HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2016-07-26 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Appropriation Bill 2016

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 7 July 2016.)

Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (11:03): I indicate that I will be the lead speaker for the opposition on this bill, and I indicate that we will be supporting this as convention dictates. Do we support every aspect of this bill? Absolutely not. This is another example of a complete and utter wasted opportunity by this failed 14-year-old Labor administration to address the fundamental concerns affecting the lives of the people of this state.

May I remind the house that the economic growth rate for Australia post the resources and mining boom has actually been extraordinarily strong. In fact, Australia has grown at a staggering 3.1 per cent in the 12 months to the end of March 2016. By any metric this is a wonderful result for the people of our nation. But how did South Australia fare? I will tell you, Deputy Speaker. South Australia failed to get to half the national growth rate for the 12 months to the end of March, and we as a state were just a fraction of the fast growth states of this nation and therein lies the problem.

South Australia is behind the fast growth states in Australia and we are continuing to get even further behind. The peloton is leaving us. We are seeing it in the distance and we are getting further and further behind, and now, of course, we have this extraordinarily and unacceptably high rate of unemployment in this state. In fact, we have the unenviable mantle of having the highest unemployment rate in the nation for almost two years now.

As a result the government says, ‘What we’re going to do is to bring down a jobs budget.’ We have had two jobs budgets in a row. Last year’s budget was a jobs budget. Did it result in any additional jobs for the people of South Australia? The Treasurer thinks that it did. In fact, in a recent interview on the ABC with Matt and Dave at breakfast when asked the question, ‘How many jobs have you actually created?’ he said, and I quote, ‘we have created 6,000 jobs since the last budget.’ So we have the question that was fired back directly from the interviewers in that session, ‘Were these full-time jobs?’ He said, ‘Yes, I believe they were.’

Herein lies the problem for the people of South Australia. The largest problem affecting the lives of the people living in this state is the unacceptably high unemployment rate, yet the Treasurer, charged with the responsibility of bringing down a budget which is going to transform the environment in which we live and transform the economy in which we are trying to find employment and prosper as a state, does not even know the basic statistics. He did not even know that far from creating 6,000 jobs, as he claimed in prime time radio, we had actually lost jobs.

Let’s have a look at the actual situation, and this is what most disturbing: in the 12 months to June 2016, South Australia lost almost 3,700 full-time jobs; he had it wrong by almost 10,000 jobs. He claimed that we had actually created 6,000 jobs with the job-creating settings that he moved in last year’s budget. The reality is that we lost almost 4,000 full-time jobs in South Australia. It would be laughable if it was not so serious and such an impediment on the people of South Australia getting on with their lives.

The government decided that it would bring down a new jobs budget this year. What credibility does the Treasurer have when we look at the results from last year? Do not take my word, take a look at what Treasury officials themselves say about the budget that has been brought down for this current financial year. Again, the Treasury forecast for employment growth in South Australia for this year is less than half the national employment growth rate—less than half. This is completely and utterly unacceptable.

A Liberal government in this state would not stand for a situation where our employment growth rate was projected to be less than half of that for the nation. Moreover, Treasury officials actually give this year’s budget a lower mark than they gave to last year’s budget. Their forecast for employment growth from last year’s budget was actually higher than their employment growth forecast for this year.

Therein lies the problem. We have a dangerous jobs crisis in South Australia and we have 145,000 South Australians who are now looking for work. The government said it was going to bring down a jobs budget last year and it resulted in thousands and thousands of people losing their full-time jobs in South Australia, and this year there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that there is going to be a changed situation whatsoever.

In fact, when we look at the detail of this ‘jobs budget’ there is one program—a $109 million program over two years—so we are talking in round terms about $55 million dedicated to job creation in this state for this year out of a budget total of $18 billion. So we have an $18,000 million budget of which $55 million is going to be spent on the thing that we all identify as being the single biggest problem. It is not nearly enough.

When we look at some of the failed programs that Labor has put in place in the past, it fills us with even less confidence. Deputy Speaker, I will just remind you, and the parliament, of some of the failed programs that have been implemented, most of them tossed out, in this parliament since the last election. One of my favourites, of course, was the $4 million regional loans program. This was really designed and targeted to address our unacceptably high unemployment rate in regional South Australia. Those of us on this side of the parliament will do anything that we possibly can to advance the cause of regional South Australia. We see that the unemployment rate at the moment is unacceptably high.

The government responded to this problem—and they recognised this at the last election—by saying after the election, 'We are going to start listening to the people of regional South Australia', and they put this program in place to address this problem. The $4 million regional loans program was shut down after less than two years, after failing to issue one single, solitary loan. This is the level of incompetence that we see. Their major program to address regional unemployment in this state was shut down before it had even given one single loan.

One of the other programs that I would like to address today is the $50 million Unlocking Capital fund. This is another program that was designed by this government to provide opportunities for South Australian firms to grow. But, after almost two years of this program operating, it has given just one single, solitary loan. The point is that there is no way that these programs, put in place by this inept government and supported by the Independents, have any chance whatsoever of transforming our economy here in South Australia.

Another one of the failed programs that is being administered by this incompetent government is of course the investment attraction fund, now the Economic Investment Fund. This is a particularly interesting example because this is a program that administers, or has administered, $15 million worth of grants, and prima facie this seems like a good idea. We should be doing every single, solitary thing we possibly can, as a parliament and as a state, to attract investment dollars into our jurisdiction. What has been the cost to this government of administering this $15 million worth of grants? I will tell you: $13.8 million was spent to administer $15 million—

Members interjecting:

Mr MARSHALL: This is a certain type of incompetence, that a government, propped up by Independents in this state, would spend $13.8 million to administer a grant program of only $15 million. If you need any further proof of just how incompetent this government is, take a look at the outcomes, not necessarily the inputs, but take a look at the outputs—economic growth is stagnant, growing at less than half the national average, nowhere near the fast growth states, and we have unemployment that is topping the nation.

I would like to throw in one more statistic here, because it is very important for the future of our state, and that is the net interstate migration out of this state. Last year 4,967 people from South Australia gave up hope. That is the net figure, not the gross figure—4,967. What was it in Tasmania? I will tell you what it was in Tasmania: 79. People are wanting to remain in Tasmania, which has a solid economy, lower unemployment than in South Australia and a good Liberal reformist agenda being implemented by the Hon. Will Hodgman, Premier of Tasmania. But they are leaving South Australia in droves because they can see the level of incompetence that is being presided over by this government.

One of the great boasts by the Treasurer when he brought down his budget almost three weeks ago was that the government had finally, finally, finally moved back into surplus. Whilst those of us on this side of the house strongly support the concept of presenting balanced budgets each and every year, we needed to just check the Treasurer's figures, not that we did not trust him, but we just thought it would be prudent to check whether we had actually posted a surplus.

It turns out that we have posted a technical surplus, but we remain with a structural deficit. I do not think anyone is really amazed that there might have been something a little bit dodgy about the figures. When we take a look at it, it is quite clear to us that there was a major payment from the Motor Accident Commission of $403.5 million back in June, back into the government coffers last financial year, which allowed the Treasurer to post a very, very slender $258 million surplus. Of course, without that transfer we would have remained in a massive deficit in South Australia, a deficit well in excess of $100 million.

The Mid-Year Budget Review, of course, projected a much larger surplus for last financial year—that was not realised. You have to ask yourself: why was it not realised? It was written down by more than $100 million in a six-month period. I will tell you the reason why and I will tell you the reason why we always fail in this state to realise the budget: it is because there is no fiscal discipline within this Labor administration. If you need any proof of that, just go through, department by department, see what was projected in their fantasy budget lines each year and see what was actually delivered at the end of the year. I would just like to put on the record some of these areas, which should really be of major concern to the people of South Australia.

Let us start with the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, presided over by the member for Lee. There was a $38 million blowout—a $38 million blowout—in the budget for this department. These are large sums of money. Then there is the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion: there was a blowout last financial year of $49 million. This is the same dollar value as the entire job stimulus program put forward by the government for this current financial year: it was the size of the blowout in just one department last year.

Then, of course, we have the Department for Education and Child Development, an $83 million blowout. You would not mind if we had the best education system in the country, the best NAPLAN results in the country, where we had moved our year 7s to secondary school like every other single state in the nation, but, no, our education standards are not being realised, we are not the top state, and we have these massive blowouts year in, year out—$83 million last year.

Let us take a look at the big daddy of them all, the Department for Health and Ageing: a $274 million budget blowout in that single department alone. I asked a question in this parliament of the Minister for Health last year, and I said, 'How are you tracking against your budget'? 'No problems,' he said, 'absolutely no problems at all'. So, this begs the question: what happened in the last six months? Did we have a $274 million blowout in just a six-month period? Usually, this minister, who loves to handball blame to somebody else—he is always ducking and diving any sort of responsibility himself—blames the flu season, but of course we have not had a flu season in the last six months. So, that $274 million blowout is a blowout that sits fairly and squarely at his feet, and he needs to take responsibility.

As I said, we were very fortunate to have these unbudgeted windfall gains from the Motor Accident Commission. We never even contemplated these sort of transfers three, four, or five years ago. We first heard about the government's plan to close the Motor Accident Commission insurance division back in the 2014-15 budget. We have had some very major transfers since that period of time: $853 million in the 2014-15 year; $448 million last financial year. This year the budget bottom line is being propped up by a massive transfer of $620 million in a single year.

Our major concern on this side of the house, of course, is for the people who pay their CTP insurance. When the government first raised the issue of selling the Motor Accident Commission, or privatising the Motor Accident Commission as the Treasurer refers to it as, we asked the question: what will this do for ordinary South Australians' CTP charges, the compulsory third-party insurance premium?

When other jurisdictions privatised these services, guess what happened? The insurance premiums went up, but we were assured by this Treasurer, when we raised these valid concerns, that this would not happen in South Australia. Why will it not happen in South Australia? Why will it happen in every other jurisdiction but not in South Australia? He says, 'Because we are going to put regulations in place which will cap any increase in the CTP levy.'

He then went on to say that we are not going to cap this indefinitely, we are just going to cap it until the next election. We are just going to cap it for a three-year period, and we are going to cap it at CPI. Here is the real deception on the people of South Australia, because we now have a locked-in increase for the next three years, and that increase is at 2.9 per cent. I thought: what is the forecast CPI increase for this financial year? I was astounded that it was going to be 2.9 per cent. This would be a very large increase on what it was last year or the year before.

As it turns out, the CPI increase is 1.75 per cent—another broken promise from the Treasurer, from those opposite, who said that there would be no increase in the CTP charges on the people of South Australia above CPI. At the very first opportunity for the Treasurer to demonstrate that he is a man of his word, and that is exactly what he is going to do, he failed. He failed the people of South Australia with a massive increase over and above inflation, the CPI figure for South Australia.

I make the point that this is not a business which has been sold off. The Treasurer often talks about this business as being privatised. What has essentially happened is we have ceased to operate. There was an overaccumulation in terms of the accumulated CTP charges paid for by the motorists of South Australia, and they have ultimately been transferred into government coffers. They have propped up the fantasy surplus that was posted last year, and will do exactly the same for the foreseeable years to come. Ultimately, road users in South Australia will be paying for this windfall gain that the government has had in the last couple of years.

We believe that this budget has not delivered for the people of South Australia, it has not delivered in terms of economic growth, it has not delivered in terms of jobs, it has not delivered the promised surplus and it has not delivered for young people deciding where they are going to be living in South Australia. We have flogged off an asset, or closed an asset, and we are going to be paying more with our CTP insurance.

The final thing I will address in my few minutes in the parliament today is one of the issues that I think will become a very large issue for the people of South Australia going forward, that is, electricity prices. What we have had for a long period of time are warning bells, warning bells that have been ringing. They must have been ringing in the ears of the Premier and the Treasurer, and they have been absolutely and unequivocally ignored. In fact, we have seen five or six different positions by this Treasurer with regard to electricity.

We have been raising this issue diligently in this parliament for a very long period of time, and we get this sort of undergraduate-type debating response: the Liberals privatised ETSA. Well, guess what? The lowest electricity price in the nation comes from Victoria, and they have privatised their infrastructure in their state. Then we get the argument that they are all climate change deniers on that side of the house. This is a debate worthy of a proper investigation, but we have had absolutely nothing from those opposite.

What are the consequences of this? We are now hearing that the contract prices that people are now signing up to are often 20 or 30 or 40 or sometimes 50 per cent higher than in other jurisdictions around Australia. We have heard somewhere the prices paid by South Australians are double that of Victoria. This is putting us at a competitive disadvantage from those people with whom we need to compete. Again, what is the government's response? In November last year, to their credit the government said, 'Let's call a crisis meeting.' Admittedly, this could have occurred two or three years previously, but they finally got around to calling a crisis meeting with users and consumers and generators in the room last November.

What were the consequences? This was a meeting that was attended by the Premier of South Australia. They said, 'We are going to come back with a plan as quickly as we possibly can.' Well, here we are in July, and there is no plan. This is what is missing from this state budget—a focus on addressing a problem that is only going to get larger, a problem that they have had a warning on for many years, a warning that has been completely and utterly ignored.

So, what is in the budget with regard to electricity policy in this state? I think you would all be as surprised as I am to learn that there is actually a lot of money spent in South Australia on policy and programs when it comes to electricity. In fact, the energy policy and program sub-program has a budget this year of $28.6 million which begs the question: what sort of policy advice are these people actually providing the government? Can we see some evidence of the policy which has landed us with the electricity price crisis that is currently enveloping businesses and households in this state?

We are talking about $28.6 million, and I note that over the last years they have been cutting back this expenditure, just as we are heading into a crisis and the government says, 'Let's cut the advice that has been provided to the government.' So, there are two questions for the government: what advice have you been given, and why are you cutting this back at a time when there is such a need for some proper robust energy policy development in South Australia?

We see a miserly $500,000 mentioned in this budget going towards a study of a new interconnector for South Australia—$500,000 in the budget to address the single biggest issue confronting our competitiveness as a state. This is a situation that has been presided over by Labor for 14 years in South Australia. So, $500,000 will not deliver an interconnector and, in fact, when we asked when this will be done, it is going to be done in the next 12 months. There is no great alacrity on this issue, they are not pursuing it with great vigour and courage. They are saying, 'We are going to commission a study.'

They commissioned a larger study to update Cleland Wildlife Park's koala reserve yesterday. They are basically putting the koalas and the future jobs of South Australia on exactly the same level in this budget which almost beggars belief. Having said that, I went up to Cleland the weekend before last, and it is a fantastic facility. I am not sure whose electorate it is in.

Ms Chapman: Mine.

Mr MARSHALL: The deputy leader's, so she looks after it as a great custodian, and she is up there on a regular basis. But I make the point that there is no focus on the single biggest issue—$500,000 for a study, the study will be delivered in a year's time, they are as casual as can be. How much is the interconnector going to cost? We are told it could be anywhere from $400 million, $600 million up to $800 million, and it could be delivered in four to six years' time. South Australia will be gone. Business and households will have given up if we have these massive increases in electricity which are now being projected by the AER, the ASX energy futures wholesale price index, by Deloitte Access Economics. All of these warning bells have been sounding for a long period of time.

What should the government be doing in terms of electricity? They need to reconvene their crisis meeting. They need to be doing what we have been saying for a long period of time and that is establish a permanent productivity commission, the first state-based productivity commission, to be doing the important work of predicting what is going to happen and taking corrective action, making recommendations to the government independently. They need to be focused a lot more on demand management, lowering the total cost of electricity, the total demand for electricity in this state.

At the last election, the Liberal Party took a policy to the election which said that we wanted to look at demand management with the introduction of voluntary smart meters and differential tariffs so that we can lower the total cost for electricity consumers in this state. Has the government made any movement on this? No, none whatsoever. We want to see a situation in which any future increase in wind capacity in South Australia is providing the planning application with a market impact assessment. Before we take on any more, let's make sure we are not exacerbating the situation. The government has rejected this out of hand.

We say, sure, do the study into greater interconnection, but why was this not done five years ago? We very strongly recommend to the government that they need to be doing everything they possibly can to increase the storage capacity for these renewables in South Australia. It is a ridiculous situation that we have this abundance of renewable energy in South Australia but it cannot be used when consumers and businesses actually need it, so I think it is bleedingly obvious that we need to put more money into investigating ways that we can use this renewable energy when we actually need it.

We are also hearing continually that there are rumours that submissions have been put to the government to put an incentive back in place for base load power in South Australia. I think it is now time for the government to come clean with this. Do we need to put an incentive back in place to bring back base load for this transition period, either until we get am connector or until storage capability rises to an acceptable level?

I will just say, on behalf of the Liberal Party, that we would be putting the people of South Australia first. We would not take one single solitary thing off the table. We do need to be addressing the issue of electricity prices in South Australia. There is no point continuing to do what Labor has done for 14 years, that is, to have this blind obsession with increasing renewables in South Australia with reckless abandon, with no eye to what it is going to do for ordinary South Australians and for job creation going forward.

I reiterate that the Liberal Party would be looking at every single option. That is exactly what this government should be doing. It is a disappointing budget. It is a disappointing budget because it fails to address the major issues confronting the people of South Australia: jobs, economic growth and, of course, increasing electricity prices.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite—Minister for Investment and Trade, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Defence Industries, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (11:31): Thirty-two minutes was the opposition's reply to the government's budget—32 minutes. The time allowed for the debate was unlimited and the amount of time that has been used by the opposition is 32 minutes.

The gallery is empty of both staff and public. There are no media present. There is no interest. For there to be interest, for there to be anyone in the gallery, there would need to be something new to be said. There would need to be some substance. Instead, what we have heard for the last 32 minutes has been 99 per cent criticism of the government—in fact, 100 per cent criticism of the government. I was hoping that there would be just one constructive suggestion about what the opposition might do in the way of an alternative budget had they been in office. You have to suggest alternatives.

It is actually striking that the opposition leader could only come up with 32 minutes in the way of a budget reply speech—absolutely striking—and it tells a story. I attended the opposition leader's Press Club address. I really wanted to hear what the opposition had to lay out in the way of an alternative financial plan for the state. I had hoped that after four failed elections the opposition would now understand that you cannot fatten the pig on market day, as John Howard famously said.

You cannot work on criticism of the government for 3½ years, or 3¾ years, nothing but negativity, in the hope that in the last few weeks leading up to an election you can rush out some policies and people will suddenly vote for you. That may work when you have a government that is in freefall, such as the former Labor government in New South Wales, for example, where I would argue Barry O'Farrell probably only had to stand there and not make any mistakes and he was going to win the election. But he didn't. So, it might work in that instance, but it is not going to work in this case. It is not going to work.

What I think the opposition need to do—and, I may say, what I did when I was opposition leader—is try to get out there with some policies. You have a few strategies you can adopt: you can either criticise the government of the day and hope that as a result of a successful criticism campaign people will throw the government out come the next election because you have proven they are not up to it—and that may work in certain circumstances; I do not think it will in this—or you bravely go out there and state some positions of your own. I would just point out to the opposition that, in the federal opposition, Bill Shorten, I note, started to get traction when he went out there with some policies—

Mr Duluk: Don't quote him.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: —and closed the gap, to the astonishment of many commentators and turned—

Mr Duluk: And he lost.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Davenport is called to order.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: —what looked like a very clear decision to re-elect the government, into a very close election—quite a scarily close election. I just make that observation.

I want to start by addressing in my portfolio areas some of the errors of fact just put on the record in the house by the Leader of the Opposition, and he made the same mistake at the Press Club. He claims that $13.8 million has been spent by the Investment Attraction agency in administering itself so as to provide $15 million worth of grants. He has said it at the Press Club, he has repeated it in the house today, and what it demonstrates is that the opposition leader cannot read a budget paper. Not only can he not read a budget paper—and I have corrected him on this previously—he does not ask for briefings.

Let me just straighten out the facts because the opposition leader has misinformed the house today, and I would encourage him to come down and correct the record. The amount spent by the Investment Attraction agency in 2015-16 on administering itself, if I can use that term, was $4.996 million. That was comprised of $3.169 million for salaries and costs, $233,000 for board fees and travel costs and $1.594 million for supplies and services. This was not, as the opposition leader has wrongly claimed, $13.8 million.

In this coming financial year 2016-17, IASA's operating budget is $8.932 million for a full year, comprising $5.370 million for salaries and on-costs, $408,348 for board fees and travel costs and $3.153 million for supplies and services. The opposition leader has just got his facts wrong, and the reason he has his facts wrong is he does not know how to read a budget paper.

I have corrected both him and the opposition spokesperson for investment on this previously when they have made other claims that demonstrate they do not know how to read the budget papers. They need to get some good advice into the leader's office. I certainly did. We hired a fellow called Tim Melrose. He was a terrific individual who provided great support to the opposition on budget and finance matters.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I hope you have someone up there who is competent because, based on what was just put on the record, the opposition leader is wrong. If he keeps doing this, this is going to become a big issue—

Mr Gardner interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Morialta!

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: —because one thing you need to be able to do as an opposition leader and a shadow treasurer is read a budget paper. His statements to the house are wrong, and he should come down and correct them. I offer him a briefing on the Investment Attraction agency. I have done so previously. He has not taken it up. He needs to, then he might get his facts right. While we are on the subject of the Investment Attraction agency, can I just bring to the house's attention —

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could members on my right lower their voices, please.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: —the good work done by the agency. It has centralised across government efforts on investment attraction. We had too many people dealing with investment attraction. We have put them into a single agency, and we are getting better results already. The establishment of an Investment Attraction agency (IASA) with a world-class advisory board has been a long overdue initiative by this government, and I am very proud to be the minister responsible for having overseen its creation and its good work.

It has created 3,800 jobs and cap ex of $950 million, which has been delivered drawing on resources previously spread across the whole of government. The opposition leader says, 'Where have they come from?' I am going to list them for him, and I offer him a briefing. If he would just get his facts right, I offer him a briefing which might help him to correctly inform the house. The jobs created have come from:

ScreenAway, 300 jobs;

Orora, 25 direct and 85 construction jobs;

Babcock International—I spoke to their national meeting this morning—48 jobs;

Wineflow, 50 direct jobs and 120 in construction;

Micromet, 75 jobs;

Hornsdale (Neon France), 10 jobs directly and 250 in construction;

West Franklin Development on Franklin Street, 1,350 jobs in construction;

Inghams Enterprises, 850 jobs and 620 in construction;

Buddy Platform, 30 jobs; and

NEC, 50 direct and 13 indirect jobs.

This gives a total of 1,438 direct and 2,438 construction and indirect jobs and $950.7 million of investment. The facts are there: we are creating jobs. Yes, we are losing jobs due to structural reforms, but the investment agency is out there making a major contribution. If the opposition leader keeps misinforming the house, he is going to find himself embarrassed. He needs to understand how to read a budget paper, get himself some good advice, and others need to make sure that he does not come in here with incorrect information.

I want to move on to trade because that is a particularly strong story in this budget. The challenge has always been to increase trade as a key priority in transforming the economy. The process that the government has used has been to design and deliver a fixed-date calendar of trade missions that give businesses certainty and planning to coordinate government representation during inbound and outbound missions and simply to create jobs and investment.

What we have achieved is that South Australia has delivered the largest and most effective trade missions, with strategic frameworks for major targets in China, India and South-East Asia. Exports of targeted goods and services have increased, creating yet more jobs. What it means is simply this: more exports, more investment and more jobs as we build new enterprises into the economy to match the transformation away from old manufacturing.

Latest ABS figures show that an extra 78 companies in South Australia started exporting. That is the biggest increase in new exporters since 2006. The results are in, and I would note that the allocation of funding to grow export activity in South Australia's economy has grown year on year, from $9.8 million in 2011-12 to $19.3 million in 2015-16, with more funds allocated in this budget for the Export Partnership Program and additional support for the South Australia-China Engagement Strategy by increasing our presence in the Shandong Province. I have been pleased to champion this increase in budget allocation.

As another example of the opposition leader and the shadow minister not reading the budget papers correctly and getting it wrong, I refer back to their oft-quoted figure (which I note they have now stopped since they have been exposed) of $30 million in 2011-12. Of course, that resulted from a misreading of the budget paper, which ascribed a renewable energy fund one-off payment, made very clear in an explanatory note as a one-off, as an amount spent on investment and trade that was then cut. It was just a complete misreading of the budget paper. It is a very important thing with budget papers and formal documents: read the footnotes, read the detail—the devil is in the detail.

In relation to trade, wine is up $159 million, or 13 per cent; wheat is up $150 million, or 12 per cent; copper is up $104 million, or 9.1 per cent; other confidential items are up $313 million, or 14 per cent; vegetables and fruit are up $102 million, or 22 per cent; international students are up nearly 8 per cent; new exporters in the high-tech space are penetrating new markets; and shortly we will take a mission to India with over 100 companies involved. The response has been extraordinary for the business community, and we are simply out there getting the job done.

If the opposition have any suggestions to make about how we can do it better with investment or exports, I would be pleased to hear them. If you come up with a good idea, I will take it on board. If you have a better idea on how to organise the budget to get results, suggest it, but there has been nothing but whingeing and whining. We need some constructive contributions from the opposition. The parliament deserves it and the people deserve it—and they are not getting it.

On veterans' affairs, can I make the point that we have delivered the landmark memorial walk along Kintore Avenue to commemorate 100 years since World War I. It was delivered on time and on budget at an extraordinary price of around $10 million, and it has changed the face of Adelaide for an extraordinarily small amount of money. We have brought together a diverse range of stakeholders not only to achieve that project but to get veterans working together at a time when the opposition has been working through the repat program to drive veterans apart, to have them in conflict with one another. It has been very sad, indeed. I have just come back from the western front, where, with the opposition spokesperson for veterans' affairs, in a bipartisan way we represented the government of the state, and it was a very sobering experience.

I really want to move on to the issue of defence industries, because that is where the state government rocked the boat to stop the Coalition from building submarines and warships overseas, to deliver subs, frigates and APVs. We rewrote the guidebook on international engagement and kickstarted new investment into the state, and defence industries was at the centre of it. We coordinated a national effort that involved industry, the unions, state government, federal opposition, Independents and federal senators, to push the local impacts of defence projects to the top of the political agenda.

From July 2014 to February 2015, no-one on that side of the house was on our side—no-one. No-one in the federal Coalition was on our side in this state, except Senator David Fawcett, who has been rock solid. I must also commend the former member for Hindmarsh as being someone who came out early in support of the program, and Senator Sean Edwards. Those three voices on the Coalition side alone were on our side. No-one else cared. They were more than happy to go off and build submarines and warships overseas. It was only when their own seats were threatened that they started to take an interest.

Who positioned the public debate into that place? It was this government, by running the campaign that we ran, by helping industry and unions and federal senators who were on our side from the Labor Party, the Coalition and Independents like the Xenophon Team, to get out there and argue the case. By helping them to ask the right questions in parliament, by informing them, by briefing them, by making sure that they had the resources to mount a public campaign that was largely orchestrated from Victoria Square, from the State Admin Centre, we changed the entire debate. Two prime ministers later and two defence ministers later, we finally got the result, but it is not over yet.

We forced the federal government to consider Australian industry and national capability in their defence procurement decisions. The case for change forced the federal government into a competitive evaluation process for future submarines, including options for a local build. Once that decision was made, it followed that procurement of frigates and offshore patrol vessels could be done locally as well. I was foremost in that debate. As someone who has spent 24 years serving this country in uniform, having commanded at regimental level a peacekeeping force and been involved in defence procurement, there is no-one more abreast of the risks, dangers and opportunities in this than me, and I will not let go of it now, or in the future.

The creation of 2,900 direct jobs for the future submarine project, with an estimated impact times three in indirect jobs, is something we should be proud of. By bringing forward offshore patrol vessels, we found 800 jobs, and frigates, 2,000 jobs, and as the air warfare destroyer program winds back we avoid some of shipbuilding's valley of death —not all, because decisions could have been made sooner but were not.

What is next? We need to leverage future submarines and the deal with DCNS to build broader engagement with Europe, maximise local involvement in Army and RAAF procurement programs, and make sure that we get the maximum share of the work into Australian shipyards. As I said, patrol vessels are a $3 billion program with 800 direct and indirect jobs; future frigates, a $35 billion project program with 2,000 jobs; and submarines, a $50 billion project with up to almost 3,000 jobs. It is just an extraordinary opportunity.

It is not over yet, and that is why money is being provisioned in this budget to support Defence SA. I must commend Andy Keough, the CEO, and his entire team for the tireless work they are doing to ensure that we get the maximum percentage of the work here, that there is genuine technology transfer. For that reason, there needs to be close engagement with the commonwealth.

What Minister for Defence Industry, Christopher Pyne, should be doing is what every other federal minister does and what I notice is mooted in the papers this morning in regard to energy, where the federal minister is getting the state ministers together to work out how they can solve the problems. What minister Pyne needs to do is get all the state ministers across the nation who have a stake in this together into a ministerial council, as every other minister does. The health minister does it, the transport minister does it, the education minister does it, the energy minister does it; every minister does it except this one.

I will just say to minister Pyne that in three years' time the electorate will be looking for results, and I might suggest that he will need a lot of cooperation to deliver on this program. He will need cooperation from industry, he will need cooperation from the unions and he will need cooperation from every state government. And if that cooperation is not there—

Mr Duluk: Are the unions going to hijack it, are they?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: —he will not be looking—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister! Is the member for Davenport interjecting?

Mr Duluk: No, ma'am.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I didn't think he was. Minister.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: It is what is absolutely essential and what industry—

An honourable member interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Keep it up.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: —and the unions expect. May I say, having been in defence for 24 years, what our professional men and women in uniform expect—and they are absolute professionals—is ministers to act like statesman. They expect a Team Australia approach. They want to see no political games with this very important project because it is about defending the nation, it is about equipping our Navy, Air Force and our Army with the best, and it is about creating Australian jobs. So, let's see how this develops. We are going to need an outstanding Team Australia approach.

I met regularly with David Johnston, I met regularly with Kevin Andrews. May I say, Kevin Andrews was very competent, very experienced and very good at his job. Both those gentlemen understood that we needed a Team Australia approach. How will we go from here? Well, there are some very important challenges we face. All we have now is a decision to build. We now have to work out the detail.

In summary, I think in difficult headwinds this is a pretty solid budget. It is not perfect but it is pretty solid. I would like to hear from those opposite what they would do. If they have alternative plans, there may be a better way to do it—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Has the bell gone?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: —but endless criticism alone will not solve the problems we face.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, we were wondering why we did not hear the bell. Nevertheless, are you on your feet to speak, member for Finniss?

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:51): I am, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will recognise you, then.

Mr PENGILLY: Thank you very much. I take the opportunity to announce that I will be supporting, along with members on this side, the budget. I think it is important to put that on the record, as indeed the leader did. After the last 20 minutes of verbal diarrhoea, I hope that we can get on with our budget speeches, quite frankly.

I took the time this morning to go back and read the Treasurer's speech from budget day, and then I made a few notes and put a few points alongside one another. It is interesting, because one of the things that came out in the federal election was that people felt forgotten. That is why we saw, in a lot of cases, the rise in the Xenophon vote and others. They have completely forgotten about people.

I read through the Treasurer's speech this morning, and nowhere could I find any place where the Treasurer talked about the cost of living impacts on families and individuals in South Australia—nowhere, not once, he did not mention it at all. I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you and other members in this chamber hear this complaint from people who come into their electorate office. I know I do in my offices in Victor Harbor and Kingscote and through correspondence through my office in Parliament House. So I was somewhat staggered.

The Treasurer talked about power but he did not talk about how the cost of power was impacting on the little people, on families and people doing it tough, mums or dads who are bringing up kids on their own. He did not talk about that or the cost of gas. He did not talk about what the astronomical costs of water are doing to families. He did not talk about that at all. The Treasurer did not talk about the impact of the emergency services levy on families. He did not talk about that. He left out all those things.

I would have thought that this is what the bleeding hearts of the Labor Party would be raising and talking about. Whether they have raised it in their caucus, I do not know, but the Treasurer mentioned it not once—not once. Let me tell you, apart from unemployment, of course, which is the highest in Australia—and we did not hear a lot about that either—there is nothing impacting more on South Australian families than the cost of living.

The fact of the matter is that the cost of living is what is killing South Australian families and the fact that there are no jobs is killing South Australian families. It is a disgrace. Let me tell you that this impacts very heavily in my electorate. You hear regularly that there is a lot of money down on the south coast or Victor Harbor. Let me tell you that there are pockets of wealth but there are also pockets of people who do not have a lot because they are on the age pension.

I refer to many, many people in Rosetta Village, Bay Village and those retirement villages across the Fleurieu. Elliot Gardens is a little bit different. The residents of Elliot Gardens probably have more money to spend, but those retirement villages are full of people who have generally retired from Adelaide, the northern suburbs or whatever. They have spent their lives working for Australia, and in many instances they have come to Australia, but they have been forgotten—completely forgotten. They are the ones who come into my office who are struggling to make ends meet.

Fortunately, their lives are rich in the locations they live in. Their lives are rich, but they are cash poor, and that is how it is. They have to pay for everything; they do not get it all handed to them. They have to pay and a lot of them live from one pension day to another. They budget carefully and they do not have too much, but did the Treasurer talk about them? Not once. I defy the other side of the house to tell me where in the speech the Treasurer gave he talked about those people.

The Treasurer talked about the business sector. Let me tell you that even yesterday I had some businesspeople come in to see me who have investments on the south coast and also in Adelaide. Their major complaint was that it is not a level playing field. So what are they doing? They are going to make their investments interstate. They are going to invest in further business activities that they undertake interstate because it is not a level playing field in South Australia. They are being done over. These are people who employ, through the centres they operate, hundreds and hundreds of South Australians.

A problem that is unknown to many in South Australia is what has happened with the fishing industry. If it was not enough to have marine park sanctuary zones rammed down our throats, we now have the problem with long-nosed fur seals rammed down our throats. It would not even impact on some in this chamber, but I can tell you that it is impacting deeply on members on this side who have constituents who rely on the fishing industry and who are being ruined.

Recently, there has been some media on the lakes problem and fishing in the lakes, but last week a gentleman I know well who has been fishing for a long time over on the island counted 300 long-nosed fur seals on North Cape. There never used to be a seal there a few years ago, but there are 300 there now. It is doing interminable damage and we are losing our fishing industry steadily and progressively.

Another thing I did not hear the Treasurer talk about was the impact of drugs, the impact of ice and the impact on our young people and the impact on society from drugs, particularly ice and methamphetamines. I am seeing, and I am sure other members on my side at least are seeing ongoing and growing issues with this. The prisons are getting full of prisoners, many young people who are involved in the drug trade.

I had dealings with one constituent last week down on the Fleurieu who has got himself in a mess over drugs, but I did not hear the Treasurer talk about it. A key issue for me is the impact of ice and the epidemic that is taking place with ice. Even though heroin is supposedly still the favoured drug, the impact of ice is a disaster for the communities in my electorate, and others I suspect, but I will talk about my electorate.

I was happy to hear from the Treasurer about the STEM funding for schools. I think that is important and I have no argument with that. It is a good thing. The money has to be found of course, but it is a good thing. Health continues to be the never-ending diabolical nightmare of finding enough money, but you have to wonder why it has ballooned out of control. We seemingly hear, day after day, more health-related stories that have not been fixed. Transforming Health has been pretty much a disaster in my electorate.

I have two health units—Kangaroo Island and Victor Harbor. The doctors at Victor Harbor (over 40 private practices across the south coast) have just about washed their hands of it. They are waiting for a tragedy to occur in the south coast hospital. It is simply not good enough. The figures I have on funding their own doctors in the hospital in the health service are diabolical. They still cannot find enough doctors. They cannot find enough to employ and it is a sad situation.

I would like to turn to the issue of blue gums. I think they need mentioning. It would not be the first time in this place that I have said that managed investment schemes were, as far as blue gums went, an absolute disaster introduced by the former Coalition government. I would have to say that, in relation to blue gums, they have been a disaster in my electorate. There are much smaller plantations on the Fleurieu. Some of them have been sold and some of them have been cleared. Indeed, the Hon. Robert Brokenshire in another place bought one or two small parcels, cleared them and returned them to productivity, but I can tell you that in my electorate on the island they are a nightmare. They are an absolute nightmare. It is bound up in legal stupidity.

I am fed up with hearing smart ideas about using biomass for power production, and this and that and everything else. What needs to happen with these is what is happening in Western Australia. They need to be knocked down. The country needs to be brought back into agricultural productivity, provide food and fibre for the world, and get on with it. The trees over there are not worth a crumpet, quite frankly. All you would be buying is the land and then you would have an astronomical cost to clear it, but it has to be done. It is absolutely killing the centre and west end of the island. It is destroying the society and the schools and causing the lack of people. It is killing that area which could be such a productive area again agriculturally. I am fed up with hearing all of the ideas.

I would like to say a few words regarding the KI commissioner position. Just over 12 months or so ago, we were told in this place what a wonderful thing this was going to be for Kangaroo Island.

Ms Redmond: And has it worked out that way?

Mr PENGILLY: No, it has not, member for Heysen. It has not turned out to be wonderful. I have absolutely nothing against the person who was appointed commissioner, nothing whatsoever, and I will come back to that in a minute, but it has done nothing. I did say in this place that all it would be would be another bureaucracy and what has it been?

Ms Redmond: Another bureaucracy.

Mr PENGILLY: It is another bureaucracy—member for Heysen, you are spot on—consuming a million dollars of taxpayers' money each year. It supposedly was a two or three days a week position and that was about it. So what have we got now? We now have five people paid out of that million dollars and not all of them are full-time. We have five people and another bureaucracy.

I do not begrudge people their jobs, trust me, that is not my point, but from what I can see, and what increasing numbers of people on the island are learning, you will never change the hard core who support the position until the day they die. It is achieving very little or nothing apart from glossy brochures and traditional government spin. One thing this government is very good at talking about is transformation. So what is the office of the commissioner talking about? It is transformation and more spin, you have got it. People have woken up.

Ms Redmond: Transforming to what?

Mr PENGILLY: I am not quite sure what they are transforming. It is extremely disappointing. We have five employees—another bureaucracy. In my view, one of the problems is that the commissioner's office is hand in hand with the Kangaroo Island Council and they are wet-nursing each other. I do not think it is healthy at all because, if you go back to the act that we debated at length in this place, that was not the job of the commissioner and it was not the job of the commissioner to be a development officer at all. It was not the job.

The job was to discuss and relate between government departments over how things could be improved. I understand a lot of that is not happening either. There is the education system, the health system, the Department of Transport, and of course the list goes on. In my view, and I am a harsh critic of this I know, it is all show and no go. I think people have been promised the world and had their hopes built up.

There are two things happening on Kangaroo Island at the moment: one is the walking trails in Flinders Chase. Let me tell you, that is $5 million or thereabouts of taxpayers' money going into the government's own business enterprise. People will go over it and it will be a great walking trail, I have no doubt about that; however, they will go over on the ferry service or fly over, they will take everything with them, they will go down and walk the trail for four or five days and then disappear—for the government's own business enterprise. The other thing that is going to happen, and this is once again all taxpayers' money, is the Kangaroo Island Airport upgrade. It will be good when it happens. There is $18 million—$9 million from the feds and $9 million from the state—and that will be good.

They are the only two things that are absolute certainties at this stage. Much has been talked about, and I will be accused of being negative and knocking this and knocking that. That is not correct. I just want to see something happen, and it is not happening. Yet again, tomorrow they are having another Transformation series of meetings in Kingscote, and I understand that the Premier will be attending some of that, and good on him for going over. He is going over at my initial request to attend Settlement Day, so he and I will not be here tomorrow.

I am fairly disillusioned with what has happened with the commissioner's office, and I will put the commissioner's office on notice that I am going to be doing some serious FOI-ing in the near future on just where this money has gone over the last 12 months. I think we need to identify it. Let me also say on this particular subject that the answers I am not getting by writing to the commissioner are somewhat frustrating to say the least.

I have written to the commissioner about the issue of rubble royalties, which is impacting on local government councils—something brought in by the Treasurer. I have written to the commissioner and have not received an appropriate answer on that so I do not know where the commissioner stands on that. I got some gobbledegook answer which said nothing and I have written back asking, 'Can you please give me your position on this?' There was no answer. I reminded the commissioner again yesterday of this.

The other thing I reminded the commissioner about yesterday was that I had written to her asking her where she stands on the oil and gas search in the Great Australian Bight. It will come as no surprise in this place that the government and the opposition are locked into a position of being very supportive of oil and gas search in the Great Australian Bight. So, accordingly, I would expect that, as a public servant being paid by the government and by the taxpayer, the commissioner would be all in favour of it, but I cannot get an answer out of her, so I can only assume that the commissioner is backing the view of the local council over there, which is that they are opposed to it.

They are opposed to it, as is the Victor Harbor council. My view is they should both butt right out of it. Being several hundred kilometres right away from it, I do not believe it is any of their business anyway. The member for Flinders and I have met regularly, as have other members, and we are strong supporters of it. I am disappointed that the commissioner does not appear to have the fortitude. I am sure the Treasurer will be delighted that here is one of his public servants who will not come out and support government policy. I am sure the Treasurer will be delighted about that, but it seems that I cannot get an answer at the moment. There are some questions that need to be drilled down and looked into. As I said, I will be doing some FOIs on that matter.

On a brighter note, the government may not be aware (because they really do not take a lot of interest in these things) that we are having a particularly good season across my electorate, and much of South Australia as well, agriculturally. It is a return to a good old wet winter. As the old saying goes, 'There is more money in mud than there is in dust.' It is correct. We are having a good season. My electorate is a producer of large quantities of food and fibre for Australia and the world and I take great pride in it.

We have all sorts of industries, including rural industries and developing industries, across the electorate and, with a bit of luck and if we get a reasonable spring, we will have a fantastic season. I can assure you that there are many farmers who have put up with a few dry years as seasonal conditions who are delighted that this year is wet. It can never be too wet going into September, quite frankly. I look forward to seeing spring and the farming community having a good outcome.

Likewise, the tourism sector is hugely important. I attended a business breakfast at Victor Harbor on Friday morning where the main discussion was around the tourism opportunities for the South Coast and the Fleurieu. That was a good session. The tourism industry is absolutely critical and I look forward to them also having a successful season in front of them.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (12:11): The Appropriation Bill is the bill we are debating and the opposition will support the appropriation of money. This is the bill that enables our public servants to continue to be paid once the money appropriated in the Supply Bill, which we debated in May and June, runs out. The money from the Appropriation Bill will flow for the rest of the year and, of course, we will support it.

The job of the opposition in such a debate is therefore to critique the government's bill, which is what the Leader of the Opposition did earlier, as did the member for Finniss. One presumes that the role of a minister in such a debate, if they choose to speak, is to talk about the good things they claim to be doing in the area, and so inform the house and the people of South Australia. I will not go on about it, but I note that the minister who spoke earlier completely failed to do that and, instead, spent 20 minutes criticising other members of parliament—an extraordinarily strange set of behaviours.

I will talk at great length in response to the estimates process about matters within my portfolio responsibilities of education, multicultural affairs, the arts and higher education, science and the information economy. I will give a more general speech in the time allocated today in response to the broad situation with the budget, but I will just touch on a couple of matters in those portfolios, Of course, my constituents are concerned about a number of the ways in which the government's approach impacts upon their lives and on a day-to-day basis.

I will therefore talk about four key things. I wish to talk today about unemployment, the fiscal state of the budget (and, indeed, this claimed surplus, which technically, by the most generous of accounting terms might actually be a surplus but, on any reading, amounts to a structural deficit), some of the government's reckless fiscal management and, of course, the impact that all of this has on the cost of living for all South Australians and for some South Australians in particular who, as a consequence of this budget and the consequences of this government's mismanagement, will suffer increases in the cost of living and will face greater difficulties.

Unemployment in South Australia is our key problem. The Leader of the Opposition earlier identified an increase in excess of 40,000 net migration out of South Australia interstate. That is 4,900 more South Australians leaving South Australia to go to another state than coming in, which is over 40,000 over the life of this government.

Five thousand is a very high number for a net migration figure. I remember being appalled when I read that it was over 3,000 some 10 years ago and thinking that the government was not doing its job. I could see the impact, because it was my friends—people I went to school with, people I went to university with, young professionals and young tradies. These were people with a bit of get up and go who wanted to make a good life for themselves and their families and were finding the opportunities in South Australia so limiting that they were choosing to go interstate instead. That is writ large.

Where South Australia is, where the masses of migration have been consistently coming from over the life of this government, and when even Tasmania is now at nearly net zero interstate migration because people in Tasmania are now seeing a future for themselves and their families there, is a highlight and a beacon that this government is failing at employment. If that was not enough, let us look at the ABS figures, which show that South Australia has once again, which has been for more than a year and half, the highest unemployment in the nation at 7 per cent.

Jobs growth in this, the second of the Treasurer's so-called jobs budgets, is once again at less than half of the national projections for jobs growth. How can the Treasurer, as he did last year, call it a 'jobs budget' when his own officials are predicting that, with the measures he is taking in his so-called jobs budget, jobs will grow at 0.75 per cent while jobs across Australia will be growing at in excess of 1.75 per cent?

Unemployment is a concern. Unemployment is going to get better if you put in place the settings which will provide an environment conducive to businesses having the confidence to invest, as the Liberal Party has done in its reformist government in Tasmania and in other states. This government has manifestly failed to do that over and over again. I think one of the things that triggers that failure in confidence is that the business community, as indeed the whole community, does not and cannot have confidence in this government to put those settings in place when it claims its jobs budget and surplus based on these incredibly false presumptions.

Let us talk about the surplus in brief. We are pleased that the government seems to understand a surplus is in itself a good idea, but I think that the Treasurer clearly thinks it looks good on a press release, so having a technical surplus is enough. What he fails to grasp is that, ideally, we would have an actual surplus—a structural surplus; a surplus that suggests that we have managed to live within our means and to grow the pie so that we have a growing economy—so that more people are in jobs, so that more people are paying taxes, so that more businesses are paying taxes, and so fewer people are requiring support from government.

Instead, we have a surplus that is built on increased revenues from the federal government. I note that, despite the state government's claims of reduced federal funding, South Australia will receive an extra $528 million in GST funding in 2016-17 compared to 2015-16. The commonwealth is contributing an extra $187 million towards health funding over three years. So, this is built on significant increases in funding coming from the federal government and, of course, $400 million coming from the Motor Accident Commission this year.

I think that in accounting terms, it is unusual for, as the Treasurer has claimed, a privatisation of the MAC. Usually, one would not put that in the profit and loss statement but, because of the structure of what the government is doing, they do. So, they claim this surplus that is built on a tissue of convenience. The reckless fiscal management that has led us to this situation is reliant on the government. When confronted with a problem, rather than, 'How can I fix this and how can we make a long-term change?' they say, 'Okay, let's sign the cheque and worry about the rest later.' Consequently, we have had budget overspend in almost every year of the government's tenure.

As the Leader of the Opposition identified in his speech, there have been extraordinary blowouts across the health department, the education department (where there has been an overspend of some $80 million), the transport department and others. When departments and governments consistently overspend their budgets that is a sign that you need to either have a look at how those budgets are set in the first place or look at what has happened in the intervening years. Occasionally, there are things that might come up that the government needs to base decisions on, but we see this every single year and it is a sign of a government that does not care about meeting its budgets, and that is another of its failures.

My former portfolio was in the Corrections department and for a number of years the opposition was calling for investment in rehabilitation programs, investment in perpetrator programs and domestic violence, for example. In this year's budget they have now seen a little bit of funding go in and we have seen an increase in the number of prison beds. Here is the thing: it is cheaper to have somebody in a prison bed that has been budgeted for in advance than it is to have somebody who is forced to be in police custody; for example, in one of those police cells at Holden Hill which is used as an overflow for when the prisons are full. It is cheaper to have somebody in a properly budgeted for and prepared for prison environment.

It is cheaper still, and it is a much better outcome for the community, if that person does not commit a crime in the first place. The best bang for your buck in reducing crimes is if you are able to change the behaviour of somebody who has previously behaved in a criminal way. If you are able to reach out to the person who has committed a criminal offence and is in Her Majesty's custody at Her Majesty's pleasure and change their behaviours—if they have cognitive behavioural problems then by dealing with that side—and if there are ways to get them into a skilled job where they can contribute to society, then that has to be the focus.

There has been some minimal investment in this year's budget—and it is minimal investment. It is the sort of investment that has been needed for years and years, but we see it all too late. That department has had cost overruns every year because of the increases in numbers that have been over and above the ludicrous 3 per cent increases that were budgeted for. I hope the programs that have now been funded—and it is not a great deal of funding—will have a significant impact and I hope that they will change the behaviours of some of those perpetrators. Critically, and this is so much more important even than the incredible budget savings potentially there for the people of South Australia, I hope that that will mean that there will be reduced impacts on the victims of those crimes and that there will be increased community safety.

The impacts of the budget are significant in terms of the cost of living of everyday South Australians, the people in our community and our constituents who come to express their concerns. They express their concerns about the cost of motor vehicles and running a car going up and the cost of public transport going up. However, there are some really significant impacts in this budget that are over and above that.

The massive increase in the solid waste levy will cost South Australians an extra $64 million over four years. It is a politically clever, morally vacuous way to do it. The impact will be felt first and foremost by people when they are paying their council rates in the years ahead, because it is the councils that are going to be finding the money this year. Most of them, of course, have set their budgets well in advance of the state government identifying that they would have this increase. Most of them have set their budgets in the financial year before this financial year to which this budget applies.

The government delayed its budget and, in doing so, has made the job even harder for local councils that are seeking to do this. Of course, the impact on rates may follow for those who are unable to find the hundreds of thousands or the millions of dollars in increased costs to their local government area. It is a state government tax and it will be felt by the local government area but it will be felt, in the long term, by all South Australian ratepayers.

This budget has also found a novel way—novel in that it has not been done in South Australia before—to increase the cost of living for 457 visa holder immigrants working in those areas by, for the first time, introducing school fees of $5,000 or $6,000 for the children of 457 visas being educated in our public schools. This is another example of the way in which the government is increasing the cost of living for everyday South Australians. The things that really resonate—and the member for Finniss identified these in his comments—the things that people come into my electorate office about very regularly and are very concerned about are their utilities, their everyday cost of living, their electricity and water bills and charges.

I recently had a fairly interesting discussion with somebody who pointed out an app that you can get on your iPhone. I assume those of you on Android and other devices can get this as well, and I encourage everyone to do so. It is called PocketNEM and it has a fairly nice graphic that identifies at any given moment the cost of electricity in the states on the grid. At this moment in time, for example, I can tell you that in Tasmania it is $29.27, in Victoria it is $32.01, in New South Wales it is $29.99, in Queensland it is $28.69, and in South Australia $39.22.

Ms Redmond: Only 25 per cent more.

Mr GARDNER: Yes, the member for Heysen has spotted it: only 25 per cent more than the rest of the country. When I say ‘only’, I mean ‘significantly’. I was looking at it this morning and it was over $300 at one point in South Australia, and it was high in one other state and the other states were lower. I have looked at it probably 30 times over the last week and there was one time when South Australia was below one of the other states and in all the other times we have been the highest in the country.

The leader set out in great detail in his speech some of the things that go into that, but I want to talk a bit about the impact that has on everyday South Australians by using (and I will do this in the water area as well) an example of the impact on one person who has asked me to share their comments in the parliament. This is not an example of the only sorts of issues, but I think it is useful to cite real-life examples. My constituent writes:

Hello John

I think you might be interested in the notification I have just received from AGL which represents a 40% increase in my fortnightly payments despite the fact that my usage has gone down by 46%...

He has provided attachments. He continues:

This represents an additional $54 per four weeks (say $60 per month) and is appalling. To say that I am angry is to say the very least.

We spent a bit of time talking with my constituent. He went on to write:

I am sure I will not be the only one who writes—tell me how many will be able to afford this. The lights will go out across SA as AGL forecloses on people.

My constituent was able to have his fortnightly electricity reduced, through negotiation in the end, to $69 and the gas from $46 to $38. My constituent also wanted me to thank the person at AGL resolutions who was able to be helpful, but here is the critical thing: for so many vulnerable South Australians, it is not going to be the first thing they do—they will pay their bill and make cuts elsewhere.

Those people who have the wherewithal or who have the support to do that negotiation, to find the best price and so on, will be better off, but the government, in its casual dismissal of the concerns about high electricity prices by saying, ‘Oh, you can negotiate,’ forget that often the most vulnerable are the ones least in the position to be able to do that negotiation, to do that checking, to do that shopping around. We are very concerned that many people in the community, pensioners and others, will just accept their bills and keep paying them, and when the government has the settings in place that lead us to having the highest electricity prices in the nation—double the prices in Victoria with the same privatised market—then that is a concern.

I also want to bring to the attention of the house some correspondence I had with the Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion in relation to a constituent who had issues with their water bill. There are a number of constituents across South Australia whose water bill concessions were applied differently from last year. I have been helping one constituent in particular over a number of months since she came into the office in April concerned about her concessions, and she is a good example of what is a much greater problem for a much greater number of people.

Last year, she changed from being on Newstart Allowance to being on a low-income healthcare card. Since the change, she has not received concessions on her SA Water bills but is still getting concessions on the AGL bills. She has tried to get this sorted out (from October to April) but was not able to get anywhere. She kept getting shunted between SA Water and the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion.

My staff and I have been going back and forward with the minister's office, with SA Water and with the department since the beginning of April. Sometimes we got answers saying that she was eligible for the concession, was on the list, and sometimes she was not. I do not have time to go through the whole set of interactions, but there have been about 25. I finish with this letter I received from the minister that I want to read out for the illumination of the house and maybe others will have better insight into the use of the language therein:

Dear John, Thank you for your email on behalf of [the constituent]—

I will not name her.

about [their] concern she was no longer receiving water and sewerage concessions. The DCSI has advised on 1 May 2015 [the constituent's] water and sewerage concessions ceased as Centrelink records confirmed she no longer held a Pensioner Concession Card. The SA Water and Sewerage Concession Scheme 2013 requires that to be eligible for concessions an applicant must hold an eligible card or be in receipt of an eligible payment, as well as occupying the land as their principal place of residence.

On 18 December 2015 [the constituent] reapplied for water and sewerage concessions as she now held a Low Income Health Care Card. As a result, she was eligible for concessions for the following SA Water billing periods: April to June 2015, July to September 2015 and October to December 2015. For each of these periods, [the constituent] was eligible for $46.25 water concession and $27.50 sewerage concession, totalling $221.25.

DCSI has informed me that on 5 January 2016, backdated water and sewerage concessions of $221.25 were processed. The concessions were applied to [the constituent's] next SA Water bill, dated 9 March 2016.

I understand that in addition to the March account, [the constituent] received two additional invoices from SA Water: one dated 23 December 2015 for $72.31 and a second revised invoice dated 6 January 2016 for $331.06. I also understand that it was not clear to [the constituent] that the concession had been applied to her March 2016 account. DCSI contacted SA Water to clarify these accounts.

SA Water advised [the constituent] was reinvoiced for the three billing periods from April to December. SA Water stated for that period the amended amount billed totalled $990.27. Of that she had already paid $659.21 leaving a balance of $331.06. On 29 February [the constituent] paid the $72.31.

The March bill incorporated the $221 concession. The bill totalled $653. I will continue my remarks in my next opportunity to speak.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (12:31): I also rise to support the Appropriation Bill, and the implications of it, which is, as I am advised, an $18 billion expenditure across the 2016-17 financial year.

I approach budget day with a sense of optimism. I really do look forward to it because I know that a tremendous amount of work from government members and staff has gone in to put forward a vision. I approach it from, sadly, the opposition side of things, where the need is to critique it, to identify those things that are not quite right, to identify those things that are definitely not right, but also to acknowledge those things that are done right. I will have a bit of a ranging speech that talks about those three keys areas.

Can I say, though, that the member for Waite seemed to critique the critique provided by the leader. I enjoyed the leader's contribution, as I have enjoyed the feedback I have received from the leader's speech that was made at the Press Club on the day after the budget was delivered. From what I am told, it was a good presentation of the perspective that the leader takes to the budget papers; indeed, as I understand it, the minister and the member for Waite were actually in attendance that day.

I picked up one little thing from the member for Waite's contribution, that is, he talked about electricity costs and energy prices because the leader had focused on this, and quite rightly so. The member for Waite approaching the 2014 election was actually the shadow minister for energy, and the leader, as part of his response, referred to Liberal Party policies at the 2014 election, in which the member for Waite had been a driver.

Quite rightly, the critique was provided, but the member for Waite seemingly does not acknowledge, if indeed he has this vision of what the world was then and a vision of what the world is now—and he has a collection of knowledge he had brought into the position that he now holds, which I presume he would have used in a far wider ranging area because he used to talk in many different areas, and there is no doubt about that—from the cabinet perspective and from his fellow ministers, what he is actually pushing on the issues that he believed in very strongly before the 2014 election. I cannot see where the things that he talked about in that energy portfolio have actually translated into any form of action that is actually improving South Australians' cost-of-living pressures. I put that on the record as my observation of what I recollect and the member's critique of the leader's critique of the budget papers.

I will talk initially about the good things that I see as a local member of parliament that are from my electorate, and for which I put on the record my thanks. The budget papers highlight that in 2016-17, $1.57 million will be allocated to the Pinery fire. We have had a variety of conversations within the chamber of the desperate days of 25 November and post days, and the recovery of that community of over 83,000 hectares that were impacted by it, the terrible deaths, people seriously injured, 80-odd homes and a numerous number of outbuildings and machinery lost, the hundreds of millions of dollars lost and the tragedy that has come with that, the ongoing psychological challenge and the physical impact it has had, which has been foremost in people's minds for the eight months since that terrible day. So, it is entirely inappropriate that the government is putting an allocation of funds towards continuing services to the community. So, on that, I say a sincere thank you. It is well-expended money, something the community wants and the community certainly does appreciate, so thank you for that.

I also note in the budget papers that, within the Goyder electorate in particular, there is $4.9 million for the Warooka and Point Turton water supply upgrade. I have had a bit of an interest in this in a past position before coming into this place, so I commend the government through SA Water on the effort that is going there to improve that. I hope it results in not just the physical infrastructure, which improves the reticulation of the water supply from the basin, but that it also improves the water quality that comes through the system because (if I can use the term 'hard') it is very hard water, and it has to go through a process before being used in homes.

I am pleased to see construction related to the last mile program, and the Minister for Transport has been part of that effort—a 90-day project, minister, was it is not? It was conducted early in the 2015 calendar year, and the minister and his ministerial colleagues (ministers Bignell and Brock) have been good enough to brief the opposition and wider industry members on what will be undertaken. That is a good thing because if the first mile and last mile challenges can be fixed it will certainly help the issues in between and make productivity improvements, and therefore profitability, an option for all, so that is a very good outcome.

I was pleased to see, within the Minister for Education's portfolio area as announced by the Treasurer, $250 million for STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics), and I think it is absolutely fantastic. As someone who was challenged in some of those areas when going through school but who loved it—mathematics in particular, but did not progress it to an area I would have liked—I think it is a wonderful example of where that effort needs to be driven in schools to achieve the quality of knowledge that we will possess to have a strong economic viability into the future.

I have been a long-term believer in the fact that we all need to continue to upskill ourselves. We need to make sure we are ready for that next work-related challenge that will require a skill set, knowledge and information to be able to do that. For our young people in school, many of those who, when they leave school or university, will be taking on jobs that do not currently exist, the ability to understand the implications of what chances STEM will provide to them in the future is profound. So, that investment is a very appropriate one.

In the Goyder electorate, as I understand it, $1 million has been allocated to the Two Wells Primary School, $3.5 million to the Kadina Memorial School—and, as a plug for them, with 1,100 students it is the largest school by student enrolment numbers outside Adelaide, as I understand it—and $3.5 million to the Moonta Area School. I have written to the Minister for Education thanking her for that contribution.

I also posed the question of how the schools were actually chosen. I found that rather interesting because I am not aware of schools being able to tender for an opportunity or to put forward a proposal with education for an opportunity to be selected as one of those. I am grateful for the investments that occurred, but I have asked about the fact that I have two schools within 14 kilometres of each other that have been funded, where I can see a profound needs exists across all our schools.

Money stretches only so far, I understand that, but I am interested and that is why I have written to the minister, to get some information on that selection process, because it is something that I think is important. I look forward to the development of these resources that will exist within the schools and the fact that children will be excited by the challenge of it.

It is difficult to study in areas that mum and dad might not have for various reasons, but which you have a great passion for. Hopefully it is only a matter of one little thing that they might do at an early age as a student that will make them think, 'Wow, I love this and this is what I want to do.' I think STEM will do that, it will be a significant driver in it. So that is the kudos and the thankyous, and it is important to put them in place.

I am going to talk about a challenge that a lot of other members already have spoken about or will speak about, and that is cost-of-living pressures. Electricity is very foremost in people's minds. It was only earlier this week that one of my regional newspapers asked me for some comments about disconnections that exist in the electricity system. That is the sad case where people cannot afford to pay their bills. I am sure that all of us in this place have been contacted by people who are facing that challenge, and no doubt our response to them is, 'Please make sure that you engage with your retailer, that you talk to them about challenges, that you enter into a regular repayment plan, that you try to budget to ensure that that exists.' But the facts are that across South Australia it has been very hard to come up with the dollars in far too many homes.

I was provided with some information, with the assistance of the member for Stuart's office, which really highlights the disconnection issue that faces South Australia. This is for the 2015-16 financial year. In the first quarter of 2015-16, 3,182 premises were disconnected. In the second quarter of 2015-16, 2,540 disconnections occurred. In the third quarter it was 2,531. There is a bit of a lag, so we do not know what the fourth quarter figure is for the 2015-16 year, but I do have the total figure for 2014-15: it was 10,179.

That is 10,000 properties. The absolute majority of these would be homes. In some cases, in reading a report that was put out by Mr Ross Womersley a few months ago where he talked about the fact there had been up to five disconnections across a three-year cycle in some homes because of the continued challenges of paying all their bills, that is 10,000 homes that, even if it was for a day, lost what we consider one of the basic needs of our society, and that is electricity.

That is the sort of crisis—and I do not use the word 'crisis' all that often—and part of the challenge that actually faces us as policymakers collectively, for the government perspective on things especially, those who put the budget in place, what the financial commitments will be for the next financial year and across the forward estimates. That is the challenge that actually faces us: to ensure that, not just electricity but across all of those basic commodities that a modern society requires, we have the capacity to ensure that the cost of providing that, and the cost to consumers of that service, is not beyond their capacity.

I am sure that there are other members in this place who are contacted by constituents who have had to reduce their expenditure in other areas, things they might love doing and necessities that they have held in the past, because they are proud people who want to pay their bills. The figure of 10,000 that I quoted for the 2014-15 year, and the potential for that to be even more at the completion of the 2015-16 period once that last quarter figure comes in, worries the life out of me. That is the reason why policies that come from the opposition, and from government and minor party members, need to have a focus on ensuring that what we are doing for South Australians is the right thing because, if we are not doing that, we are in the bloody wrong industry, I have to tell you.

That is why I am proud of the fact that the Liberal Party—and the member for Waite certainly reflected upon this in his critique of the leader's critique, what he saw as a lack of policy initiatives—since the very major significant launch of the 2036 policy statement by the Leader of the Opposition, has put out 23 policies.

For me, as a portfolio area, one has been rate capping—not liked by councils, I understand that. We have had the debate about the legislation on that, and it has been lost. My conversations with local government have been interesting. There have been some challenges and that sort of stuff, but it has created a discussion about the efficiency of service delivery and a cost-of-living pressure, and I use that as an example of where there is a regular bill that goes out that people need to pay for, that is making it harder for them.

When you look at some of the components of a council rate notice, though—and other members have spoken about this—and one example is the solid waste levy, it is the significant increases that are being declared by another level of government (in this case, the state government) upon the collector of the tax (in this case, local government) where it is over $30-odd million in the next four years. In the information provided to me by the Local Government Association, only $14 million of that over $30 million actually returns back in grants and programs to ensure a reduction in the amount that goes to solid waste.

It worries the life out of me, and I think it should worry everybody, when seemingly a tax or a levy goes up but a proportion of that is siphoned off and put into Treasury. It is not being used for what it was created for, it is being used to make the balance sheet look better, and that is what it basically becomes—just a bottom-line improvement figure opportunity—and an increasing number of Treasury decisions are being made to help the bottom-line figure.

It comes at a cost all the time. It is not about government at all levels ensuring the efficiency of the service they deliver. They think, 'We will tax more.' That is totally abhorrent to me. I cannot accept that as a response to how to provide services at a government level. That is why there will be a discussion on an ongoing basis about cost-of-living pressures, because it is a thing that hits us all the time. The budget, by virtue of the fact that it is a very strong policy statement, is a very strong indication of where the dollars are going to be spent. It is $18 billion.

Employment growth is absolutely key, there is no doubt about that. I am saddened by the fact that South Australia has a near 7 per cent unemployment rate. I am exceptionally saddened by the fact that the Yorke Peninsula-Mid North area has been at 9.5 per cent in recent times. For the member for Frome and I, and others in this chamber who share that common boundary in their electorates, that has to be a cross we bear every night when we go to bed. What can we do to ensure that we have opportunities in place to give people the chance to build their lives and to be a wage earner, not reliant upon any other funding source, and to be totally responsible for what they do and to pay all the bills?

It is a psychological issue, too, as well as the position in which you hold yourself, so I think that is where job outcomes have to be a key. We link what the cost of living is, and the pressure that creates, with what the job needs are, and that is where we have to start to get things right. It disappoints me when we talk about the cost of living. There was a member in this chamber who, as part of the response given to the rate capping legislation that I proposed, talked about the response from government being the cost-of-living concession. The mad part about that is that tax dollars are used to provide a concession which in itself recognises the challenges of the cost of living.

Why do we not look at what the base problem is; that is, the need to actually ensure efficiency of service delivery? I think it is the wrong side from which to look at the argument, but it is part of the challenge we all face. I am one of these masochistic people who look forward to the detail provided during estimates. I think it is a great example of where the minister, the minister's key staff, the Public Service who support the minister, the opposition, and therefore by association the people of South Australia, can know as much about the budget as possible, even if it is only for one day. It might only be for that short period but it allows the information to be put out there and allows questions to be asked.

Good examples are given by the government through the questions they ask their own minister about things which they are proud of, and I understand that, too. The argy-bargy occurs, but it disappoints me that it is for a lesser period than it has been previously. I saw a figure today which referred to the fact that there had been an 11 per cent reduction in the time available for estimates now. I am a believer in accountability, absolutely at all times. For every word and every action there is someone who will review it, and I think that is where estimates is one of the keys for us.

I am a bit of a numbers person. I am not sure if it is one of my problems or not but it is something I love knowing about, but when I look at the budget surpluses that have been proposed regularly in budgets in future years going out that have not actually been delivered it frustrates me. People have talked to me about the budget and the surplus that is projected. I said to one person, who is a regional newspaper staffer, 'Look at the creation of the opportunity behind that and look at the fact that it is from asset sales.' The budget was predicted to be in surplus, not based on that asset sale, but it had to occur, which turned what was going to be a significant deficit into a projection approximately equal to last year's budget because of an asset sale.

Yes, we have the short-term revenue hit but we have the long-term loss. We have the long-term loss of the capacity to control what that asset used to charge people, too, so there is a multiplication of what the impact of this is. It is part of the engagement process that we need to conduct with people to make them understand that. We hope we know as much as possible about a lot of the information we receive, but it is impossible to project that to all people, so you have to target some things. That is what opposition members do in their contribution to the Appropriation Bill.

Even though there is commonality in what we say, everyone has an individual nuance and a particular focus on an aspect of which they want South Australians to be aware. They also use the media in their community to also put out some information. It is not just a continual bagging session opportunity but it is an opportunity to put out information for people to then develop their own set of questions: 'Do I believe what I am told by one side, or should I challenge what I am told by the other side?' There is a truth somewhere in between.

Ms Redmond: What we tell them is true.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes. The member for Heysen says, 'What we say to them is true,' and the member for Heysen is a person who tells the truth at all times, I understand that. I would like to think that on my epitaph it might be that I say the same thing too. It will be an interesting debate as it goes forward. It is $18 billion that provides an opportunity to ensure that South Australia becomes a good place. I am a person who is a glass half full, and I know that many debates have occurred in this room for the last 127 years and we have seen amazing things occur outside this room. We have gone through Federation, wars, depression, other wars, tremendous growth in the state, fuel crises, high-interest periods, higher unemployment periods, a return to some level of prosperity, the GFC has come in, the challenges are there now still, but I have to believe—

Mr Goldsworthy: GST.

Mr GRIFFITHS: GFC. Global financial—

Mr Goldsworthy:Interjecting.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes, true. The rivers of gold with the GST, the member for Kavel highlights to me. A lot has occurred outside this place in the last 127 years. What we talk about in here might be deemed, when reviewing history in 25 decades, to be inconsequential, but it is all part of what makes us. Therefore, we have to try to make sure that—and I believe the absolute majority does—what we do in here is for the positive. The opportunity to be in this place is a privilege that we hold for a short time, and we have to make sure the legacy we leave is one of which we can be proud.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (12:52): I am pleased to make a contribution in the house today in relation to the Appropriation Bill that we are currently debating. I have certainly listened to the leader's excellent contribution earlier this morning giving quite a comprehensive summary of the budget and other issues impacting the state of South Australia and the communities within our state. I have been in this place since 2002, so I have made a number of speeches over the years in relation to the budgets brought down by Labor governments. It is interesting to reflect on some of the figures and the amounts of money that we deal with in relation to the budget.

From memory, in 2002, when I, the member for Heysen and others were first elected, the state budget was about $12 billion. Now, 14 or 15 years later, it is up to $18 billion. So we have seen a 50 per cent increase ($6 billion) from 2002—$12 billion to $18 billion. As the member for Goyder said when summarising his comments, we have experienced quite a number of changes that have impacted on the economic outlook and outcomes of the state. We can talk about the rivers of gold that were flowing in when the GST was cranking along, back in those earlier days of the Labor government between 2002 and 2010, but that is all in the history books now and we have to face the reality of the current situation that all South Australians are dealing with.

As the leader pointed out and we have highlighted previously, really, without the assets of the sale of the Motor Accident Commission, the budget would be in deficit. The net operating balance would be in deficit because the surplus was written down by $97 million in the Mid-Year Budget Review and the net operating balance for the 2016-17 year is budgeted at $254 million.

We all remember the cries back a number of years ago of 'No more privatisation. No more privatisation under Labor governments.' We all remember that. That all went out the window years ago because the government has realised that previous Liberal governments were on the right track in terms of selling some assets to restore what was a complete fiasco as a consequence of the State Bank debacle. That, again, is all in the history books but, really, South Australia is still suffering, financially and economically, as a consequence of the State Bank disaster.

As I said, if the $448 million in payments from the privatisation of the Motor Accident Commission and the $624 million payment forecast for the 2016-17 year had not eventuated, then the surplus would not have been created. I would like to call it a book-entry surplus really. It might be old terminology, but I might be an old banker. My friend and colleague the member for Davenport is an old banker too.

Members interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: He is perhaps a more recent old banker; nonetheless, he cut his teeth in the banking game before he moved into public life as a state member of parliament. So, really, it is a book-entry surplus brought about by privatisation and the sale of public assets, which is something that this Labor government, this Labor Party, vowed and declared a number of years ago they would never do. 'No more privatisation.' I remember the previous premier, Mike Rann, shouting from the rooftops, 'No more privatisation under my government.'

Mr Duluk: And 'never sell the Repat'.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: All of those things. All of those things are absolute untruths and broken promises, however you want to describe them. There is a list as long as your arm of broken promises made by these successive Labor governments since they came into office in 2002. We can analyse the budget, and members will do that. The leader did it very well. We could go through portfolio by portfolio—education, arts, science and information, multicultural planning, local government, you name it—and there are pages and pages of analysis in relation to where this government has the wrong priorities and are not meeting their budget projections.

An important point to make is, in the 15 years that I have spoken on Labor government budgets, never has a budget forecast eventuated. They have forecast their budget. They have said, 'This is what we are going to do. These are the results we are going to deliver. These are the outcomes. These are the estimates pushing out into the forward estimates.'

But never, ever have any of their budget forecasts eventuated, so how can we really believe what the current Treasurer is trying to peddle out there in relation to this budget? As I said, in the most recent Mid-Year Budget Review, the surplus was written down by $97 million. When we look back over the years, there are always readjustments of the figures, but nothing ever eventuates. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00.

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