspent. Worrying to me are some reports that in the budget papers they can see only $7 million attributed to the South East Forestry Partnerships Program, an issue that I will be taking up with vigour with our Minister for Forests, Hon. Mr Bignell, during his trip to the South-East next week. If indeed that $3.5 million is missing, I will be demanding, in this house, to know where it has gone; but, as I say, I will take that up with the minister next week.

Going into jobs, as I was saying before, people would understand that cuts need to be made and you need to trim your cloth in rough times to get an outcome that the state needs. In 2010—and I do not want to repeat a lot of these figures because they have been mentioned by other speakers—the government came out and said that it was going to deliver 100,000 new jobs by 2014. Of course, 2014, here we are, and that has been pushed out to 2016—100,000 new jobs. Might I say, that target is pretty aspirational.

Maybe we should let the government revise the figure because at the moment we are 800 jobs behind where we were in 2010. I would suggest an aspirational figure might be one new job—one new job by 2016, and I think from where we are now that would be a good target to achieve. If they do not mind, I will rewrite their policy and hold them to account that one new job by 2016—we will even give them two more years—will be a good start. However, do not panic everybody because we are predicted to come back into surplus. We have a record deficit this year of $1.232 billion, but do not worry we are coming back into surplus, and we will come back into surplus in a couple of years' time. Just don't you worry about it, we have it all under control.

Deputy Speaker, as you would be well aware, four years ago this government predicted that this year there would be a $480 million surplus; and, here we are, this year, with a $1.232 billion deficit. It is interesting that if we take last year's deficit, which was $948 million—so not quite the billion (and if we had gone through their predictions four years out from that budget it was meant to be a $304 million surplus and delivered a $948 million deficit)—and factor in one clear thing, and that is the sale of the South-East's forest for $670 million, which went to the bottom line, that $948 million deficit translates into a $1.6 billion deficit. It is little wonder that they needed to sell the forest to keep the deficit under that billion dollar threshold that they were looking for.

Of course, next year they were predicting an $840 million surplus; that was four years ago. It is now revised downwards to a $479 million deficit. I guess the problem I have is that I do not believe a word of it. In a couple of years' time we are going to hit—wait for it—a $406 million surplus. If you have been following my speech (and many might be asleep) you will notice that this has been promised before. Four years ago $480 million in surplus—now a $1.232 billion deficit. So I hold very grave fears for the future of this state. I hold very grave fears that we will not get into surplus in 2015-16. Why do I hold those fears? Not because history tells me, but because their budget bottom line is a fiscal fantasy.

At the heart of the Treasurer's figures is the assumption that the South Australian tax revenue will rocket along at 6.2 per cent—the largest of all the states in Australia. Our housing market is going to be turned into the fastest growing in the nation, with stamp duty revenue growth at 9.4 per cent. Now come on. We are lagging and we have been lagging for years. Then all of a sudden, overnight—because the Treasurer says so—we are going to turn into the nation's leader in terms of tax revenue and stamp duty. Unfortunately, Deputy Speaker, I do not believe a word of it. As the South Australian University Adjunct Professor of Economics, Dick Blandy, says, the state budget assumptions are 'really very, very unconvincing'. He does say a few other words, but I do not want him to be sacked (which he probably will be for saying those words) so I will move on.

Of course, the real pain will be felt by the residents of South Australia, if the prediction is true that the people of South Australia will be $1,000 worse off, and that is on top of gas prices that have gone up 136 per cent, electricity prices that have gone 160 per cent, and water prices that have gone up 120 per cent. The residents of South Australia have genuine concern to be alarmed at this budget, and the Minister for Social Housing and Welfare is going to see that firsthand. This will impact those at the lower end of the socioeconomic income levels the hardest and first of all.

Of course, we have the ABS regional labour force data saying that in May this year alone, 2,500 SA jobs were lost in Adelaide and 1,400 jobs were lost in regional South Australia. These are really worrying figures and something that we need to be concerned about, particularly because we have a net interstate migration of 36,000 people since this Labor government came into power. So they are very concerning statistics. But as always, I try and come with some solutions. I come to help, and I have some ideas, some examples of government contracts that have been awarded to interstate companies over the last couple of years. These include:

$2 million worth of paving contracts to a Brisbane-based company for the Adelaide footbridge—that could have stayed in South Australia;

a $600 million Housing SA maintenance contract over eight years awarded to two interstate companies;

a $100 million plumbing contract for the new Royal Adelaide Hospital awarded to a Victorian company;

a contract to develop the master plan for Adelaide's Riverbank Precinct awarded to a Victorian consortium (because obviously we could not do that ourselves);

school bus contracts awarded to Victorian companies;

TAFE's student management system awarded to London-based SunGard;

stone pavers for the redevelopment of Rundle Mall imported from China;

the associated economic modelling for the government's economic statement awarded to a Victorian company; and

a $1.4 million SA Brand contract awarded to the Victorian graphic designer, Ken Cato.

And it gets better with state flags—the one true patriotic thing that we can have as our state pride—being shipped out to Victoria to be made. So we have $2.3 billion of work which has gone interstate. That is the first thing the government could do to keep jobs in South Australia: look to award state money to state companies. But, of course, the biggest thing is that they could understand the fundamental problem with the South Australian economy and that is $14.3 billion worth of debt. Debt alone I have no real issue with, but debt needs to be serviced, and the way it is serviced is with interest—$2.6 million a day, every day, walking out of this state.

When you really think about it, we have a bucket and it has got a big hole in it. The hole is the interest repayments that are leaking out every day—$2.6 million a day. You just give my region one week's worth of interest repayments and I would be a happy member for Mount Gambier—just one week's worth—but that is leaving our state every single day.

Combine that with the number of contracts we let walk out of this state and award to overseas or interstate companies and you have a bigger hole in the bucket—that is where we are. We need to work together to make sure that we can start plugging some of those holes. You can do it two ways: start awarding your contracts to state-based companies and, secondly, pay down the debt so that the interest repayments come down and the money stays here in South Australia.

I am running out of time, but I just want to finish on cuts to the Natural Resources Management Community Grants program. This will have a major impact in my region where rabbits, foxes, feral cats, goats and a wide range of invasive weeds are already having a devastating impact on the productivity of farms across my electorate. These cuts will result in these pests extending their grip on our productive land.

What did the government do to address some of these issues? It has cut the budget to $59.8 million, which is about 35 per cent of what was spent on the program some five years ago. The cuts to the NRM Community Grants program and the agricultural food and fisheries program make a mockery of the Premier's claims that he intends to reconnect with regional South Australia.

I will finish on the federal government because it gets a mention in here every single question time. I think it is about time we laid a few facts on the record. Fact: over the next four years, the Australian government is increasing funding to hospitals by $333 million, which is an increase of 34 per cent. It is increasing funding to schools in South Australia by $275 million, which is an increase of 27 per cent, and total funding to South Australia will increase by $1.8 billion over the next four years, which is an increase of 23 per cent.

Fact: the Abbott government is also investing $2 billion to build 21st century infrastructure in South Australia. If we really want to analyse things, that is $2 billion out of a $50 billion bucket. I think the Premier could have done a lot better by attracting more of that money to South Australia. We have always been the 10 per cent state; 10 per cent of $50 billion is $5 billion. We have been short-changed by this Premier to the tune of $3 billion, by my calculation. So, Deputy Speaker, I will finish on that note, and thank you for your time.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:48): I rise to speak to the Appropriation Bill. Obviously, on this side of the house, we support the passing of the Appropriation Bill, but that does not mean we are happy with everything that is happening in the budget. When we look at what has happened over 12 years of Labor, we have seen deficits and budget blowouts, but what we have also seen, and what Labor does not tell us, are the GST payments that the Labor government in this state received for many years—$500 million a year—which was not budgeted for, but then was blown. It just blew into debt.

That $500 million extra that was not budgeted for is pretty handy cash. We have these pie-in-the-sky fiscal projections. We have multiple broken promises about where we are going to end up. As our leader said today, every Treasurer who comes into this house says that in two years we will be in a surplus. It has been a long two years waiting for a surplus in this state.

We look at the fiscal ineptitude of this state Labor government. We will have a $14.3 billion debt in 2015-16. For a state that is sustained on a budget of around $16 billion, that is a massive debt. It is clearly totally unsustainable, in my mind. We look at the deficit for the financial year that has just ended, 2013-14, of $1.2 billion. These are big numbers. These are huge numbers for a state with a population of about 1.6 million or 1.7 million people to sustain.

What we see on the other side of the house is a government that can only come up with blaming the federal government to cover state Labor's own incompetence. But what the government will not tell you about is the $2 billion of extra money flowing into the state over the next four years from the federal coffers. They forget to tell you all of that. That will be vitally needed to shore up our services, whether it be health, education or other support services, especially in the regions. I note the federal regional policy and program that has been announced in the federal budget of $1 billion for Growing Stronger Regions, but you will not hear that from the other side.

We have had promises of 100,000 new jobs by 2016. Not only will this promise be broken but it will be broken spectacularly. We have actually had job losses in this state. We have seen, in recent times, more and more people go elsewhere to find work because it is just too hard; and it is too hard for the business sector to operate in this state, with the regulation burden, so they can hire more people.

We have a government in this state that promised no privatisation and no selling-off of assets. Well, we had the forest forward rotations for around 100 years sold off recently for the giveaway price of $650 million. What a bargain. The Canadian superannuation scheme that picked up the forests must be rubbing their hands with glee. This is a $1 billion asset, minimum. The state government basically gave away an asset that was bringing back to government—it was not costing them anything—$43 million a year, but the story we hear from the Premier and others on the government benches is that it was high risk.

I have run a farm business, and I reckon if I were getting $43 million a year the last thing I would be doing is calling that high risk. It is just about how you manage a business, and obviously this government does not have that capacity. We saw the Lotteries Commission sold, and tens of millions of dollars that used to come into state coffers are gone. That is high risk as well: it is high risk to own anything. It is just crazy politics.

The icing on the cake is the Motor Accident Commission. This is a government that proudly has been stating that they were not going to privatise, but here we are: compulsory third party will be run by private operators if this goes through. The government are hoping to realise $500 million from the sale of the Motor Accident Commission. We understand it could be a lot more than that; it could be double that. It could be $1 billion. Where will that money go? Will that just be sucked into the state's coffers, just like all the other asset sales, to pay for burgeoning debt? As I understand it, it is supposed to go into road funding, but I will not hold my breath to see that that happens—but that amount of money could easily be spent in South Australia on road funding. The legacy of this budget is broken promises, higher taxes and job losses. That is the legacy.

We have the highest capital city water taxes in the country. Not only that, we have a very high operational cost for farmers to do business. Farmers in my electorate and the member for MacKillop's electorate—and even the member for Frome with his Clare winegrowers—are screaming about the cost of water which has just gone to $3.32 a kilolitre on the industrial rate. It is killing business and it is going to kill business for SA Water. I have tried to explain to people in government that more and more people are putting in private systems out of Lake Albert to access their water.

I know there is very serious discussion on another major proposal that will cost many hundreds of thousands, and what money will the government get out of that scheme? Nothing. Zippo. The government does not like it because people are looking for other schemes and it might end up with a stranded asset like the emergency pipeline that went around Lake Albert during the River Murray drought. What they forget is that these people are used to having water at irrigation allocation rates to water their stock and for the irrigation of their properties, but people are spending hundreds of thousands at the minimum and some people are putting in schemes worth close to $1 million to sustain their businesses.

We have a state that has been landed with the highest business taxes coupled with incredibly low consumer and business confidence, the highest electricity prices, and extremely low economic growth. South Australia is already the highest taxed state in the nation, and this budget means that South Australian residents will be out of pocket by a further $1,100. It is just out of control and it is outrageous.

One impact not just in the seat of Hammond but right across the state is the emergency services levy rise. It will hit farmers and people with multiple property assets the hardest. It will bring into the budget about $80 million to $90 million a year and we heard only today from the Treasurer that a farm worth $1.5 million—and some people might think that is a lot of money but I can assure you that a $1.5 million property is probably only just viable in this day and age of high costs and high inputs, and that also depends a bit where it is—has gone up $420. There is another cost. That is around a tonne of urea that that farmer cannot buy because he has to pay this inflated emergency services levy.

We look at how it hits passenger vehicles, with another $8 per vehicle rise in costs to those vehicles. We also see in the budget that concessions on council rates disappear from 1 July 2015, so that is another hit to people right across the state. Another cost impact we see to people across the state is the vehicle registration rise of between 10 and 15 per cent which just keeps going up. We see speeding fines and licence renewals rising.

I note that we hear from the police minister that there are no quotas but that there are benchmarks. I am not sure what the difference between a benchmark and a quota is, but I reckon they are pretty closely related and there is no other reason why there are increased amounts put into budget lines for income from speeding fines and licence renewals, but especially speeding fines. Yes, it is easy: if you do not speed, you do not get caught, but we are all only human. I know people have said to me that they have not gone far over the limit and it is $400. I said, 'I'm sorry. You're not going to get any concession, but I take your point.' It is a large fine and it really hits people hard.

Small business and business conditions, they are extremely tough. We see the car park tax. We also have the 'fun tax' that has come in, the tax on supporting the so-called free public transport, as the Minister for Transport said, to make public transport viable. Well, it has never been viable. Public transport is subsidised at the rate of about 80 to 85 per cent, and I am probably on the low side. It has never been viable and charging people $1 extra a ticket or whatever the number may be is never going to make public transport viable.

We have an urban-based Treasurer, who I assume went up to the Riverland this week with the cabinet, and I am sure he saw all those vital public transport links from the Riverland from Berri and Renmark through to the city because, when he came in here today and talked about getting more people on public transport and into the city, he showed he has absolutely no idea of what it is like in the real world. What does he think people from the seat of Hammond are going to do? They do not have a bus to get on to get into the city. They do not have a tram to get on to get into the city. They do not have a train to get on to get into the city.

When people come into the city, whether they are country dwellers or city dwellers, they want to come in and take part in the retail shopping or business in Adelaide, Rundle Mall and other places. They might have to pick up some large items and have quite an amount of shopping to take home. It is very difficult on public transport if you have a lot of goods to take home and it is very difficult if you live in a place like Coomandook like I do and there is no bus to take you there anyway. There has to be some reality of what happens in the real world.

Now because of this cash-strapped government we have the 'fun tax' that is going to impact on all our public events, and it is just another tax, along with the car park tax, that will turn off people attending. There is a reason the AFL wants to structure games from Thursday night to Monday night. That is because they are starting to focus on television rights. I know it is great to be at the game. I was at the game on Sunday and, sadly, the Power lost.

The Hon. S.E. Close interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: And I hear a sigh from the member for Port Adelaide. We are both brother and sister in arms in regard to Port Adelaide, I will say that. Quite opposite politically, just for the record.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: We didn't know that.

Mr PEDERICK: You didn't know. I was just helping you out, Tom. It is great to watch but, as taxes make it harder for people to attend events, they will just stay home and view it at their own leisure. We see no new money for regional roads, yet we keep hearing about impacts of speeding and that sort of thing and we just see a government that wants to reduce speed limits. That is their answer for not spending on roads, to take the 110 km/h limit down to 100 km/h.

We have SA Water, with $19.5 million of dividends that will not be passed back to consumers. We have health care for people in the regions, and I think of my constituents around Goolwa on the Fleurieu Peninsula who obviously utilise the Flinders Medical Centre and people from other areas in Hammond and the cut back by the state government to the $100 million in funding for that hospital. There are a couple of things you could say are positives in the budget.

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Hard to find, member for Kavel. There has been a long debate by this government which has tried to inflict the cost of those vital ferry services throughout our electorates in the country, and certainly in Hammond, onto local government. An outrageous amount of time and effort has been put into this where the government, I feel, have a duty to pay for those ferry services, and thankfully we are seeing three of the five ferries to be replaced.

We see $7.5 million going to the Tailem Bend Motorsport Park; that is fantastic. It will be the place with the Shahin family and the Peregrine Group for motorsport in the future in South Australia. I think it will be an absolutely fantastic facility and, for the record, we on this side of the house would have supported that as well.

Sadly, there was a policy the leader came down to announce during the election campaign about the Murray Bridge Racing Club. They have spent towards $20 million putting in a new venue and, because of regional lending issues and that kind of thing, it has become very tough to progress that project at the rate that it should be progressing. This is not so much about racing in South Australia; this is about unlocking the potential for up to 4,000 houses in the Murray Bridge area—3,500 on the new race track site, the new Gifford Hill site, and another 500, potentially, in a couple of other areas, which will unlock a new sporting precinct, unlock a new bulky goods precinct and, over 30 or 40 years, will unlock, I believe, at least $1 billion of investment over that time.

I will reflect now on the agriculture and SARDI cuts in the budget. PIRSA's 2014-15 budget is $59.8 million, down by $26½ million. Funding has fallen to 35 per cent of 2010-11 levels. This is the smallest operating budget for agriculture in over a decade, and this is coming from a government that talks about clean, green food from our farmers and our agricultural community. Well, I say: where is the support?

On top of the significant job cuts in PIRSA that have happened over the years, a further 40 jobs will go in 2014-15. Biosecurity South Australia will lose 13 full-time employees, and its budget will decrease by $5.5 million, yet we have seen the Minister for Manufacturing, Innovation and Trade getting excited about biosecurity in here today. Well, there is nothing to be excited about biosecurity when it is losing that amount of funding. Only last financial year, the budget for biosecurity was cut by $2.6 million.

The haemorrhaging at the South Australian Research and Development Institute just goes on. Over the last two years, 90 full-time positions have been shed, and the institute's budget will drop by $3 million. It is interesting to note that, with the voluntary separation packages that are being offered at SARDI, an additional $600,000 has been allocated. SARDI simply cannot afford these cuts, and its reputation as one of the world's premier research and development facilities is at risk if any further cuts to services occur.

Sadly, SARDI has been a target in successive budgets, resulting in low employee confidence and vital staff being let go. The agricultural industry vitally needs more R&D to increase productivity, and industry has been calling for increases to funding, not further cuts. Sadly, I am going to run out of time, but I seek to make some further comments in a grieve when I get the opportunity.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (17:08): I wish to make some comments, and to highlight some issues, in relation to the budget that has recently been brought down, really to provide the house with an overview of things. I think that it is important to reflect on what the government has promised South Australia and what it has failed to deliver. I think that the government has lied to the people of South Australia because, at the state election, it promised to build the state, but what we have seen it deliver is some pretty significant cuts.

I want to explain some of the costs that we have seen in this budget. The government has failed to deliver on its promises, and I think that is a disgrace. Expectations are built within the community leading up to and including a state election and the people expect those commitments and those promises to be delivered. Unfortunately, we see the exact opposite in relation to this budget.

As I said, I do not think I am pushing the line too far in saying that the government has lied to the people of South Australia. Households will feel the full impact of this budget. The people that we look to serve, those families all around South Australia that we look to serve here in this parliament, will feel the full impact of this budget, and I will expand on that as time goes on.

However, the first area I want to touch on is that of the emergency services levy. The leader highlighted in his speech earlier today—and other members on this side of the house have certainly highlighted it—the increases in the emergency services levy that will cost the average household at least $150 extra each year. That is on average. We will obviously have some that will be a bit lower but also some that will be significantly higher and a couple of questions were put to the Treasurer today about the impact of the increase in the emergency services levy.

The government is also increasing fees, charges and fines by 2.7 per cent and cutting council rate concessions for pensioners and concession cardholders, costing them at least $190 per year from next year. Labor has also taken the knife to the health sector and broken a number of its key election commitments and promises. Before the election they said there would be no privatisation of government-owned assets—well, we have seen that completely blown out of the water—and that 100,000 new jobs would be created by 2016. We heard the leader highlight the complete failure of the government in delivering its policy direction and policy predictions. The leader very eloquently highlighted how appalling the government has been in creating new jobs. In fact, jobs have gone backwards here in South Australia. As I said, the leader highlighted that in his speech earlier.

We know that the $27.8 million upgrade to Modbury Hospital was a highly contentious issue. Funding into Modbury Hospital leading up to and including the state election was our strong policy position. We were going to maintain the paediatric ward in the hospital, but the government made the decision to close that ward. You know yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker, that that was a very important issue that affected your electorate and all those electorates in the north-east: the electorates of the members for Wright, Newland, Florey and Torrens—all those seats out in the north-east.

Even the member for Morialta’s electorate and my electorate of Kavel were affected. I know that some of my constituents in the north-west of the electorate have used the services of Modbury Hospital. So, it is far reaching. The effects in relation to the government’s budget cuts, broken promises and lies to the people of South Australia are far reaching. It is not just in a couple of electorates but over quite a number of electorates, particularly in relation to Modbury Hospital.

We then go down to the south, to the Flinders Medical Centre: a $100 million upgrade to the Flinders Medical Centre shelved; a $125 million upgrade to The Queen Elizabeth Hospital; and a $31.3 million upgrade to the Noarlunga hospital. We see massive cuts to the health sector, not just in the north-east but to the west and to the south. It is not hard to work out how many constituents and how many electorates are affected significantly in an adverse way by this budget.

There is also no good news for small business, with taxes remaining the highest in the nation. South Australia has the highest business taxation in the nation, rising by 10 per cent from 1 July. Payroll tax concession is being removed next year and, as we know, the car park tax is being introduced. The leader has spoken about this, and we are opposing the car park tax when we get to the other piece of legislation.

The government talks about wanting to enhance the vibrancy of the inner city, but that is not just closing off a couple of streets, painting some lines on another couple of streets, opening up a few pop-up bars here and there and other things; it is more than that. You have to give people an incentive to want to come into the city and spend money. As the leader has extremely effectively communicated, the car park tax is a handbrake on the CBD's economy.

I have spoken about jobs, and one of the worst parts of this budget is that there is no plan to create jobs or grow the economy. In fact, as I said, in the budget forecast, Labor will break its promise to create 100,000 new jobs by 2016. I could provide the house with a whole range of statistics provided by economic analysts, Deloitte Access, and a number of other analysts, but I will push on. The leader in his contribution spoke at length about jobs and about how dismal the government has been and will continue to be in delivering jobs for South Australians.

Let's look at the budget position and outlook. Labor has delivered six budget deficits in seven years, from 2008-09 to 2014-15, including a $948 million deficit, the second largest in the state's history, and this year a $1.232 million deficit, the largest in the state's history. If we cast our mind back, those who are old enough, to the State Bank crisis, the State Bank debacle plunged the state's economic situation into crisis, and we are in a worse situation now than we were then in terms of debt and deficit.

This position we find ourselves in is totally and wholly the responsibility of this state Labor government. In a speech I made to the house a couple of weeks ago, I said that the Treasurer was trying to lay the blame for their ineptitude and their failings in relation to managing the budgets, the economy and the finances of the state, at the feet of the federal government. The Treasurer himself has admitted that the position he finds himself in, in relation this budget, has nothing to do with the federal government's situation and how they are dealing with an absolute shambles they were left with by the previous federal government.

We could expand on this a bit in relation to how this government has mismanaged the budget over the 12 years it has been in power and look back over some figures in relation to expenditure. An accumulative figure of $3.9 billion dollars has been spent above budget. I can break it down year by year, from 2002-03 to 2013-14, and it ranges from $184 million 12 years ago to $670 million in 2008-09, and it peaked out at $670 million. This is spending above their budget. This is a real life example of how the government has never delivered on its budget. It has never delivered on its budget forecasts.

On the other side of the ledger, when you look at revenue—and we have repeated time and again ad nauseam every year the budget has been brought down on this side of the house—the government has never had a problem with revenue because I can tell you that the revenue above budget over the 12-year period has been $5.4 billion, so we have $3.9 billion spending above budget over the 12 years. We have $5.4 billion revenue exceeding budget.

If you make that simple calculation, it is a $1.5 billion difference, so why are we in deficit to the tune of $1.2 plus billion and heading towards a $14 billion debt? Well, I can tell you why. It is the absolute failing of this government over the 12 years it has been in power. They have never been able to correctly manage their budgets. They have never delivered on a budget forecast because their whole approach to the state's finance is all wrong. It is all wrong and it has been since they took office in February 2002. I have highlighted previously to the house that the government is working on an old economic model. They are working on an outdated old economic model of taxing, borrowing and spending.

We have seen how successful governments can operate. Reformist governments, reformist Liberal governments, operating successfully in the other states and the leader highlighted in his speech earlier today, as I said, how successful governments are operating. They are taking the handbrake off the state's finances, off business and off the economy. They are not taxing, they are not borrowing and they are not spending above their budget because, as I have highlighted before—and I am happy to table these graphs and put them in Hansard—the government have never managed to achieve their expenditure budget.

In 2008-09, we had a massive blowout of $670 million; the following year 2009-10 was $599 million, and pretty much there was one year when they underspent, and hence that is an example also of not being able to meet your budget forecast. But, as I said, they appear to be stuck in a time warp. They are using this old outdated economic model. It might have worked back in the sixties and seventies when we had protectionist regimes in place, but it does not work any more and it is clearly evident the results of it not working. We have got record debt and record deficit.

As I said, the leader has highlighted what is occurring in other states and the fundamental principle that is seeing resurgent finances and economies in those states—Liberal governed states—is the support for business. The government has strangled business here in South Australia to the point of extinction through their high taxation regime, through their excessive red tape and bureaucratic interference, but what do we see? What did we see a couple of weeks ago or it might have only been this last week?

The Treasurer wants to re-engage with business, and the Premier said in a statement he made to the house two weeks ago, 'We want to re-engage with business. The Treasurer says, ‘We want your ideas; tell us what you want. It doesn’t matter how unpalatable it might be, but we want you to talk to us. Tell us what you want.’ Well, Deputy Speaker, business has told the government what they want: they wanted a change of government in the March election; that is what they wanted.

They voted for a change, as did 53 per cent of all South Australians. That is what they wanted: business wanted a change in the government. I can tell the Treasurer what business wants: they do not want him in charge of the state’s finances, the budget and the economy, nor do they want the Premier or the whole Labor government. In their attempt to re-engage with the business community, they are playing catch-up.

Cast your mind back a couple of years ago to when the leader held an economic forum in the Convention Centre. It was an absolutely outstandingly successful forum, and over 400 people attended; it was great. The businesses told the Liberal Party what they wanted, and that, to a great extent, went to how we formed our policy positions. We supported business; they knew it, and they wanted a change of government. But what did we see? We saw, through some inconsistencies and failings within the electoral system, that that was not achieved, even though the Liberals achieved 53 per cent of the state vote.

To that extent, the leader has stated in the house just today that we are moving for a statutory inquiry into our electoral system. Pretty much everyone I talk to in the community shakes their head and says, ‘How can you win 53 per cent of the vote and not win government? There has got to be something wrong with the system.’ All this ballyhoo about marginal seat campaigns, they do not believe it, and neither they should. They realise what has taken place and they support a really thorough investigation into the electoral system.

Just in the last couple of minutes I have to left to speak, what the Treasurer was projecting in relation to his budget, it was described in the house this morning as voodoo economics, or what was the other—

Mr Treloar: Seance.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Seance! Seance economics. I do not know much about seances—they are all a bit freaky—but I understand there is some glass put on the board. I think the Treasurer has his hand on that glass, pushing it as hard as he can to the budget surplus side of things, because he is predicting a budget surplus in excess of $400 million in two years. I think the reality of the situation is the glass is being pushed back even harder.

Time expired.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (17:28): I too rise today to make a contribution from the opposition benches on the Appropriation Bill. I must say, harking back to budget day, when the Treasurer delivered his budget speech, I found the speech incredibly disappointing. There was a time when the budget speech detailed where the money was coming from and where it was going. There was none of that in this speech; it was blatantly political and sought to lay blame everywhere that it possibly could be right throughout the speech. It was a dismal performance.

Looking through the budget papers, we will no doubt have time to dissect them more thoughtfully and interrogate ministers on individual budget lines during the estimates process, which we are looking forward to immensely.

Deputy Speaker, before I comment on the budget itself I am going to take you to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 77 right down the bottom, talking about the highlights within the information economy subprogram. These budget papers are full of such diatribe but I am going to read this into the Hansard. This is one dot point in the information economy Targets 2014-15—one sentence:

Embed the scope and priorities of the information economy programs within the broader education skills and industry development initiatives of the Department of State Development focusing on the up-skilling of businesses and individuals in support of increased state productivity and skills acquisition.

That is one sentence. I do not know who writes this stuff, but I guess if you sat down and dissected it you could come to a conclusion about what it may or may not mean. The budget papers are full of such stuff. It is exactly the séance economics that the member for Kavel and the leader have been talking about today. It is a term you are going to hear more and more because I believe it is active and it is simply the result of a Treasurer and a government that have lost any control that they might have had over the state's economy.

Unfortunately, the budget is emblematic of a Labor government that is well past its use-by date. It is a budget of broken promises which will only put more pressure on South Australian families who are already struggling with the skyrocketing cost of living. Many points have been raised today and I will come to them also. This government has taken every single opportunity to put pressure on families. It is undoubtedly the worst state budget that I have seen since I was elected in 2010.

As I said, the Premier and the Treasurer have been caught out (in the Treasurer's budget speech) trying to blame their own financial management on the federal government. After 12 years—and highlighting particularly the last six—our fiscal situation has deteriorated to the point where we cannot see a way out of it. After 12 years it is clear that they are unlikely to take responsibility. They have not yet and they never will. It is quite sad for South Australia and I feel sorry for South Australians—they have another four years of this. It is obvious that nothing will change while this government is in power.

However, the opposition will continue to set the record straight and demand that the Premier and the Treasurer admit that the financial mess we are in is largely as a result of their financial mismanagement and incompetence. How can they possibly refute that? We have the largest debt we have ever had as a state. People talk about the State Bank disaster, the State Bank debt—and in hushed tones. It was a low point in our state's history. We have now exceeded that point and we now have a $1.2 billion deficit forecast this year which will increase our state debt to $14.3 billion—State Bank proportions.

Imagine how we could use the interest payments: $2.2 million each and every single day this year is going on the state's interest bill. It is an extraordinary amount of money—$2 million every day. Imagine what that could do for schools and hospitals. As I said, it is simply the result of their financial mismanagement.

Today, we heard from the leader and many other contributors about 100,000 new jobs by 2016. It was a key government forecast. We have heard the government talk about key capital health upgrade projects, for example, Flinders Medical Centre, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Noarlunga health service, Modbury Hospital, and we have heard about no privatisation of government-owned assets, but what about the Motor Accident Commission? We have heard about the Gawler rail electrification project—all have been delayed, shelved or mothballed. So their forecast of a $406 million surplus in 2015 simply does not have a shred of credibility.

I say that to you because six out of the last seven budgets have forecast exactly that—a surplus—but what have they delivered? Deficits every time. We have graphs which the member for Kavel highlighted and we are happy to table these graphs: six budget deficits in seven years. It is not a pretty picture and there is a lot of red on those graphs. The people of South Australia are the ones who are going to hurt as a result.

Much has been made of the renewed interest of the government in the regional areas of South Australia. We all know that the engine room of this state's economy is well and truly within the regions, and always has been, might I add. There has been renewed interest, so it would seem, from the government in how the government can assist businesses and people in the regions. However, unfortunately, from 2012-13, up to the current budget, there have been 90 job losses in SARDI and funding cuts to SARDI of $3 million in this year's budget alone.

SARDI is critical in the development and research of new technology that both farmers and fishermen use. This is what underpins our regional economy. This is what underpins the state's exports. Over 50 per cent of this state's exports still come out of the regions, most of all from primary production, so it really makes a mockery of what they are saying about their newfound commitment. Their actions speak far louder than words and, when it comes to backing our agricultural sector and investing in innovation and R&D, they are sadly lacking. I really feel that R&D is just so critical, because it instils the ability within primary producers to access and implement new technologies. For 150 years, this state was at the forefront of agricultural development around the world, particularly in dryland agriculture, and it saddens me to see that number one place disappearing.

There is also a million dollars worth of cuts across the state to our natural resources management boards. I was a member of the inaugural natural resources management board on Eyre Peninsula. I was proud to take my place as a community member on the board and we did a lot of good work. We established the board. We set up protocols and committees, and really set in stone how we might operate.

Somewhere along the line those boards were transferred into the Department of Environment and really the community lost a lot of control and input into those boards from then on. That said, they still fulfil a role, and in many cases a very important role, with regard to natural resources management, and do work with landowners on various issues: on on-ground projects and managing the landscape, because it is critical that our landscape is managed, to remain productive. If it is not managed properly it will not remain productive and we will lose that edge we have got.

We will have to wait and see what this will mean but, ultimately, I fear that the greatest impact will be on the on-ground projects. What the levy payers, who pay the NRM levy through their councils to help fund these boards, really want to see is on-ground projects, and I fear that we will see less and less of those. There does not seem to be anything in particular for country roads, but especially in my area. I know there is the odd one that was mentioned out towards Gawler, which is fine if you are in the seat of Light, but there is not too much for the people of Flinders.

The emergency services levy has been talked about a lot today. This is a land tax. There is no other way to describe it. Levy, tax—the terminology seems to be somewhat interchangeable, according to the government. Either way, people pay. The suggestion is that the increase in the annual emergency services levy will be up to $241 for the average household. It amounts to a land tax, as I said, on the family home, pure and simple. It is on the family home. It is a land tax. The member for Playford, when he was the treasurer, said that they would take no such policy to an election. Well, they did not take it, but they have introduced it today. It is completely outrageous and it makes it even harder under Labor to make ends meet.

I received an email from a constituent of mine which I will share with you. He is a landowner, a farmer and also a CFS volunteer, and he is really concerned about what this might mean. I will read this into Hansard. This particular constituent, landowner and farmer spoke to RevenueSA when he heard about the emergency services levy going up. He rang my office to give me this information. He thought I might be interested to know that in 2012 his levy on his two farming properties was $87 and it is now going to be $550. That is six times what he was paying in 2012. It is a significant increase.

This particular constituent is also actively involved in the CFS and he is saying that 'the poor front-line SES and CFS guys already get heaps from people re the emergency services levy'. These volunteers are going out to attend bushfires and to assist people. We had storms through Adelaide and much of the state last week. The SES was out there at all hours of the night helping people, removing fallen trees, repairing fences and all that sort of thing. They are the people who are putting themselves out there and they are getting criticism from the general public regarding the emergency services levy.

We know that is not fair. It is not the fault of the volunteers—of course not—it is the fault of the government, but this is the perception. This constituent is concerned that the public will really get stuck into them with this new initiative. It is already too hard to get volunteers, he is saying. Why would you be a volunteer only to be abused by the public? I have the greatest respect for these volunteers. They need every bit of assistance they can get. I just wish I had the confidence that all the money that is to be raised with this emergency services levy will actually find its way to helping fund these volunteer organisations. We will wait and see.

It seems that once again our capital city, the City of Adelaide, has become a vortex for this state's economy. All that is produced is sucked in, disappearing forever into building projects such as the bridge across the Torrens, the bridge that was built in between the two other bridges so people can find their way to the new Adelaide Oval. Probably the most disappointing aspect of the budget is the downright absurd revenue assumptions. The reason it is possibly the most disappointing aspect is that it is misleading the people of South Australia.

We have a Treasurer handing down a budget with unbelievable figures such as tax revenue growth of 6.2 per cent, which I would say is the highest of all state forecasts right around Australia, even though we know five, probably six, other states are doing better than we are, almost certainly put down to the fact that they have Liberal governments which have seen their way clear to take fiscal responsibility. We see these forecasts of tax revenue growth at 6.2 per cent and you know that they do not actually believe it. How can they? It is simply not going to be true. Once again, it is seance economics, and you are going to hear that term a lot.

The Treasurer also outlines his fiscal fantasy when it comes to the South Australian housing market, assuming of course, in his understanding, that it will be the fastest growing in the nation, which will deliver stamp duty revenue growth of 9.4 per cent per annum. Again, who believes them? It is deeply deceptive and misleading, and frankly South Australians deserve better.

I was talking only this week with a friend of mine who is involved with real estate. It was in a social context, but she was saying that she is expecting the market to be flat or down in the near future. Everybody has their opinion on markets, of course, and it could do anything from here. With interest rates relatively low still, there is no reason for things to move too much, but she certainly was not optimistic; she certainly was not as optimistic about the housing market as the Treasurer appears to be at the moment.

This fiscal fantasy has been exposed. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out in his budget speech reply today, Adjunct Professor Dick Blandy from the University of South Australia has labelled the state budget's assumptions as 'really very, very unconvincing'. What was the Treasurer's response? How can he refute this point from a respected economics academic? Professor Blandy also reportedly told Treasury officials at the lock-up that 'this is a fraud'. Sadly, I have to agree with him. It is a fraud on the people of South Australia.

Of course, the other great fraud is the Premier and Treasurer's claim that all the problems confronting the state budget have been caused by the federal budget cuts. The Treasurer was trying to suggest this in that dismal budget speech that he delivered two weeks ago. It is a claim that has been destroyed by the Under Treasurer. The Hon. Rob Lucas, the shadow treasurer, has done an admirable job in countering the Premier and Treasurer's false claim.

In evidence to the Budget and Finance Committee, the Treasury CEO, Brett Rowse, confirmed that federal funds to South Australia will actually increase by $2 billion a year by 2017-18. The confirmation is that federal funds to South Australia will actually increase by $2 billion per year by 2017-18, so it completely destroys the credibility of this Premier and his Treasurer. There is even a table within the budget document itself which destroys their claim. They need to fess up; it is their own financial mismanagement that is to blame for a record deficit and ballooning debt.

We have had a quick tally up on this side of the parliament, on these benches, and we have come to the conclusion that there is an annual increase of over $1,000 in taxes and charges on each and every household from today, 1 July. In fact, it is about $1,100. There is an increase in motor vehicle registration, an increase in 10-year driver's licence renewals—and despite what the Labor government might think or might wish for, most people do drive a car, so there is an increase for the poor, long-suffering motorist who has to pay every single time—and there is also an increase in public transport multitrip prices.

Of course, there is also the car park tax which I have not even got to yet, but there are only a couple of minutes to go. That will have a significant impact on the way people use this city, and I do not think the government understands this. It is looking to establish a vibrant city but this flies in the face of that ambition. People will be paying every way you look. I have already talked about the emergency services levy, and water bills are going up, electricity bills are going up, gas bills are going up. The list goes on.

There was also some smoke and mirrors involved in the state budget. I will not go into the detail of that here—no doubt it will come out in the grievance debate and through estimates—but a portion of the state debt was shifted from the state's books to the books of SA Water, which loaded it up considerably on its debt carrying on.

The Leader of the Opposition spoke today about other jurisdictions, about what other states in Australia and what other countries are doing to set themselves up to be in a good, sound and robust financial position for the coming decades. We are not in any way at that point or in any way looking to do that. The leader and I visited New Zealand about a month ago and had a series of high-level meetings. It is extraordinary what they have done in that country, and you will hear more from us about what we see as good economic settings that can actually get a small jurisdiction up and running again.

They do not look to sell themselves; you can never get rich by selling to yourself, you can never get rich by making money go round and round and round all the time because there is no new money coming in. New Zealand has really focused on its exports. It is a small country in a far flung corner of the world which, in a way, makes it a reasonably good comparison with us here in South Australia. It is a country that has addressed the issues of large debt and of budget deficits, and it has done it effectively, simply by having the settings right. I am running out of time, but I hope that people have been interested in the points I have made—

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

Mr TRELOAR: Thank you very much, member for Chaffey.

Time expired.

Sitting extended beyond 18:00 on motion of Hon. J.M. Rankine.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:49): I indicate that I will be supporting the Appropriation Bill 2014 and opposing the first half of the Budget Measures Bill 2014 insofar as it applies to the transport development levy; however, I will be supporting the balance of that bill.

Last week I went to Sydney and visited my son and my—I hope one day—prospective daughter-in-law, who have just acquired a property in Sydney.

Members interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: She is under pressure, let me tell you. They have just purchased their first home in Sydney. Both are employed obviously outside South Australia. Both are unlikely to return to work or live in South Australia, and they represent that large number of people in our community who leave our state every year to pursue employment somewhere else and have no investment future back in this state. That is disappointing, obviously for me as a mother, but also for the future prosperity of our state.

So, it was with great disappointment that I picked up the budget, having listened to the Treasurer's first delivery of his budget just over a week ago, to find that it was a budget with no plans to create any jobs and no growth to the economy. Every year (and I have been here for 12 years now) we listen to budgets being delivered. We have listened to oppositions and many members complain about projects that have been cut, funding that has disappeared, and disappointment at a lack of attention to the things that are important to their electorate. Nothing has really changed in that regard, and from time to time they are completely unfair. Sometimes they are justified, but we will always get demands and requests for expenditure beyond what budgets can provide for.

What is very disappointing, though, is that, when our state is in the grips of being the most inefficiently-run state and most disadvantaged amongst the Australian economies, we are continuing to just stagnate into this pool of lack of opportunities for our future generations in this state. All of that is deeply depressing.

A quick summary of where we are at: the fourth Treasurer under the Labor administration is beginning to make treasurer Foley look like a genius at this point, but he of course reigned as Treasurer at a time when there was an abundance of money available—we were raining money in the state—and was a time of plenty. He spent up big time, of course (still more than what he had budgeted for every year) but nevertheless the fiscal discipline just to maintain a reasonable budget was not as desperate as it is today, and yet we still have this level of ill-disciplined mismanagement that plagues our budget announcements and then the management of the projects that they are to be administering.

We have a deficit in our budget this year of $1.232 billion, in a year that was predicted to be a surplus of $480 million. That is an indication of the sort of projections that we have, promises that are made and predictions that are indicated, all of which evaporate and we are given the bad news when it comes to the play. We find that our debt is now approaching over $14 billion—worse than our State Bank time in the history of this state—and not only have we had the largest deficit therefore and the largest debt in our state's history, we have a direct impact, of course, on our capacity to be able to provide for others because we are now under that debt level at $14.3 billion. By the time that we reach that position, we will be paying some $2.2 million interest every day on that debt.

All that means is that when people come into our electorate offices and say, 'I can't get a wheelchair for my disabled child,' or 'I haven't got provision in this funding and I therefore won't be able to make ends meet,' you feel like saying to them, 'Don't blame me, I voted Liberal.' But the truth is they have been deceived by this government into a false sense of security, as though we are living in some prosperous, panacea paradise in South Australia, as though they are going to keep on building South Australia, that they are doing a great job and that all is under control, but unfortunately that is just simply not the case.

When things do go wrong or they are expected to tighten their belt, what do the government do? In the 12 years I have been here, they have just blamed someone else: 'I lost my pocket money, mum,' or 'The dog's eaten my homework, Ms Teacher.' This is the sort of attitude they have. It is either John Howard's fault, the GFC, or it is now Tony Abbott's fault. In that little wonder-world time, we lived in under the Rann-Gillard administration—it was not their fault, of course, because we were in that period of co-operative federalism at that point, so everything was beautiful and the debts just kept piling up and piling up. But when under pressure, oh no, it is the dastardly decision or inaction or failure to provide by somebody else. Nobody is taking any level of personal responsibility from the government and I find that shameful.

So, the budget increases, notwithstanding promises to maintain their own expenditure within the parameters of reasonable management. Our public service numbers have blown out of control—always way beyond the projected increases. Our budgeted projects have gone completely over the top. We have cost blowouts everywhere. The worst, of course, is the hospital on North Terrace, that is a project that has gone from $1.8 billion to $2.8 billion just in the time that I have been managing budgets. That is $1 billion extra on one piece of infrastructure—

Mr Treloar: And it's not finished.

Ms CHAPMAN: And it is not even finished; apparently it is late. That is a classic example. The consequence of this is that the government, having got itself into this mess, having promised Gawler electrification three times and then cancelling it, having promised four major extensions in hospitals but they get delayed and put off to the never-never, it simply adjourns these projects to some indefinite time and expects the public to put up with it.

All of that, of course, is most concerning, but on top of that we have the taxation trifecta in this year's budget. We have the transport development levy, which is the car park tax. This is the $750 on every car park every year. It is to bring in some $30 million. I do not think the government had expected such a rejection of this across a number of areas. What is puzzling about it is, in its own desperate attempt to plug holes in its budgets, the government has introduced a tax which is going to be in direct contradiction to its purpose—which we have supported—of adding to the vibrancy of the City of Adelaide. So, it is actually implementing a proposal, a policy, a tax revenue measure, in a time of desperation which completely flies in the face of what its objective is in relation to the City of Adelaide.

The Treasurer assumes that people are going to get out of their car, leave it in the garage, catch a bus into town and do their shopping. No. What is going to happen is they are going to get into their car, as they normally would, but instead of driving into the city to do their shopping or go to some event, they will go to the Marion Shopping Centre, West Lakes, Tea Tree Plaza, Burnside Village, or wherever, and they will do their shopping and they will go to other events and activities and not park in the city. That is the blind stupidity of that one.

No. 2 in the tax trifecta is the property tax. This is the increased emergency services levy on fixed and mobile property; revenue of well over $300 million. Again, allegedly necessary because of the ineptitude of others not themselves. 'This is something we need to do, we need to impose,' they say. It is a blatant property tax, a land tax on some, but on property or mobile property of others. It is inequitable. It flies in the face of all of the initiatives the government has said it has supported in supporting the opportunity for our population, young and old, to have their own home, to have that financial security. Now we are going to be paying $150, $200, up to $1,000 for the right to be able to live in our own home every year. It is just outrageous that that sort of tax should be imposed.

Then, of course, we have had what is described as the 'fun tax', the tax on events, which had been announced by Rod Hook, the former CEO of the Department of Transport, during the election campaign for the provision of free public transport to football events. Whatever will happen with this we are yet to know. Nobody knew about it before the election. Now these major event providers are being told they have to register advice of a future event where more than 5,000 people are likely to attend and then negotiate for themselves to pay for the cost of extra transport. That in itself may not be a bad thing.

What is unacceptable is that the government goes to the election saying that we are going to get free public transport and then weeks later it says, 'Bad luck, you're going to be paying for it.' That is what is so unacceptable. It is duplicitous, it is unfair, it is inequitable. I think it demonstrates how completely untrustworthy the government is in relation to that. If there was ever an example of how duplicitous the government has been with the public it was the statement back in November of minister Koutsantonis that there would be no further privatisations. Well, what is the announcement in the budget to sell off the insurance industry for the privatising of the compulsory third party insurance premium industry?

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: Oh, it is now being qualified—the minister interrupts—to be of essential services. What does she think third-party insurance is in relation to property? In 1974, the Don Dunstan administration said—Don Dunstan would be turning in his grave!—that this is an essential service. He said that this is a very important service and we need to bring it in-house and we need to have control of it. Do you know what is so duplicitous about this government? Forty years later, after they have collected premiums off South Australia, built up an accumulated fund of over $2.5 billion, they have snatched the money, they have stripped the asset, and they are selling off and privatising that insurance income stream. That is what they are doing. Don Dunstan would turn in his grave if he thought these maniacs with money—these total maniacs with money—were doing that.

It is totally duplicitous of this government to say to the public that this is an important area, which they brought to this parliament to reform the Motor Accident Commission entitlements in that last year—they came along here and said, 'We're going to reduce registration costs for motor vehicle operators'—a big push prior to the election. 'We are going to reduce the cost.'

How are we going to do that? We are going to reduce the entitlements that people have for injuries from motor vehicle accidents. We are going to separate off the catastrophically injured, the 20 or so people a year who are very seriously injured on our roads, and we will give a separate levy for those, and they will be over in another fund, and we will tick those off. We will make provision for the stripping of this asset; we are going to take the money and we are going to streamline and make saleable the insurance premium industry for compulsory third party. That is exactly what they did.

They took off the catastrophically injured, because that tends to taint the value of a product. It affects the income stream. So what do they do? They peel off that bit, put it in another fund, they strip down the entitlements to claim so that for any insurance company that is looking to buy this business now, which will be offered for sale come 2016 when the government get out of the business of providing this service, it will be a saleable, more valuable asset. They are going to take hold of this money, apparently up to $1 billion, according to Roger Cook, in relation to those moneys that are there, and they are going to put it into a highways fund. That is what they claim they are going to do.

None of this was disclosed during those debates here last year. None of the proposed investigations as to the modelling and obtaining of advice in March last year for the redesign, reorganisation and ultimate potential sale of this entity and the enterprise it operates—all a secret. That is how this government operates. They do not tell the public that, and it comes as a bit of a surprise package after they have won the election.

So the upshot here is that we now have a situation where our children are looking elsewhere to get a job. Our South Australian businesses have no confidence to expand. There is no relief in this budget, obviously, for them: payroll tax is still a problem and we still have a very high tax environment for them, and we have this massive extra cost that will affect small and other businesses to enable them to be able to offer jobs and to be able to expand.

We have our families suffering under the burden of costs of living. Other speakers have contributed that that will be, with all these extra taxes, cost imposts and rate increases, over $1,000 a year per household, and that again raises a enormous extra cost in those circumstances. For our own people who have any money left, what are they going to do? They are going to invest interstate—they are not going to invest here. Why would you invest here: you get clobbered from every direction. As for other investors, unless there is cheap land available in South Australia, who else is going to invest in South Australia?

If there is ever an indication of how bad the situation is, where we have nobody else interested in investing in our state, we have got our best and brightest leaving the state and we have got ever-imposed costs of living here for those of us who are left, it is the Motor Accident Commission itself. I was interested to read its annual report for 2012-13, only to find that, in its investment of the $2.5 billion, they have a mixed portfolio, as you would expect.

I have stood in this house before and given them some credit for the fact that they have been a very well-managed operation and that the returns they have had on their money have helped supplement the mismanagement of the government here by enabling them to prop up extra road programs. I have given credit to Roger Cook, the board and those who have been managing the portfolios, but what I find in their 2012-13 report is that, of the property which MAC owns and the property which they have invested in, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think you will be surprised to learn that, of the total property portfolio—and we are talking hundreds of millions of dollars invested in this portfolio—only 19 per cent of that property is in South Australia.

We have massive investments in Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia, and a little bit in New South Wales. Just in that financial year, what did our own Motor Accident Commission invest in to provide a secure income, a return, a good investment for the funds that they held on behalf of South Australians? They purchased a 50 per cent interest in a commercial property at 400 George Street, Brisbane for $195.8 million. They also settled on a property at 990 La Trobe Street, Melbourne Docklands for $76.4 million.

Even our own government instrumentalities are investing our assets in another state. Why? Because they give a good return. Why? Because they are reliable in the investment product that they offer. Why are they not buying up the commercial buildings in Adelaide, which have got 'for lease' signs or 'for sale' signs all around the metropolitan area of Adelaide? Because they are empty, they do not demonstrate a good rate of return and they are unreliable as an income producing investment. So even our own instrumentalities are acting to ensure that we do not have that focus and investment in South Australia.

The government's action has not only been grossly reckless in its application and management of the money on behalf of South Australia, it has snatched away opportunities for our next generations and it has left those remaining in South Australia—some who are trapped here—in a situation where we have an ever-diminishing pool of people with any resource to get us out of the mess. Fortunately, on this side of the house, we do have faith in South Australia, we do want to turn it around, we will keep fighting for it and we will not let either this government's inactivity or reckless decisions destroy our state. We will keep fighting for us.

Can I leave you with this little gem, which is another little hidden piece in the budget. In their haste to take over the MAC, in their haste to explain away that there will still be road safety campaigns—on which some $20 million a year is spent by the Motor Accident Commission at the moment, and all of which is going to disappear—minister Koutsantonis has publicly indicated that there is going to be a new levy to be imposed on all privately-issued third-party premiums, and the money will be dedicated to the MAC-funding road safety campaigns and infrastructure.

Well, hello. He did not mention that in his speech. We have another little sneaky tax added in that nobody knows about. I will look with interest to the time that we have in estimates to flesh out some of these proposals. I am grossly disappointed that Professor Dick Blandy got it right when he called this budget a fraud. I think minister Koutsantonis's contribution in this regard has been less than honest, grossly inadequate and recklessly puts the financial future of South Australians at peril. He should hang his head in shame.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (18:09): I too rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill and will be supporting it. As the member for Bragg has said, I will oppose the transport development levy. I think it is just outrageous that this state is in the economic state that it is.

We would have to really be embarrassed if we looked at ourselves on a national stage. I have recently travelled to Canberra and people have asked, 'Where are you from?' I say, 'South Australia,' and they just keep walking. It is a sad indictment, particularly for me being a very proud South Australian over the course of my life. Everything I have done has been for the betterment of South Australia, whether it has been my schooling, sport or representative sport, not only on a state stage but also a national stage. At world competition, I am a South Australian before I am an Australian. It really does grind my gears just to be part of a state that is in economic freefall.

What is even more frustrating (other than being in opposition) is to think that the government is in denial about having mismanaged the budget, the state's finances, for an extended period of time and that 'everything will be alright, because in a moment we will have a surplus and in a moment we will have a budget that will be good for everyone'.

I am looking across the fence where the grass is greener at the moment. I look at Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland, and even as far as New Zealand, to see at what their reformist governments are doing at the moment, and I am green with envy. It is not the grass; I am just green with envy. We look at Victoria, which has a $1 billion regional growth plan which is going to support 1,400 projects. Just imagine what that would do to bolster South Australia's economy—noting that regional South Australia is the economic base in this state.

Again, looking at Victoria, they are opening a business office in South Korea. Why are they doing that? They are building on the free trade agreements that have just been announced by the federal government with Korea and Japan. The previous federal government tried it and toyed with it and could not make it work, yet the current federal government has made it work straight away. Not only will the good people of Chaffey benefit, but all of South Australia will see the benefits of free trade agreements with South Korea and Japan.

We look at the Murray Basin Rail Project, a $220 million regional rail project. At the moment, we have a transport and infrastructure minister sitting on his hands, doing nothing about the state of South Australian regional rail in both the Riverland and the Mallee. He shrugs his shoulders and says that negotiations are underway. Where is the plan? Where is the stimulus to keep that regional rail in operation and keep the masses of heavy transport that is about to—

Dr McFetridge: They never had a plan.

Mr WHETSTONE: Yes, never had a plan, exactly. The member for Morphett is saying they never had a plan. Well, they haven't. They do not even have it in their 30-year infrastructure plan. There is nothing about freight rail at all. It is all about electrification for people down here in their marginal seats. There is nothing about productive infrastructure. Again, it is so frustrating. We look at New South Wales and how they are helping first homeowners with grants. It is continuing and it is getting stronger. The grant is helping the young ones to live their dream and own their home.

We look at productive infrastructure. New South Wales is saying they are in control of their budget, the budget is not in control of New South Wales. I wish the same could be said about South Australia. We look at Queensland with their Strong Choices platform—people having input to reduce what was the state's $80 billion debt. It is people power coming in and helping, not a government that is just prepared to sit in freefall. Again, look at New Zealand. Their budget provides $69 million to help 200 new businesses deal with new export opportunities.

We are looking over the other side of the fence with envy. We are looking over the other side of the fence where there is economic management and a strong future for that state. We are look here in South Australia and this government is in denial. Again, we look at the cuts this budget has provided. It has provided little stimulation for this state's economy. It has provided little stimulation for the confidence for business to go out and invest. I look at the young ones now and, as our leader has said many times, his biggest fear is that we are going to lose all our productive workforce. We are going to lose more of our young people to the interstate workforce. Why? Because there is no confidence; there is no certainty.

Today is a sad day—1 July. Many of the budget measures will be implemented today, such as public transport increases, increases in motor vehicle charges, compulsory third-party insurance, speeding fines and utility costs, such as water—my goodness!—and electricity. It is making this one of the most unattractive states to set up a business. I have had the federal government investment and trade department come and ask me, 'Have you got any shovel-ready projects? Is there any opportunity in your electorate that we can have international investment or national investment?' I come back and I say, 'We do but it is increasingly hard to compete with the costs of setting up a business in Victoria. We cannot compete with setting up a business in New South Wales.'

It is the high cost of doing business in this state which are having an impact—the taxes, the cost of running a factory, the cost of running manufacturing, the cost of processing fruit, the cost of getting your product ready for an export market. We are just blown out of the water, and what are we seeing? In the almond industry—one of the shining lights in South Australia's economy; South Australia was the powerhouse for many years, the biggest producer of almonds—they are all moving to Victoria and New South Wales. Why? Because the Victorian and New South Wales governments say to those investors and those producers: 'How can we help?

We look at the Centre of Excellence at the moment. I asked the Minister for Agriculture to sit down and have a briefing about this project. He was more interested in going to the airport and going to the Mid North than he was about a potential $12 million investment in the electorate of Chaffey. He was in such a hurry that he had to meet someone at the airport. He had to get on a plane and fly elsewhere and I was absolutely flabbergasted that this was business that was prepared to put money on the table and all they wanted was the government to ask, 'How can we help?' No, he was busy. All he wanted to do was get on a plane and get out of the region, so that is just another example of why investors are going elsewhere.

Obviously with all the cuts, with all the budgetary measures that have been put in place today, we see just exactly what is happening and why. Unemployment, particularly in Chaffey, is now at 7 per cent; that is another 1,500 people without jobs. Small businesses are closing in regional centres with job losses. Look at Target in Renmark. I am sure that some of the cabinet would have driven down the main street and gone to the bakery for morning tea or for breakfast and they would have seen that Target is about to close. Today, I hear that another national brand hardware store is closing its doors in the region. It is just another example of what is happening in South Australia, but just as importantly it is what is happening to those regional businesses.

Country South Australia's unemployment is at a 14-year high and I think that is just a sad indictment on South Australia. South Australia's jobless rate rose from 6.2 per cent to 6.8 in May 2014 alone—the highest on the mainland. With 4,500 jobs lost in May and with more than 58,000 South Australians now unemployed, that is a damning telltale of what is happening here in South Australia. And yet we have our current state government saying, 'Well, it's not our fault. It's the feds fault. Their budget cuts are making the impact.'

Obviously there is the broken promise. Labor promised in February 2010 to create 100,000 new jobs in six years. There is another promise that has gone down the drain. That is just a sad indictment on this state that they cannot live up to promises. When they put forecasts out there, they make these grand announcements to win elections and then they run away and do other things, marginal seat campaigning mostly.

As for the cost of living, many on this side have said ad nauseam about how state taxes will increase by another 10 per cent, making us by far the highest taxed state in the nation, but again it is driving away the investment. People want to know how much it is going to cost them to run their businesses. Why should they come to South Australia? Give me a good reason why I should invest in regional South Australia or invest in metropolitan South Australia.

It is hard to find reasons when you are making a business investment in a particular area. It is hard to find reasons to attract people here when you have other states under reformist Liberal governments with the advantage. They have made the hard decisions and their economies are starting to move along. Again, I call on the government to look at where they are concentrating their focus, on their budget bottom lines, and put the money where it is going to make jobs, where it is going to make a difference, where it is going to make South Australia a better place.

As to the impact of the rise in motor vehicle registration costs, in particular in the regions, a lot of the primary producers, farmers, food producers and food manufacturing sector do not just have one car. They do not have just two cars per house. They have multiple vehicles, so they are going to be hit multiple times.

Dr McFetridge: They can't catch a tram.

Mr WHETSTONE: They can't catch a tram, they can't catch an electric train. They do not have public transport. Where are the priorities? It really beggars belief. The emergency services levy is going to impact on vacant blocks as a result of the small block irrigator exit packages, particularly in Chaffey, where if you have an empty irrigation property you are now going to pay full tote odds on the emergency services levy. It is absolutely outrageous.

Pensioners and low income earners will have their rate concessions abolished. I feel for a lot of them because at the moment they are already doing it tough. The cost of living is a tough gig here in South Australia. As many of us know, many pensioners and those on concessions cannot afford to have heaters on, they cannot afford to have the luxuries of having a light on when they get up. They are using torches. They are making do with what they have, yet this government continues to make things harder—more taxes, higher cost of living. The pressures are just building, and I think it is a sad indictment.

For young people looking to buy their first home, stamp duty is a huge cost, so the government needs to look at ways of stimulating the economy. The average household will pay almost $600 more each year for water than they were in 2002. Obviously that stems from drought proofing the state, building a desal plant twice the size it should have been. The state government made building a desal plant at taxpayers' expense a priority but we will still keep on taking water out of the River Murray because it is cheap, but we will have the unused desal plant as well.

We have had a Premier who has fought for more water for South Australia, built the double desal plant, and yet he continues to take everything he can out of the River Murray. I think it is outrageous that we have a minister who, when asked where the management plan around the desal plant is—the $2.3 billion desal and pipe project—said, 'Oh well, we haven't got one of those yet. We are going to make one. We are going to get one organised.' When are you going to turn the plant on, minister? 'Well, we are going to get a plan and we will get that organised.' Where are their priorities?

I guess the really big issues tend to be how we will make money, how we will attract new money and how we will stimulate the economy. As the member for Flinders said, South Australia's spending is on merry-go round basis. We need to bring in new money and stimulate an economy that is just gasping for oxygen. It is gasping for some financial support.

As we see it today, we see the minister for investment and trade say that he has been up to see a citrus property or a citrus packing house. I asked him a simple question: how are you going to make trade easier into China, how are you going to give recognition to fruit fly? He said, 'You come up with the ideas.' Hasn't the government got any ideas? He is the man with the ideas. He invented ideas. He rewrote history on Friday to say that no-one else has ideas bar him, yet today he is asking for ideas. That is someone who continues to rewrite history and, if he looks back into the history books, he will understand why he might not be in the history books in time.

It is good to see that Labor did stick to its promise to create a trade strategy for South-East Asia. As a citrus grower and wine grape grower for over 25 years, I sent fruit to South-East Asia for all that time. We have been building markets for all that time. Now we have the lights come on. The minister has said that we are going to take up a strategy to South-East Asia. Well, minister, you need to get on your bike and get over there quickly, because we have been dealing with South-East Asia for 30 years. We have been building those markets, we have been building trust, yet now the light has just come on, and Labor claims we are only now going to do great business over there.

The minister has said that he will lobby for that program at $275,000 annually to a region that has huge potential, yet he has to lobby for more money next budget to continue that program. Outrageous! Where is the ideas light on that one? As we speak, other states have aggressive trade strategies. As I have said, Victoria is setting up a trade office in South Korea. Where are our trade offices? That's right, we got rid of them, we sacked the staff.

We do not have trade offices because we now have delegations and a minister for trade and investment. They are doing these delegations, these great things, but where are the producers? These delegations that go over there, it is just politicians looking at one another, going 'Great job!', patting each other on the back and saying 'Everything is going to be okay.'

You have to take the business delegations, you have to take the people over there, and let people look one another in the eye. Gain the trust, build a relationship, build a bridge. That is the only way you are going to get trust, particularly with the Chinese, the Indians and the South-East Asians. They need trust before they can act in the way we need them to act. We continually deny ourselves the opportunities to look at a bigger picture rather than what we have already seen a lot of.

In 2011, South Australia decided to put all its eggs in one basket and focus on markets in India and China. It closed $2.7 billion worth of trade in trade offices, including many across South-East Asia. Why? In 2012-13, our trade to South-East Asia dropped by $500 million. That is the equivalent of 4,000 jobs. It beggars belief. What is the thinking—to save money? Are you going to make money? No. You have to utilise money wisely to make money. In export markets, it is critical.

Labor promised $25 billion worth of exports for 2013. Then it went to 2014 and now it is 2020. Again, what I ask is: where is South Australia's face in the marketplace? That is the reason we are losing export opportunities.

I would like to move away from trade just a little and talk about sport. Primary school students will receive a $50 voucher from next year to help pay for sports club fees, costing about $7.7 million over four years. To deliver $50 to every one of those 152,000 primary school children in South Australia could cost upwards of $30 million over four years. I think the Treasurer needs to get out his calculator and push the right buttons this time.

Dr McFetridge interjecting:

Mr WHETSTONE: Yes, he has to take them off. Having met with sports organisations, I know that they are fearful that this might not deliver. In relation to volunteers, something the Riverland and the Mallee rely very heavily on, they are going to have a 33⅓ per cent increase in background checks. That is outrageous. In relation to PIRSA and biosecurity, we had the minister stand up and pat himself on the back about fruit fly eradication in the Riverland, yet he has just cut $5.5 million of spending in 2014-15 out of that program. That is outrageous. In relation to roads, I see that the Treasurer and the Minister for Transport went to the Riverland via the Karoonda Highway. I bet they had a bumpy ride; it is one of the worst bitumen roads in the state.

Time expired.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (18:29): In my first budget speech some 12 years ago I talked about economic forecasts, meteorological forecasts and how people complain about those. Well, they should never complain about those when looking at the Treasurer’s forecasts for this state and for this budget. It is just an absolute—what did Professor Dick Blandy say? It is a fraud.

This budget is a deficit and debt disaster, to use the Prime Minister’s words about the state of the budget left by the former Rudd/Gillard government federally. What we are seeing here after 12 years of hard Labor is a debt and deficit disaster. The state of the economy in South Australia is in a disgusting state, which is exemplified not only by all the speeches by my colleagues in this place but by what the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies said in a media report just recently. The report states:

Manufacturing investment has fallen over the past year to be at its lowest level in 20 years…A contraction in public sector investment and slower growth in public and household consumption…ongoing soft labour market conditions and a decline in household confidence.

It goes on about the realities of what is going on in this state, not the fantasy that has been put out by this government. The University of South Australia’s Professor Dick Blandy, as I said, said to Treasury officials last week, ‘This is a fraud’ when talking about this budget. The report continues:

It forecasts growth rate of 1.75 per cent in Gross State Product while also recognising a fall in employment.

Professor Blandy goes on to say:

There is no discussion of what will drive the economy. There is no evidence for economic change.

It is just a fiscal fantasy, to quote the shadow treasurer, the Hon. Rob Lucas, in the press release he put out for all to read. I would like to think that members opposite have actually read and digested this to have a reality check. The shadow treasurer said:

…the Treasurer’s dodgy figures is the assumption that South Australian tax revenue growth will rocket along at 6.2 per cent, the largest of all states.

It is just a fantasy. It is a fiscal fantasy. The bottom line in South Australia is that we have the lowest average economic growth and the lowest average jobs growth of all the mainland states. Well, can I just say something about that? You watch Tasmania. With a reformist Liberal government, you watch where Tasmania goes. It will be a crying shame if this state is at the bottom of not just the mainland states but all the states in this nation.

According to the Treasury forecasts, the South Australian housing market will be the fastest growing in the nation with stamp duty revenue growing at 9.4 per cent, but the reality is that BIS Shrapnel described the Adelaide residential market as challenging with the 5 per cent increase actually representing a 4 per cent decline in real terms. Once again, just another example of the fiscal fantasy that we are being given by this government.

The Treasury forecasts are just completely wrong. Of course, they have been going down the fear and greed path because we know that the fear factor is one of the most influential ones that a politician can put out there. They have been blaming the federal government for their cuts, but what did Treasury CEO Brett Rowse tell Budget and Finance Committee just a few days ago? According to a media release by the Hon. Rob Lucas:

Treasury CEO Brett Rowse confirmed federal funds to SA will actually increase by $2 billion per year by 2017-18. In evidence to the Budget and Finance Committee, Mr Rowse agreed total federal grants to SA in 2017-18 will be $9.9 billion, an increase of $2 billion over the $7.9 billion received in 2013-14.

So there is a significant increase in federal funding coming into South Australia. It is not the Monopoly money that the Rudd/Gillard government was promising: it is real money. This is real money. This is a managed budget on behalf of the federal government by the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, and the federal Treasurer, Joe Hockey. They are dealing with real money, not Monopoly money like we have had promised in the past.

Unfortunately, unlike other Liberal governments interstate, this Labor government here has taken that Monopoly money and tried to spend it. They have tried to go down to the store and spend it. Well, it is going to be rejected just like this government should have been rejected at the last election. Other than just the 53 per cent vote—we know all about that—this government here now should have been more strongly rejected than they were even back then by the total of South Australians voting against them.

Just going to the budget overview, let's have a look at what this government has been promising in the past. They have been promising a build, build, build program. We saw that, and we saw the election posters but what is the reality? It is cuts and cuts and cuts. We have heard the health minister going on about the so-called cuts to health and I will talk a bit more about those in a few moments.

The bottom line, though, is that we have the biggest tax increases in this state that we have seen for a long time. The emergency services levy is really a tax on land and it is a toll on transport. Every time you want to get in your car and drive down the road, you are not paying a toll to drive on a new road, you are paying a toll, you are paying a fee, you are paying a levy, you are paying a duty, an impost just to drive your car in the form of an increased emergency services levy. It is a disgrace.

I will talk a bit more about some of the impacts on volunteers, people in the disability sector and, despite what Business SA says, the impact on businesses in South Australia because of the significant increases in screening costs for not only volunteers but paid employees in South Australia.

These are just some examples of the broken promises in this budget. As Kevin Foley said many years ago, it is obvious that this crowd have moral fibre—but the moral fibre to go back on your promises? I am not so sure that that is what South Australians really want. When they said no privatisation of government assets and the creation of 100,000 new jobs by 2016. The Modbury Hospital, Flinders Medical Centre, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, and Noarlunga Hospital have all had upgrades scrapped.

We still have dear old Salisbury, where I grew up as a kid, waiting at the Chidda Railway Station for the trains, and the old red hens coming past. There will still be old diesel trains coming back and forth because they are not going to get electrified for a long time out there. If you live north of Salisbury, it is the old chug-along diesels that should have been taken out of action a long time ago.

This state government is trying to pull the wool over people's eyes, but I just hope South Australians are a bit more astute than they give them credit for. The budget predicts massive growth in revenue. They predict that there is going to be a massive turnaround in the fortunes of South Australia, and it is just not going to happen. It really is just not going to happen. The Treasurer and other ministers in this place keep saying that there is a light on the hill and that there is a new horizon for South Australia; we have heard that so many times, and I have heard it for the last 12 budgets in this place.

Fortunately for this Labor government, with their first few budgets there were the rivers of gold coming in from Canberra and they were able—despite their overspend on budgets every year—to maintain a reasonable outlook, but that has changed quite dramatically and now our grandchildren will be paying off the credit card that this government is running up.

Looking at the changes in tax revenue from 2001-02 to 2014-15, payroll tax has gone up 95 per cent. Even after CPI, there is a 39 per cent change in payroll tax, a 55 per cent increase in conveyance duty after CPI, and a 195 per cent increase in land tax, even after CPI. Other property taxes have gone up by 79 per cent. The only one that has gone down is gambling by 0.8 per cent. The taxes on insurance, motor vehicles and total taxation, even after CPI, it is 47 per cent. It is a sad indictment on the financial mismanagement of the finances of this state by this Labor government.

I will talk a little about what I was saying before about health expenditure because we have heard so much about it. We even saw the ANMF coming out and saying we should have a $100 levy on every house, whether that is a poll tax or something like that. I do not know how the government would like to sell that but I think they did discount it. The fact is, even in the Treasurer's own press release, the spending on health is actually increasing. On Thursday 19 June—budget day—there it is, Treasurer Tom Koutsantonis at the top of this state budget press release:

South Australia continues growing its investment into Health.

Treasurer Tom Koutsantonis said the State Government would be spending $315 million more in Health in 2017-18 than it is now.

…we will be growing it at a slower rate than we have in the past…

As I said before, the Victorian government did not factor in the Monopoly money that was in the out years that the Rudd/Gillard government had promised. They just factored in the real expectations and look at what their budget is.

I challenge anybody and everybody on that side to read the budget speeches from the Liberal treasurers around Australia and see the difference, and read what Treasurer Koutsantonis had to say in his press release. Health spending is going up; federal funding is actually going up. It is going up by quite a significant amount: $332 million is the figure that I recall that it is actually going up over the next few years.

I will point out one thing that has happened. We talk about the privatisation of the MAC at the moment, but people have forgotten about the privatisation of the Lotteries Commission. I understand, from going through some of the annual reports of the Lotteries Commission, that in 2001-02 the Lotteries Commission put $74.7 million into public hospital funding. In 2013, the last annual report, $111.8 million from the Lotteries Commission went into the hospital fund. Over those years that is a total of about $1.1 billion from lotteries that has gone into our hospitals over the term of this government, but they have gone and privatised it; they have sold it off.

Also, the Lotteries Commission sponsored Footy Express. I do not know what the monetary amount was, but I know over 100,000 people were using Footy Express from the figures I have seen. Now we have a fun tax coming in and we have this government trying to recoup that money because they made a decision to sell the Lotteries Commission off for $427 million, according to an ABC report.

Where is the money that was being put into hospitals coming from? Where is that going to come from in the future? I think that is one of the cases where there was a real opportunity to maintain that in government hands and continue to have that recurrent funding coming into our hospitals to support the spending that is obviously going up, the costs that are going up and the demands that are going up. There is going to be a need to spend more in that area, yet this government again and again has mismanaged it. A classic example of how they have mismanaged it is the $430 million on the EPAS project which they have stopped, and I bet they do not continue with it.

Quickly looking at some of my portfolio areas, let's look at the Department of Communities and Social Inclusion. You try to be bipartisan wherever you can in these areas, but the screening costs have gone up in a huge way. Even today we saw some regulations coming out about children's protection fees, and do not think for a moment that we question in any way, shape or form the need to have the highest levels of vigilance when it comes to the protection of our children, those with disabilities or those with needs, or just having the checks generally and making sure we do not have people who should not be there.

We do not want the Rolf Harrises of this world going around undetected, so be vigilant and have screenings, but why are you charging these volunteers? Why are you charging businesses so much? There is a cost to business, and Business SA should know that there is a significant increase in fees for people who are in paid employment. It is $82.50, including GST, for all forms of screening for paid employees, so to say there is no increase in taxation, levies, costs, imposts, duties or fees for businesses in this budget would be completely wrong.

The increased fees for volunteers in the disability sector are I think absolutely disgraceful. The need to have those checks—and we put increased security in here with legislation not too long ago—is vital. It is absolutely vital that we have that in place, but that fee will increase by 74 per cent, as I understand it from the minister's regulation today. It has gone up from $57. It says 'Delete $57 and substitute $90.50.' They have not put the GST in there because it is really $99. That is a 74 per cent increase, and it will raise over $14 million over the forward estimates. That is what they are trying to gouge out of volunteers.

Let's remind the house and the people who might want to read these contributions about minister Bettison and former ministers for volunteers have stood up on Volunteers Day. We try to be bipartisan about this, and we very proudly laud our volunteers and the work they do. Minister Bettison has said several times, in front of me, that she has the most important portfolio and the biggest portfolio. It is a $5 billion portfolio because that is what volunteers give to this state—they put $5 billion into this state, and what does this government do? They do not value those volunteers, other than putting a value on what they can gouge out of them and what they can get when Treasury puts its hand in the volunteers’ pocket.

To exemplify the effect of this increase on screening costs, let me just read a little bit from a letter I have been given by the member of Chaffey from some of his volunteers. They are involved in the Riding for the Disabled organisation, which we all support in this place, but this government does not value the input. Let me just state some numbers from that organisation and the impact that this increase in screening fees is going to have:

Riding for the Disabled SA is a volunteer organisation that has 13 centres across the state and 700 volunteers. As a group we contribute $3.5 Million to South Australia each year.

I will say that again: 'As a group, we contribute $3.5 million to South Australia each year.' They continue:

Recent changes now mean that VOLUNTEERS are now forced to pay for the Department of Community and Social Inclusion police checks a $43 each, they have been provided free of charge to volunteers previously. If RDA centres pay for these checks it will be at a cost of $30100. This is money taken away from programs that benefit riders.

There is a real risk that some of these activities could close down. This government really do need to think about what they are doing with this increase in screening fees. It is not just about what money they can get out of you; it is about the benefit of your supporting those volunteers. A bottom line rule in business is not what it costs you but what it saves you or makes you, and what this government is doing by imposing this cost on volunteers is costing the state of South Australia the goodwill and the value those volunteers put into our economy.

There are a range of areas I deal with in a very bipartisan way, including disabilities and Aboriginal affairs, and I will question the ministers in estimates about those because there are a lot of issues we need to talk about. Certainly, in the area of emergency services, we know what this government thinks about our CFS volunteers, with the cancer compensation and the real debacle they are trying to bring upon us by treating CFS volunteers as second-class firefighters; it is just not on.

Let's look at page 9.4 in the Report on Government Services 2014—Real revenue of fire service organisations (2012-13 dollars). When you go state by state, which is the only state that has reduced funding for fire service volunteer organisations? In 2008-09, South Australia put in $193.4 million; in 2012-13, $178.5 million—a significant decrease. When you go to the budget papers and look at the net cost of running these services, you have no significant increases at all, so in real terms emergency services are going backwards.

We know from the Report on Government Services 2014 and from their own budget papers that they have decreased their funding. We will be going into this in estimates, and I can promise the minister a lot of good questions on this. They are being undervalued and underresourced, and South Australians deserve a whole lot better from this government. The evidence is there: it is in black and white. It is not just the opposition talking about the state of this state; others who are far more qualified than I in this area are out there criticising the fiscal fantasy—the debt and deficit disaster—we have in this state which is being presented again and again by this government.

Time expired.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite—Minister for Investment and Trade, Minister for Defence Industries, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (18:49): By any measure, I think an impartial observer would have to commend this budget to the house. For a Labor government in particular, at this particular juncture, this is a very brave budget. I say that because it does not squib the tough decisions. It has revenue measures but, more importantly, cost cuts that will bite, and it will bite hard and it will not be easy for a lot of people. It does not extend the credit card and try to gloss over some fairly vicious federal government budget cuts by putting yet more on the credit card. I think, for that alone, this government needs absolute congratulation.

You cannot comment on this budget without considering the context. First of all, the Roxby Downs/Olympic Dam expansion did not proceed. The automotive industry collapsed from under our feet. There has been a global financial crisis which has created mayhem right across the state. We have been through some very difficult years. To be fair to the government, the Premier and the cabinet made a tough decision and that was to invest in infrastructure and to extend debt for a period to keep the economic momentum going and to create jobs to cover that gap—that yawning gap that was created by the failure of Olympic Dam to proceed, issues with manufacturing and the GFC.

As the Premier has said time and time again, imagine what sort of a state we would be in if we did not have the Adelaide Oval, the Citibank redevelopment, the South Road Superway, the Southern Expressway and various other developments that are underway. If those jobs and that enterprise were not underway imagine what the civil contractors would be saying, imagine what the workers would be saying, imagine what small businesses would be saying. The pain would have been even more extreme and we would have a bigger hole and other problems that we would have to dig ourselves out of. It was the right thing to do given the circumstances: you must consider the context.

Of course, you must also consider, as the budget has, the crushing effect of the federal government cuts. The federal government has its own issues and, to be fair, it inherited a lot of them and previous federal governments must take some of the responsibility for that. However, the bottom line is that you cannot rip that amount of money out of the economy without it having an impact—$898 million worth of commonwealth cuts are significant; $655 million to health funding alone, let alone concession funding, skills and education cuts. They are painful.

Instead of running those dollars onto the credit card, the government has made appropriate cuts. They have been honest and frank with people. The government has delivered on its promises but it has not tried to sucker people along. It said, 'We are going to take those cuts and extract them from the budget'—and it has done that. I think the government is to be commended for it, because an irresponsible budget would have been to simply further extend debt.

I want to go to the question of debt and deficit because when you look at the opposition's attacks on the budget they boil down principally to three things: the debt is too high, the deficit is too high and that taxes and cost of doing business is too high. That is the essential thrust of the opposition's attack.

Let me work through them one by one. Yes, debt is a significant sum, but I would simply say that a debt level as per the budget of $6.887 billion across a budget of $16 billion is quite a different equation to, for example, a debt of $11 billion at the time of the State Bank across a budget that was significantly smaller—around $6 billion to $8 billion. As a percentage of budget, a debt level of $6.887 billion just is not as big or as alarming as has been claimed. It is a manageable amount of debt.

We all know that it will kick up due to the new Royal Adelaide Hospital to $7.1 billion around 2015-16 but drops down to $5.2 billion by 2017-18. Importantly, the net debt to revenue ratio by 2017-18 will be 28 per cent. That is quite a significant and positive achievement, and I commend the Treasurer for it. Can I also remind the house that a surplus of $406 million is anticipated by 2015-16.

As a member of the government, I acknowledge now that we have to achieve that surplus. We have to get there, and that is not going to be easy, because it is not always easy to achieve your savings targets. There are thousands of jobs within the Public Service the government has said it will TVSP. There are other significant savings measures there and we have to find those cuts. That is going to be hard for all of us in the government, both cabinet and on the government backbench, because we are going to have to explain that to our constituents.

Some of them are not going to like it, but we have to make those savings. If we can get that surplus of $406 million in 2015-16, what we will enable the Treasurer and the Premier to do is to consider the next part of the problem, which is tax reform. Without the surpluses you cannot have the tax reforms that business so carefully needs.

I have looked through the opposition's response to the budget today, and I say to the opposition: what is their plan? I have been asking that for years. What is their plan to raise the revenue or make the cuts and the savings to improve further on what the government has achieved with this budget? I have not heard that today. I have not heard a plan. All I have heard is criticism. Criticism is fine, but we need an alternative vision. We need an alternative; if there is a better one out there, let us hear it.

I would simply say that, if the Treasurer is able to achieve the surpluses that he has set, then we will be in a position to talk about tax reform. If you look at this budget, it not only has debt at reasonable levels and net debt revenue ratios at very reasonable levels before the next election but it also has significant surpluses which will then be available to bring about the sort of reform that business is looking for.

My first point is that the debt is not quite as bad as the opposition would have us believe. Any level of debt is always alarming—I would like it to be zero—but it is not a debt crisis. The second point is that the deficit is well above what any of us would like it to be, but the budget does set out a pathway to surplus. We know that the deficit is high at the moment because of these deliberate decisions that the government made to build infrastructure which, frankly, were the right decisions. Just ask the people whose jobs and livelihoods depend on that building work. It was the right thing to do. I think the budget is in many ways a very brave budget.

Before starting to close, I want to mention the government's commitment to WorkCover reform: $180 million worth of savings passed directly on to business is no mean feat. The government is going to have to hold its nerve on this. This, again, is going to be a tough decision, particularly for a Labor government, which I am now part of.

I will be encouraging and urging everyone in the government to hold their nerve, because it will not be easy. It has to get through caucus, it has to get through the union movement—it is a tough call. With other states paying about 1.5 per cent levy rates on small business, we have to head in that direction—it has to have a '1' in front of it. Small businesses are just working-class people—working people, mums and dads—who have mortgaged things to build their businesses.

I know I have to leave a minute at the end for something, so I will be very brief in closing. Give the government some credit would be my point. I commend the Treasurer, the Premier, the rest of cabinet and the caucus for getting behind this budget. It is a tough budget, but it sets the state up to get back into surplus and to get debt under control in this term of government, and I think that is commendable. On that, I would simply like to say that I will enjoy spending the small amounts of money the budget has given me in the investment, trade and defence industries portfolio to create jobs for the future. I would like to have some more, but that is a conversation for another day.

Debate adjourned on motion of Ms Digance.

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