HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2015-07-01 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Appropriation Bill 2015

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (15:50): I was part way through describing how the Labor government is continuing to ruin traffic flows throughout the city, having just described the tram. I also want to discuss the bus lanes that were brought in to compensate for a failed new contractor, where new timetables were printed allowing extra time and bus lanes were created because the new contractor could not achieve the previous contractor's times and an apparent cost saving ended up in chaos and a huge loss in patronage on buses throughout the city.

We also have the new Convention Centre which the Liberal Party is in strong support of. However, I do not think that anyone realised that one lane would be permanently removed from Morphett Street with a further lane, on occasion, being coned off when there are large events. King William Street also gets blocked off during events at the Adelaide Oval, which should not be happening, with wise decisions not being made.

War Memorial Drive is also blocked off to traffic every time there is a game or large sporting event even though we were promised within the budget of $450 million that a footbridge over the top of War Memorial Drive was to be built. However, alas, that did not happen and we ended up spending another $40 million plus on a bridge that takes you to War Memorial Drive, which again blocks off more traffic trying to access the city.

We certainly have issues, and I tie that back to the $160 million budget line for the O-Bahn, which I am certain will cause many and severe traffic consequences, particularly along Grenfell Street between East Terrace and Frome Street where many of my residents live. There are 10 driveways and they will be severely impacted if the tunnel comes up where it is supposed to, or as pictured coming up in version 4.

If there are any water mains that break on Grenfell Street, or any traffic jams or accidents, it does leave a big problem when you are funnelling every single bus into the one street. Currently the buses can take alternate routes down North Terrace, down Grenfell Street and down Rundle Street. Luckily, the government has decided not to now block off Rundle Street, which would have caused more traffic hazards and chaos throughout the city.

Another issue that has also arisen in this budget is the removal of the North Adelaide police station. That is a big shame and a big loss to the people of North Adelaide and Prospect, and the many people in the local area who would use that police station because it provides convenient parking and it is easily accessible. North Adelaide has a lot of older people, as well as students, who do not all drive, so it was very convenient for people who walk. It is quite difficult to get a park in Hindley Street, and for people who walk everywhere it is also difficult to access. That was a great shame and a loss to people on the street; and, as part of the community, the local police officer was well known and respected by the local community.

As I mentioned earlier, the tram was one of the reasons that I was compelled to do something in terms of running for parliament; in fact, there were many reasons. As an accountant and being a small business owner at the time of 15 years, I felt that I could no longer sit back and watch my beautiful state of South Australia be destroyed by what I found was a very incompetent Labor government—economically incompetent, making a series of very bad decisions that I could no longer tolerate. Alas, I am still in opposition; however, I am here, and while I am here there is hope.

This government continues to make what I would see as reckless and poor financial decisions on behalf of all the people of South Australia. If you spent a week in my office and saw how many people came in in tears because they cannot afford to live in their homes anymore because of the cost of electricity, water, gas, council rates, land taxes and the emergency services levy, you would hang your head in shame at what this government sees as useful spending and wise spending.

Spending $160 million on an O-Bahn to save 2½ minutes when there are people who still have the emergency services levy, which the Liberal Party supports removing, helps me get out of bed every day and fight harder to make sure that one day we are in government because this government continues to prove how incompetent they are with the economy and with business. With that, I end my remarks.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (15:55): My voice is fading fast, so I will not detain the house for the full 20 minutes on the Appropriation Bill. I could provide you with some prepared remarks, but that would require me to write it in advance and that is against, of course, Westminster practice and procedure, as Erskine May tells us; instead, I offer just a few remarks on the Appropriation Bill ex tempore.

The Hon. A. Piccolo: That would be good.

Mr GARDNER: I am glad that the minister is looking forward to them because they affect him as much as anybody. The first point I wish to make about the Appropriation Bill is that it is another one in a long line of Labor budgets that is disappointing for the future of South Australia. It is disappointing, particularly given that I, and I think many other members of this house, came into this place because we wanted to see South Australia provide employment opportunities for our next generation so that those who have children or those of us who do not, but when we do have children, will be able to see them grow up in this state, find jobs they want to do in this state and stay in this state.

When I am old and unable to work and look after myself, they will be able to look after me in my dotage in this state without inconvenience because they will still be here; that is terribly important for me. Yet this budget we have been presented with by the Treasurer, this budget described as a 'jobs budget' supposedly, contains a suggestion that employment in South Australia is going to grow by 1 per cent over the next 12 months—less, in fact, by 0.25 per cent than the prior budget forecasts before this budget were handed down and 0.75 per cent lower than when the first forecast for this financial year was being presented.

As we are on the first day of the 2015-16 financial year with 1 per cent employment growth ahead of us, I would just make the point that if this were a jobs budget according to this Labor government, I would hate to see what a non-jobs budget would be like. If this is a jobs budget with 1 per cent employment growth, what would they be serving up if they had been focusing on something else, I ask you, Deputy Speaker? That is very disappointing, but, as my voice unfortunately fades, I do wish to make a couple of comments on the portfolio areas which I have the privilege of serving Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition as its spokesperson.

In the police area, I note that there is nothing in the budget papers to suggest that the government is going to be able to meet its Target 300 promises. Once you take into account those sworn officer positions which have been reassigned out of sworn officer positions—custodial, management, solicitors and so forth—the net jobs increase of sworn officers from when the promise of the Target 300 was made until the revised and rephased second-time promise of 2018 is not going to be met. They are going to fall well short.

We have had the redescription of the target to include cadets. We have had the redescription of the target to be net above attrition as long as you take out all of those jobs that are no longer sworn officer jobs. But the government and previous ministers are clearly on the record on numerous occasions saying that we had 4,400 sworn officers at the beginning of the promise and at the end of the promise we would have 4,700 sworn officers. This is the evidence that was given to the Budget and Finance Committee. This is the evidence given by former minister Foley, by former minister O'Brien and others.

When we get to that delayed promise date—originally, it was supposed to be by 2013; now it is by 2018, after the next election—I am afraid that, under the government's budget settings, reconfirmed in this budget, they will still fall short of their election promise, taken to two elections, of 300 extra sworn officers on the beat, on the streets (and all the other words they used) over and above attrition.

That is deeply disappointing, but I do certainly appreciate that South Australian police have had some extra equipment in this budget and I congratulate the government for that. I particularly congratulate the government for finally committing the necessary funds, after six years of trials, so that South Australian police can have the body-worn cameras. That will enable ease of evidence gathering, reduce the likelihood of vexatious litigation and claims against police and assist in the daily progress of so much of their work.

I think the money committed is enough for 1,000 cameras, which is, one would hope, enough to make that facility available to those officers on active duty. There is obviously a little bit of work to do in relation to the regulations of how they are to be used, when they are to be switched on, when they are to be switched off and so forth. The opposition is happy to work with and assist the government in any way we can to ensure that this piece of kit is available for use by police officers.

Of course, the opposition is pleased to support that, as it was, in fact, the centrepiece of the Leader of the Opposition's speech to the Police Association last year—an early commitment that, 3½ years from an election, the Leader of the Opposition is willing to commit the opposition, 'a future Marshall Liberal government', to the purchase of body-worn cameras for police officers in South Australia. I identify that, at the time, of course, we also very much encouraged the government to take up this prospect, so I congratulate them for doing so now.

Just to finish on the matter of the police, there will obviously be some changes in the administration of South Australia Police in the next couple of weeks. Commissioner Gary Burns has a couple of weeks left. I note that his wife, whom I had the pleasure of sitting next to on Friday night at the Police Association dinner for retiring members, is particularly excited about this fact and well she might be.

Commissioner Burns, as has been stated previously, has decades of good service to the people of South Australia and we look forward to working with Deputy Commissioner Grant Stevens as he takes on the new role of police commissioner, as we do with Assistant Commissioner Linda Williams in her new role as deputy commissioner—South Australia's first female deputy commissioner of police in the 100th year of women in South Australia Police.

I note the appointment of two new assistant commissioners in recent days and we look forward to working with them in their new roles. One of them will fill the role left vacant by Linda Williams and one will replace Assistant Commissioner Madeleine Glynn, who is retiring after decades of incredible service to the South Australian public and the South Australian police force.

Madeleine Glynn was of course the acting deputy commissioner at one time in her career. She was, I think, South Australia's first female assistant police commissioner, so I would be surprised if she had not, in fact, at least in that acting capacity, been South Australia's first deputy commissioner. She has had a long and distinguished career herself, serving in a range of different areas within the police force. She is from a policing family and I know that she will continue to be a significant part of the South Australian policing community and the South Australian community in retirement. We certainly wish her well from the opposition benches, and I am sure the minister does as well.

Just in the last couple of minutes, I wish to pay a little bit of attention to Corrections. I was interested to hear on the radio this morning Mr David Brown say, as I have heard the minister say on too many occasions to remember, that we have had an 'unprecedented growth in prisoner numbers' over the past 18 months. I promise you that that phrase has been drilled into my mind—'an unprecedented growth in prisoner numbers'.

The Hon. A. Piccolo: It's true.

Mr GARDNER: The minister interjects that it is true, so I suppose all I am left with is to cast some suggestions about the nature of the definition of the word 'unprecedented' because, over the last 12 months, the increase in—

The Hon. A. Piccolo: 8.4 per cent.

Mr GARDNER: The minister says '8.4 per cent' which is interesting because in the budget papers it suggests 11 per cent in prisoner numbers, but the budget papers may well be slightly off. The budget papers present an estimated result and the minister may well know the figure as it was yesterday. So let me just stick to the figures in the budget papers because it is comparing apples with apples. As the minister knows, if you take a point in time comparison—and we had this discussion in estimates last year—and there is a certain number of prisoners on 30 June every year that is one figure, but the figure in the budget papers is average daily prisoner numbers, and the average daily prisoner numbers over the last 12 months—and while I do not have the figures in front of me, I promise you that it is 12 per cent, maybe 11 per cent, it is over 10 per cent and less than 13 per cent.

The Hon. A. Piccolo: This is unprecedented.

Mr GARDNER: Well, the minister keeps saying, 'It is unprecedented.' The year before it was 10 per cent and in 2008 it was 11 per cent.

The Hon. A. Piccolo interjecting:

Mr GARDNER: In 2007-08, and the minister might care to go back, it was actually the same. Do you know what the Hon. Carmel Zollo, the minister for corrections at the time, said? You will never guess. Check out what was in parentheses before, and I checked one of her press releases, 'There's been an unprecedented growth in prisoner numbers over the last 12 months.' It was 10 per cent and 10 per cent and 8 per cent. 'An unprecedented growth in prisoner numbers.' Over the last two years, 10 per cent and 10 per cent, 'An unprecedented growth in prisoner numbers.' The department had this growth of between 0.5 per cent one year and 5 per cent for many of the others, and then they have had two years of 10 per cent plus.

Over the last 12 months the growth is exactly the same, if not slightly more, but only by a margin of error as the year before, and it is a similar growth in the year leading up to when we were talking about building a new prison at Mobilong. I understand that 10 per cent over the last two years is higher than the three years before, but the minister suggesting that this has never happened before in the history of the South Australian community is dead wrong based on the numbers just seven years ago. The fact that it is unprecedented does not actually also abscond the minister from responsibility and his government from responsibility—

The Hon. A. Piccolo: Absolve.

Mr GARDNER: Absolve, sorry, thank you.

The Hon. A. Piccolo interjecting:

Mr GARDNER: The minister can abscond all he likes but it does not absolve him from responsibility.

The Hon. A. Piccolo interjecting:

Mr GARDNER: The minister will have to forgive me as I am speaking without notes and with a serious cold at the moment, so I ask for that wave of forgiveness for absconding rather than absolving. It does not absolve the minister and his government from the fact that they have put into place the very settings, and they have understood the different approach by police to, for example, domestic violence offences, whereby far more are being locked up than before for similar offences, and that is quite important work that is being done. But all of these things, whether it is the bail breaches which are now hundreds that have been increasing prisoner numbers or whether it is the capture of historical sex offenders which also led to an increase—

The Hon. A. Piccolo: Domestic violence.

Mr GARDNER: Domestic violence was the first one I identified, sir.

The Hon. A. Piccolo: Sorry.

Mr GARDNER: That's alright. All of these things are results of either policy decisions or trends in society that are readily identifiable, or in fact approaches within the corrections department, for example, in the way in which people who are released on parole might be returned into custody for bail breaches. It is also as a result of decisions within government to do with funding of courts, for example, which is contributing significantly to the extraordinary delay in matters being held before the District Court, and the extraordinary six, seven, eight month waiting lists for cases to be heard, to the point that we have this farcical situation where significant numbers of prisoners are now spending more time on remand awaiting trial than they end up getting sentenced to.

The minister might care to have a look at the length of time served in police watchhouse cells by prisoners sentenced to serve terms of more than 15 days—which is actually an offence under the act but no penalty is applied to the government of course as it does not in these things. There are prisoners who end up serving more time in prison than they are sentenced to because of delays in the court system. So the government cannot absolve themselves of responsibility for prison overcrowding when not only is it a failure of planning but it is a failure to even think about planning for the situation they find themselves in.

Over the next 12 months the budget papers identify that the number of the average daily prisoner population is a total of three prisoners less than the approved capacity in the prisons; the budget papers identify that over the next 12 months there is an approved daily prisoner capacity that is only three beds more than average daily prisoner numbers. Given that on your average weekend people being picked up for various offences causes the population to spike significantly, I do not need to tell any member here that three above the average daily prisoner population means that there will be a significant number of days where the population spikes above that approved capacity.

That means we will continue to have this situation where prisoners are being housed in the City Watchhouse and in the Holden Hill police cells. In fact, it used to be the Sturt police cells as well, but the police are so sick of this situation that they have said that the corrections department can no longer use the police cells at Sturt to hold their overflow prisoners. They have also said, in correspondence that we have received through FOI recently, that the basement of the watchhouse is now also out of action for Corrections overflow use.

So with all of the increase in spending on new cells that has come into effect since last year's budget, over and above last year's budget, with all the extra shipping containers they have plonked on the sides of the existing prisons, with all the current overflow into Holden Hill and the City Watchhouse that is happening at unprecedented levels despite the not quite unprecedented growth in prisoner numbers, despite all of that there is still going to be this situation continuing. If prisoner numbers remain static—and I know the department has predicted a 2 or 3 per cent growth in prisoner numbers over the next 12 months, despite the fact that for the last two years it has been over 10 per cent—if all that remains static, we are still going to have this overflow into the Watchhouse that is unbudgeted.

Last year the blowout was $9 million just on the unbudgeted overflow into the watchhouse. In addition to that there were tens of millions of dollars worth of extra cells put in; the total in the budget, over the last few years, of ongoing construction work on new infrastructure is $200 million plus on new cells. This is the cost of the government's rack 'em, pack 'em and stack 'em policy of the last six years. This is the financial cost; forget the human cost, this is just the financial cost to taxpayers. This is $200 million in infrastructure.

The prisons budget from year to year has blown out by 20 per cent in the last two years, from under $180 million to over $220 million a year just in custodial management. That does not include rehab, that does not include Community Corrections. There is a 20 per cent blowout in just the staff costs of keeping people locked up in cells before you even spend a cent on rehab; that is a 20 per cent increase there, $40 million a year there. Deputy Speaker, I am sure you will be interested to know how much extra the government has correspondingly put into rehab: CPI, barely CPI. It may be less than CPI; we will check. It has gone from about $23 million to about $24 million, and we are spending from $180 million to $220 million a year alone in keeping people locked up.

It is $40 million extra a year in financial costs and $200 million in infrastructure costs just for keeping people locked up, because the government did not do the work prior to the 2010 election to ensure new facilities. All these things could have been managed so much more easily in a custom-made facility; instead, we have paid out $10 million to the PPP partner not to build that new prison and we are left with a situation where we have these rapidly expanding costs that the South Australian taxpayer is burdened with.

That is money that cannot be spent on things we want to spend it on. That is money that is not available for the Repat Hospital, that is money that is not available for improved services at Modbury Hospital, that is money that is not available, according to the government, to install better park-and-ride facilities at Paradise Interchange. There is not a project that the government could imagine that could not be paid for had the government not mismanaged the prison system so badly over 13 years; mismanagement, poorly guided policy and absolutely no interest in improving the situation.

Members may ask what we could do better, and I have alluded to it before. It is a matter of priorities and forward planning. As far as infrastructure goes, we need to get ahead of the game because otherwise we will be constantly spending extra money on the overflow capacity in the City Watchhouse and the Holden Hill police cells and everything else. That is far more expensive than actually managing somebody in a prison. If you get the infrastructure right ahead of the game, if you spend the money ahead of the game, then you do not have all those overflow costs, which are extraordinarily futile and a stupid waste of money.

The second (and perhaps more important) question is: are the right people in prison? I know there is some work being done on this; but we have a high remand rate that is 10 per cent higher than the national average. No other state in Australia has anywhere near as many people on remand as we do; no other state in Australia has anywhere near as many people serving more time on remand than they end up being sentenced to. It just does not happen anywhere else. Thirty-five per cent of South Australia's prisoners are on remand—it is extraordinary. Get the remand rate down and you might actually find that there are some people who end up needing to serve fewer days in prison because they have not been sentenced to so many days.

The third point I make is in relation to rehabilitation. Eighty-seven prisoners will receive rehabilitation programs this year, according to the budget papers—87 out of a daily prison population of over 2,700. Eighty-seven out of 4,000 prisoners who will be in the system over the course of this year—87. That is why we have the recidivism rate that we do—the number of people reoffending—because they do not have a job to go to, they do not have anywhere to live, and they do not have their cognitive behavioural defects fixed while they are in the prison system, while they are locked up. It is the government's fault, and I urge them to rethink their policies in this area.

Ms DIGANCE (Elder) (16:16): I rise to speak in support of the Appropriation Bill 2015, and I will not speak for very long, but I want to put it on record that I support this bill and applaud the Treasurer and his dedicated staff on their focused and determined work given the challenges faced by South Australia.

I think it is worthy to note that South Australia does not exist in isolation; it is not an island. Indeed, it is part of the country called Australia, and affecting us is what the commonwealth government has bestowed upon us, and that is the resolute determination to tear up the funding grants and their governing structure which is quite blinkered and single-minded. We see this strategy playing out in the way they have not supported the auto manufacturing industry and also now how they are handling the Navy shipbuilding industry. Within these confines, I believe that we, as a state government, have delivered a very solid state budget. Compounding this, we also see the collapse of commodities and also impacts from the rest of the world on how we are acting as an economy. The government has risen above all these issues and delivered a budget plan, and this plan has significant sun on the horizon, I am pleased to say.

The Hon. S.W. Key: How poetic; lovely.

Ms DIGANCE: Do you like that?

The Hon. S.W. Key: Yes.

Ms DIGANCE: Good. I would like to speak on behalf of my electorate of Elder, and I do represent the good people of that electorate, which is filled with amazing, energetic and committed people who, on a daily basis, believe in their community and demonstrate this through their positive contribution every day knowing that they live in a very great place called South Australia. I have already spoken about some of these groups in this house over the time I have been here.

To highlight a few projects that we have already seen happen in Elder, I think it is noteworthy that the world-leading, innovative and collaborative Tonsley redevelopment site is a hub of business, research, education and community that comes together in a very unique, vibrant sharing of ideas, and a very unique ecosystem. Created on the 61-hectare Mitsubishi site, it has been redeveloped in sympathy with the rural and industrial history of the area.

For anyone who has not been to there to have a look, I suggest you do that. Connecting this site with the rest of Adelaide is the Tonsley line which has been upgraded, with new trains and a frequent service of new trains on a daily basis bar weekends. As demand grows, I am sure we will see those train services growing. That is also noteworthy. In the near future, we will also see the Darlington upgrade project. I had a briefing on that project again this week, and a lot of work is going into facilitating the north-south corridor.

Part of this Darlington upgrade project sees some of the most concentrated traffic moving along parts of it, between Flinders Medical Centre and South Road near the Tonsley turnoff, which I was quite astounded to hear. Interestingly, this part of the north-south corridor will then join up to the worthy project that other members have already mentioned, the Southern Expressway duplication. It is a fine project, which I think we could all support and agree with, and it does signify that there is a population growing past the Darlington interchange and past the suburb of Marion, as we see the traffic increasing on that dual highway.

The other project that I think is noteworthy, which is happening just outside my electorate, will be the state-of-the-art rehabilitation centre and centre for older persons at the Flinders Medical Centre as a result of the Transforming Health program. The Transforming Health program is by no means a program that we can put aside. It is actually a very brave program. It is a program that recognises that how we deliver health needs to change as we move into the future, to ensure that our health system not only is a sustainable health system but also delivers the high quality that we have come to appreciate. I am certainly a great supporter of the Transforming Health program.

There are issues that still need to be ironed out, and I think we are all aware of those. Along with other members, I spend quite a bit of time speaking to various people who are affected by the Transforming Health program, and the issues that they raise with me I certainly do feed back into the program. As a result of feedback, we have seen the retention of the neonatal intensive care level 6 unit at the Flinders Medical Centre. I am really passionate about this unit, and I did campaign for it during the state campaign not so long ago. I campaigned to ensure that we not only retain that unit but also see funding heading in that direction to ensure we can upgrade it to cater for those little babies and those critical situations we see arise in that unit.

I will touch on two other areas, and I think our state government and our Treasurer have addressed these areas very well. The first is the recognition that business is important and critical. Stimulation and supporting of business to our economy is critical to the development of our state, so we have seen measures being put in place and rolled out over time, but some have actually been put in place immediately. I commend the Treasurer on his foresight.

The other group I think that is worthy of note, which we as a party hold dear to our core, is those people who are vulnerable in our community. To this end, I commend the Treasurer on his support of the pensioners who will so deservedly be awarded their funding. Instead of it being put through as council rebates, they will have the choice to spend that money as they see fit, so they are empowered and enabled to choose how they will spend that money.

Mr Tarzia: But one is missing out.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hartley is reminded he is on two warnings.

Ms DIGANCE: Would you like to join in?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No more interjections or responding to interjections. The member for Elder can continue her speech.

Ms DIGANCE: Sorry, Deputy Speaker. I think it is really important to note that not only are we supporting those pensioners who traditionally have been supported through council rebates but we will also be offering that support to those eligible people in rental properties. This is a really important distinction and progression of our policy. We recognise the importance of older people in our community.

The other group I would like to mention is one that I hear from constantly, and it is to do with those who are disabled and, in particular, the ageing parent with the ageing disabled child. The ageing parent is very concerned about what might happen to their ageing child once they are not around to care for them. To this end, I commend our Treasurer for addressing the issue of special disability trusts. From today, it is noteworthy that there is an exemption for stamp duty and land tax on the principal place of residence when there is a transfer under such a trust.

That is a really important step, I would suggest. These trusts are put in place to meet the reasonable care and accommodation of the principal beneficiary. I am sure all of us have had contact with these particular families, where the ageing parents are very concerned about their disabled child and how they will be cared for as time goes on.

I also want to talk about what our state government has done to address the stimulation of business. The list of taxes that are being abolished in the tax reform package is absolutely remarkable, and I think that we really do need to applaud our Treasurer for what he has done. I for one understand, having been a small business owner, how important these types of supports are in business. Business does not always travel smoothly; business has its ups and downs, and any—

Ms Chapman: I thought you sold it.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The deputy leader is reminded that she is on two warnings as well.

Ms DIGANCE: I'm happy to discuss—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No more comments. Just get on with it.

Ms DIGANCE: I applaud these and any support we can give to business, not just existing business to help them through those ups and downs but also businesses that wish to expand, and also those new businesses wishing to come in to trade in our spaces. In Elder, I have a significant number of businesses in the backstreets and along the main roads—so many that it is going to take me some time to get across to speak to all of them, and I am cognisant of that.

Business is actually what really makes our economy tick, particularly small business because they can employ one, two, three or half a dozen people. If we can support them, we will keep the economy ticking along. The more we have of those smaller and medium-size businesses the better, so I applaud what the Treasurer has done in this particular budget and look forward to the fruits of those policies.

Central to all of this—and this will be my last point—I would just like to highlight the use of language. The use of language is extremely important, and I think we would all agree that, central to any progressive and credible leadership program, is always the underpinning and foundation of positive speak, positive language, flipping problems on their head, looking for solutions, not looking for problems but moving issues ahead with solutions, and looking for a way forward.

With the budget the Treasurer has delivered, in our government we do not choose to use words such as 'stupid', 'fail', 'crisis', 'slash', 'outrageous', 'disgrace', 'nonsense', 'silly' and so on and so forth, which we have heard over the last day or so. Instead, when we speak about our budget, the people of South Australia hear words from this government such as 'create', 'reward', 'grow' and 'invest', and we talk about 'stimulating' the economy and 'building' the infrastructure because we know the power of words is something that directs people's imagination; it calls them to arms and it enables and empowers them. We use those words with this budget.

Members interjecting:

Ms DIGANCE: I am glad to see that it caused some humour because from humour and laughter grow positivity, and from there—

The Hon. S.W. Key: Alright, alright.

Ms DIGANCE: Too far? No more, okay. In conclusion, we know that to keep on building a great South Australia we need a plan, we need a blueprint based on a foundation of can-do and positive enabling dialogue. We have that plan in the budget, and we have delivered on that plan in this house, and we will continue to deliver.

Mr SPEIRS (Bright) (16:29): Sorry, I have to compose myself. I rise to present what will be the opposition's final statement on the Appropriation Bill, the final budget reply, and I hope that I am—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: All good things come to an end.

Mr SPEIRS: All good things—anyway I am still completely distracted by thinking about all the positive words I have got to put into this speech now. I hope that I can add a little bit more to the debate because much as been said over the past couple of days, so hopefully I can just add a little bit more from my own perspective.

This bill, which is before the house, obviously enables the government to appropriate funding, but it is an opportunity for us on this side of the house to provide a commentary on the state of South Australia's economy and to place on record my personal concerns and the concerns of many of my constituents about the significant economic challenges facing our state. In the lead-up to the 2015 state budget, we were informed that this budget was to be all about business. Government would be backing business to trigger a business and jobs-led recovery.

In fact, the Treasurer praised the federal government's small business focused budget, and he has publicly stated that he was inspired by the small business package put together by federal small business minister, Bruce Billson. With such rhetoric, I have to admit that I awaited the state budget with genuine anticipation because I believe that it is only through reinvigorating our business sector that South Australia's moribund economy can have an opportunity for real and sustained recovery—a recovery which can create jobs and lift the quality of life of thousands of South Australians who are unemployed or underemployed or who have the uncertainty of losing their employment in the coming years.

My eagerness for this budget may have been somewhat misplaced, but I do acknowledge that there are good elements in this budget and they must be celebrated and supported. Yet, dig below the headlines, and I am not sure if this could be described as a reformist budget. It has good elements, granted, but much of it appears quite pedestrian.

I congratulate the government on its determination to reform stamp duty on commercial transactions. The abolition of stamp duty on commercial transactions by 2018-19 is a good move, but I would have to worry that the slow phasing down of stamp duty may actually create a hesitancy among many businesses to invest this financial year or in the next as they wait for the tax to be entirely removed. As the Leader of the Opposition stated in his contribution to this bill, if the government believes that this will stimulate the economy and deliver confidence which will in turn create much-needed jobs, it must happen in full now, not at a distant point in the forward estimates.

This budget to me seems like a half-hearted punt. It looks to the business sector, gives a shrug and says to it, 'Do what you can with this.' It is not terrible, but it is not great either, and it is far from inspirational. It is not going to reinvigorate business in the short term, and that is what business in South Australia needs. It needs a real, solid boost to get our entrepreneurs and business leaders out there confidently growing their businesses.

I tentatively welcome the stamp duty reform, but it has always been my belief that the government's real focus should be on payroll tax relief. Payroll tax is the most nonsensical tax in this state, and it has some competition to retain that title. The Treasurer tells us that only 10 per cent of businesses pay payroll tax in South Australia—10 per cent too many, in my opinion. Payroll tax is a misnomer. This is simply a jobs tax: a tax on job creation, a tax on business growth and a tax on investment in human capital. It discourages employers from employing.

Let's not underestimate the power of a job. Huge life change comes with having a job. A secure job with a guaranteed source of income forges a pathway of opportunity which allows people to buy a home, invest in their further education and invest in their children's education. Studies show that people involved in regular work are more likely to be involved in their communities and engaged in charitable works. Full employment has health benefits and social outcomes, particularly lowering crime rates and the incidence of violence. The availability of jobs is transformational at both the individual and the societal level. Let's not forget that those who have jobs are taxed and generally able to give more to the economy so, by having more people in work, the government is more likely to derive other sources of income from them.

The unemployment crisis gripping South Australia is a statewide disaster, but it is at its very worst amongst our young people. Youth unemployment is a catastrophe which is stealing the futures of thousands of young South Australians but, more than that, it is stealing our state's future. It is denying us the potential which flows from our young people's energy and ideas—elements that can only be harnessed when they are present. Today too many of our young people are leaving for interstate and overseas, or they are getting trapped in a cycle of poverty and missed opportunities rendering them increasingly vulnerable to the generational unemployment which takes hold in too many parts of our city and state. Let me tell you, Deputy Speaker, turning up in Leigh Creek in a duffle coat and T-shirt will not get people in South Australia back to work. Real tax reform will, and that starts with payroll tax.

But I do take the member for Elder's advice and I do want to move to the positive, because, although there are great challenges facing our state's economy and there are major problems with employment in this state, we must not get distracted by the negatives. As an opposition we must highlight them because that is our job, but we must also cast an alternative vision.

Our state is in desperate need of a positive brand of leadership which is not obsessed with the culture of blame and distracted by clinging on to the spoils of office at all costs. Our state is crying out for a government which believes in our geographical and climatic advantages, who understands the strength and character of our people, who love this place and who are prepared to fight for our survival and who will take the risks that are needed to stimulate, grow and prosper South Australia.

South Australia has an incredible history of innovation and creativity. So often we hear government ministers say this in the introductions they write in glossy government documents. We hear it in ministerial statements delivered in this place and we hear it in hifalutin public speeches. Yes, we do have a history of innovation, and our state can look back on a heritage built on pioneering governance, but just because we have a history of such behaviour does not mean that we are immune from losing it.

Is it really part of our state's DNA? It is part of our heritage, yes, but I do not believe that it is here forever. In fact, I would be bold enough to say that it is slipping away. This environment of innovation must be maintained, nurtured and enhanced. Government's role in creating this environment can be achieved through a number of approaches. The most significant is through deregulation and government getting out of the way of good business ideas, government investing in research and development initiatives, government supporting incubation and entrepreneurial projects, such as the Flinders University's New Venture Institute, which plays an exciting role in supporting, mentoring and growing new business ideas.

I have had quite a bit to do in recent years with the New Venture Institute, which is now based at the Tonsley site at Clovelly Park, and I am particularly impressed with the work of Matt Salier and Ben Flink in supporting and mentoring businesses to get off the ground to survive and to thrive. Government has a role in creating a business environment which has a significant emphasis on small business start-ups and which ensures that South Australia becomes renowned as a start-up state—the place where small business is given a fighting chance to survive. Support programs, tax breaks and mentoring—this sort of thing is incredibly exciting and can get start-ups off the ground. South Australia should be right there in the thick of it.

That heritage and culture of innovation and entrepreneurial spirit must be fought for, it must be invested in and it must be brought to life. We have the heritage and it is a proud heritage but heritage alone is not enough. There needs to be an ongoing focus of government of maintaining and driving innovation in South Australia.

Economic recovery is often led by concentrating on an economy's strengths. In South Australia our great economic powerhouse remains our regions. Despite regional populations declining our agricultural sector remains buoyant, despite operating under the jurisdiction of a sometimes unsympathetic government, but with the right support it can further prosper. Although I represent a metropolitan electorate, I understand the need to learn more about what our state's regions are capable of. A 2014 study called 'Positioning Prosperity, Building the Lucky Country' by Deloitte highlighted the critical importance of agribusiness as one of a 'fantastic five' wealth creation industries in Australia's future economy.

Here in South Australia agribusiness has the potential to lead our state's economic recovery as the demand for food, and in particular high-quality food, grows dramatically as middle classes expand and develop in countries in our region. As Asia emerges into a series of middle-class economies, diets switch from cereals and grains towards meats, dairy products, fruits and vegetables. Similarly, growing middle classes correspond with a greater demand for foods which are characterised as green, clean, organic and healthy. While many traditional industries find their bases declining, agribusiness has the certainty of increasing demand with increasing population and as a consequence demands huge government support.

The same report by Deloitte indicated that tourism was another of the 'fantastic five' and, again, this industry's potential is laden in our regions. While 23 per cent of South Australia's population is located in our regions, 44 per cent of all tourism expenditure occurs in the regions. Our regional tourism destinations are unique across the world, and as I said here before we must aim to become the playground of South-East Asia. Destinations such as Kangaroo Island, the Fleurieu Peninsula, our outback, and the Barossa and Clare valleys are right here in South Australia. They need to be promoted. They need to be supported. This is an industry which has huge potential and must be a great pillar of our economic recovery.

We need initiatives to grow our regional populations, recognising that while our regions are the workhorse of our economy and while Adelaide's geography places limitations on the ability of our city's footprint to grow, our regional towns and cities are crying out for population growth. Regional population initiatives, combined with investment and productive infrastructure such as a deep water port, the sealing of the Strzelecki Track and investment in regional road maintenance, are all important nation-building activities which we can base in our regions.

From backing our regions, I would like to move on to planning reform. Planning reform is something that does not necessarily cost the government money but can deliver significant economic benefits, and that is what we need to be looking at in difficult economic times—projects and initiatives which the government can look at which can grow and drive our economy, but which do not necessarily need a lot of government investment.

I see continual planning reform as a key economic driver and I am awaiting with some anticipation the arrival of the government's planning legislation in this place in the coming months. I see examples all the time where planning laws are strangling economic development and an efficient, agile system which drives economic growth must be the ultimate aim of any new planning reforms. This is not something I am pointing the finger at the state government about. I think there is a willingness to change this and I am certain that the opposition will be right behind them in creating a planning system which effectively backs economic development and economic growth.

Today, development plan amendments take far too long to initiate and work through. Often those instituted by the private sector take far too long to be completed and by the time they are, the economic opportunities first predicted have faded away. There needs to be a much more agile approach to rezoning where uncontroversial rezoning opportunities can be moved through the system in a matter of months rather than years.

In my own electorate, a long-awaited redevelopment of a brownfield site at Seacliff Park, known as the Lorenzin site or Cement Hill, is a prime site for medium-density residential development with the opportunity for a small commercial centre. Marino train station is within comfortable walking distance and the site perfectly fits within the government's 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide.

Granted, this is a fairly complex site, but it has taken up to three years to work through the development plan amendment. This is three years during which interest rates have been at historic lows and three years during which the developer has been ready to develop a state-of-the-art medium-density housing development in the inner south with up to 700 dwellings planned in the development. With such a cumbersome process and one characterised by so much uncertainty, often a result of local government inefficiencies and lack of capacity, you can see why those looking to invest in South Australia often take their money elsewhere.

On another rezoning matter, main arterial roads which pass through multiple council areas find themselves moving in and out of commercial and residential zones. Our planning legislation should allow rapid rezoning of these roads to allow mixed use development. These corridors should be identified, highlighted on a map and rezoned across the city, in an instant.

The City of Marion has recently prioritised a long list of rezoning opportunities but does not have the capacity to progress these all at once so, over the coming couple of years, it will slowly but surely tackle them one by one. Many are simple and uncontroversial, but they will take years to consult on due to the capacity and resources of the council. It is the same picture all across our city, and it is time for serious and detailed planning law reform. I look forward to the government bringing that updated legislation into this house and I look forward to working closely with the government to ensure that that sort of economic development role can be placed at the heart of our planning laws.

Moving on to another matter, I was pleased that recently the Economic and Finance Committee, which I am part of, offered bipartisan support for an inquiry that the Liberal members proposed into rate capping. While this has been Liberal Party policy in the past, I can speak for my colleagues when I say that we enter that inquiry with an open mind. We are keen to look at the way in which local government asserts significant cost of living pressures on South Australian households and businesses and explore ways to curb this. Rate capping is one of these methods that has been used effectively in New South Wales and Victoria, and I am interested to see how it could be used here.

I am also interested to explore other ways that local government raises revenue, including the differential rates that it places on commercial interests. I know, from my own experience, that the City of Marion places an 80 per cent differential rate on commercial premises within that local government area, and that has a significant impact on business—a negative impact. I believe we need to look at local government's use of these differential rates, particularly when they impact business in this difficult economic time. Some local governments choose not to have differential rates for commercial premises, but far too many of them do.

The cost pressures placed by local government on South Australian households are not my only interest in reforming the sector. This is something I have spoken on time and time again in this place. I have many concerns about the capacity of elected members, the need for compulsory voting in local government (something I firmly believe would weed out the more eccentric folks who are controlling budgets of tens of millions of dollars), the need for us to take a serious look at strategic boundary reviews to maximise economic development opportunities and, perhaps most importantly, the need for us to re-engineer the culture within councils, so they see themselves as drivers of economic development, rather than inhibitors.

Some councils do this quite well; many do not. The Minister for Local Government's second reading explanation this morning, concerning amendments to the Local Government Act, outlined a range of process-focused reforms to local government but did not reach into the heart of local government and outline a new vision to reform this often tired and stale sector. I would be delighted if the government would look at that in a serious way.

Elected public office is a great privilege, a substantial blessing that can be used to create great good. Even from opposition, ideas can be driven and good things achieved for the communities we represent, but with such privilege comes a huge amount of responsibility. That responsibility must be executed in an authentic and informed way and that can only be done by engaging with our communities, finding out what drives them, what their concerns are and how we can help.

There is no doubt in my mind that, after a lengthy period in office, a government can run out of ideas and become out of touch and arrogant. The challenges facing South Australia are substantial, and a reformist agenda around taxation, governance and economic development is vital. The state government must recognise that there is a jobs crisis in South Australia and that those of us who are blessed to be elected to this place are expected by our constituents to put forward the ideas and advance these to lead a recovery. We must shun complacency and recognise that these reforms are urgent.

Time expired.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite—Minister for Investment and Trade, Minister for Defence Industries, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (16:49): I am pleased to stand following the member for Bright, and I commend him for his address to the house. I think it was one of the more intelligent contributions, and I want to strike to one of the points that he raised during his address, which was the need for vision and ideas in all that we do. If there is a characteristic of parliaments in Australia—and our parliament is no exception, and over the last 17 to 18 years I have watched with interest—it is becoming increasingly partisan as the fight between the two major parties seems to take priority over the battle of ideas that we all should be having, and that I think the people of South Australia would like to see us deliver.

That is why I welcome many of the points that the member for Bright raises in his address that point to the need for that vision going forward, because it is really the substance of the budget that I want to talk about during my short address, because I think it is a budget of substance; it is not a populist budget. A populist budget from this Labor government would have been one that put out bushfires all over the place and quietened angry interest groups. For example, a populist budget might have sought to turn back some of what has been commenced with Transforming Health. A populist budget might have sought to turn back some of the revenue measures that have been opposed by so many. A populist budget would have simply looked around, probably in government seats, and sought to extinguish opposition so as to curry favour going forward towards the next election.

This budget does not do that and that is why I say that it is a budget of substance. I absolutely commend the Treasurer and his caucus colleagues for having agreed to it, because I think this Labor government, of which I am one of the two cranky Independent conservatives around the table, has demonstrated that it is a government that is thinking forward with vision and purpose and trying to actually address some of the core structural problems that exist within our state, and they are trying to fix things in a meaningful and substantial way.

I want to start with the issue of tax reform because tax reform is not easy. It is not easy to increase taxes but the default position for most governments is to increase taxes not cut them. But what this budget has done is offered the most significant package of tax reforms that this state has seen in the time I have been here. I have seen plenty of tax increases since I have been here and can I say the one that worried me first and foremost was the emergency services levy, which was introduced by the Olsen government of which I was a member, and which resulted in a queue of people outside my office winding around Mitcham Shopping Centre and down the street.

The protest was so loud, so forceful and so angry, I remember when the premier of the day asked all of us how we thought the budget was going, I had to tell him that if an election was held the next day, I thought I would lose the seat of Waite. That is how angry people were about the emergency services levy. I remember Labor members then in opposition getting up and opposing the measure but saying, 'What you have unleashed here is a rapier that will cut for years to come,' because by introducing a new tax they said, 'The Liberals themselves have introduced a device that future governments will use to broaden the tax base,' and of course that is exactly what has happened. I think that diminishes to some extent criticisms of the emergency services levy from members opposite because, after all it was the Liberals, and I admit to being one of them at the time, who introduced it. So be careful what one wishes for.

Having said that, can I say that the budget does reduce, according to the Commonwealth Grants Commission, South Australia's tax effort, which is already below the national average, down to minus 2.8 and there is a significant decline in tax per person. The budget, through the most extraordinary range of tax savings, actually lifts South Australia from being ranked seventh in terms of tax—that is the seventh worst performer—to being the second best performer once all these tax cuts are in place, second only to the Northern Territory, which I remind members receives enormous cash handouts from the commonwealth.

It really does turn things around: $670 million worth of tax cuts is a lot; $135 million worth of cuts to non-real stamp duty; $388 million worth of cuts to non-residential real stamp duty; and of course share duties and a raft of other taxes, some of which have been completely thrown out like the River Murray levy and others. It is really the best I have seen in the time I have been here when it comes to tax cuts.

Of course, they are tax cuts that the opposition could easily have called for, they are tax cuts that the opposition could have championed, but it did not. This government has actually championed those tax cuts. It is one thing to get up and say that we need less taxes—that is a cheap shot; everyone can say that, everyone will agree with that, you will not find a single person who says they do not agree with that—but it is another thing to get up and say that these are the taxes you should cut, these are the quantums to which they should be cut, and here are the savings to offset those cuts. That is where the courage comes into it, that is where the political courage is required. That is what this government has done with its tax offerings.

Of course, there is $148 million worth of concessions to pensioners that should not have been required, as a result of cuts made by the commonwealth, there is $350 million into stimulating the economy across tourism and a raft of other measures, and substantial investments in infrastructure to schools, to roads and to public housing—really, when you look at infrastructure, it is $10.8 million worth of investment.

I look around the city of Adelaide now and compare it to the 1990s, and I remember how desperate things were in the 1990s. You have $3.3 billion worth of health facilities being built, you have cranes up all over the city, there is $1.4 billion worth of road projects, $353 million worth of public transport projects, $216 million in education facilities, nearly $200 million down here at the Adelaide Festival Centre Precinct—and it will be a billion-dollar development by the time the Casino and the Lang Corporation chip in their contributions. It really is quite substantial and, without ratcheting up state debt, I am not sure how members opposite would have us travel. Do they want us to go and crank up billions and billions of dollars worth of debt simply to build infrastructure to create jobs, or do they want us to stimulate the economy? The message from those opposite was to cut taxes. That is what the government has done, but apparently that is not good enough.

I think it is a structural budget. It is a budget that makes significant changes and it is a budget that I think should be commended. It is not enough on its own, more needs to be done—and, indeed, more is being done. I point to the government's WorkCover reforms that, I must say, are simply amazing. I wrestled with this when I was a member of the Liberal Party, through iteration after iteration, where the parliament tried to deliver reform to WorkCover. This is the first time I have seen it; in effect, it is $180 million worth of tax cuts to business. Getting that levy rate down with a one in front of it instead of a three in front of it is an extraordinary thing.

I think it is actually something that only a Labor government could have delivered. Again, I give great credit to the Deputy Premier and the Minister for Planning and his caucus for having agreed to it, because this particular one was a tough decision for a Labor caucus, a very tough decision—but it was the right decision for small business in particular. I think that if a Liberal government had been in office the stars here would have aligned differently; and to be frank, I think that a Labor opposition and a labour movement and a union movement may well have felt inclined not to support the measures had they been proposed by a conservative government. That is just the way politics plays out.

However, I must say that it is a reason to reach the view that this government is working on behalf of small business and that the people got it right at the last election. In my view they would not have got some of these things had the Weatherill government not been in office. They may have got other things, there might have been a lot of shock and pain, and that moves me on to the question of health reform and some of the cuts the government is making—and quite rightly.

I will also add—along the theme of this being a budget of substance—the observation that Transforming Health, painful and difficult though it is, again demonstrates that this government is prepared to make some tough decisions. They are difficult decisions for a Labor government but they are decisions that are being made because they are the right decisions. Here is one-third of budget outlays, here is a portfolio that employs nearly 35,000 people. The entire Australian Army is 30,000 people. That is the size of our health workforce. Costs are going up by 7 per cent to 8 per cent a year. We have nine hospitals in a city where, if you were starting with a blank sheet of paper and laying out the city in the middle of Dubai or somewhere you would probably have three or four large hospitals, really well equipped ones. We have nine. The government comes along and makes the tough decisions to reform, to run things more efficiently so that we can deliver better healthcare outcomes, and all we hear is strident opposition from members opposite.

I was the shadow minister for health; I handed over to the current Leader of the Opposition. The words I gave to him when I handed over the portfolio were, 'If we get into government, we're going to have to make some tough decisions on hospitals because the system is falling apart; it is cracking apart at the hinges. It needs reform.' Everyone opposite knows that. Everyone on this side of the house knows that. The government is doing something about it, and all we have is endless opposition.

I was part of the Liberal government that sold Modbury Hospital and flogged it off. At the time, I supported that decision. I felt we had too many hospitals. But I just say to members opposite that if you oppose the relocation of services from the Repat, if you oppose the closure of the Hampstead, which hospital will you close? Will it be Modbury? Will it be The Queen Elizabeth?

Mr Tarzia: No.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Or will you keep them all? Well, how will you pay for that I say to the member for Hartley? How will you pay for that with costs rising at 6 to 8 per cent a year and deliver the tax cuts—

Mr Tarzia interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, member for Hartley.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: —and do all the things that you want to do? The thing about government is—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: He is out for 10 minutes if he moves his lips again.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: It is a funny thing: I have been a minister twice for two separate governments of two political persuasions. The one thing they have in common is that being in government sobers you up real bloody quick because you realise that you have to pay for your promises and pay your bills.

Mr Tarzia interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hartley, under sessional orders, will leave for 15 minutes.

The honourable member for Hartley having withdrawn from the chamber:

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I can tell you it really is quite so sobering sitting in a cabinet and realising that, at the end of the day, the budget has to balance. That is what this government is doing.

In that department, can I also say that now that I have had the opportunity to work with the Treasurer for about a year, what a good job I think he is doing in getting that balance right. It is not a good balance to get. I have seen treasurers who are terribly unpopular with their colleagues; I do not think that is the case with this Treasurer. He gets along pretty well with everybody, and somehow or other he manages to do you over, take your money away and leave you with nothing but beer money, and you still like him. I do not know how it works really, but every time I try to get money out of him it is like getting money out of a stone—as it should be with the Treasurer because it is the taxpayers' money he is guarding, and every penny of it is precious. Again, I simply cut to the point that it is a budget of substance.

I sincerely wish that the member for Bright's budget response was the Leader of the Opposition's budget response because I think he touched on some very important issues. I want to go through a few points raised by the Leader of the Opposition, some of which were good ideas, but some of which, I think, needed further work. The idea of a Productivity Commission, I must say, is quite a good idea since I was the person who thought it up in opposition. It is a good idea. I am not quite sure about scrapping the EDB, although I think I understand that and I know that was discussed and I see the point he is making.

Some of the ideas that were mentioned in the reply were repeats of what was promised during the election: a Productivity Commission, sealing the Strzelecki Track and a host of other issues that were just a repackaging of what was put forward at the election, all of which is fine, but I just cut to: where is the money going to come from? Without the commonwealth also contributing, it makes it very difficult.

I agree with the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the success of the New Zealand government; I think they have done a particularly good job at stimulating trade and investment. I do, however, take exception on the issue of investment and trade. Where he talks down the performance of our exporters, I would talk up the performance of our exporters. We have seen extraordinary growth in this area, and it is true that in recent months, along with the trend across the country, there has been a decline, particularly in certain areas: metal ores and scrap, wheat, road vehicles, of course, with Holden and other confidential items. There has been a 36 per cent increase in meat exports, wine up 5.8 per cent, fruit and vegetables and copper up. So some things are up and some things are down, but generally I must say that I think our exporters are doing a fantastic job.

Since I have been the minister, I have done my best to build on the good work of my predecessors in the investment and trade area. We have led the biggest trade mission in our history to China. Next month we will go to India with probably the biggest group of businesspeople we have ever taken to India, similarly to South-East Asia. Deals have been done and millions of dollars of products have been sold—wine, meat, seafood—all on the back of new and reinvigorated energy going from this government into our trade and investment portfolio. The Premier, myself and everyone on this side are keen to see our farmers, our manufacturers and our small businesses grow their businesses through improving their exports. I think this will be a very good, strong jobs story over the next few years.

Can I also say how important it is that we win the submarine and frigate work and projects like LAND 400. On this issue, I want to make this point to members opposite: we have had the debate about Holden and, sadly, the Coalition decided not to support a further model of Holden. I think there was general recognition that the automotive industry was going to struggle to survive in the long term in its current form, but what we could have seen was a longer period for the South Australian and Victorian economies to transition through a further model. However, the Coalition pulled the rug out, and I must express my utter disappointment that the state Liberal Party did not take that up with them. They went along with it. They could have taken action to stop it, but they did not. As a result, Holden will be closing and it will have dramatic consequences.

The next challenge is to fight this fight about submarines and frigates. We need to convince the Coalition that not only do the frigates and the surface ships need to be built here but also the submarines. We need both. Two hundred and fifty billion dollars worth of work is a gobsmacking amount of jobs and enterprise and it must happen here. The deliberate talking down of our industry, rubbishing our workers and our businesses in the defence sector, emanating from the Coalition, is simply wrong and destructive. If there is continuous deal flow, there will be a highly productive and efficient workforce and industry.

The challenge for the federal government and the Liberal Party is to put that continuous ship build of both surface ships and submarines in place for the advancement of this great nation because $250 billion of defence spending is not only about defending the nation it is also about building the nation. If there is something constructive in budgetary terms that the opposition could do, it would be to take these issues up with their Coalition colleagues and make sure that the federal MPs with whom they deal get the message that that work must simply come to South Australia, end of story.

In summary, I want to point back to where I started, and that is to observe to the house that this budget is a budget of substance, not of populism. It is a budget that gets the balance right, I think, between investing in infrastructure and cutting taxes. It gets the balance right between making the hard decisions on the expenses side and the right decision on the investment side. Can I say that it also demonstrates to business that the Weatherill government—and under this Premier and under this Treasurer—is open for business, and it recognises that small business is at the core of our economy and that this is not a hostile antibusiness government: quite the reverse.

At the same time, I think the message from this government to those in the community most in need and those most vulnerable, and those who depend on our health and education sectors, is that in very difficult times we are trying to get the balance right. We have not forgotten about the vulnerable, but we do realise that we need to create jobs and stimulate small business. Getting that balance right is what politics is all about. We have had a go. It would be nice to hear from the opposition what their ideas are; that is what is missing from the debate.

Bill read a second time.

Estimates Committees

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) (17:09): I move:

That this bill be referred to estimates committees.

Motion carried.

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) (17:09): By leave, I move:

That a message be sent to the Legislative Council requesting the Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills (Hon. G.E. Gago), the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation (Hon. I.K. Hunter), and the Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation (Hon. K.J. Maher), members of the Legislative Council, be permitted to attend and give evidence before the estimates committees of the House of Assembly on the Appropriation Bill.

Motion carried.

Appropriation Grievances

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) (17:10): I move:

That the house note grievances.

Mr WINGARD (Mitchell) (17:10): I rise to give my budget reply grieve speech. From a local perspective, it was remiss of me not to talk about the Oaklands crossing yesterday in my budget reply speech, but I was glad to hear the Minister for Transport did reference it in his speech. Sadly, as the person in charge of the department, and with thousands of staff at his disposal, he did not offer any insight into plans that he and the department have been working on, nor did he outline any extra modelling or scoping work that he had done on the project. He did, however, reference a community meeting I had in Oaklands Park earlier this year to listen to and speak with people in the area who are impacted by the crossing.

The meeting was open to all to discuss the history of this crossing and to find a way forward to help fix the problem in the area. The minister did not attend, but it was noted that he sent along a couple of 'spies' who sat up the back taking notes but did not contribute anything to the discussion. His suggestion that I was trying to 'whip up some discontent' was way off the mark, and I would even doubt those words were used in the report his 'spies' would have given him after the meeting.

I was disappointed to be attacked by him over the issue in this house. I though that he, more than anyone else on the other side of the chamber, would be supportive of engaging with the community. I thought he would want to listen to their concerns and work hard to find a solution to problems that have hindered this community for more than a decade.

I have outlined many times in this house the delays and inconvenience this intersection has caused for years to all people in the south. People in the southern part of Adelaide, and people right across the city for that matter, know and understand that this persistent problem around a growing retail hub full of shops and health and community services, as well as home of the state aquatic centre, the Marion Cultural Centre, has been going on for a long time.

I have written to the minister and invited him down to Oaklands to have a firsthand look at the intersection and the congestion it causes. I have invited him to come and speak with and listen to the people in my community. In that letter, I explained that I held a forum where more than 100 people registered and attended the meeting. I explained that everyone was keen to know where the project was on the government's radar.

In my conversation with the community, I also explained a few facts that had some people quite surprised—even the ardent Labor supporters who came along in good faith, knowing this was genuine community consultation. A large proportion of the gathering were surprised to learn that, as shadow minister, I have two staff and a trainee in my office to look after my electorate matters and shadow portfolio inquiries. The minister, on the other hand, gets the same two staff for his electorate office in Lee, down in Port Adelaide, but he gets another 12 or 15 staff working for him in his ministerial office. Added to that, he also gets the 3,000-plus Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI) staff all at his disposal.

Given the imbalance of resources and given that, after speaking with people who have worked in senior positions at DPTI who told me that a number of pieces of work have been done on the Oaklands intersection over the years, I think it would be only right that this work and the findings of the hours of research done by DPTI be made available to the public.

I articulated this in my letter to the minister, requesting an update on any plans for this intersection, a specific time line for the solution and estimated costs involved, so that I could pass it on to my interested community group. Sadly, it has been nearly two months and I am yet to get a response, but I am happy to talk with the minister about this at any time.

I also explained to the people at my community meeting that this work, which has been done by the engineers and planners in DPTI over the years, is owned by all South Australians. It is done by public servants and, as such, belongs to everyone in the state. With that in mind, I hope the minister will make all the information available to me so that I can share it with my fellow taxpaying members of the community to make an assessment on what might be the best plan to fix this problem at the Oaklands intersection in the future.

It would be a waste of taxpayers' money for me to have to hire an engineer or planner to do some work when the experienced people in DPTI have already done the research and analysis around the intersection. I stress the point that the minister has access to 3,000-plus public servants in the department. They have the capability to do this work and they are funded by the taxpayer. It is only right and fair that the taxpayer gets to see the results of this work so they can make a judgement call on the project.

Can I also say that, if the minister has not done any work over the past decade on this intersection, then let us know about that as well. We know they have a plan for rail over road. We have seen the pretty pictures, they have been displayed around, but what other solutions have been considered? Has road over or under rail been proposed, rail under road, or just one road being grade separated? What is on the table for consideration, is the question I ask?

Seeing the research and forecast costings will help clear up any question on price for this project. Initial reports and the only reporting I have seen to date from the former minister for transport, minister Pat Conlon, suggested the overpass option for rail over road and the raising of the station was going to cost upward of $120 million. These numbers were a bit rubbery, but it was a start.

Interestingly, when asked in this house a few weeks ago, the current Minister for Transport gave a new number of $210 million for the cost of the project, although he did give a disclaimer that the figure was, again I quote, 'off the top of his head'. I respect that he cannot have every figure for every project at his fingertips but, again, it points to why the people of South Australia and the south of Adelaide who use the Marion shopping complex and its surrounding services would like a more solid understanding of what the options are and what costings DPTI have come up with so they can formulate an opinion.

In closing, I trust the Minister for Transport is not playing politics with this issue. I call on him to come forward with all the plans that have been modelled and scoped by DPTI. Next time I have a community meeting to discuss the matter, do not send your spies along to sit at the back of the room and take notes. Come yourself and listen to the concerns of the people in my community, and let us keep moving forward towards finding a solution to fix Oaklands crossing.

While I have the time, I would also like to take the opportunity to mention Mostyn Matters and Diana Stevens—two great members of my community who have worked very hard for many years and have given all they can to make our state the best it can be. Mostyn would not mind me saying that he is not getting any younger. Let us put it this way, he is not in his 20s anymore, he is a little bit older than that, but he is still a very treasured member of our community. Mostyn goes about his business quietly but, when you scratch the surface as I have, you learn about some of the great work he has done.

He was integral in helping raise funds to build the Brighton Football Club which has produced thousands and thousands of junior footballers over the years, most notably Collingwood's Ben Kennedy, who played his junior football with the Bombers. More recently, Alex Martini was named in the state under 16 squad just a few days ago, and Tynan Carney is in the state under 15 side as vice captain, I am led to believe. These are just some of the footy careers owed to the foundation work done by Mostyn Matters. I truly commend him for everything he has done for our community, but it does not end there.

He has supported his partner, Diana Stevens, who set up Stumpy's Club. Stumpy's was designed to raise funds and support people who have lost a limb. Diana and Mostyn worked tirelessly at this as well over the years and their efforts were appreciated by many. I went to one of their lunch functions and it was a blast. There were many great people and many great stories. It was highly entertaining. Sadly, they have had to wind up Stumpy's with the demands becoming too great, but I am happy to say that Diana and Mostyn are getting married later this year which is great news, but I can confirm that Diana does not want the reception to be held at the Brighton Football Club!

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (17:19): I rise today to welcome a number of the initiatives in the state budget which will directly benefit the electorate of Giles, initiatives which build on other worthwhile projects that have been delivered since the last election and preceding the last election. As we all know, our regions contribute $25 billion towards the state's economy and do so with 29 per cent of the state's population. Importantly for the state, the regions drive over half of our merchandise exports. The electorate of Giles makes an important economic contribution through mining, manufacturing, farming and tourism. Iron ore, copper, uranium, gold, silver and opal are all mined in the electorate and add wealth to our state.

There is very significant untapped potential in the electorate when it comes to additional mineral wealth. There is also massive untapped potential when it comes to renewable energy resources, and especially our solar resource and the use of that resource for more than just the export of electricity to the grid.

Despite the current difficulties the longer term potential in our resource sector is very positive. I do not want to downplay the current difficulties and the job losses that have occurred and will occur over the next year or two. The fall in iron ore prices has had a major impact, with the mothballing of two iron ore mines in the north of our state and additional job losses at the Middleback operation near Whyalla. Approximately 90 jobs have also gone from the steelworks, not to mention the jobs that have been lost amongst the fabrication and engineering contractors.

The job losses over the last two years at Olympic Dam and the ongoing job losses have had a devastating impact on Roxby Downs. It is not a straightforward task to estimate the number of mining-related jobs that have been lost in the electorate, but it would exceed 1,500 jobs. The neighbouring electorate of Stuart also faces the loss of jobs at Alinta in Port Augusta and Leigh Creek.

The budget did not directly address the job losses in the north of the state and that is partly a timing issue. There are a number of initiatives in the budget which will, in a general way, be of help, but at this stage we do not have a targeted assistance package designed to address the challenges in the north. I am very confident that one will be developed and that the assistance will be commensurate with what we have seen in parts of the metropolitan area that are also facing, or have faced, difficult economic circumstances.

I will take this opportunity to re-emphasise the top two priorities I have put on the table for Whyalla, and they are changes to state procurement policy to maximise the use of Australian produced steel and a far fuller utilisation of the Whyalla/Arrium harbour. The latter has long term implications for the north of the state, and it is the infrastructure key which will help to unlock our mineral wealth.

There are a number of specific commitments in the budget that I will touch on. I welcome the greatly improved pensioner concession scheme in the form of the Cost of Living Concession. We looked after our pensioners and made sure that there was assistance for tenants in addition to homeowners. The $148 million Cost of Living Concession forms part of the overall package of $275 million in pensioner concession support. The Abbott government's cuts to concessions were a disgrace.

The abolition of non-real stamp duty, non-residential real stamp duty and share duty are all welcome initiatives which will be of assistance to the business sector. The $2.7 million commitment to municipal and remote services on Aboriginal lands was desperately needed.

A very important piece of economic infrastructure in the form of the Port Bonython jetty near Whyalla on the Point Lowly Peninsula receives $11.9 million in this budget as part of an overall refurbishment to enable ongoing hydrocarbon exports and support jobs. I was very pleased to see the $350,000 allocation to carry out a Whyalla secondary schools feasibility study.

Whyalla has the only junior-senior high school model in the state. The configuration is made up of two junior high schools on different sites which feed into a senior high school on yet another site. There are fewer than 1,000 students over three sites, with the three sites all being within short distance of each other. I have been involved in two school reviews, both as a parent of children in the public education system in Whyalla and as a city councillor. The two previous proposals for amalgamation were rightly rejected, in my view. The first review was purely a cost-cutting exercise which came at a very difficult time for Whyalla in the late 1990s. The second review proposed an amalgamation involving primary and secondary schools—a super school model. The model was rejected by the community largely because it involved primary schools.

Amalgamation of the secondary schools makes sense to me and will improve educational outcomes for students in Whyalla by removing the transition point and facilitating access to greater resources at a larger school. I have indicated my strong preference for a new build on a new site next to the Whyalla campus of UniSA and TAFE to create a major education hub. The site is also directly across the road from Whyalla's largest primary school and the special school with childcare facilities nearby. The site is also next to the Middleback Theatre and close to the Whyalla recreation and leisure centre.

The feasibility study may indicate other options as the process will be guided by engagement with the Whyalla community and school communities. If a new site is the outcome, very careful consideration will need to be given to the use of vacated sites. This all assumes a future financial commitment, but the allocation of money for a feasibility study indicates serious intent.

The new children's centre for Roxby Downs is a real plus for the community. Half a million dollars will be invested in the centre so that the kindergarten will be able to deliver health and family services and also community development activities. As minister Close said, it is important that young children and their families have access to modern infrastructure facilities and programs to give them a jumpstart into their school years. The centre is good news and a measure of the state's commitment to the community of Roxby Downs.

I also want to mention regional roads and the importance of shoulder widening, especially the importance of shoulder widening with audio-tactile marking. Approximately 50 per cent of the fatalities on regional roads are single vehicle accidents. The state government has already sealed 1,200 kilometres of road shoulders. The important thing about shoulder widening and audio-tactile marking is that it does save lives. The work that has been carried out to date will, based on the evidence, save 30 lives over the coming five years. I welcome the additional money in the budget to further improve the safety of our regional roads.

To finish, the $4.3 million for regional arts theatres is a welcome addition, and I especially welcome the $1.7 million for Whyalla's Middleback Theatre.

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (17:27): Today I wish to speak about the Sovereign Hospitaller Order of St John of Jerusalem, the Knights of Malta, Grand Priory of Australia, Adelaide Commandery, and the recent investiture ball that I attended at the weekend. I want to talk about the event, the men and women who were appointed as knights and dames, and about the fundraising activities that they have done as well.

We were welcomed to the function after an earlier church ceremony by the master of ceremonies, Lady Rosaria Cusumano OSJ, as well as Father Lauro Rufo who did grace that day. I congratulate and warmly extend my best wishes to the newly appointed knights and dames who shared in the special occasion at the investiture: Chevalier Joseph Borrelli OSJ, Chevalier Charles Figallo OSJ, Chevalier Steve Maras OSJ, Chevalier Mario Romaldi OSJ, Lady Michelle Wallis OSJ, Chevalier Mark Bourchier OSJ, Chevalier Dr Creston Magasdi OSJ, Lady Rosalie Rotolo-Masson OSJ and Chevalier Pat Scalzi OSJ (or Pasquale as he is otherwise known).

Obviously, all of these people have now made certain vows to wear the Christian Maltese Cross of eight points to constantly remind them of the vows that they have agreed to. In terms of the history of the order, obviously it is an ancient order in some respects and certainly, if you look way back, the politics of the eastern Mediterranean region during the eras in and around that of the Crusades was quite complicated. With the Byzantine Empire in decline, there were few major countries and many minor principalities at the time.

Power was not necessarily linked to location, and one of the most powerful political organisations in the late Middle Ages was the order of St John of Jerusalem, Knights Hospitallers, whose ranks were filled by scions of the richest aristocratic families of Europe. Today, however, although the Knights, like the Christian church in some respects, are split into many orders, this particular order is certainly true to the original tradition and operates under the royal protection of HIRH Sandor Habsburg-Lothringen, as well as many others.

I commend them for the beneficial works and current charity projects that this order undertakes and I draw the attention of the house to some of these. The Order of St John has certainly been made aware of the extraordinary work that has been done before and they continue to do wonderful things in the community; one is their appeal to help in the Nepal disaster relief project. I am pleased to say the proceeds of Saturday night's ceremony were donated to this very worthy cause, and many in the community also chipped in.

It is fantastic to see this philanthropy in the community. Many people, especially successful business people, are doing good things with their profits. They are putting them back into the community and into good causes like this, and the order certainly has an ongoing commitment to good charitable causes, some of them in Australia and some of them overseas. I thought I would touch on some of the things they are still doing to this day; one of them is contributing to the fight to help uncover the genetic cause of childhood leukaemia—a fantastic cause for which this group is certainly doing much fundraising.

As well as that, there have been a number of charitable beneficiaries in the past—the Australian Red Cross, the Armenian Refuge Appeal, Australian Heart & Lung Transplant Association, Boys Town, CareFlight, Camp Quality, Cerebral Palsy Alliance, Child Abuse Prevention Services, Children's Leukaemia & Cancer Institute of Australia, Dianne Camilleri Appeal, Epilepsy Association, and the Exodus Foundation, Ashfield.

They have also supported the Giant Steps school for autistic children, Helping Hand Adelaide, Father Chris Riley's Youth off the Streets, the Healthcare Outreach Reconstructive Program in Nepal, International Red Cross, Lifeline, Life for Africa Foundation, Maltese Elderly Association, Matilda Rose Early Intervention Centre, the Missionaries of the Poor in the Philippines, and the Nagrizia Missionary Sisters in Central Africa.

Other charitable beneficiaries include: Overseas Specialist Surgeons of Australia Inc., Professor David Morris Liver Cancer Research Fund, Republic of Honduras (medicines), the Royal Alexandria Hospital for Children Neuro Surgery Department, Royal North Shore Hospital Physiotherapy Department, Royal South Sydney Community Health Complex (bladder scan instruments), the Salvation Army, Scalabrini Village Nursing Homes (four laser therapy units) and also the Snow family for their son's cancer treatment, and so forth.

I want in particular to talk about three gentlemen who were newly appointed as Knights at the weekend. The first, Mr Charles Figallo, is a very successful entrepreneur who is very passionate about the oil, gas and mining industry. He has done great things for South Australia. I commend him for his past work bringing business into South Australia. He is a strong advocate and champion who wants to see South Australia do well in this area. It is really good to see that Charles is a man who is doing well and making money but who is also putting it to good use by contributing to the wonderful causes that these Knights engage in.

The second gentleman I wish to talk about is Mr Mario Romaldi, who is obviously known to many in the house. He is the general manager of Romaldi Constructions, one of South Australia's top 100 companies, which has been operating in South Australia since 1959 in many sectors, including the commercial and industrial sectors. It has grown slowly but surely and steadily. It is certainly managed by a professional and enthusiastic team, and it has become an industry leader.

His company's foremost position in the construction sector has certainly led to the development of an array of industry alliances. It is fantastic to see that Mr Mario Romaldi, whose team has been involved in a number of recent projects, I note, all across the state: The Heights middle school, Glengowrie tram depot, Henley Surf Life Saving Club, Port Noarlunga Primary School, Marryatville High School, Riverland Special School and Ashford Special School.

I note that Mr Romaldi is also a gentleman who is not afraid to put his hand in his pocket and support good philanthropic charitable causes. I think we, as members of parliament, and successful business people should be doing that as well to make sure that they make this world a bit better as they come through it; especially if they have been given the gift of being able to put their intelligence to good use and to make a profit legally, they should certainly be putting it back into the community, and Mr Mario Romaldi is certainly doing that as well.

Thirdly, I would like to talk about Mr Steve Maras, the managing director and CEO of Maras Group. Many would be aware that Steve Maras is also a gentleman who engages in many philanthropic and charitable causes. I first met Steve in my earlier work as a councillor, and it is good to see that Steve has also been able to put his hand in his pocket and support many of these causes over the years.

In closing, I want to bring the house's attention to this function I attended. The order is a fantastic one, and it is fantastic that this tradition has continued and that they continue to support a number of charitable causes. When pulled together, if you look at what they have achieved over the years, and when you look at what they are still trying to achieve in the future, the world is definitely a better place because this order got together, and I commend them for their good charitable work in the community.

Mr DULUK (Davenport) (17:36): There has been a lot of debate recently about housing affordability, especially in the Eastern States, and in recent days we have spent a lot of time in this house debating the state budget. One issue not readily addressed in this year's budget is the issue of housing affordability. Housing affordability is not just an issue for the Eastern States but it is also a big issue in South Australia.

I rise today to speak on behalf of many South Australians, young and old, who wish to purchase their first home but are being priced out of the market. I would like to begin by explaining where we have come from. South Australia used to be one of the most affordable places in the western world to buy a home. This was in no small part due to the good work of the Liberal and Country League government establishing the South Australian Housing Trust in 1936.

In the Playford era, affordable homes and plentiful jobs were one of the main reasons thousands of immigrants chose to come to South Australia. By contrast, today we have the highest unemployment in the nation and very expensive housing stock. Over 20 years ago in two of Labor's long list of economic calamities—namely, the State Bank collapse and Paul Keating's recession 'that we had to have'—mortgage rates were at double-digit percentages and were approximately 17 per cent at the height of the Keating recession.

Now we have the reverse situation, where interest rates are at record lows but house prices are so high so that they are affecting affordability and making it worse than it has ever been. The situation we have today is one in which many young Australians will only ever own their own home through inheritance or assistance from their parents. Australia is now ranked as the third worst country for housing affordability in the OECD on the measure of house prices to incomes. House prices to average income is one of the fairest ways to determine how much a house costs to the everyday person on the average income. Being the third worst country for housing affordability in the OECD is a shameful statistic for a nation which, according to the second verse of our national anthem, has 'boundless plains to share'.

We all know that the underlying cost of land is one of the biggest factors in house prices, as land is one of the few things that they are not ever going to create any more of. As a consequence, the release of land for housing construction is an important responsibility for state governments, and we have seen time after time the wrong decisions being made in this area, often in favour of special interests rather than first home buyers.

My vision for South Australia is one of a great property-owning democracy where everyone who wants to own their own home can and reasonably hope to do so. The role of government in the housing field is not solely confined to being the 'landlord of last resort', as Housing SA is at the moment, or alternatively to do nothing and hope for the best, which often seems to be the government's modus operandi. The role of government, through appropriate and farsighted planning, is to make sure that housing policy makes home ownership an achievable dream for any South Australian prepared to work hard and save for a place of their own.

The great Australian dream of owning your own home is becoming increasingly out of reach for many young people in our state. The median house price in Adelaide today is $405,000, a 4.5 per cent rise on last year. The median house price has been rising rapidly for a number of years at a rate much faster than that of inflation. In real terms this has meant that housing has become more and more unaffordable for first home buyers who, in many cases, have only their own income and meagre savings to put towards buying their first home.

Sales volumes in the Adelaide housing market have been declining; however, prices have continued to increase. Many young people—especially 'the working poor'—are currently trapped by having most of their weekly income going into overpriced rents, and are unable to save a significant deposit to break into the Adelaide housing market. The jobs crisis that this state is facing will only make the situation worse.

While releasing more land in the Adelaide metropolitan area via urban renewal and infill will help more first home buyers break into the market, there are other policies which must be adopted. Higher density housing along major public transport corridors is critical to providing affordable housing and reducing congestion in the city. Far too often we have witnessed new developments being built without any public transport to service those new areas. By allowing higher density housing alongside railway stations or our train lines there is the double benefit of lowering the cost of housing in metropolitan Adelaide as well as boosting public transport usage. The Belair line, which travels through my electorate, would be a prime candidate for high density living around the railway stations.

A further way to reduce the cost of housing is to encourage retired couples and empty nesters to downsize their homes. I propose that this should be done by providing incentives, or the carrot rather than the stick approach. Many older people I know have been reluctant, in the first instance, to consider the idea of moving into a retirement village, but once they have many have loved that decision. Retirement villages provide a wide range of services and activities to promote healthy and active ageing. However, we need living arrangements for older South Australians to be in the same residential areas that many of them have lived in for 20, 30 or 40 years.

Strong policies that develop South Australia's rural and regional areas, especially by increasing economic activity and thereby attracting more people to these regions, is a critical part of making housing more affordable. We are all well aware that this Labor government treats rural and regional South Australia with contempt, to the great detriment of our entire state. Regional areas need to be attractive for young professional people to want to live there. To be attractive to young people there must be jobs in those locations. Having more people move into regional areas would place significant downward pressure on today's housing affordability issues in suburban Adelaide as well as increasing the economic and human potential of our regional areas.

Affordable social housing is an important part of the solution. The government's moves to encourage more NGOs into the social housing field is one welcomed by me. The announcement this week that the government is demolishing 65 properties and replacing them with 80 to 90 new properties is a good start, but this increases the social housing stock by a net total of only about 30. This is nowhere near enough. The government must build more social housing in its own right as well as encouraging NGOs and other agencies to play a role in this field.

The state government's general response to escalating house prices has been worse than doing nothing. We know, from the Under Treasurer, Mr Brett Rowse, that there have been secret discussions within the state government on considering the sale of HomeStart Finance. This is despite Labor's promise of no privatisation of significant state government assets at the last election. We know that Labor simply cannot be trusted to keep its word.

HomeStart Finance has a lot to teach this government about finance and balancing the books. For example, HomeStart Finance has been profitable in every year of its operation since its creation in 1989. It has also helped more than 63,500 South Australians into home ownership and has filled a gap in the market for around 82 per cent of their borrowers, who were unable to secure finance from the private sector. To sell this asset would not only amount to economic vandalism of the highest degree but would also badly hurt those who need our help the most.

Increasing standards of living, and life getting better for each generation that follows, are important guiding principles for our society. Housing affordability is the issue which will define whether or not our young South Australians get a better deal than their parents and grandparents. It is our responsibility as parliamentarians not to ignore this issue and to make sure that all these young first homebuyers who are prepared to work hard, save and start a family, have a decent house to call their own.

Ms WORTLEY (Torrens) (17:44): I rise to speak on the budget that delivers the impetus for economic growth and confidence in our future, whilst also ensuring fairness for all South Australians. Tax reform, job promotion, a balanced budget, infrastructure spending, protection of the vulnerable—these are the pillars of a budget that allow South Australia to look to the future with confidence.

Speaking with members of the Torrens community at shopping centres, community gatherings, street corner meetings and doorknocking, my constituents tell me about the things that are important to them: jobs for them and their children, education and health all rate highly, and all have been addressed in this budget. As the Treasurer has made clear, protecting and creating jobs is our government's main priority.

It is clear that the objective of protecting and creating jobs is not assisted by the withdrawal of federal government support from our auto manufacturing and naval and shipbuilding industries, nor the $1.4 billion in federal government cuts to health and education over the next four years. While those opposite spend their time talking down our state while closing their eyes to the decisions being made by their Liberal colleagues in Canberra, the government is committed to creating optimism across the state—from country regions that cannot and should not be ignored, to metropolitan areas facing their own economic concerns.

This budget delivers almost $985 million over four years, supporting job creation through reforming our tax system and investing in new and growth industries. It delivers the most comprehensive tax reform package in the state's history, creating a system that rewards effort and encourages businesses to grow and create new jobs. It abolishes taxes that limit business investment and expansion and helps people who want to create new businesses or expand existing ones so that, once fully implemented, a business could save more than $360,000 in its first year of operation.

The tax reform package will be a significant boost for business and industry in the north. It will be particularly important to businesses in the automotive sector. Through necessity in a changing landscape, they are looking to expand and diversify. Importantly, over the next four years, almost $670 million in tax reductions will be returned to South Australian businesses and families, significantly reducing the cost of doing business here. This budget continues the government's historically high commitment to transport, health and education infrastructure by committing $10.8 billion over four years.

Since 2009, we have redeveloped many metropolitan and country hospitals, and this budget continues that commitment. I have had the opportunity, as a member of the Public Works Committee, to visit some of those country hospitals and seen the work that has gone on there. The health and wellbeing of all South Australians are major considerations in this budget, with more than $260 million going towards upgrading our metropolitan hospitals. This includes $32 million for the Modbury Hospital which will see more rehabilitation services, a new hydrotherapy pool and gymnasium, and a new dedicated eye clinic.

In addition, there is $15.3 million towards completion of the $176.7 million stage C redevelopment of the Lyell McEwin Hospital. I have recently had cause to visit the hospital as both my father and mother-in-law received treatment there. I have seen the upgrade, and it serves our community well. The $9.7 million towards the $23.3 million for the Women's and Children's Hospital upgrade is also welcomed.

South Australia spends more per capita than the national average on mental health services, and we are continuing to invest in and upgrade mental health facilities, spending $12.9 million this year. This is part of a commitment to make unacceptably long waiting times in our emergency departments for those needing mental health care a thing of the past. This latest funding will help us significantly reduce waiting times in the emergency department for mental health care, too.

Further to that, we are committed to improving country mental health services, with dedicated psychiatrists available at the Whyalla, Riverland and Mount Gambier hospitals. This supports the four-year commitment made in the last budget to fund almost a million dollars a year for suicide prevention initiatives and groups in country South Australia. All of this is being delivered in the face of $1.4 billion of commonwealth budget cuts, including nearly a billion dollars less in health funding.

In addition, the government has committed $1.4 billion to road projects, improving travel time and safety; $1.7 billion to water infrastructure; $353 million to public transport; and $216 million to education facilities. We have introduced the cost of living concession for pensioners and low-income earners, protecting the most vulnerable in our community, and that is welcomed. We have also abolished the Save the River Murray levy.

In my electorate of Torrens we are seeing growth, with the continued development of Northgate and Lightsview, and the ongoing regeneration of suburbs like Klemzig, Gilles Plains and Windsor Gardens, as well as the recently announced release of land for 900 houses to be built on the old Hillcrest hospital site.

Where there are areas of concern, though, we are addressing them with real assistance. We understand the need to support the northern suburbs, which have been severely impacted by General Motors' decision to pull out of Elizabeth. We have set aside $93 million on initiatives that will help ensure a sustainable future for northern Adelaide. Better housing, better schooling, the development of an economic plan that looks at sustaining business in the north for years to come—that is what this budget delivers.

We are standing up for the north, because clearly we cannot depend on the federal government and those opposite, who could not find their voice when it came to standing up for South Australia and protecting our manufacturing industries. It is up to us to create opportunities and support new growth industries, because a strong and flourishing northern Adelaide is important to the economic growth not just of the area but of the state as a whole.

So the government has added another million dollars towards the development of the northern economic plan, for a total of $5.4 million. It is a plan that will focus on jobs creation and skills enhancement to create greater confidence and enthusiasm in the area, and to make businesses want to invest and operate there. A further $2 million has been put towards developing a northern Adelaide industrial food park, and we are investing $25 million in housing renewal in the north and $10 million for the upgrading of schools and children's centres across the region. We have channelled $9 million into initiatives to both increase the number of foster carers and to reunite adolescents in out-of-home residential care with their families. We know this is always the preferred outcome and we are looking at opportunities to make this happen wherever possible.

Emergency services play a vital role in keeping us all safe, and funding in this budget includes $9 million for protective clothing for South Australia Country Fire Service volunteers, and a further $5.4 million towards recruitment, training and support within the CFS, SES and Volunteer Marine Rescue, as well as $3.7 million to replace the emergency services communication centre's telecommunication system.

Whether it is the heart of the outback or the heart of the city, this budget addresses both essential services and the need to generate optimism and enthusiasm for a bright future. It supports efforts to bring new people into South Australia as visitors, tourists and investors. That new-found enthusiasm for enjoying the best this city and state have to offer has not been ignored either, with the tourism budget increased by 30 per cent to $75.5 million. We have just put $15 million towards new major events and conventions, $14 million into growing tourism from international markets, $6 million into Adelaide and regional tourism, $6 million into maintaining arts activity and $2 million towards the Adelaide Fashion Festival.

This is a budget that is proactive while at the same time addressing current areas of need. From improved infrastructure to support for the most vulnerable, to the generation of new opportunities for the future, this is a budget that ensures South Australia has a healthy outlook for years to come.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (17:54): I too seek to continue my remarks on the 2015 state budget, particularly what trade is presenting and how it is situated currently, and looking at the trend of how our exporters have been supported and the numbers of exporters in this state. It is a worrying trend in all sectors. The number of goods exporters in South Australia over a nine-year period has decreased by 100.

While we hear the government's trade minister preaching his wisdom and feeling pretty good about himself, the numbers tell the story. It is not about him telling the story of just how popular the member for Bright's trustworthy Scottish accent has been with his contribution today. Whether it is the member for Waite's wisdom in this chamber, talking about what was good and what was bad, and what he would or would not do—well, we know what he has done. The numbers are telling us what he has done, and he is not doing enough.

He is definitely not casting his wisdom, whether his policy settings or his policy papers are going to make a difference, the numbers that I hold are telling the true story. The budget is telling a true story of exactly where trade in particular is headed. While it is all very nice to get the headline act, taking delegations over to China and promising to reintroduce annual delegation trips—the minister and the government are hell-bent on getting the headline media stories—the fact of the matter is that we have lost 100 goods exporter since 2006-07, so let's have a look at exactly where they are being lost.

The resources sector is in trouble. Obviously, the devaluation of the dollar and commodity prices are having an impact. We have lost five in eight years while the government has been in power. Where we are looking for the real saviour of this exporting economy, in agriculture, forestry and fishing, we have lost 42. We have lost 40 in construction. If we look at wider areas of what this state has historically relied on with exports, we have seen a decline in the number of exporters being able to generate the numbers that the government continues to bang their chests about.

If we look at the value of export goods—and I will not go on there—we see a diminishing dollar. Commodity prices have dropped through the floor and are heading south, and no-one knows exactly what it is going to mean, particularly in the mining sector. If we look at agriculture, we have seen an increase. For over 120 years, the agriculture sector has been propping up this state's economy. We see copper and some of the precious metals that are valuable to our economy's bottom line, but the agriculture, forestry and fishing sector is hugely important.

South Australia was one of only two states with fewer exporters in 2013-14 than in, as I said, 2006-07. With those 100 exporters that we have lost, it begs the question: how are they going to keep up with their priority promise to increase exporters by 50 per annum? Again, that is another number that has been in the budget papers and one which the Minister for Trade will need to address. Whether his wisdom will get him out of trouble, one will see.

At a time when South Australia is needing to boost its engagement with the world in order to create jobs and that economic activity, at home here, the state's prosperity is in decline. It is raising alarm bells, not only within the business sector but within a sector that is potentially—

The SPEAKER: Intrigued as I am by the member for Chaffey's contribution, could he seek leave to continue his remarks?

Mr WHETSTONE: I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.


At 18:00 the house adjourned until Thursday 2 July 2015 at 10:30.


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