HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2015-06-30 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Appropriation Bill 2015

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr DULUK (Davenport) (15:57): Innovation works provide support to firms in their earliest stages of development. Support for new business, investment in business. Following the lead of Pittsburgh could have significant benefits for all South Australians but the government must take the lead—it must engage with the private sector and it must develop a long-term blueprint for job growth and job creation.

The Labor government unfortunately does not have a plan. There is no plan for job creation and no plan for major new infrastructure projects. The Treasurer has put a freeze on government infrastructure spending, a freeze that will hurt the construction sector and do little to encourage investment in South Australia. This budget does not include a major new infrastructure project despite the massive cash injection from the Motor Accident Commission sale.

None of the major infrastructure projects that were listed as short-term priorities in the 2013 Transport Plan have been funded in this year's state budget. In fact, capital investment has declined, with the Treasurer announcing a capital investment budget of $1.3 billion per annum for 2015-16 when the past five-year average has been $1.9 billion per year.

Road infrastructure, public transport and a dedicated transport masterplan for the Mitcham Hills have long been on the agenda for local residents. Even the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure has designed a road management plan, but the Treasurer has ignored the Mitcham Hills residents in this budget and he has ignored his department by not providing any funding. This budget has failed to fund the upgrade of the Blackwood roundabout, the worst roundabout in Adelaide as rated by the RAA.

The Melbourne-Adelaide rail freight corridor carries approximately five million tonnes of freight annually. In a high-use/rail-use modelling scenario traffic on the line will increase 4.6 times by 2039. This is an increase from about five million tonnes of freight annually to approximately 22 million tonnes. Rail freight at that volume cannot pass through the Hills. A long-term plan must be formulated. The Premier himself stated in the Integrated Transport and Land Use Plan, released in October 2013, that:

…as we cast an eye toward our State's 200th anniversary in 2036, it is now our time to lead the way and set our plan for continued prosperity.

I ask the Premier: where is that plan? The consequence is that the people of South Australia suffer and the residents in my electorate of Davenport suffer when there is no plan.

The Melbourne-Adelaide rail freight corridor runs through the Mitcham Hills area, cutting Main Road at Glenalta and Belair. Taken together with Cross Road in Hawthorn, 63,000 vehicles cross the tracks daily. Lengthy traffic delays are experienced at all crossings. These delays frustrate commuters trapped in peak hour bottlenecks. The cost of traffic congestion is staggering both in terms of lost productivity and the impact it has on quality of life. It means people spend less time at home with their family, getting up earlier to beat peak hour and arriving home later from work because they are caught in traffic.

Investing in improved transportation infrastructure would reduce the costs of congestion by boosting productivity through the time people save. Rather than being stuck in traffic, they can spend more time with their families, more time having fun and more time generating additional income—money they could spend in retail, invest or use to improve standards of living, more money that will contribute to the GSP and our tax base.

The solution is simple. Invest in infrastructure and invest in the state's transportation needs. The Labor government has ignored the Mitcham Hills public transport needs and it has ignored the needs of Hills residents. The government has failed to deliver adequate park-and-ride facilities for the commuters of Blackwood, Eden Hills, Bellevue Heights and Flagstaff Hill. Park-and-ride is vital to attracting more people to use our train and bus services. People will not take the train if they cannot find a car park at the station. Public transport is a vital part of reducing congestion, but it must be accessible and an attractive alternative for commuters.

It is not just infrastructure and transport that have missed out in the state budget. Our hospitals have also been forgotten. South Australian hospitals are under immense stress with Adelaide's major hospital departments regularly operating above capacity and classified as 'code white'. Patients in emergency departments are subjected to huge waiting times as the system struggles to cope with the level of demand. Ambulance ramping outside the Flinders Medical Centre last month is another symptom of an ailing hospital system.

South Australia's major hospitals are already amongst the worst performing in the nation when it comes to treating patients in their emergency departments within the required period of time, and the government's closure of the Repatriation General Hospital is only going to make the situation worse, taking hundreds of hospital beds out of our public system.

The sale of the Repat is another attempt by this government to plug holes in its budget, another example of the inability of this government to manage the state's economy. It has sold ForestrySA, the Lotteries Commission and Gillman. Hampstead Hospital and the Repat have been added to the list, and now the Treasurer has announced the government is planning on selling the MAC over the next 12 months. Even with the sale of these assets, the government is still only estimating a $43 million surplus for 2015-16 and even a paltry $43 million surplus could be as elusive to achieve as job creation has been for this government given its recent record.

Looking at previous state budgets, all handed down by Labor governments, by now this state should be running a substantial surplus in the coming financial year. Alas, we have a trivial one, once again announced by this Treasurer. This state budget is more of the same from Labor, it is more broken promises, more debt, higher taxes and a higher emergency services levy. South Australians will be stuck with prolific red tape, unacceptable unemployment and outrageous utility charges.

Labor has remained gridlocked, unable to develop a plan for our future, unable to implement a plan for job creation, unable to address South Australia's urgent need for growth. We need a state budget that invests in our infrastructure, our business, our people, our future. If we continue to make the same decisions, we will continue to get the same results. It is time for political courage, for risk-taking. South Australia needs vision, we need answers. Unfortunately, this Labor government simply has none.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (16:04): I would like to spend my time on the Appropriation Bill talking about my key portfolio areas, particularly one that has been in the public mind for quite some time—and, of course, that is employment and training opportunities for South Australians, young South Australians in particular.

I think the most damning thing about the budget is the fact that this government has claimed that the budget is a jobs budget; however, I did not hear it talking about jobs much before the devastating May job figures were released, that saw South Australia increase its unemployment from 7.2 per cent to 7.6 per cent, becoming the highest state or territory in the nation when it came to unemployment. Over 66,000 South Australians are unemployed. We have not had that number of unemployed in South Australia for nearly 20 years. It is an extraordinary situation this government has found itself in, but it was totally oblivious that jobs were an issue until it got that whack on the ABS figures that came out on the second Thursday of June, showing us that 8,700 South Australians lost their full-time jobs in May.

That has an enormous impact on the economy, when you look at the number of South Australians who are not working as much as they would like to work: the underemployed South Australians, those who have been relying on two full-time jobs in the family or perhaps a full-time and a part-time job in the family all of a sudden becoming two part-time jobs, or hours being reduced from someone who may be working and reliant on regular overtime. That money has been ripped away from families. At the same time we have seen increases in the emergency services levy for the second year in a row from this government. That is a hit straight onto family household budgets.

It was interesting this week when we saw some figures on how much more the education department is chasing in unpaid school fees. You do not need to put two and two together to realise that South Australians are really feeling the pinch of a poorly managed economy. If you need any more evidence about how poorly managed the economy is, look at the number of jobs that have been added in Australia since February 2010. Remember February 2010? It was a big month for the Labor Party. It promised it would create 100,000 new jobs in South Australia in six years. That six years expires in February next year, so we are only about nine months or so away from the expiry date of Labor's promise.

What has happened in other states in that time? In New South Wales they have created over 270,000 jobs, Victoria has created over 223,000 jobs. That job growth related to about 8.5 per cent. Western Australia created 185,000 jobs and Queensland 122,000 jobs. This is all since Labor promised about 100,000 jobs. Tasmania created just under 1,000 jobs, and here in South Australia it was just 6,651 jobs. I seek leave to insert into Hansard a statistical table that illustrates the predicament South Australia is in.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It has to be strictly statistical.

Mr PISONI: It is strictly statistical.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I can see pictures.

Mr PISONI: This is the table here, that can be snipped and inserted into Hansard.

Leave granted.

Jobs added since February 2010
New South Wales 271,610
Victoria 223,105
Western Australia 185,451
Queensland 122,761
South Australia 6,651
Tasmania 941


Mr PISONI: If we go back to that historic job announcement, it came with a second announcement which was a new training program, Skills for All. Skills for All was going to be part of the tool that created 100,000 jobs here in South Australia. Then we had the extraordinary situation of where the government ignored all the advice, because what it did before launching Skills for All was to defund all the skills councils here in South Australia. Those were the very bodies that were advising government departments and ministers on where the skills areas were needed, on what types of skills were needed—not just immediately but in the medium term, the longer term and way into the future here in South Australia. This government has been warning us about the transitioning economy for the last 10 years now—the gunna government, they are gunna do something about it—10 years ago they started telling us that we had a transitioning economy. First, it was a move to mining, away from manufacturing. The new thing now, of course, is that they have gone back to the old stable.

I look at Tom Playford up there who did an extraordinary job in transitioning the South Australian economy before and after the Second World War. The government is now relying very heavily on the very established food industry here in South Australia, the primary producers, but it is not providing training providers funding in that area, whether it be in maritime or agriculture. We are seeing enormous reductions in funding opportunities available for South Australians to move into this area that is the new saviour. I would argue that it has always been there for us but it has just been neglected by this government.

In his reply speech to the budget, the leader spoke about the neglect of regional South Australia and how South Australia's share of export growth has almost halved, from 8 per cent down to just over 4 per cent, in the 13 years that this government has been in office. There is an old saying: if you want to start a small business, give a big business to a socialist and very soon it will become a small business, and that is exactly what has happened to the business of South Australia. We were a state that punched above our weight in all sorts of areas: education, health, exports. We always did better, with our share of the population, with outcomes, but this government has been completely focused on inputs and, unfortunately, the outcomes have been the problem.

The Skills for All program and now the WorkReady program has made that situation even worse here in South Australia. Remember, the government said that training was its pathway to more jobs in South Australia. Last year, there were 126,000 funded training positions in South Australia. This new jobs budget is now only going to fund 81,000 training positions in South Australia, a drop of about 40 per cent in the number of training positions available here in South Australia that are funded by the state government.

All states have had a long tradition of being involved in support for vocational training here in South Australia. We have support, of course, for all sorts of education in South Australia at the tertiary level. University fees are subsidised by the government by the tune of about 60 per cent, yet we have the Premier coming in here saying that there is a new paradigm when it comes to training in South Australia. That new paradigm is that if you are an employer and you need trained staff, you should pay for their training. I do not know of a single law firm, accounting firm, medical centre or pharmacy that has paid for the training of their professionals, whether they be pharmacists, doctors, lawyers or accountants. That has all been funded partly by the student but predominately by the support of funding through the government system.

Yet we almost have this snobbery when it comes to the Premier, where the Premier says that anybody who is not doing a degree should pay for their own funding, or alternatively their employer should pay for that training. We have a situation where if someone is doing a university degree, it is acceptable for that to be supported by government, but if you are doing tertiary study through some other means, through a provider of vocational training, then you are on your own or you have to find an employer who is prepared to pick up the bill. It is a very bizarre situation.

The new WorkReady program will not only reduce the number of places in South Australia, but it will also mean that only 5,000 of the 51,000 new places available to be funded will be outside the TAFE system. The government has totally botched the Skills for All process because they did not listen to the industry, and they did not engage the industry on how it should be rolled out.

We know that there were people who, having not completed cert I and cert II training, went on to apply for another cert I or cert II course and did not complete that either, and then went on to apply for another one. There are people on the books who have had up to 10 attempts at cert I or cert II training courses all funded by the government with very few of them completed.

As a matter of fact, the report that was commissioned by the department and by the minister said that only 30 per cent of the training courses funded under Skills for All were actually completed. Then, of course, the government is on the record as saying that they do not know what the jobs outcome is from the Skills for All funding because they did not measure it. There was no measurement of jobs outcomes.

How on earth can you say that part of creating 100,000 jobs in South Australia is a new training program that is going to train 100,000 South Australians and then say, 'By the way, we're not going to measure it to see whether it is working or to see whether it is having any impact'? Despite the fact that there was no measuring of the process or the outcomes of that funded training, we saw changes introduced every three to six months, with caps brought in on existing courses or, alternatively, cuts made to the amount of money that was available.

The non-government sector—and I like the way the Premier always likes to say 'the private sector' as if there is something evil about the private sector—is obviously made up of small businesses and larger businesses but, predominantly, the private training businesses in South Australia are not-for-profit organisations which are connected either to organisations such as SACOSS or alternatively to industry organisations, such as group training organisations—an alliance of union representatives and employer representatives that has been very successful with 70 and 80 per cent completion rates for training programs connected to the industry and relevant to work.

All of these are now at severe risk. The industry itself is saying that at least 1,000 jobs will go in the training area before we even start looking at the lost opportunity for young people in particular to be properly trained to move into this new transitioning economy that the government claims we are in at the moment, even though the jobs growth that this government has budgeted for over the forward estimates is lower than the jobs growth they budgeted for over the same period in last year's budget.

To give you some idea of the impact of Labor's poor performance on jobs, it breaks my heart when I look at what is happening in the northern suburbs where I grew up. In Elizabeth, just in the last 12 months, we have seen unemployment increase from 31 per cent to 32½ per cent. Thirty per cent of people unemployed in a particular area is a shocking figure. The only other place you will see over 30 per cent unemployment at the moment is Greece.

If we go down to the other end of town, Hackham West had 17 per cent unemployment in March last year and the latest available figure shows nearly 19 per cent. In Morphett Vale West, we can see the figure has risen from 12 per cent to 13½ per cent unemployment. These are people who are denied the opportunity to be independent and to look after themselves through having a secure income and looking after their families.

In Parafield Gardens, an area that was very aspirational when I was growing up in the northern suburbs, there is 10½ per cent unemployment and we are looking at over 11 per cent unemployment in the district of Port Adelaide. In Salisbury, right in the middle of where I grew up, there is nearly 16 per cent unemployment. Then we are looking at Smithfield and Elizabeth North, and unemployment there now is at 23½ per cent. In the Parks area, we are pushing 13 per cent unemployment. These are very shocking figures for opportunity in South Australia and opportunity in particular for our young ones.

Before I finish up I would also like to touch on the education budget. There are some stark contrasts between the South Australian education budget and that of the states that we like to compare ourselves with, that is, Victoria and New South Wales. Despite all the rhetoric that we have been hearing from the conga line of education ministers in South Australia over the last five years, the total increase in the education budget in South Australia is just 1.4 per cent, a $40 million increase which does not even pay for EBA increases in teacher salaries. So in real terms we are seeing a reduction in education funding in South Australia, compared to New South Wales at 4.6 per cent in the government school sector and 5.2 per cent in the non-government school sector.

It is interesting that there is a lot more detail in the New South Wales budget papers and you can break these things down more easily than we can in the South Australian budget papers. In Victoria, a 5.6 per cent increase next year over this year's budget in education. So you can see, again, an area where 15 to 20 years ago South Australia used to be the national leader. We are lagging behind in every metric. The facts are that not only are we lagging behind in our funding of education in South Australia, we are lagging behind in the most basic of educational outcomes and that is numeracy and literacy.

The government's own budget papers tell us that out of the 12 categories that they have listed in numeracy and literacy, more South Australian students did not reach the minimum standard last year than the previous year. That is a shocking figure for South Australia. It is not good enough for education ministers to say, as previous education ministers have said—like the Premier, like Grace Portolesi—that that is because we have a higher number of lower socioeconomic people in South Australia. Well I say that it is your fault Premier that we have that higher number. You have been in office for 13 years and these people cannot get jobs.

I have read those statistics to you from the ABS figures that show the shocking unemployment levels in some of our most disadvantaged suburbs in South Australia. It is a bit like the chicken and the egg argument. Do we have poor educational outcomes in South Australia because we have a poor economy in South Australia, or do we have a poor economy in South Australia because we have poor educational outcomes? That is one for the academics to debate but the fact is that I am not comfortable with either one of those matrix.

I do not want to be the state with the worst unemployment in the country. I do not want to be the state with the worst numeracy and literacy results on the mainland. There was a time when teachers left states like New South Wales and Victoria to come for the teaching experience in South Australia, and it was not that long ago, but that is long gone here in South Australia under 13 years of Labor.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (16:23): I rise to make a short contribution in reply to the 2015 budget, and with some caution I say that it is very lacklustre and it really gives little hope to South Australians, particularly young South Australians seeking employment, and particularly those South Australians who want to be part of a growing economy. There is little—and I mean little—in the budget to give them hope.

Of course, this budget was all about addressing unemployment in South Australia—7.6 per cent across South Australia, which is totally unacceptable. If I reflect back to when I was a young lad, after finishing my apprenticeship at Holden's there were high unemployment numbers back then. I was faced with a similar situation to many of the Holden workers now. I was a part of the Holden workforce as a toolmaker. We had high unemployment and we had restructuring in manufacturing. Back then, there was a workforce of over 20,000 people at Holden's. They were presented with structural adjustment within the vehicle manufacturing sector and there were large job losses. I remember being forced almost to picket at the gate for weeks on end because we had lost our jobs.

However, it got to a point where I had to say, 'Enough is enough,' and I was not going to dwell on the issue of being part of the restructuring program, and that was to be laid off from that very large workforce. There were 3,200 people laid off in one fell swoop, and I was part of that. I rested on my strengths, I rested on the apprenticeship that I had just undertaken, and I went out and started up a business of my own. That gave me the opportunity to spread my wings and look at what other sectors were offering in South Australia.

I wish every Holden worker that mindset, to get over feeling sorry for what might be about to happen and get out there and experience something new. If you do need to upskill, get out there and do it. If you do need support from other industries or if you are going to seek help from your union mates, get out there and do it. Do not just sit back and be part of this rhetoric and spin that we hear from the Premier and the Treasurer on a day-to-day basis that this is all someone else's fault.

The federal government, in particular, has been blamed for this downplay. In the national car manufacturing sector, we have known for years that this has been coming. The forecast was that Ford would restructure and close. The talk was that what happened previously with Mitsubishi would happen with Toyota and Holden's. We knew that it was going to happen. The government knew that this was going to happen and they did nothing to address it, other than whinge, bitch and blame someone else.

To all those people who will be impacted, I say that there will be life after the car industry. It will be tough, I am not saying that it will not be, but there is an opportunity now to diversify and do what you do. If you have to upskill, get out there and do it, but do not sit back and say, 'The government is going to fix it,' because it is clear that this Premier and this Treasurer are experts at spin and they are not fixing the issue. I do not see any extra funding coming out of education, health or the water sector. They have spent many millions of dollars of taxpayers' money on campaigns on promoting themselves and not actually achieving anything.

Having got that off my chest, I will move on to some other points within this lacklustre budget. My speech revolves around unemployment. In the electorate of Chaffey we have a very high unemployment rate of 7.75. We see the state's economy relying on agriculture, exports and value adding. In particular, the wine sector is being held up as heroes to drag the economy back onto some level playing field, yet we have seen training facilities being defunded and closed down.

I am sure the Treasurer went to the training minister, minister Gago in another place, and said, 'Here is your budget. Go and do what you have to do, but make sure that you support our union buddies. Make sure you support TAFE and make sure that they still have a presence but, as far as the private service providers go, they are on their own.' That has had a significant impact in my electorate of Chaffey on the private service providers that do an excellent job, particularly with agriculture, service industries, horticulture and viticulture. They do a great job with safety, OH&S and ChemCert programs. All these programs are going to underpin what this state's economy has relied upon for over 120 years, and yet we see the minister casting aside the private training providers, giving TAFE a bit of a hand up and almost making it a monopoly when it comes to training. That is a real concern.

Last month, 8,700 full-time jobs were lost: that is 280 people losing their jobs every day. That loss of 8,700 full-time jobs in May is the equivalent of closing four Holden plants. When people are looking for context on the issue of unemployment, it is very concerning when you put it into context. South Australia needs to be transformed, and there is no secret about that. We need to be transformed into a state where people invest and where jobs are created. The only way that is going to happen is if we have good leadership driving optimism, driving hope, and giving people confidence to employ staff and grow their businesses.

We would like to see a small increase in jobs in South Australia, but sadly, over the past 12 months, we have seen 14 fewer businesses in this state while we watch other states grow. We watch New South Wales, with over 8,500 new businesses; we watch Victoria, with 7,200 new businesses; and we watch Queensland and Western Australia, with over 2,000 businesses new to their economies. Yet, we look at South Australia, and we have lost businesses. Why is that?

Is it because they are going interstate and starting up their businesses because the cost of doing business is much cheaper, or is it because people have simply said, 'This is too hard. It is too hard to run a business here, with the cost of WorkCover, the cost of electricity, the cost of water, the cost of payroll tax, and the cost of land tax'? The disincentive and tax burden of owning a business in South Australia is increasing. It is almost like a weight on your shoulders, and it gets to the point where people just cannot take any more.

There are up to 1,000 job losses in the non-government training sector. As I have said, in the next financial year, almost all of those 1,000 jobs will go from the health sector, as well as 300 jobs from education. There has to be answer to that. Reform has to happen in some areas, but the only way that we are going to address that is by giving small business owners who are prepared to invest in our economy, in South Australia and in employing people the confidence to do so. In some cases, you have to give them a leg up; you have to give them a boost so that they do have that confidence and an incentive to go on with it. Again, that was sadly missing in the Treasurer's budget.

A drop in infrastructure spending will also significantly add to South Australia's unemployment crisis. Labor is setting the capital investment budget at $1.3 billion per annum. This is down from a budgeted average of $1.9 billion over the past five years. That explains a majority of issues. The government are cash-strapped, they do not have the money, and yet we have a government prepared to spend millions of dollars on campaigns that are in their self-interest.

The Premier and Treasurer have paid Greg Combet to come over here to transform the car manufacturing sector. They have paid him large sums of money to come over here and make their bad announcements, and he tells everyone that it is going to get worse before it gets better. That is the Premier's job. It is clear that the Premier is devoid of making any bad announcements.

I have even heard rumours that, when businesses close their doors or reduce their workforce, the Premier is orchestrating when they are going to make those announcements. He curtails all of these job loss announcements into one week so that they make them one after the other, stemming the bad news so that it is not a constant flow. That is something that the media will have to expose. The Treasurer is a bully and the Premier is likewise. They are forcing these businesses to make these announcements so that they curtail the damage to the government. It is the government's bad doing in running this state, and they are draining the confidence out of all of the business sectors, whether it be the large, whether it be the medium or whether it be the small.

This year's budget predicts employment growth of 1 per cent for 2015-16 and, as the Treasurer said, this is about an employment budget. However, last year's budget predicted an employment growth of 1.25 per cent, so the supposed 'jobs budget' is actually predicting lower employment growth for the 2015-16 year, and I think it is outrageous.

I could go on. With the cost of living, the ESL is again going up by 9 per cent or $23 per household. Again, it is the cost of living. It is that added weight on the shoulders of the average resident in South Australia. The ESL for properties worth $426,000 is going up by $187 (10 per cent) and, for an average commercial property worth $1.5 million, it is up by $178 (7 per cent), and the same for an industrial property worth $1.2 million. Again, the priorities of government are all wrong.

This levy, of course, will impact on farmers. They mostly own multiple property titles and, in some cases, vacant land. A lot of the time, they have to have rotatory land. They are going to get hit the hardest because it is not only the ESL that is going to smack them around the ears, it is the rise in motor vehicle registration. Let's face it, the average household in Adelaide has one or 1½ cars per household, so let's say two. These households are going to get an increase of about $14 in registration. When you go out to regional properties and farms, look at what they have to own to make a business model work. It is not just multiple cars, it is tractors, it is trucks, it is motorbikes and it is on-farm vehicles. There are multiple increases of $7, so they are obviously going to be hit multiple times. It just all adds up to, again, them asking the question, 'What do we do to make ends meet?'

We look at the save the River Murray levy. Sure, it has been abolished, but it is going to save householders $40 per annum. When the government continues to slug the owner of an average home worth $500,000 with an extra $250 for the ESL, is $40 the real issue here? I think what we are seeing is they are robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Just reflecting on Chaffey, the great electorate of the Riverland and Mallee, we have about 4,000 small businesses in the Riverland and Mallee out of the 140,000 in South Australia. It is extremely disappointing that there is no plan to provide relief for those small to medium businesses in the budget. The red tape increases. We get told that the red tape reduction is out there, but I am yet to see any red tape reduction.

The regulation continues and the increased paper trail continues. I know that any time anyone walks into a government office needing to make a change or a transfer it is just a standard, 'Fill out this form, $130; fill out this form, $326; and fill out another form, another $250.' The rot just never seems to stop.

We look at stamp duty on non-real property transfers and non-residential real property transfers being abolished. Why is it taking until 2018 to be able to do this? If you really want to make a difference, it is time to get on with it and actually implement the change. Do not just spin around the corner on it and say that it is going to happen and be fully phased in by 2018.

Businesses want a stimulation now. They do not want a stimulation in 2018 when it could potentially be too late or they have had a gutsful of what is going on here in South Australia. Let me tell you, businesses are moving out of South Australia and opening up their doors interstate. It is not just something that could be portrayed as maybe happening but probably not happening: it is happening.

I know that in my electorate there are many people who have just said, 'I have had a gutsful, and I am out of here.' They have gone to Victoria or they have gone to New South Wales. In many cases they have picked up stumps. They were going to the mines. We look at the reliance of this government's overspruiking the resource sector and the way that it was going to be the saviour. That definitely has not worked.

What I would like to say is that we do have the highest business taxes, we do have huge burdens with electricity prices and water prices. I often hear the Treasurer telling everyone that the reason electricity prices are so high is that a previous government sold the electricity trust. Well, why is it that water has gone up significantly more than power costs? Please tell me, Treasurer. Over 38,000 people have left South Australia in net terms for interstate since Labor was elected in 2002 and 10,000 have left since Premier Weatherill was elected. On average 2,925 residents have left South Australia for another state during the term of this government. I think it is just outrageous.

That said, the $90,000 upgrade for the Chaffey Theatre was welcomed, and it was badly needed. It is a great theatre. It is one of those theatres that needed a birthday, and $90,000 is not enough but it is welcome. Sadly, there was no major funding for Mallee roads, given the cessation of rail. The governments stand by and watch rail disappear, yet we do not put any more money on the table to upgrade the roads, with potentially another 14,000 truck movements just on the three highways in the electorate.

It is great to see movement at the Loxton Research Centre, which was once a proud institution in South Australia. Sadly, it is about six months behind schedule, but we still have hope that that program will be honoured and finished by December 2016. The River Murray Ferries Replacement Program has had $6 million injected into it. I acknowledge that and I think that, having met with him, the minister sees the importance of the ferry system within the Riverland.

With not much time to go, I want to touch on a few issues. The Port Augusta Sterile Insect Technology facility is over a year behind. I knew that it was too good to be true when the minister announced this and said that it was going to be up and running in 2015. It is now due to be completed in December 2016. The Almond Centre of Excellence should have already been finished, but it is great to see that there is support there for that centre.

I just want to touch on water and what contributions government has made to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and the total of South Australian government contribution to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority maintenance program. Since 2012-13, we have made serious payments of about $26 million. Out of this total contribution, the following amounts were paid by the Save the River Murray Fund—$9.5 million out of $26 million and $12.6 million out of the $19.1 million.

My concerns are: where is the money going to come from now that the Save the River Murray levy has been abolished? It is going to come from the NRM levy. Mark my words, the farmers, the water users in South Australia, are going to foot the bill. The government has dissolved its responsibility in the maintenance program for locks and weirs on the Murray, and I think it is an absolute disgrace.

We look further down south at the Lake Albert economy. The government is doing nothing to support an economy that is now just surviving at $3 million per annum. It has the potential of generating over $40 million. We look at the state government continually going on about how it is the saviour of doing all the heavy lifting within the river. Water security is the number one issue for this state, not only for irrigation, for producing food, but for people in Adelaide to turn on their taps, because, mark my words, the desal plant is not the answer.

Time expired.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (16:43): The leader and other members are going to (and have already) concentrated on the wider aspects of the state budget handed down by the Treasurer a couple of weeks ago. I want to talk in depth probably more about areas that are affecting my electorate and point out a few inadequacies that I see.

I am pleased to have $50 million ($10 million each year for over four years) put back into tourism, but I hasten to say that that is merely replacing what has been taken out over the last few years. It is not new money: it is putting money back in that was taken out. However, it is important and it is good, particularly in my electorate, both on the Fleurieu and the island, where tourism is such a critical part of the economy.

I am, however, disappointed that more money was not found for rural regional roads. I am satisfied that some money will be spent on the Myponga to Yankalilla road, although it will not be enough, but I would add that there is never enough money for roads. It is some money, but again there is no long-term vision, money or plans for the Victor Harbor-Adelaide road, and the Cut Hill section desperately needs duplicating or amending and fixing up. However, we will continue to plod away.

My electorate, the electorate of Finniss, is a great export electorate. We produce copious amounts of primary product on the land and, to a lesser extent, on the water. It is very disappointing to see that exports have gone down from 8 per cent to 4 per cent in South Australia, and that concerns me greatly.

I note the impact on the pensioner concession, removing the $190 concession, and I think that it is complete nonsense and arrant mischief to blame the federal government for that. It is a state-based concession and, as has been said in here before, the federal component was $19. I am worried that the Premier is sending out nice letters to people with $200. Many of them will merely waste this money; I am not saying they all will, by no stretch of the imagination.

It would have been far better to have the money taken off rates and associated bills than to give them cash, and we saw what happened when former prime minister Rudd handed out cash some years ago. In my view, families who cannot manage money will waste that $200, and I do not think it was a smart move. I am also significantly concerned about the impact on my constituents of the rising emergency services levy. It is nothing more than a land tax on the family home and it is disgraceful.

I also want to mention Sellicks Beach. For a number of years (since 2010), Sellicks Beach has been in my electorate since I acquired it from the electorate of Kaurna. However, it has been a long battle to try to get something to happen with wastewater treatment and effluent drainage in Sellicks Beach and it needs addressing. SA Water are noticeably absent from wanting to make any commitment and pathetically inadequate in their lack of wanting to do something in that area. It is a matter I took up with ministers who have been and gone, and it was raised with me again today by Her Worship the Mayor of Onkaparinga, Lorraine Rosenberg, and Deputy Mayor, Heidi Greaves, in a meeting with some of us here. For Sellicks Beach to progress, this money must be spent and it has to be got on with.

There are isolated developments within Sellicks that have their own systems, but I do not think in any way, shape or form that it is appropriate for effluent water to be running out over footpaths, off lawns or onto grass verges. Children could be running around in it, and it is decidedly unhealthy and almost smacks of Third World conditions. The council are very keen to pick up the gambit on this; they cannot do it alone. I say again that SA Water have been tardy and non-responsive and that the ministers have been pathetically inadequate and failed to address this issue. Given the vast resources and money that go into the government coffers from SA Water, it should have happened by now. So, that issue of Sellicks Beach and the effluent drainage needs some attention.

I turn to the subject of drugs. I do not know how much money we have to put into this, whether it be through SAPOL or wherever, but drugs are a disaster, particularly ice and methamphetamines. They are having an enormous impact on the youth of this country and this state, and they are having a big impact on the lives of families, children and younger people in my electorate. You could well say that that is no different to anywhere else but I am conscious of what is going on. I am very conscious of what is going on and I am appalled at what is happening and what is not happening in relation to these drugs.

I know that they are getting into schools. I know there is availability in primary schools, area schools, high schools—I am well aware of that—and it appals me. I am sure that it appals everybody in this place. It gets significantly worse because the police who do their best cannot be on top of everything. I also believe there is a community responsibility to advise the police or the proper authorities of incidents that they become aware of or the highly likely distributors of drugs and the key people involved in that. They do their best but I know that in and around the south coast it is bad.

I know that the member for Hammond may well talk about it in his contribution in the town of Goolwa, but let me tell you that across those south coast towns—Victor Harbor, Middleton, Port Elliot, etc.—it is rampant, and on the island it is very bad. I am just not sure where all this is going to end up. I am concerned that we are degenerating as a community because of the impact of this. It is one thing to have marijuana around the place but it is another thing entirely to have methamphetamines and ice. I would like to see a huge campaign run in opposition to what is going on with these distributors and dealers.

I would be fully supportive of the government—federal and state—to put in place huge programs to try to do something about the scourge of these drugs. I know young people who are affected and they are not only young people. I know of people who should know a lot better who are involved in this business. I do not hesitate, if I get advice, to let SAPOL know, but SAPOL are limited in their resources and they cannot do everything, so I believe it is up to all of us to do something about it.

I would like to turn my attention to the activities of Families SA. I have had cause to have discussions with the minister and Mr Harrison in the past about issues to do with Families SA, but I tell you today that I have an absolute belly full of the activities of some departmental officers in sending dysfunctional families, children, etc., into areas where they cannot be cared for, thinking they know best. That is what really irritates me.

These people in Families SA, a number of them—and it is probably a small number, I am not sure—think they know better than everyone else. They think they know better than the minister, they think they know better than their department heads, they think they know better than the police, they think they know better than the education authorities, they think they know better than everyone else. They are continually sending these—and I have spoken to the minister about this—dysfunctional people into areas that are in no way, shape or form able to deal with the effects and the fallout from what happens.

It is significant in Victor Harbor, I know, because I get it from the staff of the different government agencies and departments down there, without getting too deeply into it. They do not know what to do with it. These people who are dysfunctional, possibly through no fault of their own, have to have some degree of fallback onto government agencies to look after them. They have these resources in the city. They have them in the city to deal with them. They have the school systems to deal with them. They have the backup support services to deal with them. They have the numbers of SAPOL officers to deal with them. But I can tell you that out in the bush we simply do not have it. It is not there.

It is almost criminal, in my view, that these officers from Families SA, who seemingly know everything, are sending children into areas where they are required to go to school, yet the schools cannot touch these kids. It is a sad indictment of society. It is not good enough. I think it is almost intolerable when I have public servants speak to me at the football, at social occasions or in the street, wherever I may be, who are scared out of their wits to say anything for fear that they will get into trouble over it, but they will talk to me privately.

I think it is inexcusable that continually these dysfunctional families—and I am talking particularly about Kangaroo Island now—are sent over there. Children are sent over there with foster parents, or whatever, children with all sorts of difficulties. It is simply not good enough. There is no special school on Kangaroo Island to deal with them. I feel immensely sorry for people who have children with a disability.

I would add to that by saying that only last Thursday, the Public Works Committee visited the Convention Centre—and I am sure other members, if they wish to, can speak—where 1,200 children with disabilities were attending a function put on by the Variety Club and the Convention Centre. It was a joy to see them in circumstances where they were being entertained. They had a good day. There were, obviously, some children there with disabilities that were pretty severe, but there they were. What I am saying is that places like Adelaide the city have the resources to do things for these children, but we do not have them.

What is happening as well is that there are all sorts of deadbeats getting around Kingscote, which we have never had before. There are people who have never worked and who never will work who are lounging around, doing nothing, who have found accommodation on the island. I am told, allegedly, that many of them have been sent over by Families SA because they have found cheap accommodation. It is not good enough. You are destroying the fabric of that rural community. There are all sorts of things happening which have never happened before. It is simply not good enough. It has to stop.

I am on the point, and I will do it if I have to, of coming in here and naming the officers concerned and specific examples because I think it has gotten that serious. They will not do anything about it. No-one appears to be listening. My constituents are telling me that they are scared now. They are scared. They are worried. They are frightened. Elderly people are not game to go down the street in little old Kingscote anymore. They are not game to walk around the town at night.

As I said, there are four SAPOL officers on Kangaroo Island to look after the third largest island in Australia, an area that, if you stick it on its end, fits from Cape Jervis to the Barossa Valley. It is not good enough. It is impossible for them to deal with it. It has to stop. I know I have probably laboured on the subject, but it is a subject dear to my heart. I have family members who work in education as well and I fear for their safety. I know the CEO, Mr Harrison, is doing his best. I have no argument whatsoever with what he is trying to do, but it is simply not good enough. I want it to stop—it has to stop.

In the few minutes left to me, the fact is that the leader, today, outlined the need for an emergency response to South Australia's jobs crisis. This jobs crisis is critical. We are losing jobs hand over fist. It is bad enough that everybody else is out of a job, but when my own family members have to leave the state through lack of work it strikes home. So, they go to Darwin and they walk into work up there, no problem whatsoever. It makes it very difficult. If you think they wanted to go to Darwin, they did not—but that is where the work was. Last month alone our unemployment rates skyrocketed to 7.6 per cent and the Treasurer's budget, the Premier's budget, failed to deal with this jobs crisis.

I have heard the Treasurer go on about the reduction in the price of mining products—copper, iron ore—and yes, I know all that, but this government has had 13 years to do something about this, 13 years to try to stimulate the job market. What it proves is that it has been comprehensively unsuccessful and a total failure in trying to adjust the South Australian economy to a state where it can grow. Members only have to look at what has happened in Tasmania in the just over 12 months since the government changed hands there after many years of a Labor government; Tasmania has turned the corner. I think what the leader spoke about this morning with the New Zealand economy, with a population of four million people, is also testament; the population is now being increased by Kiwis who want to return across to the other side of the Tasman to get jobs back in New Zealand, their home country.

Our leader outlined what needed to happen: bring forward the planned stamp duty relief to take effect this year; increase the payroll tax threshold; slash the emergency services levy by reversing the $90 million hike; commence the building of the Northern Connector to link the Northern Expressway to the South Road Superway—and he went on. All that seems to happen for us is that this government appoints another committee or pays a few more public servants to do nothing.

Some months ago in this place we debated the merits or otherwise of legislation around the Commissioner for Kangaroo Island. That commissioner has been appointed, and I get on perfectly well—always have—with Mrs Wendy Campana. That is not a problem at all. However, if you go into the budget, google it, it does not even talk about the commissioner; I cannot even find any budget item in there, and we searched high and low. The commissioner was a con; it was a con to the people of Kangaroo Island.

Unfortunately, a small group of gullible people fell for it and ran around rallying the troops, but in my view she has been given some sort of sword of Damocles hanging over her because she has no money to spend on anything and she is a public servant totally compliant with state government policy, whether that be the emergency services levy increases or anything else. The poor commissioner has a job where she cannot do anything because she has no money; however well-meaning she is, it is not going to happen, and I seriously question where that is going to finish up. I know where it will finish up eventually; it will disappear.

I would like to briefly talk about the South Coast hospital in the minute left to me. That is nearly completed, and I am hopeful that the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure will move quickly to get that project finished, that the car park will be attended to rapidly and the entrance. That will finish off the job, and that project can be tidied up and moved on. Most of it was federal funding—I think $10 million; it was pretty much all federal funding—but it needs to be finished. So I call on the government to try to sort through the mess from the fall of Tagara and get on with what needs to be done. I am particularly keen to have the mess at South Coast hospital tidied up and that job completed for the betterment of that community.

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (17:03): I also rise today to support the budget bill, except to say that I also have a number of concerns with regard to it. What I would like to do first is outline a series of broken promises in my own electorate that are still unresolved after this budget, and then also talk about the broader statewide issues and macro issues as well.

South Australia is certainly a great state, but it is definitely being held back by bad government and we need to be doing better, that is for sure. The first project I would like to talk about is the Paradise Interchange. I am very disappointed to advise that again the state Labor government has announced that it will be breaking its promise to deliver an upgrade to the Paradise Interchange car park.

Before the election, both sides of politics took the heat out of this project; hand in hand, statesperson like, they agreed that this was an essential and important issue. There was a prolonged campaign by the local community with my support and with that of the member for Morialta as well. A petition was tabled. Before I was even in parliament, I was on the ground collecting the signatures of more than 1,000 commuters and local residents.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr TARZIA: Finally, in the year leading up to the election, the government announced in its budget that it was making funds available. But what did they do? They broke their promise. The people of Paradise will remember.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Hartley, there seems to be a lot of noise on my right at the back of the chamber. Do any members have a point of order?

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. I remind members of order 142 and ask them to hear the member for Hartley as I am, in silence. We share this duty together.

Mr TARZIA: I am always eternally grateful for your protection, Deputy Speaker. I know that you too are a big fan and supporter of the O-Bahn project and park-and-rides in your electorate and in my electorate. It is disappointing that we see from the Messenger article only a couple of weeks ago that a Treasury department executive director said park-and-rides were 'not a priority for the government'.

It is extremely disappointing to see that, despite the government's rhetoric on public transport, despite the government's rhetoric on wanting more users to use public transport, they cannot back it up. They cannot back it up when it counts. On behalf of the people of Paradise and the people in the north-east—

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

Mr TARZIA: The member for Wright is fired up about the people in the north-east. She wants to see park-and-rides in her electorate as well.

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am on my feet—sit down! Member for Wright, I will have to call you to order. The member for Hartley.

Mr TARZIA: Thank you again for your protection, Deputy Speaker. The member for Wright says—

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I hope you are not laughing at me.

Mr TARZIA: No, she would never laugh at you. She must be laughing at me.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You should not be laughing at anyone audibly.

Mr TARZIA: The member for Wright says gallantly that there is enough revenue in the budget, yet they want to—

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Wright has a point of order, which I know will not be frivolous.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: He has just deliberately misquoted me. What I said was that he voted the budget stream down, not that there was enough money in the budget. He is entirely responsible for the fact that the interchange did not go ahead.

Mr Tarzia interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You will be able to address that later, if you wish, and you know the procedures for it. The member for Hartley is entitled to be heard in silence, and he will continue. Seventeen more minutes, everybody, so let's keep it together before tea, not that I am watching the clock or anything.

Mr TARZIA: I am going to say this slowly because the truth hurts.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, you can say it as slowly as you wish.

Mr TARZIA: The truth hurts. They say on the other side of the chamber that they do not have enough revenue stream to deliver a park-and-ride. Really, this is ridiculous. They keep putting things out on social media and all the rest of it. It costs $2 million to build a park-and-ride facility. It is an absolute joke for members of the government to say to us that they do not have enough revenue to build a car park in Paradise. Come off it!

They wanted to spend $160 million on a project, until there was such resistance that they had to backflip, ripping the guts out of the beautiful Adelaide Parklands. Thank God for the Adelaide Parklands Association, which got involved and saved the Adelaide Parklands. Come off it! They do have enough revenue. They do have enough revenue to put a car park in Paradise.

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

Mr TARZIA: Exactly right, member for Kavel. Deputy Speaker, he does not comment all that often, but when he does he hits the mark perfectly.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: He should not be interjecting and you should not be listening to him.

Mr TARZIA: And he said it right on this occasion.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You should not be listening to interjections and you should not be responding to them.

Mr Tarzia interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you should not be interjecting.

Mr TARZIA: He says it right, Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We can stop as often–

Mr TARZIA: The government do have—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Sit down. We can stop as often as everybody wishes. It would be best if we all listened to the debate in silence.

Mr TARZIA: All this standing and sitting is the most work I have had to do physically all day.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Back to the topic.

Mr TARZIA: The government do have enough revenue stream. The government do have enough revenue coming in to fulfil their past election promises. The people out there in the north-east are not silly. The government should bow their heads in shame at the broken promises for which they have been responsible in the north-east.

Moving past the Paradise Interchange, we come to Lochiel Park, a project which was the signature sustainable development of the Rann Labor government in the early 2000s. It has been seven years since that project was completed and still, to this day, the residents of Lochiel Park do not have recycled water. This has been covered in the local media and in the statewide media and I implore the current government, the current water minister and the current planning and urban development minister to do whatever it takes so that water flows through the pipes of the homes of Lochiel Park residents. The current situation is simply not good enough. It is an embarrassment.

I have met with the CEO of one of the relevant departments and he agrees that it is an embarrassment. It seems as though he is having a go, and I appreciate that, but we really need to get onto the issues that exist at Lochiel Park. It has been like that for too long and it is simply not good enough. As the member for Hartley, I will not stand for it.

We then come to the Glynde substation. On the eve of the last election the former member for Hartley distributed to many in the suburb of Glynde a promise in writing. She made a promise to the people of Glynde that the government of the day would provide an alternative site in Glynde for a substation to be built. The government has the power to do this. It has been quite quick to accumulate land when it suits it to do so to provide alternative land for other sites and other issues, yet on this one, again, the government has backflipped.

The people of Glynde will remember the substation, just like the people of Paradise will remember the car park and the people of Lochiel Park will remember recycled water. The people of Glynde are not silly. I am here advocating strongly on behalf of the people of Glynde. I implore the government to come through on the promise to make sure that it provides alternative land to build a substation—not in a residential area of Glynde; that is not where it needs to go.

There are many schools in our electorate that are certainly in need of funding. I would have liked to have seen more education funding in this budget specifically allocated to schools in need, especially schools such as East Marden Primary School, and especially in regard to the University of South Australia.

There has been much talk of a tram going up The Parade. I would certainly be open to a tram going up The Parade. I would love to be able to catch a tram or a train in my electorate. The only time I seem to do that is outside of my electorate. Again, it seems that it is all rhetoric. Our strong leader today made mention of the fact that on average infrastructure spending is down this coming year compared to the years before. It is very disappointing. We have some clear broken promises by the state government in relation to my area alone, and I implore the government to provide funding to make sure that it comes through on these promises for the good people of my area.

In recent times a sad story came out regarding Tagara, a building company that has been here since 1992. I sent a text to one of the directors. It is a terrible time, a devastating time, for the workers, for the subcontractors, for their families, and also for the directors and executives of the company. It is certainly not a nice thing. Hopefully, contractors can be paid and workers can receive the entitlements that they are owed. Events such as those relating to Tagara, Alinta, Holden, BHP, and anyone else who has recently made any announcements of job cuts, highlights that the state government cannot just try to pick winners in one particular segment of the market. We need to create a more consistent, low-cost, level environment for jobs, a more consistent, level playing field for growth. We are a great state. We can be greater, but we are being held back.

Our leader spoke to us today about the need for an emergency response to South Australia's job crisis, because at 7.6 per cent, before these other job prospect announcements on the horizon, we are in a crisis here. Let's not kid ourselves. We are not playing fear politics here; it is truth. Last month, we were told that South Australia's unemployment skyrocketed to 7.6 per cent and Labor's budget failed to address that worsening jobs crisis.

We have come up with an array of measures aimed at stimulating the economy and also at creating local jobs, and Steven Marshall, the member for Dunstan, today highlighted what our plans were. Firstly, we would bring forward the planned stamp duty relief and we would like that to take effect this year. Secondly, we would increase the payroll tax threshold to permanently lower the costs for businesses to employ people. I mean, talk about a regressive tax—you have got it in payroll tax right there. Talk about a tax that punishes people to employ South Australians—you have got it right there. It is just simply not good enough. I was talking to a small-business owner only recently who said to me that he deliberately tries to stay behind the threshold. What kind of incentive is that for someone in South Australia to want to employ more people?

Further, the leader also spoke about slashing the emergency services levy by reversing the $90 million hike in Labor's last budget. We also spoke about commencing the building of the Northern Connector to link the Northern Expressway with the South Road Superway, because we in the Liberal Party are all about productive infrastructure. I will be the first one, on behalf of my electorate, to put my hand up if I see some productive infrastructure, because that is what this state needs. It needs productive infrastructure—infrastructure that takes us forward, infrastructure that allows us to value-add, infrastructure that allows people to spend more time with their families because they can get there quicker, and infrastructure that allows us to do business more easily. That is the sort of infrastructure that we are calling for.

We want to see the unlocking of South Australia's potential in all kinds of areas, such as tourism and mining. That is what we want to see. Finally, we would also like to establish a productivity commission to remove unnecessary regulations and red tape. There have certainly been ad hoc examples of over-regulation and overly burdensome laws in our state, and we as a parliament need to work together to make sure that we develop synergies and efficiencies and make sure that our law-making process facilitates what we are talking about.

To the Treasurer's credit, he has announced a plan, but the plan does not go far enough in regard to stamp duty. The question that we have on this side of the chamber is: why delay it? Why delay the plan to relieve people on their stamp duty? As we have seen, as alluded to by examples like Tagara, BHP, Alinta, all these others and the ones that are still to come, South Australians need tax relief right now. They need it right now, not in three years' time. A lot of businesses are struggling to hold their heads above water at the moment. Businesses are not evil empires; businesses are the ones that create jobs. We have over 140,000 small businesses in South Australia. If they all employed a couple more people, we would be out of a jobs crisis, we would not have a crisis, and we would be growing as a state.

We also have a plan to reverse the huge increases to the emergency services levy. That will certainly stimulate the economy and support South Australian families. We on this side of the chamber are certainly committed to creating jobs by supporting businesses and creating productive infrastructure. South Australia has the highest unemployment of all of Australia at 7.6 per cent. This budget here fails to deliver jobs. It fails to deliver a reduction in payroll tax, it fails to reduce the cost of living for households which by far are the biggest electorate out in voter-land, and it fails to deliver a plan for reversing the state's economic stagnation.

South Australians are paying more and getting less, and we see that. After forcing South Australians to endure some of the highest taxes and utility prices in the nation, the Premier and the Treasurer have again increased the amount of state taxation—revenue taken from South Australians—this time by $149 million. They have increased the emergency services levy for the second time in as many budgets, bringing the total increase to $205 for a $500,000 home.

They have increased the average household water bill by $804, and we heard today that, since 2002, average water prices have increased by 236 per cent. We have also seen premiums for compulsory third-party insurance increase to $378, even as the government wants to privatise the Motor Accident Commission. That is before we talk about hospital closures, and some of the other members have illustrated, through real-life examples, the pressures on our hospital system at the moment and how we need to be doing far greater things to make sure that people get the care they deserve.

I also want to alert the government to some of the macro issues. The macroeconomic trend has many implications for South Australian businesses. Obviously, there has been a sharp drop in commodity prices. I am a big believer in mining. I will be the first to put my hand up and be a believer in the mining sector and the need to work towards development in both the mining sector and the alternative energy sector. The mining sector is one of our greatest assets in South Australia and I will do everything I can to promote it.

However, the South Australian economy needs to do more than just facilitate that industry and, as the government has seen, we cannot put all our eggs in one basket. We need to do more to diversify. We need to make sure we are resilient in times of low commodity prices and that we are prepared to take the gains when prices are high. I also draw the government's attention to some of the federal government's forecasts in relation to business investment in mining and the non-mining sector, which are very important.

I notice that electric and hybrid cars are to be the preferred CBD mode of transport. I have a question for the government, and perhaps we can get an answer on a different day. But since electric and hybrid cars are to be the preferred CBD mode of transport, surely that would have a budget implication for South Australian tax receipts, not only in terms of federal receipts, which are not flowing through, but also in terms of the South Australian budget. We need clarification of that.

I notice there is provision for social housing premises to be renewed. I look forward to working with the government to make sure that my residents are kept abreast of any developments in that regard, and I thank the many staff in the housing area who have always been very friendly and supportive whenever I have had to raise something on behalf of one of my constituents.

State GSP is not growing as much as we would like and we are not getting the people coming here that we need. It comes down to basic supply and demand. We need to become more productive as a state; therefore, we need more people. More people in our state will create more demand and that can only be good for jobs and for what the government is trying to do to make this a better state.

South Australia is a great state. However, my area is being let down by this budget, and I implore the government to take that on board and make sure that the next budget addresses those issues.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (17:23): I am pleased to make some comments in relation to the Appropriation Bill. I want to start by saying that I do not believe this government will deliver on this budget. I say that with fairly good reason because, over the past 13 or so years, the government has pretty much not delivered on any one of their budgets. This is the 14th budget they have sought to bring down. They have a track record of not delivering on any of the previous 13 budgets so, to be honest, I do not think they will deliver on this budget either.

I can support that with some facts and figures. I have said in previous speeches in the house on previous years' appropriation bills that you just have to look at some pretty basic facts and pretty simple graphs that have been presented where the deficits have blown out and borrowings have blown out. The most recent example is over this last six or so months where the deficit for the 2014-15 financial year is $279 million which is an actual increase of almost $100 million on the December 2014 Mid Year Budget Review estimate of an $185 million deficit. There is a blowout of $185 million to $279 million, which has occurred despite the government raiding $459 million from the Motor Accident Commission. That is some clear evidence over the last six months of how wrong this government can get its budget.

But there are also some key economic indicators as to why things are running off the rails, so to speak. There are two quite clear indications of that. None of us on this side of the house get any real pleasure from highlighting how poorly the state is functioning economically, but unfortunately with a 7.6 per cent unemployment rate we have the highest unemployment rate in the nation. These two economic indicators must match up because we are the highest taxed state in the nation. So on the one hand we have the highest unemployment rate and on the other hand we have the highest taxation levels in the country. For anybody who focuses on economic indicators and how the state is going, those two key indicators must match up.

We heard the leader this morning, in leading the debate on the Appropriation Bill, saying that we have an emergency in relation to our unemployment figures and our level of unemployment and that we need an emergency response. The leader quite effectively, strongly and capably put a case forward to the parliament on how that can be remedied.

A couple of weeks ago when the budget was brought down, the Treasurer said that the budget was formed on job creation, that it was a budget for jobs. But what do we see? The leader highlighted earlier that there was meant to be 5,000 additional jobs created in the mining sector. What have we seen? There have been 5,000 jobs lost in the mining sector. He is spouting off in question time saying we aspire to be the mining state of the nation. I have been in this place for a little while and pretty much for that period of time—13½ years—I have heard a number of government ministers and previous and current premiers bang on about South Australia having a mining boom.

How many times have we heard ministers and the Premier on the other side of the house spout off about how we have a mining boom? We certainly do not have a mining boom at the moment. We have never had a mining boom. For a couple of years we might have had a mining exploration boom where mining exploration was going hammer and tongs, but we have never actually had a mining boom.

Over recent times we have seen a downturn. BHP Billiton is going to lay off a number of workers. We have seen, as I highlighted earlier, 5,000 jobs alone lost in the mining sector. Instead of creating 5,000 jobs in the mining sector, as the government had proposed, we have a negative of 5,000, so overall it is a negative of 10,000 jobs to the economy. It is a significant number of jobs lost.

Another thing that has been highlighted is that we are going to see an increase in payroll tax. Sure, the government and the Treasurer are talking about tweaking here and there and reducing some levels of taxation in other areas, but we all know on this side of the house that payroll tax is a tax on jobs growth. I know the Treasurer can spout off percentages like he does, full of rhetoric but very little action I might say, but payroll tax is a direct tax on the creation of jobs, so there is very little incentive.

The member for Hartley raised in his contribution that he knows businesses that employ workers so that their payroll expenditure just falls short of the threshold over which they have to pay payroll tax, and that is a disincentive for employment. We on this side of the house all know that there are hundreds and hundreds of businesses that would like to employ more people but they cannot deal with this regressive tax on jobs, that is, payroll tax.

Other taxes will also increase—the emergency services levy has gone up 9 per cent. On top of the government's remissions being removed earlier in the last year, we have seen a hike in the ESL, and that is just a backdoor property tax. The Treasurer floated the possibility about having a direct tax on the family home but I think he has gone cold on that idea. I think perhaps some of the members of the Labor caucus are fairly touchy about that issue, and rightly so because we all know that people work very hard, they save for a deposit, they borrow a lot of money from the bank, they work two jobs, and both members of the house, if it is a two-member household, the husband and wife each work to pay the home loan payments.

The family home is a very important part of our Australian way of life and the basis of the Australian economy, so for the government and for the Treasurer to even give any thought to introducing a tax on the home is an absolute abhorrence. However, he has had his way to a degree on this with the hike of 9 per cent on the ESL.

Another interesting thing came to the fore last week, which the Hon. Rob Lucas, shadow treasurer in the other place, highlighted in a press release he distributed. He highlighted the fact that the Premier told the national media that at next week's leaders' meeting he will push for the GST to apply to all financial services, so what is happening? Are we going back to the dim, dark days of the Labor Keating years where we saw the introduction of financial institutions duty (FID) and bank account debits tax? We are hauling ourselves back to the future, back to the 1980s and the dim, dark days of the Keating era.

Nobody in their right mind wants to go back to what the nation endured, in the way the economy was dealt with, under the Labor Keating years. But, as the Hon. Rob Lucas in the other place has highlighted in a press release, the Premier has plans and is wanting to push for GST to be applied to bank services. Further:

Mr Weatherill knows that when the GST was introduced in 2001 it was done only on the basis that the Financial Institutions Duty (FID) was abolished.

Having come from a banking career, I know that bank account debits tax was abolished before the FID, and the thought of applying a tax on people's banking transactions is just completely wrong—it is just perverse if you ask me.

I was in the banking game when those taxes came in, and I just could not work out the logic, apart from being sheer and blatant revenue raising, no other reason, behind taxing people to deposit and withdraw money from their bank accounts. They were abolished, but it looks like they may be back on the agenda. So, we need the Premier to come in and rule it out. We need him to come into the house and definitely say, 'No, I'm not going to next month's leaders meeting and be pushing for the GST on financial services.' That is an absolute regressive step in terms of trying to stimulate activity and economic growth in the state.

I do not believe the government will deliver on this budget. We have seen that the state will receive into the forward estimates another GST windfall. That was the only thing that ever kept the previous treasurer's budget half in shape.

Mr Gardner: Sometimes.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Sometimes, that is right. They were half around the mark, even though the figures were rarely realised. The rivers of gold of the GST were just flooding into the state coffers. What have we seen this year and into the forward estimates? We will see $892 million more of budgeted GST come into the state. We are looking at a projection of a $43 million surplus. I do not think that will occur, because the government has an appalling track record of delivering on its budgets. We will wait and see. That is on top of, as I have highlighted, the influx of money from the Motor Accident Commission.

It gets back to the fundamentals of how this government is managing the economy and the model it has put in place to try to manage the state's economy and the states finances. It is blatantly wrong, and surely members on the other side can see that it is wrong, because everything is heading in the wrong direction: unemployment is up, taxation levels are up, business confidence is down. A lot of the indicators are heading south, because the government has put in place an old, failed economic model of tax, borrow and spend.

They think they can spend their way out of a problem. They think they can spend their way out of economic difficulty. They have tried—and we have seen federal Labor governments try—but they have failed. All they do is rack up massive debt. From memory, the debt will peak at $13.7 billion—$13.7 billion the debt will peak out at—and in anybody's language that is an enormous liability and an enormous debt to try to manage.

However, as the leader pointed out this morning in his excellent contribution, the government has the capacity to do away with its old model, to forget all that old failed economic model that may have worked in the 1950s and 1960s, when we were operating in a semiprotected economic environment, managing the exchange rates and with limits on how much banks could lend. We had high tariffs in place for imports, even though it made the cost of living very high for Australian people.

There is light at the end of the tunnel that the government can view, if it wishes, and that is adopting what the leader has spoken about in relation to how a modern, western, democratic, unregulated economy can look, and that is the New Zealand model. The leader highlighted the fact that it is pretty simple. It is not very complicated. You focus on exports, you focus on the industries that have a natural affinity to the land in which you live, you keep spending under control but you spend in the productive areas of the economy, and you look at Public Service productivity.

Unfortunately, over the 13½ years this government has been in power, the Public Service—and it has been driven, I think, in a major way by the way the government has dealt with the Public Service. Unfortunately, instead of the Public Service responding to the state's needs, they respond to their own bureaucratic needs. We know about the old failed model that the government uses: big government.

It is like previous prime minister Rudd said, 'The government is to be the solution; the government needs to play a big part in the economic recovery of the country.' Well, that all went to hell in a handbasket, didn't it? As we have seen, some of those schemes that he put in place were complete failures and, as I said, just racked up enormous debt that this current Liberal Coalition government has to deal with. It is not that difficult for the government to turn its mind from its old socialist, protectionist, high taxing, high borrowing, high-spending ways to implement a modern, western, unregulated economic model. As I said, we have highlighted on this side of the house the New Zealand model.

I want to quickly talk about some other areas that I have highlighted previously. I want to turn my comments to health services. The constituents in the northern part of my electorate would use the services at the Modbury Hospital. People in the towns of Oakbank, Woodside, Lobethal, Gumeracha, Birdwood, constituents in those northern towns in Kavel would use the Modbury Hospital. I am sure constituents in the southern towns of Schubert, as well as in the electorates of Morialta, Newland, Florey and Wright, all use the Modbury Hospital.

What concerns me is that we are not getting any straight answers from the Minister for Health on what is happening with the Modbury Hospital. I asked a couple of questions about the Modbury Hospital service cuts. I have a DL flyer that has your smiling face on it, Deputy Speaker.

Time expired.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON (Ramsay—Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion, Minister for Social Housing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Youth, Minister for Volunteers) (17:44): I rise today to speak on the Appropriation Bill and to highlight to the house the significant investment our government will continue with in supporting South Australian communities as we prepare to transition and diversify our economy. Of course, this budget is all about jobs. While we enter this period of transition, our government remains steadfast in our commitment to ensuring that no South Australian gets left behind. It is with this in mind that I seek to make my contribution to this debate.

I would like to start by talking about the investment in this year's budget for multicultural communities in South Australia. I am pleased that our government will triple its investment in multicultural communities, with the 2015-16 state budget including an extra $8 million over four years to expand cultural festivals, develop community programs and to improve infrastructure. This $2 million annual funding boost is an addition to the existing $1 million spent on grants each year to promote multiculturalism in South Australia.

The government is committed to ensuring South Australia remains a diverse and harmonious place to live, work and raise a family. An important part of achieving this is through the staging of cultural events and festivals, which provide all South Australians with an opportunity to explore and understand the many different cultures that make up our great state. This additional funding will support communities in many ways, including through opportunities to modernise their facilities and enable better access to venues for an ageing population and to enable festivals to be inclusive of a wider audience of South Australians.

Further, the funding will also support the establishment of the Stronger Families, Stronger Communities program that will fund community development projects in areas such as family and relationship support, domestic violence and racial discrimination. I would like to thank the work of the South Australian Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs Commission in focusing on the areas that they are looking at, and that includes ageing and also economic opportunities for our migrant communities.

This investment supports one of the government's key economic priorities: to compete nationally and internationally for people and investment by creating an environment that encourages new investors, residents and visitors, and bringing fresh energy and life to Adelaide. This investment also proves the state government is committed to taking our multicultural journey to the next stage, from their acceptance to understanding and mutual respect.

I would also like to talk about how our government's budget is assisting and supporting the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people in our community. We have seen deep cuts from Tony Abbott and the federal Liberal government in their past two budgets, of which none was crueller than the decision to walk away—without any discussion, without any notice—from the national partnership agreement on certain concessions. I am proud that this government, in contrast to Tony Abbott and the federal Liberal government, moved to protect pensioners and low-income earners for 12 months while we campaigned against these changes.

Despite these cuts not being overturned, our government has recognised the need to continue supporting pensioners and low-income earners with everyday household expenses through our new cost of living concession, which comes into effect on 1 July 2015. Eligible pensioners and low-income earners who own their own home will receive up to $200 each year under the cost of living concession, while eligible tenants will receive up to $100 per household. Self-funded retirees holding a Commonwealth Seniors Health Card who own their own home or who rent will be eligible for up to $100 each year.

This concession is in addition to existing pensioner concessions for energy, medical heating and cooling, public transport, emergency services levy, water and sewerage. Most importantly, through our new cost of living concessions, more South Australian pensioners will be better off, with recipients of the former council rate concession receiving an extra $10 each year. On top of this, eligibility for the new concession will expand to include around 45,000 pensioners and low-income earners in South Australia who are tenants.

Instead of being a rebate for a specific bill, like the former council rates concession, the cost of living concession is a direct payment, providing recipients with the freedom to apply it whenever it is needed most. The introduction of this new concession reinforces the state government's commitment to keeping South Australia an affordable place to live. The new cost of living concession brings the maximum amount available to pensioners and eligible low-income earners as concessions for utilities and living costs to $866 each year.

Our housing and homelessness system aims to ensure that all South Australians can access safe, affordable and appropriate housing. South Australia has invested significantly in the development of innovative and comprehensive responses to homelessness and domestic violence, including through the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness. Through this investment, we have achieved substantial reforms and gains. It is important that, as we move forward, these gains are not lost.

On 23 March 2015, the commonwealth social services minister, Scott Morrison, announced a $230 million NPAH funding package for the next two years, 2015 to 2017. The agreement includes $8.87 million per annum for South Australia. The state government has matched this commitment, allocating $17.7 million over two years for homelessness services. However, the state government remains concerned that the commonwealth contribution has not included provision for indexation, equal remuneration order wage increases or capital investment. This means an effective loss of $1.1 million in funding to the sector over the two-year life of the agreement. The commonwealth's longer term intentions regarding this important agreement also remain unclear.

This budget is about investing in our community and creating jobs, but at the same time we will not leave the more vulnerable people in our community behind. We are investing in measures that build stronger and more resilient communities where all South Australians can share in our state's prosperity.

Sitting suspended from 17:52 to 19:30.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (19:30): It truly is a delight to give an address to the Appropriation Bill 2015, and it is a delight to be speaking after the dinner break which is something we rarely do in these days of so-called family friendly sitting days. As a country member, I do not mind if we sit here half the night, but be that as it may.

One thing in the budget was the lack of attention to detail as far as agriculture spending right across this state. We have a government that for many budgets now—because the revenue generated from the proposed expansion of Olympic Dam is not happening—has had a seven-point plan and then a 10-point plan which included a so-called clean, green reliance on our agricultural regions throughout this state. Yet, we see very little effort as far as funding in the budget.

I guess we should be thankful for small mercies. After hundreds of millions of dollars budgeted for agriculture has been ripped out of the economy over the last several years—and many jobs, probably into the hundreds—I suppose it is something to see that it was a fairly even keel as far as agriculture spending compared to last year, not that that is anything to brag about by any tenure, especially when a government is keen to promote this clean green food but then does not do any work in regard to managing it.

We look at the SARDI budget which has not increased. Research is one of those things that South Australia has been able to pride itself on in past years in the work that was done in the Middle East and across this country in grain technology, dryland farming systems and the like. We have certainly been able to promote things like no-till farming across the world that have made all the difference, especially in years like last year where even though there was not much rain since early July there were still some reasonable crops across the state—no thanks to the state government.

There is very little in the budget for the regions. As was discussed today in question time, the Labor government was going to have 5,000 more jobs in mining, yet we have 5,400 jobs that have gone from mining, so basically that is a net loss of 10,400. Mining is going backwards, agriculture is just holding its own, and then we look at training. This is, I think, one of the major disasters as far as what has happened to funding for training our younger generations for the future. We have a Labor government that has essentially stripped TAFE of funding, staff and facilities over many years and, yet suddenly, the government has had this brainwave. I would say the union standover men have said, 'Fix it. Give us back our jobs.' They have said no more training opportunities for people in the regions who run these regional training providers like Regional Skills Training and the like, we are going to put it back all through the TAFE system. This is after many years of gutting the system. There is no sense to it at all.

Essentially there are 300 training spots across the state for agricultural training that have been whittled down to 20 that will be allocated to Mount Gambier. For the life of me, I do not how we are going to get anywhere near enough of the younger generation trained in agriculture with this new scheme. I mean, do not get me wrong, I support TAFE, but there is not much left to support. When we have seen independent regional training officers supplied as training and other training across the state, why break something that is not broken? It is just out of control.

We look at things like the increase to the emergency services levy. If you have a home worth $500,000 you will pay an extra $205. This comes after a hit of emergency services levy remissions funding of $90 million and none of that money went into emergency services, by the way, it went into general. Yet, at the same time, the River Murray levy is going off households and that will only save households $40.

I have had meetings with people and phone calls from people who do not want to pay the River Murray levy, but as the member for Chaffey said today: who is going to pick up the slack? Who is going to pick up the slack with regard to whether it is salt interception schemes, or whether it is managing the locks and weirs? Certainly, down at Goolwa those barrages will need a multibillion dollar birthday (it will be at least $1 billion) one day to keep up with making sure that we have a freshwater river right to the mouth. That will be a massive project that will have to be funded from across the country, but this state will have to take its obligations as well.

I fear that now the government has found this bucket that it is calling the emergency services levy it will blame every incident like Sampson Flat and say, 'Well, there's been a big hit, we've got to hit everyone up a bit for another $20 million to fund it.' What happens if we have five major incidents in a year and we have, essentially, budgeted for one or two? Sure enough, the minister will say, 'Here's another hit to the budget.' It is a land tax, that is exactly what it is.

This comes after the Minister for Emergency Services failed in his bid to amalgamate the emergency services. Why did he even bother? He came in with this approach, made out that he was consulting across the state, got upset when a few of us from this side questioned it, and it all fell through anyway. We saw the head of the MFS get headhunted and get a very handy job overseas when he realised there was no future here. So, we have lost some skillsets and lost a lot of ability. We already have good services in the field, whether it is the SES, the CFS, the MFS and other players in the marine rescue field, and we are essentially back to square one, where it all worked quite well anyway.

If we look at the so-called health reform, this is going to have an effect on rural constituents. Many rural constituents end up in Adelaide hospitals, they could be a third of the clients, or patients, whatever you want to call them, in Adelaide hospitals at any one time. It is interesting, when you look at one of the disasters that is happening with the new Royal Adelaide Hospital, it is with regard to the Enterprise Patient Administration System (EPAS) and also the Oracle Corporate System. Another system that is in strife is the Enterprise System for Medical Imaging (ESMI) program. There is a comment straight out of the Auditor-General's Report, the supplementary report for the year ended 30 June 2014, which we got a hold of today:

This Report does not revisit the reasons for past delays for these systems but focuses on highlighting risks to meeting revised functionality, implementation deadlines and budget targets and their relationship to the nRAH.

What should happen at the new RAH, I would suggest, is they start going out and getting some bargains on filing cabinets. They are going to need them because EPAS just does not work. It has not worked in hospitals like Daw Park where they have rolled it out and they are still trying to work their way through it. There are a whole range of problems with these ICT projects. I quote again:

Delays experienced have exposed the programs to further scope creep pressure and the need to now manage multiple system implementations concurrently as the nRAH opening approaches.

Well, what a joke. It is just not going to work. Another quote straight from the Auditor-General's Report is:

SA Health's ICT developments, such as the EPAS Program, are intended to be a key component in achieving the objectives of the nRAH as South Australia's recent Transforming Health initiative.

As I said, this was trialled in hospitals like Noarlunga, the Noarlunga GP Plus Super Clinic, Aldinga, Morphett Vale and Seaford GP Plus Health Care Centres, SA Ambulance Service's metropolitan headquarters, Daw House at the Repat, Port Augusta Hospital and the Repatriation General Hospital. It is just causing massive problems.

I note that the report says that we are not going to take any notice of the money that has been burnt up before, but that amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars. It is farcical; it is farcical to think that this government has now confirmed it is selling the facilities at Daw Park, supposedly so that it can get a more central location. Well, Daw Park is only 10 or 15 minutes down the road from the centre of the city and in very pleasant surroundings. You have to wonder what the local member, the member for Waite, has been doing about retaining those services for veterans and others all in one place.

Mr Wingard interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Nothing; exactly right member for Mitchell, nothing. He has just toed the Labor Party line so that he can get that extra 80 per cent and a better pension at the end of it. However, I will leave those comments there.

This health reform is affecting people from right across the state. What will happen in emergency situations? Different hospitals will only be open for different things on different days. If you have a stroke, for instance, they will have to have a scroll come down on the back of the ambulance to tell them, 'Oh, it's Wednesday at 9.30 so we can go here,' or 'It's Saturday at 9.30 so we have to go somewhere else.' It is all about saving money; it is all so that the government does not have to have specialists in every major hospital in the city.

It is already affecting my constituents at Goolwa, who have a different triage process. They cannot get triage at the local medical centre but have to go to Victor Harbor. Then there are issues with what happens up the line, whether it is at Noarlunga or Flinders, etc. So there are going to be a lot of problems as we head into the major part of the health reform, which is the opening of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital, down the track.

Something else I want to talk about is road infrastructure development supposedly improving road safety, sealing shoulders and audio-tactile line marking on high priority roads. Quite frankly there cannot be enough of that, especially on a lot of roads heading out from my electorate through the member for Chaffey's electorate into the Mallee, especially in light of the fact that Mallee rail will be discontinued from 1 August. That will mean that on both the Karoonda Road and the Lameroo-Pinnaroo Road there should be at least two overtaking lanes built each way on each road. Where that has not happened, any parts that have not been widened need to be because of the extra truck traffic that will be on those roads, just for safety reasons for people who want to overtake.

I note that some work is going to go on with the commonwealth government to improve the Sturt Highway through the National Highway Upgrade Program. I also note—and I have mentioned this here before—that it was a fallacy in past budget years, where $100 million was spent on the Dukes Highway putting a bike lane down the middle of it and putting in some extra overtaking lanes. It would have been far better to duplicate that highway towards Melbourne, just as the Victorians are coming out further towards Beaufort and Ararat. That would have been a far smarter way to spend that 80 per cent of federal money and the 20 per cent of state money that went into it.

We look at pensioner concessions and the farcical way this government tried to blame the federal government for everything on earth; you would almost think that life itself would not have happened. We had a government that held a gun at the pensioners of South Australia, our most volatile people—

Mr Gardner interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Vulnerable; thank you, Mr Whip. They can be volatile, too, at times. They basically had them on a string over pensioner concessions, which is a state matter. Yes, there was some federal support, but when that small amount of federal support did not happen in other states, those state governments picked it up. But this Labor government has come along with this new concession arrangement, a cheque for about $200 going to people to make it look like they have done a great job.

I was talking earlier about the jobs crisis. The unemployment rate in South Australia has hit 7.6 per cent. The government was supposed to have 100,000 new jobs by 2016. I am not sure whether it has got above the 3,000 mark, or somewhere in that range, but it is a long way short because there is just not the opportunity. People are going interstate to get jobs. Part of that extends to where we see no major infrastructure announcements in this budget. What do people do? In the last couple of days we saw that Tagara builders have gone out of business and left a lot of subcontractors, and certainly people from my electorate, heavily impacted at a big building site at Murray Bridge. I just hope they get their money one way or another. The more jobs, the better.

What we will see from this 2015-16 budget is that the state's net debt is estimated to reach $13.7 billion by 2017. There have been some changes made to the tax regime, but a lot of these will not kick in for three years. Why have they not been fast tracked so that people can make the savings, whether it is stamp duty offsets or payroll tax relief? Why isn't it just brought forward. A lot of these things will not happen until 2018. By that time we will see more people leave this state.

As I said, this is what the Weatherill Labor government should do. We are saying that the government should bring forward planned stamp duty relief, commit to reducing payroll tax immediately, slash the emergency services levy by reversing the $90 million emergency services levy hike announced in the 2014-15 state budget, commit to building the Northern Connector road, finalise an investigation regarding the Strzelecki Track upgrade, and create a state-based productivity commission.

I would just like to expand briefly on the Strzelecki Track upgrade. That is something that should have been done decades ago. This government really needs to have a good look at it and put a decent submission to the federal government. I guess it will be an 80-20 funding split. What concerns me with whatever is going on in the oil and gas industry in the Cooper Basin is that you can go from Brisbane to Innamincka, to the border, 24 kilometres from Innamincka, on bitumen all the way. When you can do that, it means that either people will base their supplies out of Brisbane or some trucking companies, if they are coming out of Adelaide, will have to do about 1,200 kilometres extra and do the ring route: Broken Hill, Cobar, Bourke, Cunnamulla and then in towards Innamincka that way. I think it is absolutely vital.

We hear this government talk about everything it is doing for the oil and gas industry, but let's get this road sorted out. Let's get it happening and do the right thing for our oil and gas industry in the Cooper Basin, where I spent a couple of years of my life in gainful employment back in the 1980s.

If we look at other issues in the budget, we have the sale of the Motor Accident Commission. This comes from a Treasurer and a government that says, 'No privatisation—no problem, we will just go out and get rid of the Motor Accident Commission, recoup a huge windfall of money and then still run a deficit.' It is just disgusting. It would be alright if things were better in the long run for people right across the state.

I also note that over the forward estimates it is estimated that at least an extra $800 million of unallocated funding will come to this state (over the next four years) from the federal government. Let's just see where that goes. Let's just see if that does go to useful projects or if, just as has happened in the past, it ends up in the big funnel in general revenue and disappears in wasteful spending. This is not a good budget for this state. It does not do anything for the jobs crisis; it does not do anything for minerals; it does not do anything for agriculture; and it does not do anything, in my mind, for regional South Australia.

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (19:50): I rise to make a contribution to the budget debate. I am pleased to support this bill and a budget that supports the community. It is aimed at creating jobs and providing a much needed strengthening of the economy. This year's budget has been framed with the changing times in mind and an eye to protecting those less able to speak up or adapt to change.

The continued failure of the federal government to invest in South Australian jobs while having its hands in the pockets of the most vulnerable in society has, and will continue to have, a profound effect on the state. Just today, we saw a rally highlighting the loss of $1 billion in federal funding for jobs in the social and community sectors. Services will disappear for many already in intolerable situations.

There is no doubt that over the coming months and years Australia is going to face some tough economic times and, as we have seen, South Australia will not be immune. And so, the way our federation works into the future will be crucial. States and territories must be treated equitably and fairly, and agreements must be honoured to ensure certainty and effective planning. States have limited ways of raising revenue and will always rely on federal funding to help provide the services we all believe are essential.

South Australia is facing a good deal of change, particularly in employment, and that is why jobs are the centrepiece of the reforms in the budget and are rightly identified as the single most important of the challenges this state faces. Many factors have been involved in these employment challenges—the high Australian dollar and the drop in commodity prices, to name just two. Without significant intervention by governments, both federal and state, the closure and downsizing of large South Australian employers such as Holden, Alinta at Port Augusta power plant, the Leigh Creek coal mine, and just last week BHP, with its announcement about Olympic Dam, will have devastating effects on the economy and the community at large.

Transitioning our manufacturing industries is the highest priority. The need to focus on job creation and retraining for the already highly skilled workforce at Holden's at Elizabeth, and the other sites where car components are made, will receive additional state funding. There is no doubt that this transition has had to begin much sooner than anyone would have wanted.

The future of the Australian Submarine Corporation and contracts for submarine and frigate builds in Adelaide is an issue that should be of national importance and an obvious choice when weighing up and deciding what is best. This year's budget sees almost $985 million invested into tax reform to create jobs that will deliver significant benefits for South Australia as a whole and, I am pleased to say, also in the Florey electorate.

There is a large number of small to medium businesses in the Florey electorate, and the reforms the Treasurer has outlined will give businesses the much-needed boost they have been looking for to grow and create real job opportunities. The area mainly around the Florey electorate office is a hub of small to medium, mostly retail, businesses—supermarkets, takeaway businesses, hairdressers and gyms, motor and clothing shops, to name a few. These tax refunds will directly benefit these businesses. Payroll tax rebates will allow local businesses to invest in their operations, increase their competitiveness with large chains in the area, and allow for the creation of real jobs for real people in the coming years.

The budget has prioritised job creation at a time when it is really needed. This year, over $1 billion will be committed on productive state infrastructure, underpinning long-term job creation, because we know public sector investment influences private sector spends and creates real jobs. This investment will see around 4,700 jobs per year created over the next four years.

This investment includes the project to deliver the extension to the O-Bahn track. The O-Bahn service is a very important service for those who live in the northern and north-eastern suburbs. The extension will cut significant time off the journey from Tea Tree Plaza interchange to the priority bus lanes on Grenfell Street in the city. Making the service more efficient and effective will encourage more commuters to utilise this important and more cost-effective way of travel. It will reduce congestion on our roads and greenhouse gas emissions, and deliver a project of significance for the CBD. This project alone is expected to generate around 450 jobs over the life of the project, something I am very pleased to hear.

There are big commitments to the regions as they face the changes in the mining industry, changes that will test all of us and our resilience. There is an emphasis on our state's strength in areas like food production, tourism, research and collaboration, and international education. A very important, yet perhaps downplayed, investment in terms of its significance is the investment over the next four years into international education.

There are more than 30,000 international students enrolled in South Australian educational institutions, and the sector is worth an estimated $972 million to the state each year. It is great to see the government investing $5.7 million over the next four years into this sector. This investment will help put our state ahead of the rest of Australia in terms of investment in international education and give us a competitive edge against other states.

International students arriving from 2017 will be guaranteed accommodation when they are accepted into a university, removing the requirement for them to, sometimes with difficulty, search for accommodation before arriving. This guarantee will bring together for the first time universities and private accommodation providers for the benefit of students. Having seen how much the international education sector is worth to South Australia, I am pleased that the Florey electorate will be directly positively affected by this investment. The Florey electorate has an international student accommodation facility in the Modbury central area. This investment will ensure these rooms continue to be filled with students, and the flow-on effects of students spending money in the economy will be of great benefit to local businesses and employers.

Provision is also made for upgrades to school and early-year facilities in the budget, with local schools in Florey receiving additional maintenance funding. Unlike the severe austerity measures seen across Australia and the world in recent years, which have proven not to work and have affected the most vulnerable, this government's budget commits South Australia to long-term public investment plans in key project areas, like for example the $3.3 billion per year into key health projects and infrastructure. This government is working hard to make South Australia's the best in the nation and this investment, coupled with health reforms, shows it is still a major priority.

I am delighted that this $3.3 billion includes a $32 million investment in the Modbury Hospital, which will deliver for those living in the Florey electorate and those further afield in the northern and north-eastern suburbs. This investment will see rehab services upgraded by addition of a new swimming pool and gymnasium in the hospital precinct. These projects will allow for more and better rehab services to be provided in state-of-the-art facilities and, importantly, these services can be provided closer to home, often a major factor that prevents some patients, particularly the elderly, from undertaking these rehab services in a timely manner, often to the detriment of their health and recovery from major incidents.

Transforming Health changes are designed to give us access to the best health care possible first time, every time. It is a big aim with a big budget, so it is important that everyone understands how service delivery will work for them from now on and into the future. I want everybody to realise rumours around Modbury Hospital are just that, and it is appalling that people are still peddling these untruths, creating unnecessary distress, particularly when people are needing health services and therefore at their most vulnerable. They must cease. This investment in Modbury Hospital, together with further investment in other key hospitals such as the Lyell McEwin and the Royal Adelaide, and a $5 million boost to medical research at the SAHMRI precinct, will also see longer-term solutions found to continuing health conditions and problems facing the community.

This budget is a big-picture investment in the future of the state. The Treasurer and countless public sector employees have spent significant time and effort putting this budget together to ensure it can mitigate some of the effects from these tough economic times and the impact of the federal government's current and previous harsh budgets. I commend them for their work. I support this budget because the Weatherill government is a government that is sticking up for South Australians when others will not. Just as it has done for this state in water, it is doing it again for this state in submarines and many other areas. Let us work at the changes that face us together; do not just carp and talk things down. With everybody on side, South Australia will adapt and carve out a better future for each of us, our communities, and our great state.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Odenwalder): The member for Schubert.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (19:58): Thank you, Acting Speaker. Congratulations on your promotion; I hope it comes with a second parliamentary car and driver! I would like to acknowledge some friends I have in the gallery tonight who have been in with me. Thank you very much for coming in. I made it a condition of their dinner that they have to listen to me speak, so for the next 15 to 20 minutes I apologise to the rest of you, but not necessarily to them.

Can I say, Acting Speaker, that the Treasurer came into this place on 18 June and he spoke with a level of hyperbole that I think would make Homer Simpson blush. He came in here talking about this budget being a reformist budget and of this budget being a landmark budget, and I am not going to stand here and requote Simpsons Wikipedia—I think that is publicly available information that all people can see.

Mr Pederick: We'd hate you to do that.

Mr KNOLL: That's right. But can I say, for a reformist budget, this budget fails to deliver on so many different levels. The centrepiece of this budget is cuts to stamp duty, but these cuts do not fully come into effect until after the 2018 election. The Treasurer stood up here today and said we were trying to flip-flop on our decision on whether or not we support tax cuts. Of course the Liberal Party supports tax cuts; it is in our DNA. But for the Treasurer to sit there and say, 'We are going to save the economy, but we are going to save the economy after the next election, we are not going to save the economy now,' belies the fact that this government does not take the fact that we are in a jobs crisis seriously.

We have need of relief now. The jobs crisis is one that we have now. The unemployment rate is 7.6 per cent in seasonally adjusted terms and that is not in 2018, that is happening now. The job losses that we have seen at Leigh Creek, BHP, Arrium, Holden's, Santos, Caroma Industries and JBS Australia are job losses that are happening now. We heard just the other day about Tagara and the job losses that are almost certain to happen there. This is a crisis that is on our doorstep and it is here right now and the government, if it was serious about dealing with this issue, would commit to reform right now.

The second point that I would make about the stamp duty cuts is the fact that this is not a reformist agenda. In fact, this is an agenda that the government committed to be implemented in 2009-10. It was a reform that the government committed to reintroducing in 2012 and on both points the government squibbed their opportunity for reform in this area. To come in this place and reannounce for the third time that they are going to implement a reform is the same way that they come in here and talk about the infrastructure saviour of South Australia being the electrification of the Gawler rail line. It genuinely is a case of 'We will believe it when we see it.'

If this government was committed to dealing with the crisis that we have on our doorstep right now then it would commit to payroll tax reform. Payroll tax reform would hit at the heart of the disincentive that there is to employ people that is inherent in payroll tax. It would deal with payroll tax swiftly. It would deal with payroll tax in more than just a two-bit way by extending the threshold offset for a further 12 months. If this government was committed to dealing with the jobs crisis then it would not try and pass off $1.3 billion a year of infrastructure spending as being anything other than a cut, which is exactly what it is. The government would commit to building the Northern Connector straightaway. It would commit to finalising the investigation into the Strzelecki Track.

I am a little bit of a student of history in this place and it disappoints me that many in the community do not respect Sir Thomas Playford as they should. Sir Thomas Playford is unequivocally the greatest man to ever sit in this chamber. As he looks down upon us—and interestingly he looks down upon me—he judges me on a daily basis. He should judge this government on a daily basis because of their ability to denigrate and their ability to make South Australia much less of an entity than it once was.

When Sir Thomas Playford completed his term of office in 1965, South Australia was the third most populous state in Australia. South Australia was the third largest state economy in Australia. South Australia had doubled its population over the preceding 30 years. South Australia had brought hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs—in that time new industry jobs—to South Australia. This is a man who through his wit, tenacity and undying love for South Australia managed to cobble together what was otherwise an agricultural commodity-based economy and turn it into a manufacturing powerhouse. Ever since that time and undoubtedly over the last 13 years this government has sought to work away bit by bit at the legacy of the beautiful Sir Thomas Playford.

It is a legacy that we here should all acknowledge and it is lessons that we should all be learning. He was a great man whose legacy to South Australia should be taught fervently in year 10 Australian studies and social studies to make sure that we are aware of his remarkable history and that we give thanks for the fact that he was born in South Australia and did the good work that he did.

If the government was serious about dealing with the jobs crisis then it would deal with the waste, mismanagement and blowouts in this budget. Exhibit A is the fact that once again the government blew their own budget estimates from last year, this time to the tune of $201 million. This comes on the back of $331 million that they blew in their budget last year for a total of $4.1 billion over the time that they have been in office. This figure will stand to condemn them for many years to come and is something that we on this side of the house will continue to remind the government of because it is an absolute shame. If I look at the opportunity cost of what that $4.1 billion could deliver for South Australia, it beggars belief, not the least of which could be between $40 million to $70 million for a new Barossa hospital.

So where did the waste and the blowouts come from? We look no further than the health and ageing department which blew its budget by $118 million; the education and child development department which blew its budget by $56 million; communities and social inclusion was $39 million; Attorney-General's by $10 million; and planning, transport and infrastructure by $95 million.

I could go on but the interesting thing is that in this year's budget there are only two departments out of all the selected agencies listed in the budget that did not blow out their expenses, and they were police and primary industries. Apart from that, every single minister needs to stand condemned because of the wasteful mismanagement of their own budgets. It is really frustrating that, because they cannot get their house in order, they find an ever-increasing number of ways, whether it be ESL increases, probate fee increases, stray dog fine increases and increased collection of speeding fines, to tax South Australians to pay for the fact that they cannot manage their own budget. It is an absolute disgrace.

That is why we cannot believe that next year there will be a $43 million surplus because, if they have on average wasted about $200 million a year in cost blowouts, that $43 million surplus does not stand a chance. In fact, the figure would probably need to be about 10 times that size in order to withstand the waste and gross mismanagement that this government reports in its budget every single year.

It is interesting to look at the budget and at the fiscal targets that the government sets for itself. Its first fiscal target, and I will read it here, is 'a net operating surplus by the end of the forward estimates'. Now if I was a cynical person, and after 15 months in this place I am becoming slightly more so, I would suggest that the government will meet its target as long as somewhere in the budget over the next four years it tells us it is going to deliver a surplus.

It does not say in this budget, 'We will deliver a surplus,' as one of its fiscal targets. All it says is, 'Across the forward estimates, somewhere off into the deep dark future, as long as we say that there is a plus sign and as long as we suggest that at some point we are going to get back into the black, we would have done our job.' The target does not say, 'We will actually have to deliver on this promise, as long as somewhere off into the future we promise we are going to do it,' and I think that is an absolute disgrace.

Having said that, I have to commend the government for achieving their target because over the last four years all they have done is predict surpluses well off into the future and none of them have been delivered—$279 million again in this financial year and none have been delivered. How do I know that none of these surpluses have been delivered? It is because the amount of waste that exists within this government knows almost no bounds.

The first cab off the rank this evening—and you will note my repeated interest in waste and mismanagement; it does seem to be a hobbyhorse of mine and I hope to be the person who penny pinches on behalf of the South Australian people for many years to come—is that this government's targeted voluntary separation package scheme has been nothing short of a disaster: $378 million has been spent for no net reduction in Public Service numbers.

The fundamental idea behind this program is the fact that we should be able to reduce the size of the Public Service and we have not been able to achieve it. In fact, the budget last year suggested that we would be 1,600 FTEs lower than this year's budget estimates for this coming 12 months—1,600 jobs.

To have spent $378 million and to end up with such a disastrous figure, on the government's own figures, makes this program an absolute waste of time. If it was going to work it would have worked by now because the government has just halved the redundancy payout from two years to one year of salary, so if people were going to take those packages they already would have and, indeed, they already have.

If I look at the budget papers, in 2013-14, 1,479 people took TVSPs and in 2014-15, with the new regime in place, only 164 people took them. I do not mind that because I would suggest that that is less government money being wasted, but the whole point of the program in the first place is now lost because they have not been able to achieve their reduction targets. As always, as with the surplus, the target reduction number is always off into the never-never and the difficulty that I have is that, the closer we get to the next election, the less likely these targets are going to be achieved. If they were going to be achieved, those figures would have been achieved last year and this year, and it seems quite obvious to me that they are never going to be achieved.

There have been instances throughout this TVSP program where people have been given a payout, only to be hired by another government department weeks later. So, we are giving someone either one or two years' salary, and that person then goes to get another job within government only a couple of months later. There was an instance of a 76-year-old man being offered a redundancy. I am sure for him and his family that was Christmas, all paid for by the taxpayers.

There was an instance where an executive payout was given to somebody who was only one year into a five-year contract, and also an instance where somebody who had only two months left to go on their contract was given an executive termination payment of four months' pay. It would have been cheaper for them to sit in the transit lounge for two months than pay out that four months. But, heaven knows, this government knows no bounds when it comes to wasting taxpayers' money.

The government wasted $226,000 building a website on STEM Australia that it took down 12 months later. This government wasted $50,000 buying 85-inch TVs for parliament to replace 55-inch ones that were only 18 months old. The government wasted $80,000 preparing the World Design Capital bid, only to abandon the bid and not even follow through to see if we would get there in the end.

The government wasted $3 million spruiking the Transforming Health cuts instead of actually delivering better health care for South Australians; they thought they would go out there and spruik health cuts. The government wasted $550,000 on the botched emergency services reform—money wasted because the minister did such a bad job that they managed to get the entire sector off side, except for the United Firefighters Union, which was strangely silent. But, the rest of the sector were completely against the reforms, for what otherwise should have been a completely normal process aimed at getting better outcomes for the emergency services sector.

This government wastes $1.6 million a year leasing office space it does not use, office space that is sitting empty because the government cannot manage to make sure that, if they are going to lease office space, they actually have some people to fill it. The government also wastes $500,000 a year on buildings that it owns that remain empty and untenanted, that is, leasing income forgone.

This government spends $90,000 a week cleaning Housing Trust tenants' properties instead of using that money to ensure that its roughly 1,000 vacant Housing SA properties are fixed and able to be tenanted. So, instead of dealing with the 22,000 person wait list that Housing SA (Housing Trust) properties currently have, they spend $90,000 a week cleaning properties on behalf of themselves, something I do not think the private sector would countenance.

Each of these figures seems quite small in the context of a $16 billion budget. Each of these figures I will admit will not, in and of themselves, help to deal with the $201 million blowout, or deal with the incompetent waste and mismanagement that this government undertakes over a $16 billion budget. But, all of these figures add up. These figures in the hundreds of thousands, the tens of thousands, the few millions, all add up. They add up to hundred of millions of dollars.

We sit in this place squabbling about the ESL increase of $90 million a year or about the removal of remissions. We sit here talking about the northern connector project, we talk about the Paradise Interchange project, we talk about the Oaklands Park overpass project. All of these things could be paid if the government just took a different attitude and dealt with the culture of waste that exists, the culture that says that it is okay for a government department to spend $6.50 on a cup of coffee, as opposed to the $3.50 to $4 that normal people would expect to pay.

It is endemic, and the more I look at this and the more information that is given to me, it says to me that there is a culture that, because it is somebody else's money and not the hard-earned money I put in my own packet, somehow the government as a quantum and as a whole have a different decision-making process than what I would do with my own money. That is why we on this side of the house call for smaller government: because we do not trust governments to be able to spend money properly and appropriately. We believe individuals are much better able, because they have a personal financial interest, to make sure that money is spent properly.

So, when a public servant, walking to their office, goes past a coffee shop in the morning and decides that $3.50 is a good value proposition to buy a decent cup of coffee, they are right. But, if that same government employee then sits in their office and decides that spending $6.50 on a cup of coffee is okay, that is the type of thing I have a problem with. I have a problem with so many different examples where it is deemed okay for the government to spend over the odds for different projects, and it is cultural and it is something we need to grapple with, and it is something the government needs to grapple with in order to be able to change the culture so that we do get a spend for South Australia.

I am going to tell you that on that score there is one man, whose painting hangs in this chamber, who was an extremely frugal man: Sir Thomas Playford. Sir Thomas Playford was a bloke who was so tight that he would not allow the public servants to put a telephone in his house because he considered it a waste of time. This is the same man who retired with an FJ Holden, which is the same car that he had had and been servicing himself for 20 years. This is the same man who, instead of buying fancy new bits of kit that he knew South Australia could not afford, would buy second-hand bits of kit and make sure that they worked properly.

Sir Thomas Playford was a man who made sure that every cent of South Australian taxpayers' money was used to the best example as it could be. This is a man who had one secretary, a sergeant standing at the door and one office adviser. We now have a Department of the Premier and Cabinet that has over 100 staff, where Tom Playford decided that he could do it by himself with three staff. The reason is that he trusted his department to be able to do their job properly, and if he had an issue he would call them up on the phone. Nowadays we have a public sector that has blown out way above inflation and way above what the broader population growth has been, and it is an absolute shame.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: You really have been on Wikipedia tonight, haven't you?

Mr KNOLL: The member for Newland interjects, but the difficulty I have is that we need to change this culture, because otherwise we are not going to be able to put our budget back on track. As a last question before I wrap up, I was reading the Appropriation Bill, which is a short bill. It is a short bill that says that the government should have the authority to spend $12 billion, but it is only two pages long, and that is okay. There is a question that I would like to explore in committee relating to part 4(2) of the bill, which provides:

The aggregate of the amounts issued and applied by the Treasurer under subsection (1) and under the Supply Act 2015 for each of the purposes listed in Schedule 1 must not exceed the amount set out opposite each of those purposes in that Schedule.

In the schedule it lists all the departments and all the administered items for each of the departments. For instance, the Attorney-General's Department gets to spend $109,678,000. What I want to know is, if this bill suggests that the government 'must not exceed the amount set out opposite', what happens when they blow the budget? Does that figure come out of this figure? I may only be a naïve first-term MP, I may only be a simple, humble sausage maker—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are not humble.

Mr KNOLL: Unfortunately, machines have replaced the job that I used to do with my younger brother.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is what has happened everywhere.

Mr KNOLL: In fact, my brother and I could only get about 100 or 150 kilos an hour, but these new machines that have replaced us can get up to about 400 kilos an hour. Nevertheless, if I was to metaphorically be standing there at my sausage-making machine linking my sausages at 75 kilos per person per hour, I might be wondering to the Treasurer, 'How is it that in the Appropriation Bill it says that you must not exceed the budget that you set for yourself, yet the government is able to exceed the budget that it sets for itself?' It is a question that I look forward to exploring with smarter people than I in committee, and I am looking forward to a satisfactory answer from the government.

With those few words, can I remind everybody to go home and read Playford, Benevolent Despot, written by Mr Cockburn. I will be distributing exams into the pigeonholes of lower house members later this week and I expect 100 per cent pass marks by all members involved.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We will abstain. Sadly, your time has expired. We will have to wait for committee.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister Assisting the Minister for Planning, Minister Assisting the Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (20:18): What a pleasure it is to follow the member for Schubert.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The simple sausage maker.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, the mere sausage maker, with his very erudite call to arms for a return to the sort of socialism which Sir Thomas Playford imposed on South Australia. He was a great man; I completely agree with the member for Schubert. He introduced such forward thinking innovations as nationalising the Adelaide Electric Supply Company, which of course owned a power plant down at Osborne, of which my grandfather was the superintendent for a number of years. He also made it a very high priority for his government to continually invest in manufacturing operations. Indeed, he thought it was a great economic development policy to seek out new manufacturing opportunities and prosecute those for the benefit of developing a new working class in Adelaide's northern suburbs, making sure that there were levels of government assistance available for car manufacturing operations. What a salutary lesson we could be learning today from the musings of the member for Schubert. And, of course, I am proud—

Mr Gardner: We could probably afford to renationalise electricity if we—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Gardner: —cut down to three staff in PMC.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am interested to hear the member for Morialta say that his party, after selling ETSA, should now repurchase it. It is great to have these interjections, Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, it's not; they are out of order.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It is akin to the sort of economic development investments that we have been making over the past 13 years, investing what was an unprecedented amount in the Techport Australia facility at Osborne, with a $3 million investment in an effort to secure not just an air warfare destroyer contract but, of course, the Future Submarines contract, which was committed to by the then federal Labor government, as well as the then federal Liberal opposition, to be built here in South Australia—a project which would deliver not just many thousands of direct jobs, and a very substantial boost to the state's gross state product, but would have much wider flow-on benefits for our state.

So, I thank the member for Schubert for his contribution, reminding us about the backflips and the policy failures which his national party have imposed on South Australia and the sorts of economic detriments that they have been visiting onto our community. With that point aside, could I also say that, as Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, it gives me great pleasure to welcome and speak on our Treasurer's second budget to be delivered in our state, one which recommits our state to the sorts of investments and economic infrastructure which have become a hallmark of Labor over the past decade.

When you look back through the list, the record is impressive: improving the freighter export and import facilities at Outer Harbor by investing in deepening the channel there; investing in the Port River Expressway and the opening road and rail bridges down there, again to improve export efficiency; linking the Mid North and the Barossa Valley to our export facilities with the Northern Expressway; duplicating that great policy folly of the former Liberal government, the Southern Expressway; improving freight movements and other movements on top of the freight and logistics area at Wingfield with the South Road Superway project; and securing a sustainable water supply, not just for our community but also for industry, with the Adelaide Desalination Plant.

I have already mentioned the Techport Australia investment, but in addition there are ongoing improvements to the Sturt and Dukes highway upgrades, working in partnership with the commonwealth, which is something I am very pleased to have had an opportunity to do; developing a new burgeoning industry here in South Australia with the SA Health and Medical Research Institute; and supporting our tourism industry, not just here in Adelaide but with the flow-on benefits across the state, with two stages of investment in the Adelaide Convention Centre project.

That is just the economic infrastructure; that does not go to the investment in the new Royal Adelaide Hospital; the Adelaide Oval; the new schools public-private partnership, which we have delivered; refurbishments of all our major metropolitan hospitals, which have been delivered; two stages of the tram extension; and the extension and electrification of the Noarlunga line (now Seaford line).

I am very pleased that, based on this vast list of achievements, there is further money available in the next four years to continue these sorts of investments. Indeed, the Treasurer has said that in the coming financial year there will be $1.3 billion of infrastructure spend just in the general government sector. Across the entire government (both the general government sector and the non-financial public sector), there will be $10.8 billion of infrastructure investment over the next four years.

These are historically high levels against where we were when we came into government, when the level of capital investment made by the former Liberal government was not even keeping up with depreciation, at least in book-value terms, actively running down the state's assets.

This is not a bad juncture at which to pause and consider the sort of record which was left to South Australia by the former Liberal administration. Much is made, of course, of former treasurer Lucas's record of selling ETSA. The excuse was, at the time, to pay down state debt. Of course, after concluding that transaction, what did the then treasurer do? That is right: he racked up four continual budget deficits totalling over $1 billion. So, not only was debt paid off but over a third of it was racked up again within four years.

Fortunately, through some more robust and sound financial management across the public sector, the first seven budgets of this Labor government were significantly in surplus. I note with some mirth the statistic the member for Schubert quotes about cumulative deficits while of course completely failing to recognise the significant amount of surpluses already delivered by this government, but then again that sort of horrendous record is the record of the person who we understand is the chief economic adviser to the Leader of the Opposition. That is the role that we are told the Hon. Rob Lucas plays from the other place: he is the chief economic adviser for the Leader of the Opposition—and what a stellar job he is doing.

Of course, the member for Schubert for another reason is right to mourn the passing of Sir Thomas Playford because what a pale imitation of a leader we are given in the Leader of the Opposition compared with somebody who was actually able to (a) come up with economic policies and (b) promulgate them throughout the community, let alone implement them. The complete lack of effort and diligence we have had from the leader in this respect is stunning.

Indeed, if we consider my portfolio areas at the last election, it is interesting to have a look at what was committed to by the leader and the deputy leader. What was the leader's and deputy leader's position on a very strong project for the north-south corridor, the Torrens to Torrens Project, a project with a cost-benefit ratio of 2.4:1? 'We should cancel that.' We should take the money from that and we should invest it in a $1 billion scheme up at Darlington which had a cost benefit ratio of 0.6:1—it did not even stack up—in partnership with the commonwealth.

Fortunately for our state, wiser heads prevailed. The Labor government was returned, and I sat down with Jamie Briggs, somebody who recognises the value of investing in infrastructure, unlike the Leader of the Opposition we have. For an investment by the state government of an additional $50 million, instead of the $520 million that the leader and the deputy leader wanted to commit to the Darlington project, instead of securing one project of $1 billion we got two projects of $1.5 billion, both of which have a strong cost-benefit ratio.

So, thank goodness we were spared the efforts of the leader and the deputy leader when it came to upgrading the north-south corridor, but that is not where they left their efforts on the north-south corridor. The leader said that he wanted a full plan, a 10-year plan, for upgrading the north-south corridor, of course reiterating the commitment that had already being given by my predecessor, now Treasurer Tom Koutsantonis, and the then commonwealth government to develop such a strategy.

So, a reannouncement of what was not even a Labor election policy but just an ongoing government commitment was the centrepiece of their infrastructure commitments to the South Australian community, that and something else which was reiterated today, something which the leader is confident will unlock streams of gold to invest in infrastructure—that is, the creation of a committee, the creation of infrastructure South Australia, a committee which will front and centre replicate the work that is already being done by Infrastructure Australia, which will replicate the work that is already being done by the independent Public Service which already serves the South Australian community.

What strong economic policy that is! Let's appoint a group of potentially disaffected retired former Liberal MPs so that they can tell us what we want to then tell the community or so that they can present us with some work which we can then present to Infrastructure Australia.

Mr Williams: Tell us about the O-Bahn.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I will tell you about the O-Bahn. Thank you, member for MacKillop.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet; sit down. The member for MacKillop, I will have a look and see where you landed up at the end of question time. You are about to speak, sir, and you will expect the house to listen to you. I remind members of standing order 142, and the minister will be heard in silence. Minister.

Mr WILLIAMS: Point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, sir, you are on one warning. I can let you know that now.

Mr WILLIAMS: I realise that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I ask you to call the minister back to the subject of the debate which is—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I cannot hear what he is saying because you are interjecting out of your place. If you sit down, we will listen to him—

Mr WILLIAMS: He has not mentioned the budget.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you sit down, sir, we will listen to him carefully and remind you that you will wish to be heard in silence yourself in your own turn.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It is a wonderful education for a first-term MP to have the member for MacKillop raise points of order, each more tedious than the last.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Back to the subject please.

Mr Picton: What not to do.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, that is right—what not to do, says the member for Kaurna. Of course, the last commitment which was made by the leader and the deputy leader at the last election was that they absolutely categorically ruled out the introduction of tolls here in South Australia. I remember vividly the language that the deputy leader used in her press release. She said tolls, even on heavy vehicles, were the thin end of the wedge with a slippery slope to tolls on all other vehicles. Of course, what happened? One hundred and thirty days after the last state election, very quietly and furtively, the deputy leader has backflipped and started welcoming in tolls. So, in the deputy leader's own words, she welcomes in tolls on light vehicles here in South Australia.

I suspect that that is because the deputy leader and the leader think that this is the way to secure funding for the north-south corridor, forgetting that with the delivery of the Northern Expressway, the Port River Expressway, the South Road Superway, the ANZAC Underpass, the tram overpass over South Road and the duplication of the Southern Expressway with the Torrens to Torrens and Darlington projects, $3.5 billion of upgrades to the north-south corridor will be delivered without the need for one toll or one charge on a heavy or light vehicle.

But that is perhaps also to segue into the other positioning which has occurred here today by the leader. In the absence of being able to develop his own policy—and of course we know that he is not interested in the social issues. After his budget reply speech today we know he is not interested in the economic ones either. We would wonder why perhaps he is here at all, but I understand there are some people on the front bench on the other side who are actively working on that problem right now.

In an effort to position himself to try to claim the credit for the work that other people are doing both at the state and federal level, he has now shown two years after the state government's interest and after the interest that the member for Stuart shows he has finally shown some interest in the Strzelecki Track. He has finally realised that maybe this might be a good thing for the South Australian economy and by going out and saying in the media tonight that he supports the Strzelecki Track, maybe he will think that nobody else has mentioned this, that this is some bolt out of the blue for him, some brainwave that will be the economic salvation. Of course, none of us on either side of the chamber—not the member for Stuart and certainly not anyone on this side of the chamber—is that silly, and we know that once again it is the leader playing catch-up on other people's policies.

Up until now, perhaps up until today, he has always called infrastructure spending a false economy. He has always said that the wages taken home by people who are wearing hi-vis vests, who are in construction jobs or engineering jobs or detailed technical jobs, the wages that they take home to put food on the table, to make sure they can put their children through school, to make sure that they can have meaningful fulfilling lives with a work component to that, is a false economy. That is something that should not be prioritised.

Of course, the Prime Minister Tony Abbott does not agree with that. He wants to be known as the infrastructure prime minister because he at least is one Liberal who recognised the value of investing in infrastructure. I look forward to continuing to work with him, our Treasurer, our Premier, and the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure, Jamie Briggs, on unlocking some further infrastructure funding. I can tell you it will not be thanks to the efforts of the Leader of the Opposition.

The member for MacKillop for his frivolous points of order did raise the O-Bahn, and I am very glad that we are investing in public transport infrastructure. Lord knows one side of politics needs to make it a priority because it certainly has been completely neglected by the other. I saw the member for Mitchell at the train station. It is good that he becomes familiar with public transport facilities like that. I am sure that it is a rare exception for public transport spokespeople from the opposition to actually experience public transport services. I admire him for getting out and about and seeing what the other 250,000 people in Adelaide think is important.

I am glad that we continue to invest money into improving our public transport infrastructure, and the O-Bahn—our most highly patronised public transport route—is central to that, as has been the extension of the tram network, as has been the electrification of the Seaford line, as is also the money that we have in the forward estimates for the electrification of the Gawler line.

All the while, since 2008 when these plans were promulgated by the government, silence, stony silence from the opposition about public transport. There has been not one policy to buy a new bus, not one policy to expand bus services, not one policy to buy new trains or expand train services or improve them through electrification. There has been complete and utter disinterest in public transport and public transport policy.

Mr Gardner interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Of course, on that interjection from the member for Morialta—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Which you won't respond to.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —it is perhaps timely to whip through some of the issues that members on the other side are wont to raise in this chamber. The member for Mitchell, of course, is a passionate advocate for the Oaklands crossing; indeed, he has even asked me questions during question time about the Oaklands crossing, but when the opportunity came for the Liberal Party to put their money where their mouth is at the last election and say would they do anything about the Oaklands crossing, there was silence. In fact, when the member for Mitchell—

Mr Wingard interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order, member for Mitchell!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: When the member for Mitchell convened a public meeting about the Oaklands crossing, he went out there, he tried to whip up some discontent, he tried to get some more votes for himself in his seat, and eventually, when they turned on him and said, 'What would you do, Corey Wingard?', it was the sort of vacillation which was writ large on Matthew Pantelis's program on FIVEaa.

Mr Wingard interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Mitchell!

Mr GARDNER: Point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have a point of order that is not frivolous, I hope, member for Morialta.

Mr GARDNER: No. I think at some point the minister should get back to the substance of the debate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: He is nearly finished. The minister will continue.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you, Deputy Speaker.

Mr Wingard interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Mitchell, order! You are on a call to order. I will have to warn you if you continue.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I believe this is called pressing the bruise.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Minister, do not respond to interjections, and the member for Mitchell will be warned if he continues.

Mr Gardner interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: And you will be warned as well, and you are already about to leave us, so just keep it quiet. Minister.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: This will not be frivolous, will it?

The Hon. P. CAICA: It will not be frivolous at all. I think that any fair assessment of the rundown of the clock would say that he has missed out on—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No; I think if we can pack a lot into the next two minutes—

The Hon. P. CAICA: —at least a minute of his time.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! If the minister would like to continue, he is wasting 10  seconds of his time.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Of course, I am glad that the budget also contains a very substantial upgrade and investment in road maintenance and also shoulder sealing. In fact, the figures presented to me show that we will be spending, in road maintenance and road upgrades, $400 million over the next four years. That is in addition to new money we are spending on bike lanes. I noted the deputy leader's head in the sand approach when it came to protecting cyclists on Portrush Road in her constituency. She does not believe in bike lanes, and that is fair enough, but at least we are doing something to protect them.

I should also point out that while we continue to work on getting more road funding out there, at least we are able to work with those regional members of parliament from the other side, those people who are able to come to government and say, 'Look, we think this is important. We think that is important,' and we are able to work with them. All I would say is, if only we had some metropolitan members of parliament from the other side who were capable of doing that there might actually be a constructive transport, or public transport, debate in South Australia.

Mr WINGARD (Mitchell) (20:38): I too rise to speak to the Appropriation Bill. As we take a look at this year's budget it is an ideal time to take stock and see what it really means for the people in our community. It is wonderful to hear the transport minister prattle on, but when we hear the Treasurer spruik his message in the chamber or on TV, what does the budget really mean to South Australians is the question we are left asking.

I have been out and I have asked. I have doorknocked. I have been to the local shops. I went to the pub to listen over a beer. I have been to the schools in my community and to sporting events and the message was very clear. People were quite blunt in their response and no-one was very kind to Treasurer Koutsantonis, but there was one stand-out factor that, to a person, almost everyone raised with me when I brought up the budget. The key question was: why does South Australia continue to slide so far behind all the other states?

I asked a number of people if they thought this was a jobs budget, as described by Treasurer Koutsantonis. Do you know what they said? They recited South Australia's unemployment figure: 7.6 per cent, and it was noted that we had fallen behind in South Australia. We were the worst state in the nation. That is right, this Labor government has taken us straight to the bottom. Youth unemployment is an even bigger issue in the south of Adelaide, as members opposite would also know, and that was also raised in my conversations. People want to know why it is so much worse here in Adelaide and across South Australia compared with other states. There were 8,700 full-time jobs lost in South Australia last month, a figure that is absolutely staggering, and it is what they are talking about out in my community.

This year's budget predicts employment growth of 1 per cent for 2015-16; however, last year's budget predicted employment growth of 1.25 per cent for 2015-16, so the supposed jobs budget is actually predicting lower employment growth for 2015-16. This one percentage point growth is the lowest growth of all mainland states. There is no surprise there, and that is what people are telling me when I go out and speak to them on the streets.

National employment growth will be 1.5 per cent and employment growth in Victoria is also estimated to be 1.5 per cent, but not here in South Australia. In fact, the Treasurer has downgraded our employment growth to 1 per cent. In 2014-15 Labor predicted 1 per cent employment growth for that financial year, but actually delivered only 0.5 per cent growth. As we said, that has resulted in a 7.6 per cent unemployment rate in May 2015, which is the highest in the nation. That is what people are talking about when the Treasurer talks about a jobs budget; they are talking about our 7.6 unemployment rate, that is the highest in the country—mainland and Tasmania. Tasmania has surged ahead of us.

They also talk about the deficit of this budget. The deficit for the financial year 2014-15 is $279 million, which is an increase of almost $100 million on the December 2014 Mid-Year Budget Review estimate of $185 million deficit. The blowout from $185 million to $279 million occurred despite the government raiding $459 million from the MAC. When you say it quickly, a blowout from $185 million to $279 million does not sound that bad, but it is horrendous. The people of South Australia are catching on, and they know that is how this government operates.

In relation to GST from the federal government, the government's GST revenue over the forward estimates is $892 million. More than last year's budget estimates, this $892 million was unbudgeted and is therefore a bonus. GST revenue in 2018-19 will be $1.66 billion more than GST revenue in 2014-15.

Stamp duty is another thing. The Treasurer spruiked on about stamp duty on non-real property transfers and non-residential real property transfers being abolished. They were commitments South Australia made back in 2001 as part of the intergovernmental agreement on the GST, and various commitments made by the Labor government since then have not been implemented. In the 2005-06 budget Labor promised they would be abolished by 2009-10—another broken promise, another false promise, another example of this government's financial mismanagement.

The Treasurer has talked about relief for households in this budget. Well, I go out and talk to people and yes, they are happy that the Save the River Murray levy has been abolished; that will save them $40 per annum. However, the government continues to slug, on average, homes valued at $500,000 an extra $205 a year due to emergency services levy increases in the last two budgets. This government has just put its hand in the back pockets of homeowners and ripped cash out like you would not believe through its hikes in the emergency services levy. People out there I speak to know, they are aware, they see what is happening and they know that this government is just ripping money out of their back pockets to pay for its financial mismanagement.

The ESL hikes do not even add one extra dollar to our emergency services as well. We know they are good people working hard in our communities, giving back, but when people have to double the amount they are paying in their emergency services levies and not $1 extra is going to emergency services they feel very, very upset.

Motor registration charges are up $7 and drivers licence costs go up; a 10-year licence is now $410. We just keep pushing these costs and charges for households up and up and up, and the people I speak to have had enough. Unbudgeted expenditure as well in 2014-15—the government overspent its budget by $201 million. The total unbudgeted spending since the government was elected is now $4.1 billion. That is hard to stomach and the people out there have had enough of this government just frittering away their hard earned taxpayer dollars.

Population growth in South Australia is half the national average. People are leaving this state in droves. People just cannot get jobs here. There are no opportunities here and people are leaving South Australia and going into interstate to try to find work because this government is delivering nothing for the people of South Australia when it comes to jobs.

I noted with great interest the speaker earlier today talking about the fact that there are children in high school who have not experienced a state Liberal government. I have spoken to some of these children and their families, and their parents are very disturbed that these children are almost resigned to the fact that if Labor remains in power they too will have to head interstate, like the thousands before then, if they want to get employment. That is how people feel about South Australia. Well may the member for Fisher laugh, but that is how people feel about South Australia. They are very disenchanted with prospects here in this state.

I mention unemployment again. We sit on the bottom of the pile. On so many key economic indicators, South Australia sits at the bottom of the ladder. When you go out and speak to people, they tell you, they know it, they feel it, they are living it. Trust me, you have to get out and speak to the people more to find out how they feel. They see all the opportunity on the eastern seaboard and none here thanks to this government that is running South Australia.

The Liberal Party has proposed some measures to stimulate the economy and growth, and I support the leader and what he said today. Some of those stimulus plans revolve around bringing forward the planned stamp duty relief to take effect this year. Labor announced a plan for stamp duty relief; why are they delaying it? South Australians need tax relief now, not in three years' time, as the Treasurer is angling towards. He is going to fix the problem 'down the track'. Treasurer, the problem is here, the problem is now.

Increases in the payroll tax threshold permanently to lower the cost for businesses to employ people is another one of the stimulus commitments the leader made today. This government wants to take away payroll tax concessions in July next year. This is quite amazing because businesses are saying to me that they want to employ more people, they want to grow, they want to give people opportunities. Yet this government keeps increasing payroll taxes and it is going to take the payroll tax concessions away from these businesses next July and make it harder and harder for people to do business in South Australia.

The Marion shopping centre is in my electorate. A number of businesses have closed there. Small family businesses trying to work tell me that it is things like the payroll tax that this state imposes on them, restricting them from doing business—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr WINGARD: No, they are quite large businesses. The Treasurer does not even know who pays payroll tax and who doesn't—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do need to ask members not to interject and to not respond to interjections. I remind the Treasurer that, unfortunately, he is on two warnings and I would hate that to preclude him from making a contribution later because we would all like to hear from him, I am sure. Member for Mitchell.

Mr WINGARD: It is quite amazing, Deputy Speaker, that the Treasurer does not know which businesses at the Marion shopping centre would or would not pay payroll tax. I speak to them personally and they tell me that they pay payroll tax, and it is one of the biggest imposts on them doing their business. It is a very sad that he does not understand what is going on out there on the streets.

Regarding the emergency services levy, we have committed to reversing the $90 million hike in Labor's last budget. As I said, this is a tax that all families I speak to out there feel they are hit by and hit by hard, and not one dollar more is going to the emergency services levy. The Treasurer just smiles as he rips the money out of their back pocket. It is quite amazing to see.

We have also called on the commencement of the building of the Northern Connector to link the Northern Expressway and the South Road Superway. Hearing the Minister for Transport talk about that, I encourage him to get moving on this project as quickly as possible. Upgrading the Strzelecki Track as well would be another great thing. Let us have a look at a feasibility study to find out the value in this, because we should not just be doing projects that might shore up safe seats for Labor members. I know that with a lot of the plans that is what they are looking at doing. We need to evaluate these projects, work out where the upside is, and deliver projects that have a benefit for South Australia. That is what we need to do.

Establishing a South Australian productivity commission to remove unnecessary regulation and red tape is another stimulus plan that was put forward today, and I think that would truly help take South Australia forward as well.

There is a number of projects there. We need to support business and create productive infrastructure for this state to move South Australia forward, to stop the exodus that I spoke about before, of people who are leaving South Australia in their droves because they only see the opportunity on the eastern seaboard. Once upon a time, South Australia did sit in the top three of the premiership table, if you like, in this country. We were very competitive with New South Wales and Victoria. In fact, any chance we got to beat Victoria we truly loved. Now we are mixing it with Tasmania and a couple of the regions—the Gold Coast, the Illawarra and even the Hunter. That is where we sit on the premiership table at the moment. South Australia is languishing and the people out there know it; they feel it and they understand it, and we have to turn this around.

I turn to my portfolio area as well. I know we will talk more about this in estimates, but there are a couple of interesting things that came out of the budget as far as transport and road safety are concerned. An increase in traffic fines is again a great revenue stream for this government. There is an 11.6 per cent increase in the infringement notice scheme. In simple terms, that means an increase in traffic fines. That is a plain $9 million extra to the government's coffers. This increase is way out of proportion with CPI. I am told regularly that people believe this government uses motorists for revenue raising.

It was interesting to note a similar sentiment from Associate Professor Mike O'Neil, the director of the SA Centre for Economic Studies, in an article written in the paper over the weekend. This is not just me saying this; Associate Professor Mike O'Neil from the SA Centre for Economic Studies says that South Australians perceive that they are just there for revenue raising as far as motor vehicle and traffic fines are concerned within South Australia. It really is disheartening. That is how people feel; they feel like they are just a cash cow; motorists feel like a cash cow to this government, and this government really needs to understand more of how people feel.

I turn to road safety infrastructure spend. Digging a little bit further into the budget papers, we heard the government talking up its spend on roads. On close examination, this was exposed as a tricky sleight of hand. It is not the first time this government has had a tricky sleight of hand. The government has committed $10 million a year to its road shoulder program, meaning it will spend $30 million on road shoulder sealing in three years in the lead-up to the next election.

Looking back over the past budget papers, it is revealed that the government spent $31.9 million on road shoulder sealing over the past three years, so in fact that is a decrease in real terms of $2 million. It is unbelievable; they spruik up one project, and in fact it is a decrease in spending on road shoulder sealing. We know how important that is for road safety. We know in this chamber how important road shoulders are, especially in the rural regions of South Australia. Road shoulders can have a dramatic impact on reducing accidents, injuries and fatalities on country roads, so to see the government in fact reducing its spending on road shoulder sealing by nearly $2 million is quite lamentable. It is a fact that has been noted by a number of key industry groups who identified the same issue, and they have the same concerns that I am raising right here and now.

Not to mention the $1 billion road maintenance backlog that is there in South Australia. These are projects that just have not been maintained, have not been serviced. Our roads are in a very poor state of affairs. This money is not towards new projects; this is a backlog of road maintenance problems that this state has, and it is valued at $1 billion worth of spend to get this fixed. Something that this government does not really spend much time on is maintenance of projects.

I turn to public transport as well. This really is a mess. We have had train and tram strikes disrupting university students doing exams, and all South Australians have been disrupted over the past few weeks. The most notable point is the lack of negotiation that the government has had. They have let this drag on for more than 18 months with the train and tram drivers, without doing much at all. That is really disappointing to hear. The unions even say that the government has not been negotiating for 12 to 18 months. Now all of a sudden that it has got to a crisis point, they are saying, 'Come to the table; we need to talk.' The government really has dropped the ball on this and this is a mess. No matter which way you look at it, it has been handled very poorly by the Minister for Transport. who must take responsibility for another Labor public transport mess.

It is also noted that the government has spent more than half a billion dollars on the rail revitalisation program, but we are still having problems. Just tonight, there were delays of almost an hour because of signalling issues. The new Seaford line and the Tonsley line were impacted hardest, and there were delays right across the system, frustrating commuters and hurting the reliability of the service—and that reliability is what is vitally important to maintaining people on public transport and growing public transport.

Issues like tonight and delays like tonight are signalling problems that are ongoing and have been ongoing for months and months and months without any rectification, and a lot of them are arising because of the poor management of the project by the government. Shortcuts, cutting funds and not completing projects properly have been real issues. We can run through some of them, too, and this is the problem and the legacy of not doing these things properly and cutting corners when they are doing these projects.

We had electric wires falling down near pedestrian crossings at Christie Downs just recently—incredibly dangerous and so very lucky that no-one was hurt. Rough riding on newly laid track is causing problems as well on the Seaford line, damaging brand-new rail cars and potentially impacting on their service and their guarantees of the new Bombardier trains. Servicing is a major issue there because of poorly laid track that is causing rough riding on the Tonsley line as well.

There are also countless speed restrictions on the new Seaford line. A new line with brand-new trains that all look nice and flash—the speed restrictions on this line are huge in number and despite the half a billion dollars spent on the rail upgrade project we have countless speed restrictions on the Seaford line the people are often not aware about because of the poor management of this project and the fact the government has just cut corners and not done things properly.

There are also the wooden sleepers. We talk about these regularly, and the government keeps trying to hide this under the carpet, but they are still in place. They have talked up again the multi-million dollar—half a billion in fact spent on the rail revitalisation, and there are still wooden sleepers on sections of the line that have not been upgraded and the project really is not completed. That is what this government delivers, and do not get me started on the $50 million that was wiped out by the Auditor-General on the money wasted on the Gawler line by this government. That $50 million just thrown out the window would have the member for Schubert absolutely up in arms as he counts dollars in his waste-watching as well.

That is without really touching on the tramline as well, with the report that was uncovered that said the tramline cable has to be dug up because it had been laid in such a hurry and so shoddily because this government wanted to get the project up before the 2010 election so they could show off some fancy new trams and spruik again—over-spruik—a project that actually was poorly done and poorly handled. From the report that this government had commissioned that they tried to hide away that actually came to us, it showed that the cable actually has to be dug up and replaced, digging up all of King William Street right around to Morphett Street to replace this cable. That is the only way you can actually get the project that was commissioned by the government to the standard it should be.

When you see some of the pictures in the report, and I know some journalists have seen it as well, they were absolutely appalled. I have plumbing mates of mine that I talk about who say that if they laid conduit on a job in your backyard like that, they would be sacked on the spot. They said it was some of the worst work they had ever seen. It is highly disappointing that this government will accept that sort of work with taxpayer money—$20 million in the tram case that was spent on that project—and the report that the government had commissioned said it should be dug up. They just turned their back on that: forget about that, ignore it and walk away. They will do a couple of repairs and just make South Australian taxpayers bear the brunt of their mismanagement on that project.

I will keep doing all I can for the people of my community, and I work with the government trying to grow jobs in our state because we desperately need it. We desperately need to turn around our unemployment rate from being the worst in the nation, and we need to prevent people from leaving the state in the droves that they are. I strongly urge the Treasurer to take up more of our suggestions and lift South Australia off the bottom of the ladder.

The Hon. P. Caica: What suggestions?

Mr WINGARD: You weren't listening!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Reynell.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am asking both the member for Colton and the member for Mitchell to go outside and continue their discussion away from the business of the house. Member for Reynell.

Ms HILDYARD (Reynell) (20:58): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I am sure that will not be necessary. I am very pleased to rise to speak this evening on the Appropriation Bill 2015 and to wholeheartedly commend it to this house and to commend our Treasurer and his hardworking staff on their economic and social vision for our state and their work on our 2015-16 budget. I am very proud that our government does have a positive vision for our state that positively takes account of both the social and economic issues that we face, and I am proud that we constantly articulate that vision.

When I had the privilege of being elected to this house just over 16 months ago, I was not surprised that those opposite did not articulate a vision for this state and do not seem to have one. But I am very surprised and actually very upset at the constant negative talk about our state. I love South Australia and I thought that when I came here I would find people on both sides of this house who similarly love South Australia, are prepared to stand up for South Australia and talk about all the fantastic things that our state has to offer. I am dismayed when I hear speeches like the one I just heard that is absolutely focused on negativity and does not actually talk up our state. It is very upsetting.

This is a budget that all South Australians can be proud of, one that delivers a balance between providing a safety net for our most vulnerable community members and that ensures the future prosperity of all South Australians. We must always ensure that government spending reflects our values, our community's compassion and support for each citizen, and our desire to see our state thrive. This budget does just that.

As the member for Reynell, I am overjoyed that our government has invested in schools in the south. A sum of $50 million has been allocated for school infrastructure, part of which will go towards rebuilding and upgrading disability units at both Christies Beach High School and Christie Downs Primary School. This outstanding initiative will make a real and positive difference for local kids with disabilities, their families and our southern community as a whole. Our southern community has spoken about the need for these facilities for some time and I am proud that we have listened, we have heard and we have acted. I look forward to continuing to work with and for these schools to ensure the needs of our community are met through these developments and to continue visiting these facilities as they become up and running.

Also of great importance to people in our southern community is the $159.5 million for the Flinders Medical Centre for a new 55-bed rehabilitation centre and older persons mental health service. Tackling mental health issues is one of the most pressing and difficult challenges for our generation. Having a family member who requires psychiatric care involving hospitalisation or contact with a hospital is one of the toughest and most heartbreaking challenges a family faces. Our government has shown its willingness to rise to the difficult challenges that occur with mental illness and we have shown our willingness to invest in quality services for older South Australians and those affected by mental illness. Our southern community will greatly benefit from this strong decision to make a difference in this area.

Additionally, our budget confirmed that Noarlunga Hospital will receive $17.2 million for the refurbishment of a dedicated elective day surgery centre, the refitting of ward space for dialysis services and a dedicated paediatric area for children in the emergency department. These reforms are of great importance to our southern community and they are reforms which, together with the member for Kaurna and the member for Fisher, in collaboration with our communities and the Minister for Health, we worked hard towards. We worked hard towards them because our community asked us to ensure that they continued to have access to good quality care that worked for them and their families in our local area. These reforms were based on data and show the rest of Australia how to discover and listen to what our community wants and needs and to deliver it using clear, brave and rational logic.

I am so proud to be part of a government that has put its money where its mouth is and supported services provided under the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness. These services include support services, crisis accommodation and response programs, and prevention programs which engage through their dedicated workforce with our most vulnerable citizens. These programs and the workers who run them are often the first point of call for women and children escaping domestic violence, for those affected by mental illness and those experiencing extreme poverty. These services are focused on ensuring dignity for all South Australians and show our government's commitment to collaboratively working to end homelessness and to address associated social issues.

This measure is in deep contrast to the measures carried out by the federal Abbott Liberal government. In their recent budget uncertainty and insecurity of community sector funding to deliver quality services to our most vulnerable citizens was rife, with short-term extensions in some funding areas such as homelessness and with many of the cuts to community services from last year's budget remaining in place. This has had a huge and negative impact on those highly dedicated community sector workers, 85 per cent of whom are women, with their jobs now at risk, at least four of them gone, as spoken about at today's rally, and their salary sacrifice arrangements slashed by the Abbott budget in a move which will see the take-home income of those who remain employed cut.

Our commitment in our budget to investing in South Australian Housing Trust stock upgrades is also an important one. Some of the houses to be upgraded are in Christie Downs in Reynell and are well overdue. I commend the Treasurer for his leadership on this issue and look forward to continuing to work with him, our planning minister, Housing SA and our local community to ensure that our community's voice is strongly heard in how these upgrades are implemented, and how they accord with broader changes to the suburb in which these houses are situated. These houses are in a community and we must contemplate redevelopment in that broader community context.

Crucially, through the introduction of our cost-of-living concession, our government, as it did in the last financial year, has committed to reversing the effect of the Abbott Liberal government's cruel disregard for pensioners through its deep cuts to pensioner concessions. No matter which way those opposite attempt to shift blame for these cuts, the federal Liberal government remains the government that abandoned pensioners.

In contrast, our concession will provide $200 annually, directly to eligible pensioners and low income earners who are homeowners. For the first time, 45,000 additional South Australians will receive $100, with those who are renting and self-funded retirees holding a commonwealth seniors card eligible. This decision has been made to combat the effect of federal budget cuts on our seniors and vulnerable community members. We on this side believe that the first duty of government should be to ensure the wellbeing of all our citizens and at present this means ensuring that we insulate our citizens from the effects of an overzealous and cruel Abbott Liberal government.

In this vein, we are also abolishing the River Murray levy to alleviate some of the burden of cost of living increases on families. We believe even small contributions can make a big difference to the family budget. I know this will have a real impact for many families in Reynell.

Our brave CFS volunteers, who worked so hard and so selflessly to keep our community safe in the devastating Sampson Flat bushfires, have also been the beneficiaries of this budget with $6.5 million allocated to meet expenses incurred in responding to those bushfires. This budget also includes $1.7 million over four years for the purchase of eight replacement bulk water carriers for the CFS, a substantial upgrade to existing fleets; additional funding for protective clothing for volunteers, necessary when fighting fires that last longer than one day; and for the recruitment of more volunteers to contribute to the outstanding work our CFS already undertakes.

Community safety is at the heart of our government's agenda. It is not always an easy issue to grapple with but it is one of our most important considerations. To this end, we are investing $50 million over four years for a range of reforms to improve and widen services for children at risk or in care. Our most vulnerable children deserve the best that we can offer them and it is the responsibility of our entire community to work together to ensure our children are safe and emotionally, socially and physically thriving.

We are increasing the number of foster carers, expanding front-line support teams, and increasing the use of Other Person Guardianship orders which will allow children at risk to stay in stable homes of other relatives or foster carers. Additionally, we will establish a program to reunite teenagers in out-of-home residential care with their families where appropriate, and we are expanding the Positive Parenting Program which helps at-risk families get necessary parenting skills through support and training focused on their need.

The safety of our children is paramount to the safety of our whole community. We must be vigilant in ensuring that they are always our first priority and we must not play politics with those most at risk. I look forward to working positively with others in this place and indeed others from every part of our community to collectively impact positive change for our youngest people.

Investment in our veterans' services is something I feel passionately about, as I know many here also do. To this end, our budget's $15 million investment for veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder, to create a centre of excellence, has been well received. The veterans' community, led by the chair of the Repatriation Foundation, will determine the model and location of the new centre, which will provide state-of-the-art services to our ex-servicemen and women. This will ensure our veterans are receiving the best possible care when they are most vulnerable, in state-of-the-art facilities. We are also increasing facilities and spending on veterans at local hospitals. This spending will go to medical and surgical services, palliative care and acute outpatient services and will benefit so many in our community.

Mental health and wellbeing is rightly a priority for our government. While the south specifically benefits from the mental health service at Flinders that I have mentioned, all South Australians with a mental illness will benefit from our $12.9 million investment in continuing to build more mental health facilities. This measure recognises the increased demand for services and the complexity of the issues we face in mental health. We are already spending over the national average on mental health and wellbeing, but more must be done to ensure that not one community member falls through the gaps. Our new state government emergency department targets for those needing mental health care will ensure a stringent focus on assisting our most vulnerable patients at their hardest times.

To showcase our wonderful state on the world stage, I am so very pleased that this budget earmarks significant contributions toward Adelaide institutions, such as the Adelaide Festival, Adelaide Fringe, Film Festival and others. Over our time in government, and over decades in South Australia, we have proudly been the leaders in promoting the arts. We have recognised the role the arts play in exploring ideas in our society, and have helped the arts community transform their already great events into truly international headliners. Again, this is in sharp contrast to the shameful slashing of arts funding by the federal Abbott Liberal government.

Additionally, this budget contributes funding towards the Adelaide Fashion Festival, an event I am really looking forward to seeing take shape. We have so many wonderful local and national designers who should be promoted to the world. I believe, as does our Premier, that Australia and South Australia can be renowned fashion hubs with the best investment and the right people on the job.

Finally, and incredibly importantly, our budget focuses on creating jobs for South Australians here in South Australia. Through our budget we demonstrate our commitment to local workers, to local jobs and local businesses. Through numerous measures we are facilitating job creation and supporting and enabling both job makers and future job takers. We know and deeply value the fact that access to secure and decent jobs is crucial for our economy, and a crucial factor in every community member and every family feeling and being engaged and valued. Employment is crucial to connectedness and to families and communities thriving, and our budget creates more opportunities for all community members and all families to thrive.

In closing, I again thank the Treasurer for his hard work in creating a budget that reflects our state's and our community's priorities and values, and I look forward to continuing to speak, alongside him and others in this place, about our budget and our vision for South Australia in a very positive manner.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (21:13): What an illuminating time I have had, listening to some of the members of the government endeavour to speak up this budget, which comes at the end of many years of Labor government, which has yet to produce a budget that will provide for the people of South Australia. I am delighted to hear the member for Reynell talk about vulnerable children. Our society is full of vulnerable children, and it is a great shame. The best thing we can do for vulnerable families and vulnerable children is ensure they live in a society where they have some hope and particularly have a hope of getting a job. Families need to have a solid income so they can put bread on the table, clothes on their children's back and shoes on their feet.

We have just seen the unemployment rate in South Australia climb well over the 7 per cent mark to 7.6 per cent. It is an absolute disgrace, in a state and community that is blessed with the natural resources that we have in this state, that we can have that percentage of members of our society not being able to find meaningful work. It is an absolute disgrace, and this government has to take a fair bit of the blame for that. This government has to take responsibility for what it has done.

We had this government proclaim that they have changed the WorkCover laws by introducing the Return to Work Act and turning around the problems that we have had for year after year. We had the government say that this will save business $180 million a year. The changes to our WorkCover system that have been brought through this parliament in recent times are by and large similar to the changes that were proposed by the Liberal Party in government back in 1995, 20 years ago. Imagine where this state would be if this state had had $180 million a year, in today's money, for the last 20 years to spend creating new jobs and building up the strength of their businesses. Imagine where this state could have been but for the Australian Labor Party in this state. It is a shameful set of circumstances that we find ourselves in.

I feel for every one of those vulnerable children. I feel for them, but I bear no culpability, but members on the other side of the house do, because they have presided over the problem and they have ignored it year after year. Yet they come in here and suggest that they are doing wonderful things, and complain and point to vulnerable children.

Members of the government come in here and talk about the federal government. I invite members of the government—and I hesitate to say new members, because they might have some excuse, but I invite all members of the government—to do the following, because I suspect that the vast majority of them do not understand the relationship between the federal government and the states. There is a thing called horizontal fiscal equalisation. I suggest members of the government familiarise themselves with that term and what it means. I will give them a brief lesson.

There was $25 million available for river communities to compensate them for water buybacks and the loss of economic activity in the river communities along the Murray system in South Australia, yet this Treasurer turned down that $25 million to be spent in river communities. Why did he do that? Because he said it would impact on our GST payments to the tune of some $22 million. I remember asking him a question in this house about what the impact would be if the federal government acceded to his request to pay the additional money that was reduced through the winding back of the partnerships program for the pensioner concessions, and he refused to answer the question.

If the federal government reinstated the national partnerships program and reinstated the money that they were helping the state government to pay for pensioner concessions, we would have lost most of it in GST payments. That is the reality and I ask members opposite to cease in their ignorance and get some understanding.

In question time today we had the Minister for Education talk about why the state government did not, as every other government in Australia did, participate in the blackspot funding program for mobile telephone services. South Australia is the only jurisdiction where there was not a participation. As a consequence, we have 11 new towers being built in South Australia, out of something like 400-odd to be built across the nation. The Minister for Education said, 'Because that is not our role.' I say to the member for Reynell: pensioner concessions are not the role of the federal government. Get your stories straight and sing from the one hymn book; that would help.

I was delighted to hear the speech to the house by the Minister for Transport (member for Lee). I just want to remind him of a couple of things. Given his lack of time in this place and his youthfulness, he can be excused for some of his ignorance, but when you are a minister of the Crown I do not think you can afford to be ignorant; I think you need to apprise yourself of the facts.

I heard the minister on the radio this morning talking about privatisation of the bus services in this state. Of course, there was no privatisation, just as there has been no privatisation of SA Water by the former Liberal government. We put out the operation of the bus services to be managed by private companies at great savings to the state. I hope the Minister for Transport reads this, as I clearly recall the previous member for Mitchell (Kris Hanna)—I use his name because there have been several members for Mitchell since he was the member and I do not want him to be confused with others—moving an amendment to a bill at the time that the contract for the privatisation of the management of those bus services expired.

The member for Mitchell moved an amendment to a bill in the house, the effect of which would have been that the operation of those bus services would have been taken back within government. I remember this very clearly because, as those who have been here for a little while might understand, if a division is called and there is only one person voting on one side, the names of the votes are not recorded. I crossed the floor to vote with the member for Mitchell to ensure that the names of every member of the ALP in this house were recorded as voting against that amendment. Every member of the ALP, which was in government at the time, voted for the continuation of the private operation of our bus services. I remember that very clearly.

The Hon. S.W. Key: Is this when you were an Independent?

Mr WILLIAMS: No, I wasn't an Independent. This was—

The Hon. P. Caica: This was when you sat on the other side.

Mr WILLIAMS: This was much more recent than that. I am surprised that you guys forget it because you were both here. The Minister for Transport talked about surpluses and deficits. I clearly recall, at the change of government after the 2002 election, when a significant payment from the South Australian finance authority was put back beyond 30 June so that it appeared in the next year's budget, which created a deficit for the last budget brought down by Rob Lucas and created a surplus in Kevin Foley's first budget. It was a sheer shuffling of money from one date to the next, yet the Minister for Transport stands up here and suggests that there were so many surpluses under Labor and deficits under Liberal.

The minister talked about public transport. The most successful public transport system in this state is the O-Bahn, and who built it? It was not Labor. I can assure you that it was not Labor. It was built by a Liberal government that came in with an incredible deficit. Notwithstanding that, our commitment to the people of South Australia ensured that we did what was necessary to provide vital infrastructure.

Speaking of infrastructure, I have heard lots of people in this government proclaim that they are doing wonderful things in infrastructure. I have a pretty good memory, but I am also a bit of a hoarder, and I have here a copy of the Capital Investment Statement 2002-03, the first of the Labor budgets. I think the total investment in infrastructure in this year's budget is $1.35 billion. I remind the house that today's budget is well in excess of double what the budget was back in 2002-03.

This is the Labor Party's first budget, bearing in mind that the change of government occurred in March and the budget was brought down in May. I think everything was pretty well settled before the change of government but, notwithstanding that, the opening line of the budget states, 'The Government's Capital Investment Program for 2002-03 totals $942 million.' In today's terms, I contend that that would be over $2 billion. It continues, 'This compares to the anticipated result for 2001-02,' the last year of the former Liberal government, 'of $940.3 million'. Again, I contend that that would be over $2 billion in today's terms.

It is very easy for people with short memories to express nonsense, and we have heard a fair bit of that in this budget. I do not want to dedicate all my time to talking about nonsense coming from the mouths of those opposite, but let me just talk about the Strzelecki Track. I recall taking the manager of Kidman and Co., Greg Campbell, to see minister Wright when he was the minister of transport way back in about 2002-03 to complain about the Strzelecki Track. The complaint was that Kidman and Co. were delivering livestock to Teys Bros, who have an operation at Biloela just south of Brisbane in Queensland.

Teys Bros took over a meatworks in Naracoorte in my electorate. Kidman and Co. wanted to deliver their livestock to Naracoorte to support the local abattoir, but because they could not operate triple-trailer road trains on the Strzelecki Track it was costing them—this was way back in 2002-03—the equivalent of about 14¢ a kilogram additional freight to transport them to Naracoorte as opposed to Brisbane. Just think of the economic activity that has been lost to this state just because of that failure of government over many years to do something about that road.

The government came out recently and said, 'We want to build a food hub in the north of Adelaide to boost employment.' You would be a lot better off doing something about the Strzelecki Track because all that beef that is processed in Queensland would be processed in South Australia—that is the sort of nonsense. Not only that, we have seen the fiasco of this government's land deal down at Gillman which is supposedly based on building an oil and gas hub. Where is the oil and gas industry in South Australia? That is right: it is at Moomba in the north-west corner of the state.

Mr Treloar: North-east.

Mr WILLIAMS: North-east, thank you—north-east corner of the state. You cannot have an oil and gas hub at Gillman without having a sealed Strzelecki Track. Do you know why? Because about 80 per cent of the services that are trucked in an out of Moomba to support the industry come on a sealed road from Brisbane to the South Australian border.

The Labor Party in this state just do not get it. It is joining the dots. How can you have an oil and gas hub when it will not work because you have not fixed the Strzelecki Track? We had the temerity of Johnny-come-lately, Minister for Transport, who suggests that we have not been talking about it except for the last five minutes. Give me a break.

The food hub is one of my favourite things because one of the things we did in government was to establish an organisation called Food for the Future. We did lots of things to develop the food industries in this state. We developed from scratch our aquaculture industry. I ask members to compare what we did—developing our aquaculture industry, farmed tuna, oysters on the West Coast, doing better things with our rock lobster before we exported them, adding some processing, value-adding—because we established an industry that was not there and established an industry that is probably worth $400 million to $500 million a year now through that process. What does Labor do in South Australia? They create marine parks and then lament that there are vulnerable children, that families do not have jobs. That is the difference between Labor and Liberal, because we understand how the economy works.

I read an interesting quote the other day. It went something along the lines that if a socialist understood economics, they would not be a socialist. That is a very good piece of thought, and I suggest it applies to many of those opposite because they just do not get it. In my electorate, the government said, 'We won't fund the operation and maintenance of the drainage system.' In my local paper last week there was a story about the local council imposing load limits on bridges at the request of the drainage board, not because the bridges were about to fall down, but because they have reached a certain age and nobody can ascertain the integrity of them which means that farmers on those roads cannot even have a fuel delivery.'

A 15-tonne load limit means that the local fuel supplier cannot run his truck down to those farms, so suddenly if this policy goes forward we will have farms which are highly productive in the lower South-East, farms which are running centre pivots which are fuelled by diesel motors and diesel pumps, farms which are running tractors, and those systems will all be broken down and high-value crops will not be grown. They will not be able to move livestock off their farms and take them to market or ship them out to an abattoir, yet this government wants to build a food hub to create jobs. What the hell are they going to do in the food hub if they cannot get the produce there because they will not spend a measly $4 million to $5 million maintaining the drainage system and the structures, principally bridges, to allow us to produce the food in rural and regional South Australia such that we can add value to it in a food hub? They just do not get it.

I see my time is just about expired. I will wind up there but I can assure the house that I have only touched on about half the dot points I have in front of me. I am highly disappointed that I do not get to get to the rest of them, but this is a budget that I cannot recommend to the house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, you will have 10 minutes tomorrow.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (21:33): And I look forward to that, Deputy Speaker, as do we all! I rise also to speak about the 2015-16 state budget which I think is a fantastic document and a fantastic blueprint for this state for growth, jobs and improved social services. Before I speak about some of the budget settings more broadly, I would like to highlight one of the particular benefits for the budget in the south and for my electorate and neighbouring electorates in the area of education. I am glad that the Minister for Education is in the chamber because I want to commend her in particular for her role in putting the $50 million package in this budget together which is going to help some of our most deserving schools across the state. Some of those schools that often get overlooked by some of the squeakier wheels that will put together a more convincing case, sometimes, even though there are bigger needs out there.

In the south we have definitely seen that, particularly in the area of schooling for disability students. I know the member for Reynell has spoken about this briefly before and I want to touch on it as well. We have been working very closely together. Over the past year, as I have said in this place before, I have been advocating on behalf of children with disability in the southern suburbs to have the need for improved facilities raised, both with the previous education minister, the member for Wright, and now the current education minister.

I am very glad to see that this budget delivers for two of the most significant units in the south: both the Christies Beach High School and the Christie Downs Primary School. They have a large number of students with disabilities there. To be honest, the facilities are not up to scratch at the moment. We need to invest this money so that the kids there have the best possible chance to get a good education.

There is a growth in the demand and that is why there is also money that has been put aside in the education budget to build a new unit at Seaford Rise Primary School—I was at that school earlier this week and saw the construction underway, which was fantastic to see—and to upgrade the existing unit, which is very much outdated, at Seaford Secondary College. We can provide a much better facility for students there through that upgrade. So, across those four units we now have a much better network for students with disability in the south.

I commend the people who have raised this issue, both the principals and the parents of the students at those schools, but also a Port Noarlunga resident, Kelsey Walker, who raised this issue in the media and spoke to me and the education minister as well. I think it has been very important to raise and we are now going to see some fantastic action on it.

This also means more jobs for local people as well. I think that has been a clear part of the design of that package, that both the school upgrades, as well as road maintenance and updating housing stock, are all areas where we can see extra work for local tradespeople in South Australia. Whether they be builders, plumbers or electricians, it means more work for them and more jobs for South Australia.

Onto the budget more broadly, I commend this budget as a budget that backs business to create jobs. That is something that we see when we look at stamp duty. When we go to buy a business premises that is going to be eliminated completely, we are going to be the only state not to have that. Stamp duty on transferring a licence or a non-real property, that is going to be gone. Stamp duty on share transfers, that is going to be gone. Payroll tax concessions are going to be extended. WorkCover levies have been vastly reduced.

One of the favourite measures of our critics has been the IPA report that put South Australia at the back of the pack in terms of business competitiveness in terms of tax. If you use the same measures, we are now going to go to the front of the pack of all states in terms of having a competitive tax base and a competitive place to do business. That is really important, particularly when we look at those taxes that affect people who want to start a business, who want to have a start-up or go out and buy a business, or people who want to merge businesses. It is going to be particularly important as we are dealing with the transformation from the closure of Holden and lots of the component suppliers are going to need to merge their businesses to be able to survive as best they can, and we are not going to be taxing them while they are doing that.

This is also going to drive investment in South Australia. I was particularly interested to see some of the comments that we saw from some of the commentators, including people like the Property Council. The Property Council said that:

Taking an axe to stamp duty on non-residential property transfers sends a strong message of confidence to South Australia's small and medium sized enterprises, but importantly, commercial stamp duty abolition will ensure that boards across the country will sit up and pay attention to our state's property market.

That was not a socialist, that was not a Labor Party supporter who said that. That happened to be a Daniel Gannon who said that, who, as I understand it, used to work for the Leader of the Opposition. He was the key media adviser and spin doctor for the Leader of the Opposition. He has gone out now, as the head of the Property Council, endorsing this state budget. We have also seen the CEO of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry saying that they 'applaud the government for having the foresight to take these bold initiatives to invest in growth.' That is not a Labor Party sympathiser who said that; it happened to be the former Liberal chief minister of the ACT, Kate Carnell, who came out and said that. So we are getting some very non-traditional people backing this budget because of what it means about investment in South Australia.

It is helping households as well, and I think that is very important because, as we know, lots of households are doing it tough out there. We are extending concessions to households, including to renters for the first time; there will be a $100 concession to help with gas bills, electricity bills and water bills. We are also eliminating the River Murray levy, a saving $40 to households but, importantly, we are keeping the work for the River Murray going at the same time. So we are seeing some very significant tax reforms but also help to households.

Of course, we know that there are big challenges for South Australia, and changes to the manufacturing industry will come to a head in coming years, but the work that we have done over the past 13 years, as well as the work we are planning over coming years, means that we actually have a plan for a prosperous future for this state. Let us not forget that there are actually 120,000 more people with jobs in South Australia than there were when we came to government in 2002; 120,000 more people with jobs. The unemployment rate, even though we would like to see it lower than it is at the moment, is still less than what it was under the previous Liberal government.

We need to put this in perspective, when you get people out there saying that the state is in some sort of crisis. Well, it is actually doing a lot better than it was when the previous Liberal government was in office. You just have to look across all the areas of South Australia to see what dramatic changes have happened since back then in 2002. Our economy has nearly doubled in size from some $52 billion to well over $95 billion now. Our school retention rates—and this is really important for training future employees and also entrepreneurs—has gone from less than 70 per cent when we took office to well over 90 per cent and perhaps 92 per cent now.

Our hospitals were in a state of disrepair and waiting lists were ballooning out, whereas next year we are about to open up the most advanced hospital in the country, and waiting lists are some of the best in the country right now. When you fly into Adelaide you do not fly into a dingy, old shed anymore; you fly into a modern, fantastic airport that is probably the best in the nation. We have 800 extra police and crime is down 40 per cent. People feel a lot safer in the city, and this city is a fantastic place to be. Not only do we now have Adelaide Oval that is creating a—to use the term—vibrancy in the city, we also have new hotels being built. Three have already been built with another four or so to come, including the first five-star hotel to open in Adelaide in some 30 years.

We built Techport, which helped create the defence industry in South Australia, which was very small when we came to office. We now have something like 25 per cent of the nation's defence work in this state, and we want to see that grow. We have extended railways, which is the first time that has happened in some 30 or 40 years in this state. Luckily that has gone to my electorate, I am glad to say. We have also electrified that railway and we want to electrify more. When we came to office there were only four mines in South Australia and there are something like 20 now. The expansion of the minerals industry has been huge, and even though it is facing some pressure now with global commodity prices, it is still doing a huge amount better than it was in 2002.

You get people like KPMG saying that we are the most competitive place to do business in the nation. You look at investments we have had such as at Tonsley, where we have taken the former Mitsubishi and the former Chrysler plant and are turning it into one of the most exciting industry parks in South Australia. We have research, we have mining investment, we have IT investment, we have advanced manufacturing and medical devices, trades training, science and development all happening on that site. That is going to grow and grow and be particularly exciting for the South in future years. Unfortunately, the opposition has criticised this budget but it does not have any economic plan of its own.

In fact, today the opposition has come out and said that they do not think this budget is any good, but their best response is that they think we should do the measures in our budget quicker. So, they do not think they are any good but we should do them quicker—that is the best response they can come up with. Also, they think we should get rid of the Economic Development Board. So, we should get rid of this expert panel, this lean panel of economic experts that we have, including former Liberal Premier Rob Kerin, I should add, and they want to replace it with a big, fat bureaucracy of a productivity commission instead. What a ridiculous plan that is.

The truth is that they do not really know where they are going now. Just like Daniel Gannon, in their hearts they support the cuts to business taxes that we have put in this budget, but they do not want to show it. They want to try to prove that they have some sort of opposition to it.

In fact, the member for Waite, when he was in the shadow cabinet, kept pushing and kept writing these economic policies; they would never get released. They are now being delivered through this cabinet that he is sitting in, through our investment in defence, through our investment in mines, through our investment in a whole range of different industries to support exports. This government is moving to create jobs all across the place, and the best complaint that the opposition seems to have come up with relates to the measure of employment growth in the budget. They think we should have been aiming for higher in the budget. As the Treasurer has said, we were being very conservative in our estimates.

The incentive for government is actually to do the reverse and be overly optimistic. If we had come out and said that our employment growth percentage estimated rise would be 5 per cent, that would have delivered a huge increase in payroll tax revenue estimates across the forward estimates. But we did not do that. We came up with a conservative estimate so that we could get some conservative figures in the budget parameters so that we could plan for the next four years in a way that we think is going to be prudent. We do not come up with figures that we hope to get to because that actually plays out in a whole range of revenue estimates throughout the budget document. I think there are few people on the other side who have been involved in the budget process before who know what an impact changing those little figures has on some of those revenue projections.

Of course, we do need some support to get to the optimistic outlook that we would love to have for jobs, and that particularly includes the submarine industry, and we really, desperately hope that the federal government changes its position away from supporting Japanese-made submarines and towards supporting either a French or German bid to build submarines here in South Australia, because that is what they promised when they went to the people at the last federal election.

Lastly, tonight I would like to rebut something that we heard from the opposition about the great former Premier Tom Playford. These are the same members who exclaim that debt figures in South Australia are too high, but we are coming out tonight and talking about how great Tom Playford was and what a great premier he was and how frugal he was because when he was premier he did not install a telephone in his house. I would guess that that probably has to do more with his adaptation to technology—perhaps like the Deputy Premier, who talks about the 'inter-web thingy'—rather than his frugal nature. You only have to look at the debt figures for when he was premier of this state. When he left being premier, the debt to GSP ratio for this state was about 50 per cent of our gross state product (GSP)—

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon interjecting:

Mr PICTON: That's right. Not revenue of GSP. It was a 50 per cent rate. If you compare that to what it is now in this budget document, it is 4.1 per cent. So, it is well over 10 times less the debt ratio that Tom Playford had, yet we get members opposite saying, 'He didn't like spending money.' Well, he did spend money. He spent a lot of money. He borrowed a lot of money and he used it to build the electricity trust, which was later sold by then Treasurer Rob Lucas—

Mr Hughes: Borrowed from a federal Labor government.

Mr PICTON: That's right. He used it to build manufacturing industries in this state. So, to come out and say that he was somehow really, really frugal I think is a complete fabrication.

So, I support this budget. I think that this budget will be seen as a fantastic point in time, of which business gets fantastic confidence, the ability to go out and invest in this state. We have seen a number of the key groups coming out already and backing that. We want to see more and more investors; we want to see more and more start-up companies choosing South Australia as the place to invest, and this budget will help them do that.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (21:50): At this hour of the evening, I am pleased to rise and begin my contribution at least. I have to say what struck me is the variance in views as to how this particular budget, this Appropriation Bill, is viewed across the chamber. The other thing that struck me this evening is how often former premier Tom Playford has been mentioned by a number of speakers. The only thing that I can really say about Tom Playford is that his eyes follow me wherever I go, from his portrait, looking across the chamber.

Certainly, there was a time in South Australia that was known as the Playford era, and it was a time of great prosperity. It was when South Australia was a great state, when we came in third on all the national indicators. Adelaide was the third largest city in the country. South Australia's economy was the third largest in the commonwealth, and it was a place of productivity, of innovation and of growth. Sadly, it would seem that under this Labor government those days have gone.

In fact, there has been a bit of history spoken about this evening from the member for Lee and others on this side as well. It is worth noting that everybody's recollection of a period of events is somewhat different. I would suggest that the time of the election in 1993, following the State Bank collapse, was a time of extraordinary debt and extraordinary pressure that this state was under, and a Liberal government was swept to power. That State Bank collapse brought about the downfall of a Labor government. The Liberal government was swept to power and it had a task in front of it. The task was to restore the state's books, and it did so through some very innovative and constructive economic reforms.

The member for Lee also spoke about the early days of this particular Labor government, under premier Rann in those days, and how it was a time of a very stable and constrained budget. But of course, it has blown out. The first years of the Rann government were in fact ones of budget stability, but in recent years that has all gone to the wall, really, because of the spendthrift nature of Labor governments, which eventually and ultimately comes through, whether it is in this state, this country, or around the world. We are seeing it again when our debt and deficit are reaching levels approaching that of what they were when the State Bank collapsed.

It has been labelled a jobs budget by the Treasurer and by the government, and I would dispute that. It does not appear to me in any way a jobs budget. What they fail to realise, of course, is that governments do not create jobs—businesses do. Governments need to create the economic environment in which businesses can prosper, and my idea of a good government is the same as that of a good football umpire. They are necessary, they are on the field, but if they do a good job you do not notice them. Sadly, this government is everywhere. Its tentacles are everywhere, and people are certainly noticing their impact on our economy and our day-to-day lives.

This year's budget predicts an employment growth of 1 per cent for 2015-16. This is down on last year's employment growth and of course, more significantly, is well down on the 100,000 new jobs that Mike Rann promised not too many years ago—a pie in the sky figure. Labor claims that jobs will be created because they have budgeted to spend between $1.3 and $1.45 billion per year over the forward estimates on capital works in the general government sector. This is significantly down on previous years.

The government is also estimating for the 2015-16 year a $43 million surplus, with surpluses in the forward estimate years forecast to increase to $961 million by 2018-19. We have heard these forecasts before. Year in, year out the Treasurer forecasts a surplus and year in, year out the government fails to deliver. As a consequence of not delivering those surpluses, the debt continues to grow. The deficit for the financial year in 2014-15 has been assessed at $279 million, which is an increase of almost $100 million on the December 2014 estimate of $185 million. The blowout from $185 million to $279 million occurred despite the government raiding $459 million from the Motor Accident Commission.

With regard to GST, the government's GST revenue over the forward estimates is $892 million more than last year's budget estimates. This $892 million was unbudgeted and is therefore a bonus, so in contrast to the government's rhetoric and a significant taxpayer-funded advertising campaign addressing supposed cuts from the federal government, in fact the exact opposite is true. Over $800 million was unbudgeted and has come into the state's budget as a bonus, so therein lies the treachery of this government. GST revenue in 2018 will be $1.66 billion, and that is significantly more than the revenue in 2014-15.

Stamp duty on non-real property transfers and non-residential real property transfers is to be abolished. This was first flagged as a commitment way back in the mid-2000s. It has taken until now for the government to put this into place. I welcome this move. It will certainly have a big impact on small businesses right around this state, and I am thinking particularly in my own electorate. For example, those who hold aquaculture licences or fishing licences can now make a transfer within their family business from one generation to the next without incurring stamp duty. Up until now, that has not been happening, and so we have not seen new blood in industries or the investment, the enthusiasm and initiative that the next generation can always bring to a sector.

There is really no relief at all for households in this budget. Certainly, the Save the River Murray levy has been abolished. This will save householders $40 per annum, but in fact the government continues to slug an average home of a value of half a million dollars by an extra $205 per annum due to the emergency services levy increases in the past two budgets. I would like to take a little bit of time to talk further about this.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would like you to perhaps move to seek leave, because we are going to run out of time tonight, but that means you will have a point to start with tomorrow.

Mr TRELOAR: Indeed I will, Deputy Speaker. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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