HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2015-05-05 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Supply Bill 2015

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 26 March 2015.)

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (11:10): It is a pleasure to be back in this place after four weeks away—back to the grind, as they say. However, it does give the opportunity for all of us as members to spend time in our respective electorates and touch base with our constituents again. I continue the debate on the Supply Bill for 2015, on the understanding that the passage of this bill will give the government the required funds to manage and run this state in the interim period between 30 June and the passing of the budget bill.

In previous years I have used my contribution to the supply bill to outline some of the funding priorities as I see them in the electorate of Flinders and of course to highlight, as we always do, the government's deficiencies when it comes to managing the state's finances. Yet again, the funding priorities for me remain largely unchanged and largely unaddressed, which I will come to later in my speech, and of course the fiscal performance of this government is as lamentable as ever. Debt and deficit are the bywords of government in this state—indeed governments around the world, sadly, it would seem, but particularly in this state where we see, once again, continuing deficit and debt.

We are forecast to have a $1.2 billion deficit this coming year. The debt is approaching the levels that we saw during the State Bank disaster and the State Bank collapse that in fact brought down a government in a spectacular way. We are getting to those levels of debt once again. As has been mentioned many times in this place before, the debt this state is carrying is costing us $2 million a day in interest. What an extraordinary amount of money—$2 million a day in debt servicing.

Imagine what could be done if that money was spent on schools, hospitals, roads and other public infrastructure. Public infrastructure remains a priority. I have said to both the Minister for Transport and the Treasurer on different occasions that infrastructure spend in regional areas and in the seat of Flinders is largely about roads. It is about other things, but it is largely about roads, and that is the area that has been most neglected.

From time to time we have quoted in this place the road funding backlog that has been identified by the RAA. Previous figures that were thrown around were about a $400 million backlog in road funding, but that has escalated incredibly. In just the last couple of weeks the RAA has come out and identified what they are saying is a $1 billion backlog in road funding. That is an extraordinary figure. I know the government take them to task on that figure, but the RAA ultimately are responsible in representing the road users in this state, and they are saying that the deficit is around $1 billion.

This backlog is reflected in the roads we see around the state, not just in the city but of course in country areas, and probably more particularly in country areas. All regional members have roads we have identified. I have identified the Tod Highway in my electorate. In fact, this week I will be tabling yet another petition to the parliament, signed by the constituents in Flinders, urging the government to spend some money—some money at least—on upgrading the Tod Highway. There are other roads, of course. For example, at our branch AGMs that we have been having over the past few weeks we have identified the Kingoonya to Wirrulla road as well.

There are port proposals. Some of them relate to the mining industry, which we know is going through difficult times at the moment. On page 4 of today's The Advertiser some of the options to drive growth were identified, which have been floated and put to the government in various guises over the years, and an Eyre Peninsula bulk commodities port is one of those. Of course, it is dependent upon mining development. With the price of iron ore collapsing to a point where it has not been for many years and indeed has come off significantly in the past 18 months, it is making even current activities less viable and any new prospects probably less and less likely to go ahead. The projects that have been floated in the past include Port Spencer, just north of Tumby Bay; Cape Hardy, which is just south of Port Neill; and even Port Bonython, which I know was a government favourite for a time. Ultimately, you need a customer, and it is difficult to find customers at the moment.

In regard to the mining sector, I heard news late last week of significant job losses in the South Middleback, namely, Iron Duke and its neighbouring mines. Sadly—although not unexpected—those losses are devastating for the people who work at the mine site and their families. Of course, many have young families and mortgages and commitments, as all families do. About a third of the workforce at Iron Duke reside in Cowell, which is in the electorate of Flinders. Last week, I spoke with a representative of the Cowell Area School who suggested that up to 50 per cent of the students at the Cowell Area School—a relatively small school—could be affected by these job losses at Iron Duke. These impacts are being felt far and wide. It is right across the sector, right across the state and, in fact, right across the country. Of course, that downturn in the mining sector is a big cause of the federal government's current budgetary constraints.

We are also still working on a port upgrade at Thevenard at a local level. We had all the key stakeholders around the table at Ceduna during the period while we were away from parliament and our local RDA convened that meeting and is driving what we hope, ultimately, will lead to some government input—both federal and state—into the infrastructure at the port of Thevenard, which is a busy port. In fact, it is the second-busiest port in the state and has existing customers. I talked about ports needing to find customers and, indeed, Thevenard has customers in place already; we have gypsum, salt, grain and mineral sands all going out of there at an average rate of about two and a half ships per week. So, that is desperately in need of an upgrade.

I referred to page 4 of today's paper, and it is interesting to note that one of the other options listed to drive growth was the spent nuclear fuel storage. I for one am pleased that this royal commission is underway. I think we have an incredible opportunity in this state, in this jurisdiction, to fill a space where nobody else is, and that is the secret. It can be a very important economic driver to operate in a space where nobody else is at. There is no point in trying to compete on the world stage with what others can do equally as well, sometimes better, and often at lower costs. So, I do look forward to this royal commission and the findings that it may provide for us as a state and the opportunities that, hopefully, it can provide us in the future.

I also noticed that today's paper referred to a population shift in this state which has moved south from a little way north of the city of Adelaide to just north of the city of Adelaide. In essence, the southern suburbs and even the southern parts, and regional cities like Victor Harbor and the South-East are our growth centres, and towards the north populations are declining. Natural population trends and shifts have occurred over time and, sadly, our regional areas are losing population. That is not to say we are not as productive or as effective as we have ever been, but the reality is that, in an industry such as farming and agriculture, technology has allowed us to be more productive, more efficient, to grow more grain than we ever have and yet require fewer people to do that.

One of the things that really hampers business in this state is the cost of doing business, and we have talked about it many times in this place. Our competitiveness simply is not there. Unfortunately, the best and brightest of our school leavers, our young people, are leaving the state for better opportunities, and you cannot blame them. If they are looking for a career and opportunities to challenge them, to best use their skills, their education, then, sadly, they are starting to look elsewhere, because, simply, the opportunities and jobs are not here. The government promised 100,000 new jobs by 2016. Of course, that is just a year away and, to be frank, we do not have a hope in hell of achieving that sort of promise—séance economics, I suggest.

Regulation and red tape is something that also hampers business. We talk about it a lot. Governments always talk about reducing the cost of doing business, the amount of regulation and the amount of red tape, and yet nothing is ever achieved. We have committees to investigate the cost of red tape and regulation and to establish ways of reducing it, but simply nothing occurs. I think the size of government, the impact of government, the fact that the tentacles of government are everywhere these days, has a big part to do with that regulation and red tape. Many sectors are simply hamstrung and unable to operate efficiently under so much regulation and red tape. Fishing and aquaculture, which is a big part of the regional economy in my electorate, feels that more than most.

I often have aquaculture representatives and those involved in the wild catch fishing sector come to me and talk to me about the cost of compliance and how it is crippling their businesses—absolutely crippling—and they wonder what they get for it. What does a fisherman or an oyster grower get for the money he pays the government? Certainly, there is monitoring and administration, but, goodness me, the numbers and figures that some of these people are talking about are quite extraordinary. This is something that we will need to address seriously as a state, otherwise we will constrict one of the few opportunities we have to grow businesses in this state.

I am a great advocate and supporter of aquaculture, and I believe that in a world where the population is growing significantly—and it is likely to be about nine billion people by 2050—we are in the box seat to provide foodstuffs, quality foodstuffs, to a lot of people in the world, particularly in that South-East Asian and east Asian market, and we are already making good forays into that market with our grain and our seafood. That regulation, red tape and the cost imposed by government on business certainly hamstring those sectors.

I understand the government is undergoing an investigation into the cost and impact of marine parks in certain areas of the state. Ceduna is one of those areas. I would be interested to see the findings from that inquiry. I hope that our fishers and others affected, even the recreational fishermen, take the time to make a submission. Unless the government hear from them, they simply will not know what the impact is. I certainly hear, anecdotally on my travels around the electorate, about the severe impact it is having on fishermen. Abalone and crayfish are a good example, because that is the rocky bottom that the government identified, with very little science, I might add, to lock away into sanctuary zones.

After much consultation, the government decided to do what they were going to do anyway. It is interesting; they have made a shift from announce and defend, which was the old Mike Rann mantra, to consult and decide, or something. I would suggest that that is not quite accurate either: it is better described as decide and then consult. I know that many of those who are involved in the consultation period feel that they were not listened to and that their voice was not effective, sadly.

In terms of the cost of doing business, water bills are a regular complaint from my constituents and all rely on water, and it is such a precious resource in South Australia. Admittedly, we have had good rains over the past few years. Our basins are at a level that we have not seen for some time. They have not fully recovered, but they have certainly had an improvement. I have no doubt that the cost of the desal plant that was built at Port Stanvac is impacting significantly on the price that people around the state are paying for their water, and for what good I am not quite sure. I understand that it is there for water security. However, the desal plant is twice as big as we believe it needed to be, and ultimately that means more than twice the cost, and the water users of South Australia are paying for that. Water is such a great enabler. It may not be the most valuable commodity but it is certainly the most precious.

I might just mention that our local NRM board has released its water allocation plan for consultation. This water allocation plan has been in development since 2006, so it has taken nine years to get to this point. It has been a long time coming, there is no doubt about that. During that time we have had a period of dry years and a period of wet years, and natural resources have been tested and have had the opportunity to recover. From what I have seen from this particular plan, this particular paper, I have to congratulate all those involved for the amount of work, the amount of research, the amount of science and the amount of consultation and community input that has been taken into account to produce this.

One of the aggrieved landowners who sits atop the Polda Basin—a basin that is much talked about and well known on the Eyre Peninsula—took me aside after one of the community meetings and said, 'Well, Peter, I think we may have finally turned the corner.' For me, that is a good result. I think some of the recommendations that came out of the Natural Resources Committee inquiry into Eyre Peninsula water, although not immediately recognised as being worthwhile by the minister, have certainly been incorporated into this Water Allocation Plan. No doubt we will have more opportunity to talk about that when it is tabled in the parliament. It is a little way off yet, there is more consultation to carry out, but we will get there.

A bright spot, I think, with regard to the western part of the state, and hopefully for the state as a whole, is the exploration for oil and gas that is occurring in the Great Australian Bight. Much acreage has been let to BP, Chevron, Statoil, Murphy oil—I think Bight Petroleum also has a tenement but theirs is closer inland just west of Kangaroo Island. But certainly out in the Bight we have some big players in a highly prospective area.

I think it is exciting, although it is not without its risks, both financial and physical. The exploration area is a long way out. It is over 200 kilometres south-west of Ceduna, on the edge of the continental shelf. It is really at the very edge of where technology is at the moment. However, it is exciting and it is highly prospective, as I said. BP looks like being first, the first cab off the rank, and its commitment to drill four wells beginning 2016 is still on target. We will watch this with great interest. Towns like Ceduna have already seen the benefit of that company being there and preparing for what looks to be some years of exploration activity. Should they find something, it will still be at least 10 years to production, I suspect, particularly if it is oil. If it is gas it is likely to be sooner but, as I said, we will watch with great interest.

In the minute that remains I will just comment that over the past four weeks excellent rains have been received across much of the agricultural areas of the state—not all, but a lot. And certainly on the Eyre Peninsula, almost all areas have received what we would class as the break of the season. We would never say no to more rain at this time of the year, but it certainly looks as though the season is off to a good start with the rain at Easter followed by another rain on ANZAC Day. ANZAC Day was a bit wet and windy but nobody minded because that really gave the farmers the opportunity to begin their seeding program, with much canola going in around the place. I suspect that now we are into May, the wheat crop will not be far behind. So, it is a good start. Once again, as we have done many times in this place before, we highlight what a critical sector the agricultural sector is to the financial and budgetary wellbeing of this state. It is such a significant exporter and through those exports brings new money into the state. It is not just money going round and round between service providers, it is actually new money, with exports going overseas and new money earned and spent within the state of South Australia.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (11:30): I rise to make a contribution on the Supply Bill. I have a number of topics that I want to cover today, all of them economic in nature. First, I want to paint a picture, according to the latest data, of where we are in South Australia from an economic standpoint. The Deloitte Access Economics March report makes for fairly grim reading. It states that there has been no jobs growth over the past year, while unemployment in South Australia is the highest in the nation and that is restraining the potential for growth, especially with consumer spending, car sales and home construction showing not much of a rise over the past year. This is very much in stark contrast to the recovery we have seen in New South Wales.

Our population growth is another source of weakness, remaining well below national rates. The gloomy mood is being reflected in below average levels of small business confidence, and that is a key indicator that I will touch on later. We have also had the unprecedented result in the last year of more businesses closing than were started up—more businesses closed than were started up. This is a unique event across the country, indeed it would be a unique event across history. The idea that more businesses shut their doors than started up really says something about the strength of the South Australian economy and the ability of this government's policy program to encourage people to start their own businesses and help kickstart the South Australian economy.

Our share of the national economy has continued to fall, from 7.4 per cent in 1987 to 6.2 per cent now. There was a time, in the days of the great Sir Thomas Playford, when South Australia was the third largest state in Australia. Since that time, we have seen the inexorable and continual decline of South Australia's standing in the national economy. It is an absolute disgrace and shame on all of us over a long period of time in South Australia and it is something that we need to look to rectify. When I look at the natural advantages that we have here there is no reason why we should be in this situation.

If I turn to the current state of the budget and the Mid-Year Budget Review some very interesting reading ensues, for those who enjoy reading through some good taxation papers. Tax revenues have been revised down further, and I gave a grieve on that last year, saying how that was something that should have been expected. In fact, it has been predicted by many other people within the South Australian economic community and came to pass at the release of the Mid-Year Budget Review.

The forward estimates revised down taxation revenues by $470.7 million, reductions in property related taxes reflecting more modest growth assumptions for property transfers and payroll tax revenues reduced as a result of lower than expected collections in 2013-14 and lower than expected wages growth across all years. I think that is a rebuke and a stark moment of honesty from the government, when it admits the fact that its budget estimates were over inflated, that its assumptions were over inflated and too optimistic, and reality has come back. What that has meant is, if I look through the net operating balance, looking forward over the forward estimates, there is some good news. From the budget, 2014-15 was looking like a deficit of $479 million, that is now down to 185 and continues throughout the forward estimates.

The major factor in relation to the reduction of the deficit this year is the fact that we are flogging off the MAC. Normally, when you sell off assets you use that to retire debt. If I look at what the last Liberal government did in the wake of the State Bank collapse and the ensuing debt that ballooned out, by selling off assets we were able to retire debt. Unfortunately, the sale of the Motor Accident Commission in this case is not even going to make a dent in the deficit. We are still going to have a deficit in South Australia, as opposed to being able to retire debt.

On that front, I know that the Treasurer loves to talk about net government debt but, unfortunately, the Auditor-General views all government assets and all government spending as debt, and things like the new Royal Adelaide Hospital, unfortunately for the government, do not necessarily get to be completely off their balance sheet.

When we look at the total non-financial public sector debt, we are predicted to blow out in 2017 to $13.155 billion. That figure is something that should haunt this Labor government. It is something that we will continue to remind this Labor government about because it is a disgusting figure and the most stark reminder of the mismanagement and excessive spending of this government.

This figure and this message is not new. On this side of the house, we have been talking about debt and deficit for a long time, but can I say that just because this issue does not get continually run in the press does not mean that it has gone away. I think it is incumbent on us as a loyal opposition to try to make sure that we continue to remind the people of South Australia of what this debt means.

What I will do now is attempt to put that in a format that generation X will understand. Those of us gen Xs here in the parliament will be very fond of and have a great understanding of the longest-running TV series in world history, that is, The Simpsons. When I look at the state of the budget and some of the decisions that the government has made over the past 12 months, it reminds me of an episode of The Simpsons where—

Mr Picton: What about Peppa Pig?

Mr KNOLL: We have had Peppa Pig. I am trying to instruct the parliament on other various TV shows. There is an episode of The Simpsons where Homer runs for sanitation commissioner, and I think the parallels here are undeniable. I would go so far as to say that this state Labor government is the Homer Simpson of Australian politics.

In this episode, there is a local department store called Costington's which announces the formation of a new August holiday intended to boost sales, and they call it 'Love Day'. The Simpsons celebrate it, and there is a vast amount of packaging produced which causes the garbage to build up. When Homer eventually takes it out, he is infuriated with the garbage men as they drive away without collecting the trash. Angered by their ignorance, Homer insults them by calling them 'trash-eating stinkbags', but this only angers them into a fight with Homer and, as a result, the family's garbage service is cut off, leading to the Simpsons' garbage piling up on their front lawn. Homer and Bart think that it is easy to throw the rubbish out the window and, as the mess continues to grow, Marge tells Homer to apologise for the remark, but he insists on doing things his way.

Homer awakens one morning to find the pile of trash gone from the front of the house, and he proudly boasts that he has beaten city hall, only to learn that Marge wrote a letter of apology to the Springfield sanitation commissioner, forging Homer's name. Homer goes to see the famous sanitation commissioner, Ray Patterson, demanding the apology letter be returned. Even though Ray Patterson tries to be civil with Homer, he insists on getting into a fight and, eventually, Homer decides that he will run for sanitation commissioner, remaking it into his image.

Mr Picton: You are just reading this from Wikipedia.

Mr KNOLL: No, it's not from Wikipedia: it's Simpsons Wikipedia. Homer begins to promote his campaign, and the campaign starts off badly. There is a U2 concert which Homer interrupts—

Mr Picton: PopMart Tour concert.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr KNOLL: —but it picks up when Homer, after prompting from Moe—

Mr Picton: Thinks of a slogan for his campaign.

Mr KNOLL: Thinks of a slogan.

Mr Picton: 'Can't someone else do it?'

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Kaurna, if I could ask you to stop interjecting.

Mr Picton interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Kaurna!

Mr Picton: The shoe is on the other foot.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Kaurna, I have asked you to stop interjecting!

Mr KNOLL: This isn't question time.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don't respond to interjections.

Mr KNOLL: Sorry, Deputy Speaker. The response is 'Can't somebody else do it?'. Now, there is a refrain that I have heard before, and it does remind me of this state government. 'Can't somebody else do it?' implies that it is somebody else's fault and that somebody else is to blame. We can point the finger over there and make all this somebody else's problem. I definitely think there are parallels there when we look at this state government sheeting home blame for everything—all and sundry—that they can think of to the federal government. It is a topic I have spoken about numerous times in this place, but I think that 'Can't somebody else do it?' seems like a very apt slogan for this state government. Homer spreads the message to the town and promises expensive services, such as a round-the-clock garbage service and having sanitation workers do all the cleaning.

Members interjecting:

Mr KNOLL: Can I say at this point, Deputy Speaker, that there is nothing unusual about people reading public remarks into the Hansard.

The Hon. J.J. Snelling: Normally, you say that you are quoting. You don't plagiarise.

Mr KNOLL: I am not plagiarising at all.

The Hon. J.J. Snelling: You haven't said you are quoting somebody else. You are reading text, as if they are your own words.

Mr KNOLL: Well, substantially I am getting the information from a public source, and that is fine, but it is not like it is inaccurate. Either way, he goes on to do various things with his campaign and he is elected on the back of his expensive promises to sanitation commissioner—a great day in the Simpsons' household. Unfortunately, after he is elected, he enacts his promises, and it turns out that he spends his entire year's budget of $4.6 million in one month. I will admit that it is not a complete analogy because the state Labor government has not spent its entire budget in one month, but last year we saw them blow out their budget by $331 million, and they are approaching $4 billion worth of unbudgeted expenditure, and I think there are genuine parallels there.

To solve the crisis that ensues, because there is no more money for Homer to play with, he has to find alternative ways of raising money, so he takes other cities' excess garbage and stores it in an abandoned mine shaft on the outskirts of Springfield. I want to be delicate at this point because I am quite supportive of the royal commission into the nuclear fuel cycle but I would also say that it seems quite odd to me that, after decades of strident opposition to increasing involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle, we get to a stage where the Premier and his cabinet decide to reverse their strident opposition and open up to this beautiful thing called the nuclear fuel cycle by having a royal commission. Again, I think there are parallels and I think the parallel is around the desperation.

This government loves the big wins. I remember that the former treasurer, member for Playford, stood here and said that South Australia would be a very different place in a few years' time. They hung their hopes on Olympic Dam and that did not come through. They always seem to focus on the big wins, and it is when those things do not come off that the South Australian economy is all the worse for it. As much as I am very open to look at what the royal commission is going to do, it seems to me to be a desperate attempt to try to rectify what has otherwise been profligate spending over a long period of time.

I also think that Labor struggles to be fiscally disciplined. Their parliamentary ranks are filled with political staffers and union organisers and, whilst I do not doubt their sincerity in any sense, they have always worked with other people's money, whether it be union dues or taxpayer funds. The disconnect between having to earn the money and being able to spend the money creates issues, and I very much think that that is what we are seeing played out here.

To give an example, in the Treasurer's maiden speech, in the shadow of the 1997 election campaign, this was made clear—and, again, I do not doubt the sincerity of the then member for Peake when he made these comments but I do doubt his ability to deliver, and this will be made very clear. It comes back to the fact that this government cannot manage its budget in a sufficiently disciplined manner to be able to deliver on all the beautiful things that it wants to achieve. I quote here from the member for Peake's maiden speech:

Our Party has shown a commitment to meet these challenges in new and exciting ways, to challenge the doctrines of the past and to move forward together. We fought to preserve our State's treasures and assets. We fought school closures—school closures in areas where our children deserve the right to the best education we can provide.

This is cold comfort to those regional communities and others who have lost their schools to super schools—

We fought hospital cut backs—

I love this comment—

We fought hospital cut backs—cut backs that were aimed at not improving the standard of health care but were simply cruel cost cutting.

This is rank hypocrisy, in my view, when we look at what is happening to the Repat, the Hampstead Centre, The QEH, Modbury Hospital and Noarlunga. It is an absolute disgrace. This one perhaps, though, is my favourite:

We fought police station closures because all South Australians, no matter where they live, deserve the right to enjoy the same lifestyle and security some take for granted.

This is obviously true, except if you live around these following areas: Tea Tree Gully, Pooraka, North Adelaide, Newton, Malvern, Hallett Cove, Firle or Blakeview. Tell me, where is the then member for Peake standing up for everybody and making sure that everybody deserves to enjoy the same lifestyle and security that some take for granted? I think it comes back to the fact that, as much as those comments were made in all sincerity, a lack of fiscal discipline means that those promises cannot be honoured. I think the Treasurer should be ashamed of himself. He has walked away from what he originally came here to do. Why? Because he cannot control the purse strings.

I would like to turn my mind now to the public sector and its growth, and I am reminded of a quote from the great Sir Thomas Playford on the growth of public sector numbers. I would like to read from a biography written about him. It says:

Until near the end of his Premiership, Playford set his face against the creation of a formal 'Premier's Department'. He maintained it was unnecessary. If he needed information about aspects of education, agriculture, highways, etc., all he or his Secretary needed to do was to telephone the Department concerned. And the Treasury itself…was in the same building. Today's Premiers and Prime Ministers have developed large secretariats to collate information, prepare reports, develop policies and challenge material flowing in from departmental sources.

The article goes on to say:

Years later, when Don Dunstan was at the helm, he expanded the Premier's Department to such an extent that it began to attract public criticism. Playford, then in his mid-70s, was visiting the city one day when he ran into his former Secretary, Miss Dunn. 'How are you, Miss Dunn?' he asked genially and still very formally, which had always been his way with women on his staff.

'I'm extremely well, thank you, Sir Thomas…better than I've been for years,' responded Miss Dunn.

'I'm so glad to hear that, so glad,' replied Playford. 'You know, I don't sleep as well these days as I used to think when I was younger and I was lying awake in bed the other night thinking that when I was Premier I must have treated my staff very badly…and particularly you, Miss Dunn.' His former Secretary was both astonished and indignant.

'Why on earth would you think that?', she asked. 'You know that's not true!'

'Well,' Playford responded, his mouth crinkling in a dry, well-controlled smile, 'You know how it was in the old days around at the Treasury. There were you, and me, and George Pearce and one-armed Wally Muggleton on the door; and I picked up the Advertiser recently and saw they now need 214 people to do your job…They both much enjoyed the joke.

I understand that times have changed and I understand that the state of South Australia has grown but I do not think the people of South Australia would appreciate the joke in the wry humour of Playford and Dunn, because we are the ones paying for it. These excerpts I have just quoted are dated, and I will grant you that, but we have the recent example of the release of the minister's directory. We now have 260 to 270 ministerial staff to cope with the bloated bureaucracy. Indeed, it is over the last 18 months we have seen the government continue to water down their Public Service reform numbers.

On a lighter note, we do need to look to the future of our state. Whilst we did not get the mining boom, we were hurt by an ensuing high dollar that hurt our agricultural exports and natural advantages. But, as China moves now to more domestic consumption-based growth and we have seen a fall in the Australian dollar, we should begin to benefit in our natural strengths of agriculture, food and wine, tourism and education. Can I say that locally in the Barossa we have had some positive news. For the 2014 financial year versus last year, we saw an increase in international visitation from 8,000 to 13,000. We saw overall an 85,000 person increase in visitors, and that led to $21 million in extra tourism revenue. This would certainly be off the back of the lower dollar and also off the back of the Barossa Be Consumed campaign. I would like to congratulate everybody involved in that.

Whilst the macro figures are not great, there are some positive signs but, as aspiring members of a potential future government on this side of the house, what could and should we be doing to help kick start our economy? I have said previously in this speech that there has been much focus by the government on the big wins. I am thinking now about OZ Minerals and Hewlett Packard.

The government very much focuses on the big wins. Whilst this is important, and I do not deny that, this, for me, misses the bigger opportunity. South Australia is a small business state. Figures from the Small Business Commissioner that I received only last week said that 97 per cent of businesses in South Australia are considered small and that 65 per cent of small businesses do not employ anybody. These are the backbone of our economy. This is where the vast majority of our employment lies. It is here that we are going to see a recovery of the South Australian economy.

In order to help small business we can do a number of things with direct support through our RDAs in the regions or other services in the city. From a whole state perspective, we have to go back and look at the fundamental cost of doing business because here is where I genuinely believe we are going to see a recovery of the South Australian economy. In order to look at those fundamental costs, we need to go back and have a genuine look at taxation—not this tax discussion paper, which merely seeks to mask what is otherwise an intent to put a land tax on the family home. We have to have a genuine look at compliance costs in occupational health and safety, WorkCover, mandatory reporting and other red tape.

We need to look at utility costs and not boast about the fact that we have the highest water prices in the nation or the highest electricity prices in the nation; in fact, we need to do more about that. We need to look at infrastructure provision that helps us to become more efficient, something the member for Flinders spoke about earlier. We need to look at things like high-speed internet provision. It is only through looking after our small businesses that our economy will recover because it is the small business community that will reinvest to help improve the future of South Australia.

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (11:50): I also rise today to contribute to the Supply Bill. May I say that I found the month or so away from this place a fantastic opportunity to really wear out some shoe leather and embed myself in the electorate and, most importantly, listen to the electorate and hear the concerns of the constituents in my area—what they are seeking and what their needs and concerns are. It was a wonderful opportunity, and it also allowed me to see and hear firsthand how discontented people are with the current government in South Australia. The state can certainly do much better—and it needs to do much better. Those needs are certainly not being met by this government at the moment.

It is only when the tide goes out that you discover who has been swimming naked; I think it was Warren Buffett who said that. As the member for Schubert alluded to, when the opportunity was here for this state to do something about mining and blossom, as the state of Western Australia has done, what did this state government do? This state government wasted that opportunity. Of course, we know that a strong economy can provide prosperity for the rest of the state, and without a strong economy you certainly cannot do that.

I want to draw the house's attention to two reports: the CommSec State of the States report and the Deloitte Access Economics report, where there are stark and extreme concerns with the state of our economy at the moment. When you look at dwelling commencements, for example, compared with the last decade average we are down 1.3 per cent. This is a massive issue because so much of the housing market flows through to other parts of the economy.

In terms of unemployment, compared with the decade average we are up 21.8 per cent. It was shocking when I was out doorknocking parts of the electorate, especially amongst the youth, to see people who want to find jobs—they really do—but who do not have the opportunities here that they should. It is terrible. Of course, when they are not at work, their morale is lower and they are costing the taxpayer more. It does so much for the state if these people can have jobs.

Economic growth has been up only 8.6 per cent compared with the last decade and it has fallen behind many of the other states, especially those on the east coast. Equipment investment has been up by only 6.6 per cent. Housing finance, though, is the big one: compared with a decade average, it is down by 13.7 per cent. These housing finance numbers are of massive concern. As I said, when people build new homes, it obviously flow through to so many components of the economy. When these numbers are down by so much the concerns are great.

Obviously, some big negatives cloud the current outlook, and we all know about the demise and departure of car manufacturing under this government's watch and the uncertainty that exists in other parts of the state. The timing is unfortunate. I would not play the Leonard Cohen album just yet, but we have some real concerns in this state. There has not been any job growth over the past year, and this is on the back of then premier Rann's announcement to create 100,000 new jobs by 2016.

There has been no job growth over the past year and unemployment in South Australia, as we have heard, is the highest in the nation, and obviously that is restraining the potential for growth in consumer spending. I believe that in many cases a consumer spending occurrence will have to be a massive factor in getting this state out of the rut. Car sales are not even showing much of a rise in this past year. There is also population growth, basic supply and demand. Population growth is another source of weakness. We need more people coming here to South Australia; without it we just cannot recover from the rut we are in at the moment.

The gloomy mood is also being seen in below-average levels of small business confidence, as the member for Schubert alluded. More people are shutting down businesses than are starting them, and this is a massive issue. During the parliamentary break I took the time, as did some other members here, to have a look at what the start-up community is doing at the moment and one of the better things I have seen done overseas are economic zones and tax-free havens. I have spoken about them before, but I have no doubt that this state government should look at something like that. There are young people, entrepreneurial people, wanting to put it all on the line and willing to take a risk; they just need a helping hand from this government, and I encourage the government to look at something like that.

So we certainly have modest growth predictions here in South Australia, and we need to be doing more to facilitate that growth. This morning we have seen an annual report from the Small Business Commissioner, including some issues concerning transparency, trust and integrity. How can the people of South Australia have any trust in this government, in the integrity of its accounts and that sort of thing, when we see these sorts of errors? Thank God for the new Small Business Commissioner, who has identified these errors and done something about them. However, what else is wrong? How can we have trust and faith in any of the upcoming budget documents, for example, when you see errors like this that were only discovered by an independent umpire? It is absolutely outrageous. It is amateur stuff, and I am ashamed that these errors were found in significant government documents.

By far the biggest issue in my electorate and I would say across the state, in terms of an immediate economic point of view, are pensioner concessions. It is about time this state government stopped playing politics with some of the most vulnerable South Australians, namely our pensioners and those who receive concessions. We know that South Australia is the only state government of all the states in Australia that has threatened to cut pensioner concessions. It is absolutely outrageous. These are people who have paid taxes their whole life, who have been the back bone of this state and this nation, and yet here is the state government using them as a political pawn to negotiate with the federal government. It is absolutely outrageous.

We want to make sure that 160,000 pensioners out there remain entitled to up to $190 per annum in concessions, which is worth a total of $32 million a year. We have heard a particular Labor MP claim that the $190 of pensioner concessions will remain, despite the Labor government saying it may be abolished. Please, stop playing political games with this. It is not doing the government any good and it is creating angst in the community. In my electorate alone I have obtained 2,000 signatures; so please, stop playing politics with this. Fund the concessions. These are some of the most vulnerable people in our community and they need this $190. I also believe that the shadow minister for local government will table a relevant petition today.

When you look at South Australia's job advertisements you can see that they continue to decline under Labor's watch. Obviously, this is a significant factor in the economy. You could say that job ads are forward-looking; they are like the stock market in that you can anticipate growth and you can anticipate activity based on who is looking to hire in the future. Just this week figures were released by the ANZ regarding the number of newspaper job advertisements in South Australia, and they showed that job opportunities are scarce in this state. South Australia recorded the largest fall in newspaper job advertisements of all the states and territories in Australia. They all have their own particular challenges, they all have the same federal government, but we see that South Australia recorded the largest fall in the last 12 months, with a 58.7 per cent decline.

It is definitely concerning that the jobs market in South Australia continues to shrink when there is so much opportunity, when we do have advantages here in South Australia. Not only that, we are also seeing an economic recovery in other parts of Australia. Why is South Australia doing so poorly? Why is it that even Tasmania has generated more newspaper job ads each and every month? With less than one-third of South Australia's population, even Tasmania averaged nearly 20 per cent more job opportunities, at around 190 job ads each week in April. It is absolutely outrageous.

I also have people who work at the current Royal Adelaide Hospital coming to me in droves. They are really concerned about what is going to happen with the new Royal Adelaide Hospital. The new Royal Adelaide Hospital, of course, is going to have fewer beds than the current Royal Adelaide Hospital, and, when you look at some of the challenges that the Royal Adelaide Hospital is going to have—

Mr Picton: That's not true.

Ms Digance: It's rubbish!

Mr TARZIA: What's rubbish about that?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr TARZIA: What's rubbish about that? Maybe you can ask the former chief of staff to the health minister—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It is unparliamentary to interject and it is unparliamentary to respond to interjections. I ask all members to listen to the contribution in silence—all members.

Mr TARZIA: I ask your forgiveness, Deputy Speaker.

The Hon. P. Caica: Stop misleading.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: All members in silence!

The Hon. P. Caica: Sorry, ma'am.

Mr TARZIA: Deputy Speaker, there is no doubt that alarm bells are certainly ringing after announcements that the Weatherill government's e-health records system, EPAS, is not expected to be operational at the new Royal Adelaide Hospital until July 2017. If EPAS fails at the new Royal Adelaide Hospital, I have no doubt (we need to be screaming about this now) that the impact on patient care in South Australia will be devastating, and this is a matter of public interest. It will be dangerous and, not only that, but project costs will blow out substantially, and it is really important—

Ms Redmond: They already have.

Mr TARZIA: Exactly; they have already blown out substantially. EPAS has been a basket case for Labor. They have totally mismanaged it; it is a rolling disaster. One critical deadline after another has been missed; it has been mismanaged. Project costs have more than doubled, and they will continue to rise on the taxpayer dollar. The people of South Australia have to pay for this mess that Labor have created. We have seen independent reports that have reinforced the scathing assessment of the operation of EPAS, not only at this hospital, but also across others as well.

I spoke earlier about trust and integrity, and the report on the errors of the findings that we found out about today in one of the Small Business Commissioner's reports. How long did it take? I understand it took about two years for a member from our side of the chamber to understand who the government are actually employing. It was almost a two-year battle under the FOI laws, and the government was forced to release copies of confidential ministerial directories, which list all staff in their offices as at December 2014 and March 2015.

If they had nothing to hide, why would they not just release the information that should be public to us? I think the public has a right to know who their taxes are actually paying for and what their taxes are actually being used to do. The government needs to come clean. The government needs to understand how certain ministers justify having 20 or 21 staff in their offices alone. Why have they tried to conceal this?

Ms Redmond: Are they not competent to do things themselves?

Mr TARZIA: Exactly right; they cannot do them themselves. They need to expand their own bureaucracy to cover for the mess and the unproductive nature of what they do. They need to come clean. They need to explain why they have tried to conceal the true number of staff in the budget papers. This is outrageous; why do it? Taxpayer dollars are being used to pay for this. It is about time that the government came clean, and that they are transparent and accountable, rather than playing political games.

I understand that they want to trivialise some matters by bringing Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street into the fray, but Gilles Street is not Sesame Street. They are here to do a job, and they are here to do a job for the people of South Australia. It is about time that they were upfront and transparent about the most basic information, and that they released that when we asked for it.

I have not even got to my own electorate of Hartley. Let me just point out three of the broken promises that this government has made on Premier Weatherill's watch. There was a Today Tonight story, Deputy Speaker—you may have seen it—during the parliamentary break which basically alluded to one of the broken promises at Glynde. The government, on the eve of the election, made a written promise, which they sent out via direct mail to the people of Glynde, to provide alternative land to move a substation from a residential site.

What have they done about it? Absolutely nothing, absolutely zilch! That is how arrogant is this government. They do not care about making promises and breaking them to save their own skin. It is absolutely disgusting. I call on the government to reiterate the promise that it made before the election, and provide alternative land so that a substation can be built somewhere other than in a residential area in Glynde.

The old McNally site up in Woodforde runs adjacent to my seat of Hartley. Magill is the area where my constituents are most affected. You basically have to threaten the government to get any answers from them. For so many months they have known that this development was likely to occur. They are selling off the farm because they cannot pay for their debt; they cannot pay for their deficit. So, what are they doing? Here we see another large blue chip property sold off the public books into private hands. That is all well and good—they will bank their cheques. I can see the former minister laughing as she goes back to her seat. They don't care. What about the people it affects? What about the people it affects in Magill who will have 300 extra dwellings?

Members interjecting:

Mr TARZIA: Careful! Karma, karma!

The Hon. J.M. Rankine: I beg your pardon?

Mr TARZIA: I said 'karma' because she was heckling, Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just continue the debate.

Mr TARZIA: I will continue the debate, Deputy Speaker. What about the residents of Magill who will have 300 dwellings adjacent to their own site? Each one of these places will have probably two cars each. Where will these cars go? Yet, the government has not called for a traffic management plan, as we did before the election. I call on the government to consider these people in my electorate, because when 300 extra dwellings go up and more cars are on the roads, they will stream down my electorate. These are real people, they have real lives, they have jobs and kids to take to school in the morning, and it will affect them.

The Paradise Interchange is another broken promise by this current state Labor government. Before the last election both sides of politics took the steam out of the issue and committed to building a car park in the vicinity of the Paradise Interchange. What has happened since then? They have pulled their promise. They say that you need a car park tax to build more car parking facilities, which is absolutely outrageous. It is outrageous because then they have the audacity to want to spend $160 million on a new O-Bahn facility, when they cannot find $2 million to $4 million to build a car park that is needed in Paradise. It is absolutely outrageous!

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: You could have done that—you could have helped with that.

Mr TARZIA: We will do it, member for Newland. When we are in government, we have already committed to do it. What member for Hartley in the past—walk out, okay, can't cope. What other member for Hartley has made that commitment three years out from opposition? The arrogance with which this government is treating the people of South Australia is shameful.

Look at the schools in my area, namely, East Marden Primary School. I know the former minister for education has a keen interest in East Marden Primary School. Have a look at that school; there is so much asbestos ridden throughout the building. The facilities there are terrible compared with some other state schools in this area. I will continue to lobby for schools like East Marden Primary School to make sure they get the best facilities they can to provide for the best education possible for our children.

A number of churches in my area would also love to have assistance from the state government purse to help fund their various projects and buildings. The Campbelltown SES in my own electorate cannot even afford to have alarm monitoring in its building at the moment because of the rising costs of living, the rising costs that such organisations have to endure. This government is not helping. We have also seen a water catchment plan in Felixstow. I would love to see the government chip in some dollars. Water is one of the best things we can invest in. For the sustainability of our future we need to be doing more.

I call on the state government to assist in the Felixstow water reserve project at Langman Grove. Earlier it was referred to that there is almost a $1 billion backlog in road maintenance. You can see this sort of thing in my own electorate as well, and that is why we need to be doing more. I have applied for Black Spot funding in the past, but the state government also has a role to play, especially on state roads, to make sure that more roads have the funding that they should. Roads like Payneham Road, roads like Montacute Road, roads like Hectorville Road.

Mr Duluk interjecting:

Mr TARZIA: Main Road, Blackwood—not in my electorate but also that road as well. Glynde Corner, for example, what a basket case that has been in recent times and that is why we all need to be doing more for projects. It all comes back to a strong economy. When you have a strong economy, when you can pay off your debt, when you can pay off your deficit, when the engine room of the South Australian economy has confidence—namely the small business sector—we have more money to do more things to make our area the best that it can be. So, it is with those closing remarks that I say that the state needs to be doing much better and I hope that I have drawn the house's attention, humbly, to some of the things that the government needs to be doing better.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Goodness me; the member for Davenport.

Mr DULUK (Davenport) (12:10): Thank you, Deputy Speaker, I know I have not been that long in this house. I also rise to speak to the Supply Bill and, of course, the government has come to this house asking to appropriate $3.29 billion from the Consolidated Account for the Public Service of the state for the financial year ending 2016. I know the Liberal Party will of course support this bill but I wish to make a few brief comments about the government's fiscal performance overall.

The Commonwealth Bank's State of the Statesreport published in January this year ranked South Australia seventh on economic performance out of eight states and territories— that is right, seventh out of eight—and that includes the ACT and the Northern Territory in those eight jurisdictions. Dwelling starts, housing finance and construction work lagged almost behind every jurisdiction. The state economy grew at just 1.3 per cent in the year 2013-14, following a growth of only 0.9 per cent in 2012-13.

Our state's unemployment rate is just too high. The participation rate or those looking for work has fallen to 61.8 per cent, indicating that there are many jobseekers out there who are giving up on the hope of finding work, and we are especially seeing this in many of our regional and rural centres, those in traditional manufacturing areas and amongst younger South Australians. The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate remains around 6.9 per cent trending to 7 per cent, which is just unacceptable.

Of course, utilities have become some of the most costly in the world with water prices rising 227 per cent since 2002, power prices some 137 per cent, and gas prices 126 per cent under the same period. We know that households, industry and agriculture are all suffering from these higher costs in utilities, especially water costs where we know that consumers are being price gouged and stymied by this government.

Former Essential Services Commission of South Australia chief executive, Dr Paul Kerin, has come out on the record and said that the government has been price gouging SA Water users for years. To quote Dr Kerin:

The Government and its senior bureaucrats have clearly demonstrated that they have no interest in genuine reform, nor in serving the long-term interests of consumers.

We wonder why our businesses are struggling in South Australia with such high inputs into their businesses.

We know that our state debt is approaching $11 billion. Net debt to revenue is expected to peak at 54 per cent of revenue in 2015. Over the last financial year, the government borrowed an additional $260 million to cover its debt—that is about $712,000 a day spent on interest servicing our state debt. That, of course, is $712,000 a day that this government is not able to invest in schools, hospitals, roads, police stations, which we are seeing closing all across metropolitan Adelaide, and family services. This is the real opportunity cost of our $11 billion of state debt—it is the cost of not being able to invest in those key services of government, those services that have been so stretched and cut back over many years.

It is not just the mounting state debt level that should be a wake-up call to all of us; it is the ongoing state deficit that is of real concern. Our state deficit for 2013-14 was over $1 billion. Our budget position in South Australia is in stark contrast to that of our Victorian neighbours. Today it is expected that the Victorian government will hand down a budget with an expected surplus of $1.2 billion—a Victorian budget surplus being handed down on the back of four years of strong Liberal governance. After 13 years of continuous Labor government surely we should be in a better financial position than we are today. Alas we are not.

Talking about some of the other indicators: consumer and business confidence remains low in South Australia; population growth trails behind that of the Eastern States; and according to the Commonwealth Bank's State of the States report for April this year, just recently released, South Australia once again ranks seventh out of eight in most indicators including economic growth, retail trade and housing investment.

Small business is the backbone of our state economy. It is small businesses that are suffering at the hands of excessive red tape and regulation. We all talk about removing red tape and the inefficiencies that go along with it, but rarely has the government acted on genuinely removing red tape to ease the cost of doing business in South Australia.

The high cost of energy and essential services is one of the many reasons that businesses are shutting up shop and moving their operations interstate. Our inefficient WorkCover scheme has been a major contributor to small business inefficiencies for many years. For the past 13 years this government has mismanaged WorkCover, hurting both employees and employers. I have to say that I do welcome the government's recent announcement to cut the WorkCover rate from 2.75 per cent to 1.95 per cent from 1 July this year. Of course this is a welcome announcement, but one that for many is too late.

State payroll tax is another inefficient state tax that penalises our business operators from employing South Australians in their businesses. If there is ever a tax that is a disincentive to job creation and economic growth, it is payroll tax. I will paraphrase the member for Bright, who was speaking the other day of his uncle's business back in Scotland, and the frustration that the member had in explaining to his uncle that this state and this country levy payroll tax. From what I understand, for some time there was a lack of understanding that a government would impose a tax on employment, yet we do here in South Australia and across the nation.

Business SA has called on the government to lift the payroll tax threshold from $600,000 to $1 million by 2017-18 through annual increases of $100,000, and I for one certainly support Business SA in this case. I urge the government to review our state's payroll tax and thresholds as a means of stimulating our economy. We are at the stage where a serious and mature debate on the GST and our funding arrangement within and from the commonwealth is required. A future state reform process needs to look at the abolition of many of our inefficient state taxes.

Road infrastructure and the investment that goes with it is a key role of any state government. Within my electorate of Davenport, Main Road, Old Belair Road and the Blackwood roundabout have been pieces of road infrastructure long overdue for state government investment.

On 5 March this year, the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI) released its Edition 2 of the Road Management Plan (RMP) for Main Road, Belair Road and Shepherds Hill Road at Blackwood. No doubt the residents of Davenport would appreciate the one-page media release that accompanied this fantastic announcement. I highlight that the initial Road Management Plan was released some nine years ago in 2006. In that time no substantial funds have been allocated to this project and, since the release of the 2006 Road Management Plan, DPTI has only delivered the following in their plan: reducing speed limits to 50 km/h; new bicycle lanes and an upgrading of bicycle infrastructure; a new pedestrian crossing at Russell Street; an upgrade to mid-block treatments; and upgrades to the intersections along the corridors, which mainly was the repainting of the lines on the road.

Whilst the above is probably welcomed by some in Davenport, it does not constitute decent road investment in a key corridor (namely, the Blackwood roundabout) which has been identified by the RAA as one of the worst roundabouts in South Australia. Last month AAMI said that Main Road at Blackwood is one of the five most common roads to have an accident on within metropolitan Adelaide. Given these statistics and a nine-year Road Management Plan, I am not sure why the government is failing to invest infrastructure in the Mitcham Hills. I call on the state government to genuinely invest in road infrastructure and join the Liberals' $20 million investment promise.

Today the state Liberal Party will table a petition signed by over 13,000 South Australians concerned about this government's proposed cut to pensioner concessions. Many of the petition's signatures have come from my electorate of Davenport, though not quite the same as those from my colleague the member for Hartley. Seemingly, this government has money to burn when it comes to government advertising, waste and mismanagement, but it cannot find within its means a guarantee to 160,000 South Australian pensioners, who are some of the most vulnerable in our community, that their $190 pensioner council rate concession will not be abolished. South Australia is the highest-taxed jurisdiction in the nation and removing the pensioner concession on council rates would exacerbate the cost of living pressures on a group in our society that can least afford it.

The emergency services levy, along with the pensioner concessions, is another levy and a cost this side of the house has acknowledged and has looked to have removed. This side of the house is really quite appalled by the government's record on the emergency services levy. But, of course, the government is removing the pensioner concession and increasing the ESL rates because it needs to because of its mismanagement, and it needs to find its way to service that debt I was referring to earlier.

The state Liberals have committed to reversing the government's $90 million increase in the emergency services levy. The ESL is no more than a tax on the family home, and the state Liberals have a commitment to restore the remission on the ESL, which would deliver an annual cut of about $168 to a homeowner with a property value of approximately $450,000. This amounts to a $672 tax cut over the life of the government.

Further, I call on the government to reverse its emergency services levy hike, made possible by the recent unexpected increase of $146 million in GST allocation that South Australia will receive as a result of the recent COAG agreement. Immediate relief in ESL charges and pensioner concessions is within the reach of this government, due merely to the recent changes in our GST allocation. Given this, why is the government continuing to inflict financial pain on those families and the most vulnerable in our community?

As I said, job growth in this state continues to fall, and we are seeing high levels of unemployment in the traditional manufacturing sector and rural communities, as well as high youth unemployment. Recent news that JBS Australia, the largest meat processing company in Australia, has stood down hundreds of workers from its facilities in Victoria and South Australia is a huge blow to our regional communities. The high cost of undertaking business in South Australia is hurting our long-term jobs growth and economic viability.

Poor fiscal management of the state has real consequences. Young graduates continue to leave the state in search of work, taking with them energy and ideas that would otherwise be available to this state. In 2013-14, net interstate migration from South Australia was 2,968 persons. Real youth unemployment in my electorate is approximately 14 per cent, and youth unemployment is much higher in the northern and southern areas of metropolitan Adelaide. This government is failing our school leavers. Graduates are completing VET and TAFE qualifications and university degrees with the knowledge that their first post-graduate job may well not be in South Australia.

Payroll tax compliance on apprentice wages has proven to be a disincentive for the employment of apprentices, putting further strain on our vocational education training system. In addition to removal of payroll tax on apprentice wages, the government should also heed the call of Business SA and abolish the requirement for employers to register before they can employ an apprentice or trainee in South Australia.

Mums and dads, families, small business operators and young people all suffer when governments perform badly, especially when the government loses its focus on economic growth. It is easy for us to sit here, comfortable as we are, and pretend that we are doing all we can while a whole generation has to pin its hopes on the meagre opportunities that currently exist in South Australia.

The first purpose of government must always be to support business and its efforts to create jobs and wealth. The dignity of a job cannot be overstated. This government has manifestly failed to support jobs growth in South Australia. In view of the government's record, I must express my reservations before extending the government more funds as part of this bill. I urge the government to continue its focus on job creation in South Australia.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The leader.

Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:24): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. It is my great pleasure to rise to speak—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are the lead speaker, I presume?

Mr MARSHALL: Yes; I indicate to the house that I will be the lead speaker and that I will be supporting this bill for the appropriation of $3.291 billion from the Consolidated Account to support the government's activities until it brings down the budget. As a person who, prior to coming to parliament, came from the business sector, I always find it quite interesting that a government asks for money—in this case, $3.29 billion—without providing us with a budget.

Could you imagine this ever occurring in the private sector, Deputy Speaker? It would never ever happen, because what would happen in the private sector is people would say, 'This is how I would like to spend my money in the coming financial year, in accordance with the objects of the organisation,' and it would be approved in advance of that money being made available. That is not the case in South Australia. In fact, the parliament today is given the task of deciding whether or not it will extend this money to the government, and all we can base our decision upon is their past performance. Of course, this is not a particularly good record. In fact, this is a government which has proven itself to be completely incapable on the Treasury bench in South Australia.

Let's just take a look at recent performance. Last financial year, for example, was the year the government was going to return us to surplus. I think it is appropriate for us to revisit that promise that they made to the people of South Australia and see how they went against that promise to return us to surplus last financial year. When we look at the actual result, of course, we find out that it was a deficit. It was not a surplus: it was a deficit. In fact, it was the largest deficit in this state's history—$1.2 billion. They were predicting a surplus; they got the largest deficit in the state's history.

For this current year the government also said, 'We have a projection for this year.' Originally, they were going to have a $479 million deficit. That is what they told us at this time last year. They have updated that, and this is interesting, and I would not mind just spending a minute or two on this. They now tell us that we are only going to have a deficit this year of $185 million, so you can see that that is a $294 million improvement in the projection they gave us this time last year. At a cursory glance, you would say, 'That's pretty good going, they've reduced the deficit', but just scratch below the surface. Just scratch below the surface to find out how they have created this situation, and I will tell you.

The government has made it clear now that there is going to be an $852.9 million transfer from the MAC this year, so of course, when you add the $852 million back to the projected loss of $185 million, you see that the underlying structural deficit by this government has not improved one single jot from the largest deficit in the state's history. They want to be out there telling the people of South Australia that they are going to have a wonderful improvement in their performance. What they are not making clear is the way that they have done this. It has not been through their own very prudential management of our state taxpayer dollars but through the flogging off of some of our assets, something they promised unequivocally that they would not do before the election, and now we have the Treasurer of this state saying that, of course, this is exactly and precisely what will happen in South Australia.

Next financial year, which, let's face it, is only seven or eight weeks away, we are going to return to a surplus in South Australia. How many times have I heard this, that we are going to return to a surplus? Be very careful, and here is the warning to the parliament and to the people of South Australia: look more closely when the budget comes down than the top line, because I make it clear to you that, if there are more sales of state government assets, we need to be aware of what they are going to be.

This is a government which has not performed particularly well against their own expenditure budget and, in fact, I am predicting that some time in the next six months we are going to become the $4 billion state. That $4 billion is the unbudgeted expenditure that this government has made since it came to power. We know from the Mid-Year Budget Review, which was handed down by the government in the dying days of 2014, just a couple of days before Christmas, that so far they are predicting the unbudgeted expenditure over the life of this government to be $3.914 billion. That is absolutely shameful—$3.914 billion. I am predicting that some time in the next six months we will breach the $4 billion mark.

Imagine for one moment what we could do if this government just operated within its own budget each year. They set their own budget, and each and every year, they blow the budget. In fact, in December, they updated the parliament that they had already blown the budget this year by $96 million. They brought that down two days before Christmas.

Imagine what we could do with that $96 million, Deputy Speaker, in Florey. Imagine what we could do for our hospitals. Imagine what we could do to preserve our police stations in South Australia or upgrade education. We could even get around to fulfilling that often-promised new city campus here in South Australia, but we cannot do that because this government is reckless with our taxpayer dollars and they have blown the budget by a whopping $4 billion.

Our state faces significant challenges, and it is interesting that the Premier now also acknowledges the significant challenges that face our state. They come in a number of areas, but I think the principal areas of challenge for our state are high unemployment, low growth, very low business confidence and young people giving up hope in South Australia. I would like to address those very briefly.

First of all, high unemployment is a travesty. Let us not forget that in the lead-up to the 2010 election, this government made a solemn promise to the people of South Australia that they would create 100,000 new jobs in South Australia in a six-year period. By my calculation, they have less than a year to deliver those 100,000 new jobs, so I think it is important for us to take this time as a parliament to consider how they have gone. They have set their own goals. This was not imposed upon them by the people of South Australia. It was not imposed upon them by the parliament. It was not imposed upon them by some greater authority. They came up with their own solemn promise to the people of South Australia, so how have they gone?

I just had a look at the most recent statistics in South Australia in terms of unemployment. We now have the highest unemployment rate in seasonal terms and trend terms in the entire nation. About the only thing we lead the nation in nowadays is unemployment.

Ms Redmond: Even worse than Tassie!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Heysen!

Mr MARSHALL: And it is quite incredible that, as the member for Heysen quite rightly points out, we have knocked Tasmania off the top of the perch. We now have the highest rate of unemployment in the nation and this is an absolute disgrace. The Labor Party has not delivered on its promise to create jobs and they should hang their heads in shame. What is the reason for this? I will tell you. This government, through its hopeless taxation and regulation regime in South Australia, has the handbrake on the South Australian economy.

Let us have a look at the growth figures in South Australia. In 2012-13, our growth in South Australia was 0.9 per cent. Last year, it was 0.13 per cent. What was it nationally? I will tell you what it was nationally: it was double. It was 2.5 per cent last year. In fact, the fast-growing states and territories are rocketing ahead. We have lost sight of the peloton. Let me tell you, the peloton has whooshed past us. The Northern Territory had 6.5 per cent growth last financial year: South Australia is sitting on 1.3. We have lost touch with the main peloton and now we have Tassie whooshing past us as well. We are right at the back of the pack and this is the problem.

Each and every year—and there will be one in a couple of weeks' time—the Treasurer comes in here and says, 'We've got a fantastic plan to grow the state.' He will come in here and tell us that we are going to have a growth rate of 2 or 3 per cent. Let me tell you that already the projection from this government for next financial year is 2.5 per cent. I just checked what Deloitte Access Economics has us down for in the next financial year and it is 1 per cent. How can Treasury and this government get it so wrong, or are they deliberately getting it wrong? It is séance economics from this Treasurer and this government, which just does not care.

But it is not just in terms of low growth that we are getting further and further behind. Of course business confidence is now really at an all-time low. When we look at the National Australia Bank's monthly business survey and the most recently published statistics for March, the business confidence index in South Australia is at minus 7.

The business conditions index is at a net balance of zero—the lowest in the nation. Businesses in South Australia have given up on this government creating the right conditions for them to grow their businesses and to employ South Australians. This is really then flowing straight through to the next generation's lack of confidence in this state and in this government. Last financial year we had net interstate migration of 3,000 people. That takes to 38,000 in net terms the number of people who have moved away from this state since Labor formed government.

I know people leave this state and I know that they come back, but when you look at it in net terms, it is 38,000 people, and these are our best and brightest people; they are our young people. Imagine this state if we had those 38,000 people back in South Australia, contributing to our economy, spending money in our economy, paying taxes in our economy, maybe buying a house, maybe even starting a business and employing people. We would be transformed as a state, but instead we are just treading water because this government simply does not care.

I say to you, Deputy Speaker, that this budget that we are now approaching at a rapid rate of knots is very important. Sure, we do not have it in time for the Supply Bill today, but we know that it is coming. We know that Victoria today is going to bring down a budget surplus of $1.2 billion. We brought down a deficit of $1.2 billion last year; Victoria is going to be bringing down a surplus of $1.2 billion. We are encouraging our government here in South Australia to make this budget all about the objectives that we have as a state, and the principal amongst those at the moment is job creation.

How are we going to do this? First and foremost, the government must look at the levers which are directly under their control. The first one to look at, of course, is the taxation regime in South Australia. We are the highest taxed state in Australia. We have the highest taxing, highest spending government in Australia. Last year's budget, when they brought it down, projected that state-based taxation revenue for this current financial year would go up 10 per cent—10 per cent.

We are already the highest taxed and their plan last year to stimulate economic activity was to stick the taxes up by a further 10 per cent. That is not going to cut it this year. We implore the government to think about tax cuts. We are not talking about putting a land tax on the average family home of $1,200 per year or ripping away the ESL remissions from households, which is only going to further dampen economic activity in this state, but providing real incentive; not shifting the deck chairs, not taking it off here and putting it back on double the size in another area, but really providing tax relief so that we can grow and stimulate the economy.

We particularly ask the government to rule out the move that the Labor government has made in Victoria to substantially increase stamp duty for international buyers. In Victoria, they have imposed a 3 per cent surcharge on foreign investors in terms of their stamp duty, and importantly they have also increased the annual land tax paid by these people. We need every single dollar of investment coming into South Australia that we can get, and we hope that the government will rule this out. The Victorian Treasurer, Tim Pallas, has said with pride that they will put this additional tax on investors in Victoria. We say to those investors, 'Come to South Australia; for goodness sake, come to South Australia.' We are asking Tom Koutsantonis to make sure that he rules out putting this additional impost upon people wanting to invest in our economy in South Australia.

The other thing that a government can do, of course, is to try to stimulate economic activity through increased export activities. This has been a longstanding commitment of this government. This government has said that it would like to increase the value of exports. In fact, in its State Strategic Plan it set a target of $25 billion. That would be achieved, according to its plan, by 2013.

Some of you might have noticed that 2013 has come and gone, and so we ask ourselves, 'How did the government go on this very important metric?' I will tell you—they failed miserably. In the first instance, they just changed the time frame from 2013 to 2014. Again, the most astute of you in the parliament today would recognise that 2014 has also come and gone. Did we achieve it? No, we did not. Was the government's response to put some more investment into this area? No. What did they do? They pushed the time frame out to 2020. They have now bought themselves another five years, but I can tell you that there is no chance that they are going to hit their mark. Why? Because they are not taking export seriously.

I would like to report to the parliament that the ABS international trade stats are out today. In fact, when we look at merchandisable exports from South Australia for the month of March, we hit $1.035 billion. That is down 6.6 per cent on the same time last year. If we look over the past 12 months, we are hitting $11.61 billion. Again, that is significantly down on where we were this time last year. We are down nearly 5 per cent on where we were at this time last year. It begs the question: what is the government doing to stimulate exports out of South Australia?

I took a quick look at the budget papers because I thought, 'This will be instructive. Let's look at all the new programs that the government has to stimulate export activity out of our state.' I was horrified to read that in recent years we have reduced the expenditure in this area rather than increased it. In fact, if we flipped back the budget two or three years we would find that South Australia was spending $30 million per year to support our exporters: now it is just $18 million. How are we going to grow the size of our economy? How are we going to create jobs for our next generation? I would suggest the best way to do it is to sell more goods and services across our borders and therefore bring somebody else's money into South Australia.

If we look at the revolution that has occurred in New Zealand under John Key, that is exactly and precisely how he did it: he grew the economy by focusing on exports and made it a goal of theirs as a nation to have 40 per cent of their GDP derived from exports. Mr Key, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, I think made a very important speech when he said, 'We are not going to grow our economy by selling to ourselves.' It is exactly the same for South Australia: we are not going to become rich as a state by selling lattes to each other. We have to have more of our goods and services going across our borders. Whether that is interstate or overseas does not matter because, whatever happens, that money will come back into this state to grow the size of our economy, create jobs and give our next generation hope and opportunity right here in South Australia.

In the upcoming budget, to be brought down in the coming weeks by this government—this tired, 13-year-old, divided, dysfunctional government—I would like to see a budget that, first, reduces taxes and provides some hope and reward for our small business sector, for those people who are out there putting their houses and assets on the line to create employment opportunities and, secondly, supports our exporters so that we can grow the overall size of our economy.

There are plenty of issues we could cover here, and I would like to commend many of the speakers who have already made contributions on this bill today. but one thing I do not think has been covered off yet is the new courts precinct. This is a government that made promises in the lead-up to the election that they would establish a new courts precinct. The people of South Australia took them at their word. I do not know why the people of South Australia do this but, nevertheless, the they took them at their word and now expect this precinct to be built. Of course, we were very unhappy to hear that the government has walked away from that commitment. They have walked away from the redevelopment of our courts precinct.

Our courts in South Australia are by and large in a deplorable state. The Supreme Court is absolutely shameful. It is more than just the physical infrastructure; the IT supporting infrastructure is decades old, and this is leading to massive backlogs in our courts and unsafe working conditions. Really, what it demonstrates to the people of South Australia is the contempt in which the government holds our legal system in South Australia. It is not good enough.

We need to see something in this upcoming budget that will give the people of South Australia some hope that this is a government that will take justice seriously. We need to upgrade our systems, we need to upgrade our buildings, and we need to make this a matter of priority. As I said, we are regretfully supporting this motion because we would like to have seen a lot more detail from the government. We hope that the government will focus on job growth and provide our next generation with some opportunity in South Australia. We have four or five more weeks until the government brings down its budget, so let's hope they can provide that opportunity.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (12:45): I rise to support the bill and, reflecting the words of the Leader of the Opposition, let's hope we spend this amount of money more wisely than we spent the last amount of money. When I say 'we', I am talking about the government of South Australia, of course. In particular, I want to refer to what has been the disaster of skills training in South Australia since the launch of Skills for All.

I start by talking about some of the background of Skills for All; if you recall, it was a significant election pledge from the then Rann government in the lead-up to the 2010 election. A policy document was prepared for the Labor Party in the department of further education—DFEEST, as it was known back then—and funded by taxpayers. It was prepared to launch at the election in 2010 as a future policy of a re-elected Labor government, and we saw the formal launch of that in 2012.

In 2011, the then Rann Labor government announced it would reform the way in which the state's vocational education and training sector would be funded and managed. The government's Skills for All white paper, which outlined the reforms and the time frame for introducing them, stated that the objectives of the reforms were:

to increase the number of South Australians with post-school qualifications and the level of those qualifications;

to increase the participation rates in the workforce, i.e. the supply of labour to industry;

to improve labour utilisation and the hours of work for those currently underemployed; and

ultimately to improve labour productivity.

Full implementation of Skills for All commenced in July 2012, and it has been a financial disaster for South Australia ever since. Advice from external sources, including the Australian Council for Private Education and Training (ACPET) regarding the need to adopt a gradual implementation of reforms, and the financial risk of not introducing income and course eligibility restrictions on the availability of government subsidies for training was largely ignored.

The budget of the then DFEEST (now DSD, Department of State Development) for Skills for All has been exceeded several times, and it has required substantial ongoing course capping and eligibility restrictions to be made to bring the training budget back under control. However, of even greater concern has been the adverse impact of these changes on training providers, students and South Australian businesses, with ongoing uncertainty surrounding Skills for All funding and subsidy arrangements which changed on an almost monthly basis between 2012 and 2015.

The funding crisis created as a result of poor management of the Skills for All program by a conga line of ministers since it was released has also had a detrimental impact on the staff and funding budget of TAFE SA which will see its staff numbers reduced from just over 2,609 employees in 2012 to fewer than 1,800 employees by the 2017-18 financial year.

TAFE has traditionally played a lead role in providing training and employment support services for disadvantaged South Australians, including those from an Aboriginal and non-English speaking background, people with disabilities and regional South Australians. In some industries and regions, TAFE is the only main provider of training, with more than 80 per cent of the market share. Regions with very high market shares for TAFE in South Australia include the Far North (including the APY lands), Fleurieu Peninsula and Kangaroo Island.

In launching the Skills for All program, the government stated that a detailed independent evaluation of the implementation of Skills for All would be undertaken and published by December 2013 (referred to in the Skills for All white paper) to ensure that timely changes would be made to the program if needed. However, the independent evaluation of Skills for All undertaken by ACIL Allen Consulting was not commenced until late 2014, and it was released in April 2015.

I note that ACIL Allen received the job for reviewing the Skills for All program at the end of last year, and by January this year the former CEO of DFEEST, Ray Garrand, was heading up their Adelaide office, and he started there in January this year. What is interesting, of course, is that the report was not released publicly until 1 April 2015, so there are questions raised as to its impact and about the person who designed and administered the Skills for All program and what role he had in the ACIL Allen review of the program.

The review found a number of deficiencies in the implementation and operation of the program and that the program has failed to meet several of its key objectives. These include that the proportion of VET graduates with a job-related benefit has declined across Australia since 2005, more so in South Australia than in other jurisdictions. There is little evidence of increased employment or productivity outcomes associated with the implementation of the Skills for All program. Just 30.5 per cent of those enrolled in a Skills for All course completed that course in 2013, and of those graduates only 70 per cent found a job-related benefit.

There was concern that the increased availability of publicly funded subsidies for VET training under Skills for All had a detrimental effect on the existing fee-for-service training market. In other words, those businesses that had been established over a substantial period of time, that had regular students from a reliable client base, lost their businesses overnight to many people who were running fly-by-night companies, companies that came in from interstate with often less rigorous programs. They lost their market and consequently lost their business, and some of them also lost their homes.

This has resulted in a substitution effect in some training sectors whereby a publicly funded training base was replaced by private funded training rather than increasing the overall training taking place. When you consider that the aim of the Skills for All program was to get more people into training, what we saw was a significant number of people who were prepared to pay for their own training or their employers paid for their training, and that privately funded training was replaced by publicly funded training.

After accounting for population growth, Indigenous participation in VET actually decreased over the period that Skills for All was in place. While there has been growth in the VET participation across South Australia since introduction of Skills for All, regional VET participation has grown at only half the rate of metropolitan Adelaide despite higher unemployment in many parts of regional South Australia. There is concern among stakeholders that Skills for All-funded VET activity has not always targeted areas with the greatest industry need or employment opportunities. I think the fact that the government has now dumped the program is evidence of that.

There is evidence of school-age students delaying enrolment in VET until they are 16 in order to qualify for Skills for All funding. Stakeholders expressed concern regarding inappropriate course delivery methods. Analysis of training data shows there were some courses where the duration appears to be well below the average. One of the major points of the ACIL Allen evaluation of Skills for All program is its failure to analyse or make reference to the financial aspects of the program, which remains one of the most serious concerns about the program, and its long-term impact on the future viability of state government training and employment programs, and TAFE SA in particular.

In the absence of an informed and independent assessment of the full cost of implementing and delivery of the Skills for All program, it is simply impossible to make an informed evaluation of whether the South Australian taxpayer has received value for money for the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been invested in the program since 2012.

Skills for All has failed in its prime objective of producing the skills needed to increase employment here in South Australia for increased productivity and economic growth. There has been almost zero employment growth in South Australia since 2010. That is extraordinary when you consider that in that same period across Australia 851,000 new jobs have been created, yet here in South Australia, according to the latest ABS figures, only 7,200 jobs have been created. Even a small state like Tasmania, with less than one-third of South Australia's population, was able to create 5,400 jobs in that same period. So, less than 1 per cent of jobs growth happened here in South Australia over the last five years, despite hundreds of millions of dollars invested in skills training. It was part of that package—remember that package that was announced before the 2010 election for 100,000 new jobs over six years?

In February 2015 South Australia had the highest unemployment rate in Australia. Unemployment in regional areas is at the highest level in 14 years, at 21.8 per cent, and youth unemployment in South Australia is amongst the highest in Australia. The independent evaluation of Skills for All—delivered more than 18 months later than promised—has highlighted serious issues in relation to the program and, as a result, the government has announced a new employment skills and training program, WorkReady, to replace Skills for All. While the government is yet to announce any details of the WorkReady program, there can be no confidence that a new program will address the serious failings of the Skills for All program it replaces, particularly as key aspects in the previous program, such as the financial operation, have not been investigated.

That is why, when that announcement was made on 1 April, we called for an independent process to evaluate the Skills for All program, particularly the financial impact of it. And that is why this week in the Legislative Council the Liberal Party will be moving for a select committee to be formed so that a proper analysis of the Skills for All program can be undertaken. Witnesses that were not invited to participate in the ACIL Allen review will be able to come forward and, under parliamentary privilege, express the concerns they had with Skills for All and what involvement they had in warning the government.

We will be able to hear stories about people who were severely disadvantaged by Skills for All, those who had missed out on training places because of Skills for All and those businesses that were either destroyed or severely handicapped by the Skills for All program. I urge those members in the upper house to support that committee so that we can get it right, so that we can look forward. We have an understanding of the history of what happened, of what went wrong, the hundreds of millions of dollars that were wasted with the Skills for All program. Why on earth was a review that was promised to take place within 12 months 18 months late? It was a serious miscalculation by the government that cost tens of millions of dollars in wasted skills training.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. L.W.K. Bignell.

Sitting suspended from 12:58 to 14:00.

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