HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2015-07-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Appropriation Bill 2015

Estimates Committees

Adjourned debate on motion:

That the proposed expenditures referred to Estimates Committees A and B be agreed to.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (16:00): After talking about planning and Consumer and Business Services, it is now time to talk about local government and regional development estimates committee hearing held in the other place.

Mr Speirs: Hear, hear!

Mr GRIFFITHS: The member for Bright says, 'Hear, hear!' It was rather interesting, at the commencement of both of those sessions, the Chair flagged the fact that there was an expectation of an opening statement taking up to 10 minutes. It was necessary for me—as is my wont, I like to keep particular time frames—to write down the time that the minister actually started his speech. When it got to around 10½ minutes, I thought, 'Okay, well, we have gone a bit long here,' so I took a point of order. The minister looked at the remainder of his notes and he was only about halfway through, which concerned me.

It goes back to my initial statement about ensuring that, yes, the information flow exists, and I respect the fact that an opening statement is likely to be made in most cases, but you have to control that and fit within the time frames to ensure there is an opportunity for questions to be posed too. So, that disappointed me, but we got through that.

In regional development, my initial question was about the level of unspent funds. It was amazing to me that, in a budget allocation in 2014-15 of $32 million in grants and subsidies, only about $10 million was actually spent. The level of frustration that I felt was that, yes, some is carried forward; I understand that. Some is a matter of timing in when grants are provided: the work has to be undertaken, the accruals have to come in, and we have to ensure that the obligations are being met. But, as I tried to enforce to the minister, in a time when grant funding is available—and I commend him on the fact that it is there—let's actually get it out there.

The example that I used in some of the questions was the Job Accelerator Fund. That was a one-year, $10 million fund which the minister divided up to four separate programs, from being appointed as the minister in March of last year until late November 2014. No-one was able to apply for the money because the guidelines had not been finalised, and therefore no-one actually knew what it was intended to be spent on. You had to start the process after that, apply for it, try to fit it in with what you wanted to do, apply for the funds, get approval, and then start to work.

From my point of view, the frustration is that so much opportunity is lost. People have visions in their minds about what they want to try to do, and they know that dollars are going to be available, but they have to wait for such a lengthy time. At a time when regional unemployment is a frustration for all of us—in the minister's own community it is 8.8 per cent on average across 2014, and it varies in regional areas, but it is still exceptionally higher than what we would all like it to be—why not make the dollars available?

I am trying to convey that frustration that I felt. The minister made the point that he wanted to ensure that the money is spent appropriately. I do not debate that point. I want to make sure that KPIs are there, that the contractual requirements would be met, and that the outcomes create opportunities that the benefit the community at large. But, do not take months to make decisions on how to spend it: make the decisions quickly and as best as absolutely possible, and get the dollars happening.

I did ask some questions about the Regional South Australia Cabinet Committee, which is made up of five members, as I understand it. The minister tells me that he has a regular appointment in his diary for that to occur, but while there are something like two pages in the budget papers devoted to it, I was not able to ask any questions about it. The ruling, based on a point of order from another government member, was that, because it is defined as being cabinet, it is not available for any level of scrutiny to occur when it comes to questions. Others, looking around me, have their eyes crossed wondering what the hell is going on with that, but it was what was put to me and it was frustrating, because the information in the budget papers outlines probably 10 different areas in which it works. Given that, one would assume that the opportunity is there to ask questions about it, but we were unable to. Again, that is frustrating.

I did ask a question about regional impact assessment statements, as I did last year. He re-enforced to me then, 12 months ago, the importance that he saw in it. I re-enforced to him in estimates this year the frustration that there have only been three additions to the list of regional impact assessment statements. Two of those were based around the guidelines of the report and one was based around the Stirling police station.

Surely, when it comes to decisions being made that impact on regional communities, there are many issues that would have been worthy of a regional impact assessment statement. In recent weeks, we have had the WorkReady training program, which significantly disadvantages private registered training organisations in regional areas and which could lead to hundreds and hundreds of job losses, but it was not worthy of a regional impact assessment statement to ensure that cabinet had a full understanding of what the implications were.

The obvious question to be posed is: are all departments ensuring that the obligations are being met? I doubt that. Are ministers ensuring that their staff are ensuring that those trigger points, when they are being reached, are being complied with? I doubt that also. But it means, though, that information flow, which I and many others think is important regarding the decisions that are eventually made, is being missed out and then potentially the wrong decision is being made. I urge the government and the minister to ensure that this improves, because it has to. It has been a government policy since 2003. There is only, I believe, about 25 on the list of regional impact assessment statements. It needs to be far more than that.

I asked the minister also a question about the previously called Skills for Jobs in Regions program, which was under the auspices of the Regional Development Australia boards. The Minister for Regional Development was not sure on what my question was based, and the answer eventually came back to me that it was not that minister's portfolio responsibility, it was someone else's. I would have thought that a program coordinated by an area that the minister has direct responsibility for (that is, based around regional development, regional skills and therefore regional jobs) would have been one about which the minister would have had details, but, even with all the advisers he had around him, there was still no information flow.

I also asked a question about the northern Adelaide irrigation scheme, which other members in this place would be aware of. It is expensive, I understand that, but the benefits that come from the re-use of an increased amount of treated water from Bolivar are immense. With the pressure that is going to be on feeding our state and our nation and the need for employment opportunities to be created in the north in particular, this would appear to me to be an absolute monty for support. The Liberal Party in opposition put out a policy for a masterplan to be developed. We had also committed, if we had been successful last year, a $6 million fund to go towards the work to be undertaken there. There is a real commitment from this side of the parliament. I hope that the commitment from the government's side actually translates into actions and we get that investment occurring.

In the local government area, an obvious question at the very start was about the Housing SA transfer to private non-government organisations and the potential that exists for the rate rebate on the council rates charging those properties to be sought, which has to be provided by local government authorities, based at around 75 per cent. That was in an original draft of legislation before this place. It was removed, though, from the bill that was presented to the parliament, supposedly at the request of the Minister for Planning. From the local government perspective, it frustrates me that we are subject to further negotiations and ongoing contract discussions about it all where indeed there was, I thought, a position taken on supporting that.

Another budget announcement for local government was the extracted minerals royalty—and the member for MacKillop behind me has a particular interest in this also and might go into some further detail. This was a decision made by the state, in announcing its budget, after all 68 councils had determined what their own budgets for 2015-16 were. It is a $1 million cost, but it is a $1 million cost being borne entirely by regional local government authorities. The minister tells me that he had not been contacted about it. I know the LGA has spoken to the Treasurer about it and I know the LGA is still working on it, so I would urge all local governments to ensure that their responsible minister has some further understanding of it, because it is a key. By taking out that $1 million you either reduce the amount of work that can be undertaken or you increase costs and, therefore, charge property owners more through their council rates.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (16:10): It would not be a response to the budget and estimates without my saying something about the process and something about the distinct lack of accountability of the executive government to the parliament, particularly through the estimates process. It never ceases to beggar my imagination how we ended up with a system that is so designed to frustrate the desire of the parliament to have an understanding of what the executive government is doing.

The estimates committee should indeed be one of the chief opportunities for the parliament to become very well informed on how taxpayers' money is being expended in this state. To give an example, I sat with our leader when he was questioning the Treasurer about the proposed privatisation of the Motor Accident Commission. The Leader of the Opposition asked what I thought was a series of very sensible questions of the Treasurer to try to elicit from him the advice to the executive government and the fundamental reasons behind the decision to wind up MAC.

The opposition and the community at large can do nothing but assume that the chief reason behind the winding-up of the Motor Accident Commission as we know it and bringing the private sector in is so that the government can grab—and we do not even know how much money—as much as $2 billion and transfer it into the Consolidated Account to bolster a budget that has been in serious trouble for many, many years.

The Leader of the Opposition gave the Treasurer ample opportunity to explain the rationale behind the decision. He invited the Treasurer to place before the parliament and before the estimates committee some of the advice the government had received, and the Treasurer consistently refused to do so. No wonder the opposition and the community of South Australia do not trust the government. If there were any evidence held by the government to support their decision, surely the government would table the evidence.

I hark back to an earlier experience when, as the shadow minister for water resources, I remember arguing at length about the decision of this government to double the size of that white elephant, otherwise known as the desal plant, at great cost to the taxpayers of South Australia. After a long period of pressure from me, some of my colleagues and the media, the government tabled two documents supposedly to support their decision. The problem was that both documents—they were reports to the government—were produced after the date the decision was taken to double the size of the desal plant.

I suspect that the reason the Treasurer will not table any of the advice the government has with regard to the winding-up of the Motor Accident Commission and the raiding its coffers is that it does not have any good advice to back up its decision. All the government has is advice to say how much money the Treasurer can raid from the Motor Accident Commission. I can only assume that the government, the Treasurer and his cabinet colleagues do not want the public of South Australia to know the quantum of that money they are going to raid from the Motor Accident Commission.

The estimates committee process is a flawed process inasmuch as it does not in any way give the parliament access to the information that I believe it should have access to. Whether in government or opposition, I think our democratic system demands that the parliament, full of the representatives of the people, should have access to that sort of information. I have to say that the budget, the way it is presented, gives a very scant overview of what is going on. I will not dwell on that particular issue any longer, other than to say it is a great pity.

There are a couple of things I want to spend a little bit of time canvassing, and again these were raised in the estimates process; one of them in particular was raised in a committee I was not in, but I have read the transcript and expressed some disappointment, that is, a question to the minister for water resources and the environment concerning the funding of the drainage system in the South-East of the state.

The house may recall, as I have raised this a number of times before, that some time ago the minister established a citizens' jury to look into the question of additional funding to support the operation and maintenance of the South-East drainage network. The minister, in doing so, promised to report back to the parliament, to the other place, to table the report of the citizens' jury and to give the government's response.

The citizens' jury handed its report to the minister and made it public on 15 March this year. We have been waiting and waiting and, as I understand it, the minister finally gave a response this very day in the other place. I was waiting for the budget to come out because the citizens' jury basically said to the minister, 'No, we don't agree with what you are trying to do. We don't agree with imposing a new tax on the people of the South-East because we think that the drainage system in the South-East provides benefit to the whole of the state.'

Indeed, one of the ways it provides benefit to the whole of the state is by providing, on an annual basis, a significant amount of water which makes up part of South Australia's contribution under the whole of the Murray-Darling Basin agreement which was signed a couple years ago by this government. A significant amount of that contribution will come from the South-East, and the value of that water is way in excess of the additional money it will require to adequately fund the operation and maintenance of the drainage system in the South-East.

On top of that, the region of the South-East is part of the economic powerhouse of regional South Australia, providing a lot of food and fibre that not only feeds many South Australians but also provides many jobs in the food processing sector, and the government continues to ignore that. Notwithstanding that, quite recently, after most of the other economic sectors in this state have gone into serious decline, the government has recognised that we do have an agricultural sector and that it still remains and will remain a very important part of the economy of the South-East.

Notwithstanding that belated recognition, the government refuses to adequately fund the operation and maintenance of the drainage system in the South-East that supports a lot of the agricultural production of this state, both through enabling land to actually be put into productive use and enabling transport across what would otherwise be a very wet landscape. I am very disappointed that there was nothing in the budget to say that the government had had a change of heart in line with the report of that citizens' jury, and I am equally disappointed by the minister's response.

To highlight the government's attitude, the minister, in answer to a question in the estimates committee, used these words, 'That is why I engaged the community through a citizens' jury process,' whereas the press release he tabled in the other place this day starts off by saying, 'The South East Natural Resources Management (SENRM) Board established a Community Panel.' Well, you cannot have it both ways. His press release says that someone else established a community panel, yet he answered that he established it. In any case, the minister established a community panel, it came down with what I thought was a very well balanced and sensible report and the government has chosen to turn its back on it, yet this same government would have us believe that it is interested in the economic activity of all industries in the state and that it is refocusing its attention on the creation of jobs.

With the unemployment figures going through the roof, more South Australians are finding that they are out of work. I would have thought that the government would have done everything it could to underpin economic activity, irrespective of where it occurred in the state. But this government has decided that that is not important, all it has to do is pork-barrel in a handful of marginal seats to maintain itself in government, and that is more important than looking out for the whole of the economy of South Australia.

That brings me to another issue that I want to talk about relatively briefly which is the emergency services levy. I asked the Minister for Finance a question concerning this—well, firstly, I asked the Minister for Emergency Services about the discrepancy in the budget papers with the information given by the Treasurer to the Economic and Finance Committee of this parliament concerning the expenditure of the emergency services levy in various parts of the state. The information given to the Economic and Finance Committee would have us believe that there is a substantial increase in the amount of money spent on emergency services in non-metropolitan South Australia. Indeed, the difference between the previous financial year just ended and the current financial year (2015-16 financial year) is about a 60 per cent increase according to the data provided to the Economic and Finance Committee.

When I asked the Minister for Emergency Services why that was not reflected in any of the budget papers for the CFS, the SES in particular, but also in SAFECOM and the MFS, he was unable to give any explanation as to the discrepancy in those figures. So, I had one of my colleagues ask the Treasurer the same question because the Minister for Emergency Services suggested that I should ask that question of the Treasurer because it was Treasury that provided the numbers to the Economic and Finance Committee. When the Treasurer was asked the same question, he was unable to give an explanation. Indeed, all he did was go to a paper from which he read which was basically the paper that he gave to the Economic and Finance Committee.

There was no explanation or justification. First of all, there was no explanation for the discrepancy between the numbers given to the Economic and Finance Committee and the numbers that appear in the budget. The numbers that appear in the budget certainly do not show us any significant increase in the amount of emergency services expenditure in the regions, certainly not the $18-odd million which was reflected in the figures given to the Economic and Finance Committee.

I will say this quite happily in the absence of any evidence to the contrary: I think the information given to the Economic and Finance Committee was misleading, and I think it was misleading because the emergency services levy is a levy on property and it falls much more heavily on rural and regional South Australia because the value of farming land means that the levy—when the minister says we have a 9 per cent increase in the levy across rural and regional South Australia—because it falls on farming land, it runs to many hundreds of a per cent in percentage terms as an increase. In some cases, we have seen increases over the last two years of over 1,000 per cent. I think that the Treasurer was so embarrassed when this was pointed out to him that he provided figures which suggested that the amount of expenditure in the regions had increased by some 60 per cent to try to balance up the expenditure with the revenue being gained. I asked two ministers to give an explanation for this and neither of them were able to give me an explanation.

Certainly, the budget papers, as I have been saying, do not reflect such a significant increase. There is a small increase for training and that will only happen if volunteer numbers increase substantially, and that is yet to be seen. So, even though there is a budgeted figure for an increase in training it may not be realised. There is a situation where I think the parliament and the people of South Australia deserve answers but they are not getting them from this government, which is a great pity. We are here representing our constituency, the people of South Australia, yet we cannot get answers from the executive of this government.

The member for Goyder mentioned—and he named me—the imposition of a new royalty on councils for extracting material out of borrow pits. This question was also asked of the Minister for Finance. The Minister for Finance rattled on about some philosophical position where he wanted to see full competition between councils and the private sector supplying extracted materials for road making.

I asked the minister whether he understood what a borrow pit was because a borrow pit is where you take material absolutely adjacent to where you are building a road and use that material to build the road. It is not where you have a council quarry somewhere within the council area and use your quarry in preference to using a commercial quarry, either in your council area or close by. It is nothing to do with that at all. It is where you are building a road, and it is used particularly in remote locations where the requirement for quarried material is less, so there are less operating quarries around and by necessity you get the material close to where you are going to use it. It has historically been that you create a borrow pit where you create a very temporary quarry whilst you are constructing the road and use the material to put on it.

The minister is suggesting that this is anti-competitive. I would suggest that is a nonsense and is being driven by a total lack of understanding by both the minister and his government and his cabinet colleagues who have adopted this policy. As I pointed out to the minister, any council quarry which is currently operating under the Mining Act, and has been for some years now—councils used to get away with operating quarries without paying royalties on extractives taken out of the quarries, but that is not the case. Any council quarry which is operated under the Mining Act, and they all should be, apart from borrow pits, are liable to be paying royalties.

So, $1 million, and we believe it could be well in excess of $1 million, which is going to be imposed by this very measure on largely remote rural councils is not going to give any benefit to the commercial quarrying industries at all. All it is going to do is drive up the cost of building remote roads, which are usually minor roads. Some of them are not, some of them are quite major, and I quoted in the committee the road between Bordertown, in the north of my electorate, and Pinnaroo, which is now in Chaffey, further north, a road that runs pretty well parallel to the Victorian border and, indeed, runs through the Ngarkat Conservation Park.

When it was constructed, which I think was back in the seventies, extensive borrow pits were created along the verges of that road to help create the road with materials taken from those borrow pits. If a royalty was put onto that sort of construction in the case of that road it would probably add, at today's dollars, another million dollars or more to the cost of constructing that road. All that is doing is mitigating against councils being able to provide decent roads, particularly in remote locations, which, again, mitigates against economic activity in those locations and undermines the state's opportunity to create more and more economic activity.

I see that my time is about to expire so I will conclude my comments there and say that we are yet in the grip of another budget which is doing even greater harm to the future of this state.

Mr SPEIRS (Bright) (16:30): Where do I begin with estimates? First, we waste our Public Service's time preparing for estimates, then we waste our own time going through the estimates process, and then we waste the parliament's time by talking about what we wasted our time doing. Some of my colleagues like the estimates process. They see it as a bit of an audit, an opportunity to be inquisitive when it comes to the expenditure of the government.

I see it from the perspective of someone who used to work in the Public Service as well as someone who is now a member of parliament. I see the cottage industry, which occurs behind-the-scenes for many months in the lead-up to estimates in this place, preparing for estimates, preparing ministers for estimates, and the huge effort that goes into forming Dorothy Dixers, the huge effort that goes into briefing ministers on the questions that they might be asked, and the resources that are directed from front-line services, policy development, and the normal administration of departments in order to be able to lead up and then launch the estimates process.

I find it a process which I do not think works. I do not think we get particularly significant insights into the business of government as a result of estimates. It is a process which I just do not have much faith in at all. Last year, when I spoke about estimates for the first time, I outlined some changes, some reforms, to the estimates process which I think the whole parliament would benefit from taking a look at. The ideas that I put out there were by no means comprehensive.

I know there are plenty of people in government—ministers, backbenchers and servants of this parliament—who would like to look at this process, but it just seems that we have not been able to get decision-makers together and get enough people to have a discussion about what estimates could look like and what estimates could be. When they are compared to the federal parliament's estimates, there is no doubt we are a poor cousin in terms of the analysis and insight we can glean from ministers and senior public servants through the process.

Last year, I canvassed a few reforms that I would like to see, particularly the idea of having standardised budget papers year in and year out not only to make it easier for members of the opposition to compare the budget papers but also to make budget papers more accessible to members of the general public as well, because they are certainly not accessible at the moment. I also put on the record last year the possibility of estimates being opened up (I think this might be a bit controversial) to the wider public, so there could be representatives from NGOs and the like coming into parliament and being a part of the process.

I think it is odd, to say the least, that members of the upper house are not able to be involved in the process, so shadow ministers cannot be involved in the scrutiny of their counterparts. However, government ministers across both the upper and lower houses can be scrutinised, but that has to be by members of the lower house. That makes completely no sense to me at all, and I think a lot of people shake their heads about that.

Finally, the process by which members are discharged, and we have to sign all these pieces of paper to get in and out of estimates prior to it actually occurring, is just bizarre, and, really, all members from both houses should be able to participate freely in this process, in my opinion. I think it would make it much more valuable. There are definitely better ways that estimates can be administered, and I would really like to see the government work with the opposition and come up with a suite of reforms for the estimates process. I have to say, though, I am not confident that that will occur, and no doubt I will be having a whinge here in 2016 as well about the ineffectiveness of the estimates process.

One thing the estimates process does is actually show you the calibre of ministers because you get to see the ministers who deal with it in a very open manner and then you get to see those who are not actually able to do that, and that is very telling. The first estimates hearing that I went to was the one where we were speaking to the Deputy Premier about industrial relations, and it was really interesting to see how he dealt with that with a level of sophistication.

He did not have any public sector advisers with him on the floor apart from the chief executive of the workers compensation scheme. He dealt with his questions without an opening statement; he did not require to delay or waste time doing that. He was able to take all the questions. There was a bit of back and forth between him and his chief executive. It was, I think, a fairly valuable process. No-one was trying to catch each other out, and there was no avoidance. It was an example of a minister supported by a chief executive and both clearly very over their briefs, who understood the portfolio they were administering and who were able to use that to advance the process, I suppose.

That was the upper end of the spectrum. I do want to reflect on the lower end of the spectrum, and I do not mean to do this in an offensive way, but, clearly, when you are talking about ministers of the Crown, and when you look back at the Hansard, instead of seeing sentences and paragraphs and structured speeches, you see a sort of Scrabble board of absolute rubbish when it is down on paper.

There were a couple of ministers whose estimates that I participated in resembled that—just as if you got a Scrabble board and you threw it up in the air and whatever landed on the floor was what the minister actually decided to say. I, in particular, was exceptionally disappointed with the Minister for Local Government in estimates. I found the quality of—I will not say quality of answers because there were no answers. The statements made by the minister rarely made sense. I would say that they verged on incoherent and were actually offensive to this parliament and to this state.

They showed a complete undermining of the processes of this parliament. They made me fear for democracy and made me feel exceptionally saddened for governance in this state. To see the Minister for Local Government and the way in which he conducted himself in the estimates process was to see someone who had zero grip on his portfolio; and the local government portfolio, as members would know, is an area of governance which I have a great interest in. I think it is a great area which is currently open for significant reform, and there is a lot of reforms that could occur in the local government portfolio which could trigger some really interesting economic development opportunities for this state, especially when paired with planning reform.

I know there are members of the government who are very interested in this, and to be able to facilitate reform in the local government space, combined with the planning space, would enable some significant economic benefits and my belief for South Australia, which would actually not necessarily have a significant financial cost to state government. There is a whole tier of bureaucracy there which is absolutely desperate for reform.

When I sat for an hour with the Minister for Local Government and saw the level of competence on display, when setting that beside the desperate need for reform in the area that he is administering, my heart sank. South Australia is a state which has economic problems at the moment. We are in need of extra money. A way of raising extra money would be to open future estimates hearings with the Minister for Local Government during Mad March as a Fringe show. Charge people to come in and make the state government a bit of money by selling it as a comedy, because that is what it was.

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

Mr SPEIRS: It was a comedy of errors and it was—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Wright has a point of order.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: The member for Bright was reflecting inappropriately on the Minister for Local Government, and I would ask him to retract his comments.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think you were dangerously close to being out of order.

Mr SPEIRS: I will retract my comments but I would stand by my comments that the—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not the same as retracting.

Mr SPEIRS: —estimates hearing was a comedy of errors.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Okay.

Mr SPEIRS: Very few of the questions were answered during that process and it did make me fear for an area of administration which requires significant reform.

I move on to one of the other hearings that I was involved in, that is, the Premier's estimates. The Premier, like the Deputy Premier, is someone who is very well practised at delivering estimates in this parliament and he was able to dispense with the opening statement, which I think was appreciated because it allowed two hours and 15 minutes of fairly rigorous questioning. There was not a lot of debate within the range of portfolios. It was more about getting information about how the Department of the Premier and Cabinet is administered.

One thing that interested me during the estimates process for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet was the discussion around South Australia's Strategic Plan. I think, no matter what people think of the former premier, Mike Rann, he was someone who understood what he was here for in terms of having a very clear vision of what he wanted for South Australia, and he could point to a whole range of structures that he put in place from a policy perspective to be able to advance that. As someone who worked in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet at that time, and also in the time of Premier Weatherill but particularly under premier Rann, it was very interesting to see that long-term vision that he tried to put into the policy arena and be able to structure the entire work of the public sector around South Australia's Strategic Plan.

In questioning on the 2014 budget process, and it was followed up again this year, it was very clear that the government's emphasis on the South Australian Strategic Plan has certainly ebbed away. I think that is a shame because strategic planning is necessary at all levels of government and we could have a situation where we disagree with the particular elements within strategic planning but I think both sides of parliament would acknowledge the real importance of having a strategic plan in place for South Australia. I think when former premier Rann launched that in 2004, South Australia was the first state in the nation to do that and we led the way.

I remember talking to the representative from Oregon, Jeff Tryens, I think, it was, who came out here to assist with that, and he said the key to success for strategic planning at the provincial or state government level is to be able to ensure that the plan survives successive terms of government, changes of premier and changes of political persuasion on the government benches. That was something that stuck with me and he said that they had put that in place in Oregon by translating their Oregon strategic plan into legislation and making it much harder to veer away from it with the change of premier or state leader, or a change of administration in the political sense.

What has happened in South Australia since the Weatherill government has come into power has been a move away from strategic planning and that long termism has been replaced, I believe, with short-term political fixes and a real lack of focus on strategic objectives for the state. We saw the Strategic Plan superseded by the state government's seven strategic priorities, which came in in December 2011, and they have really gone by the wayside as well now to be replaced by 10 economic objectives, and those 10 economic objectives are worthy in many ways, and should certainly be pursued; and so I am not criticising those, but I am criticising that backwards and forwards and movement away from strategic vision, that if put in place in the long term, can actually change the direction of the state.

If there is lots of chopping and changing, and if we go from South Australia's Strategic Plan to the seven strategic priorities to the 10 economic priorities (and, no doubt, something else is being cooked up to enable a glossy report or a 24-hour media cycle media release) we lose that long-term goal, and I do not feel that South Australia really has that direction anymore that was put in place by Premier Rann in 2004. It was something that I did personally respect and I think that a lot of the government's success in the 2006 election was that it was able to clearly articulate what it saw as South Australia's strengths, and was able to demonstrate the direction in which they wanted to take South Australia.

I do not feel that that is present anymore, and it was interesting that, when the Premier was questioned on this, he certainly did not want to commit to something which I think he believes is very Rann-esque—of the Rann era—and not something that he wants to pursue anymore. I think that while South Australia's Strategic Plan remains live on its website at saplan.org.au, it is not something that this government has any real interest in anymore, and I think we are poorer for it because we may not necessarily agree with the targets and objectives within the plan but I think we are poorer for not having emphasis on the plan.

When the Strategic Plan was set up, there was actually a program called the Alliance program which was set up around it. It connected up to 100 businesses, NGOs and community organisations to the Strategic Plan to try to push it beyond government. I was able to ask the Premier during estimates what had happened to the Alliance program, and it appeared that he was not even aware of what it was. I do not believe that the Alliance members have been told that there is no longer an emphasis on South Australia's Strategic Plan, and that is a real shame because that vision was about more than just government doing the lifting for South Australia, it was actually engaging in a meaningful way a whole range of non-government groups, businesses and community organisations in that vision for South Australia.

The emphasis on that is now gone and that is a shame and it is quite disrespectful in many ways for the government to have not even spoken to those groups and told them, 'You are not needed anymore,' or 'There is a new place for you to be directing your energies.' I think that that is a great shame and a great waste. My concluding remarks would be that I still believe, and I want it firmly on the record, that the estimates process could be a lot better. I think there is opportunity for a bipartisan discussion on how we reform the estimates process to get the most out of them.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE (Wright) (16:48): I have had the opportunity to experience the budget and estimates process from all aspects as a backbencher in opposition, certainly as a backbencher in government, and as a minister for nine years.

I know what a difficult and considered process bringing down a budget is—as a minister, making sure that the money you have to spend is spent in the very best way, and how amazingly reliant you are upon the very dedicated public servants who work in our agencies. I was very privileged to work with I think some of the very best people in government.

I am very proud of the achievements of the Labor government in South Australia over 12 years. Our priorities have been very much on the health and wellbeing of our children and on their education. In doing so, we have brought about initiatives such as the Universal Home Visiting Program and investing in our children's centres. I am delighted to see further investment in children's centres here in South Australia in the current budget. We have something like $25 million going into early years facilities in this year's budget, so that will bring us to 47 centres around South Australia.

The new centres are in Renown Park, Pennington, Mount Barker, Roxby Downs and Seaton. The Keithcot Farm Children's Centre, which serves both of our electorates, was in the first tranche of 10 centres set up in South Australia. I want to pay tribute to the parents and management of that centre. It was a big leap of faith on their behalf to agree to come on board and turn their kindergarten into a children's centre. It is so well received and functioning so well that it does need expansion, so I am delighted that funds have been made available for that.

We have also seen additional funding to expand the front-line and support team to further other person guardianship orders for children who come into care. For those who do not understand what they are, they mean that, rather than a child coming into care and remaining under the care of the minister, a family that has a strong connection to that child and is committed to that child until they are 18 (until the end of the order) can in fact apply to have guardianship of that child. This gives the families certainty of keeping that child within their family. More funds are going to help increase the number of foster carers, many of whom do a fantastic job, and I got to know many of them very well during my time as minister.

In addition, there will be funding to implement a program to reunite adolescents with their families. Be under no misapprehension: even though children are taken away, and some in very awful circumstances, children still love their parents and want connection with their family. That is why I have always been strongly opposed to adopting children, as is being undertaken in New South Wales. That legally severs the connection of a child with their family. There is absolutely no going back. Guardianship of another person allows that legal connection to remain, and the child has the opportunity, when it is appropriate, if they choose, to reconnect with their families.

Of course, $2.2 million will go towards further expanding the Positive Parenting Program. So, there is a real focus on supporting children in care, but also supporting families to be the best they can be, hopefully keeping more children with their families.

It has been interesting, as a member of the government, to experience 12 years of listening to the opposition come in here with their post-budget speeches and to observe them in estimates. It has been a long time since I have been on a bench watching the different people come in here and do their questioning, as I was usually on the receiving end of it and only at one hearing. It has been quite an eye-opening experience for me this year to be on the backbench and watch, as the member for Bright referred to, the 'quality' of those people who were in here.

The member for Bright made some interesting observations in his little speech just then, referring to Mike Rann and his long-term vision, the State Strategic Plan and how much he respected that particular vision. I would ask the member for Bright to do some research and have a look at what his colleagues were saying about the Strategic Plan. He must be the only one on that side of the house who ever supported it, because they always canned it.

He talked about the waste of time in this place and the waste of time of everyone preparing for estimates and making their speeches, and I have to agree: our Public Service does an amazing job preparing for estimates. Estimates is examination of the budget; it is not examination of anything and everything that you can attach to some vague reference in the budget papers. If there is a waste of time, it is the waste of time of public servants, people in the minister's office and the minister preparing to answer budget questions only to be bombarded with anything and everything bar budget questions.

He talked about the quality of the minister. Let me just talk about the quality of the opposition. The member for Mount Gambier wants a forensic examination of the budget. The quality of the questions put in this place in this year's estimates have to be of the lowest quality I have ever experienced. They complain about the time available. We saw minister after minister having a question-free examination of the budget, not allowing members of the government to ask questions, which gave them a free-for-all.

They complain about government members having a question when they do; indeed I had some questions I wanted to ask but was told, 'No, we're giving this time over to the opposition.' They asked about everything other than the budget. The problem with estimates is that the opposition, quite frankly, do not know how to use it. If only some of them had been around when we were in opposition, they would have seen the forensic examination of the budget. We now know when we come into estimates that you just prepare for anything and everything; any wild question out of the stratosphere is what they are going to throw at you.

The member for Schubert said that estimates is the time he likes the best. Well, bless his heart. Did he raise any questions in the tourism estimate? No. Did he raise any questions about tourism and the wine industry in the Barossa Valley in the tourism estimate? No. He came in here trying to mimic the member for Unley, and he is making a grave mistake.

Of course, he is the darling of points of order. He called a point of order claiming the information the minister was using was already available and claiming that standing orders for estimates must be the same as standing orders for question time. If that were so, all their questions would have been out of order. They were sloppy and casual in their presentation. I would recommend that the member for Schubert actually read the standing orders. He is very good on his little computer. I am sure the standing orders are on the computer online; if not, we have a hard copy.

His budget speech was greatly lacking in any assessment. He refers to wastes and blowouts. According to him, areas of health and ageing, education and child development and others are wasteful and we are blowing budgets spending money on these areas. What he does not understand, of course, is that it is much like running the health service: when people turn up to be cared for, you actually have to care for them. One breath before making the statement about wasteful money on health, he wanted $40 million to $70 million for a new hospital in the Barossa. We know they do not support public education: Christopher Pyne and Gonski leap to mind. Not one Liberal in this place spoke out about the cuts against public education and private education made by Christopher Pyne and the federal Liberals. Clearly the member for Schubert sees this money as a waste.

The member for Schubert claims that $90,000 a week cleaning Housing Trust properties is a monumental waste, but it equates to about $2 a week. There are over 40,000 public housing properties in South Australia, so to talk about $90,000 sounds like a lot of money, but you have to calculate that across the number of properties that we are dealing with. The Housing Trust runs many effective programs supporting tenants. I remember the member for Schubert coming in here complaining about money being spent in Parkside. I am sure he would have wanted that clean-up had the homes been in Tanunda or Nuriootpa.

The member for Schubert described himself as a humble sausage maker; he was obviously performing for the people he had in the gallery at the time, but let me make the point that not every person who loses their job has the opportunity to come into this place. Holden workers and those working in our shipyards all face losing their jobs. Did they get any support from the federal Liberals? Have Liberals in here been standing up for those people? No, they have not.

The member for Hartley falls into the same trap as the member for Schubert: bemoaning every initiative and bleating for everything he wants in his electorate at the same time. The member for Hartley wants an upgrade of the park-and-ride at Paradise, and it is repeated in his newsletter. My question is: why did he vote against it? Why did he vote it away? He voted down the legislation that would have provided the funding for the upgrade of the park-and-ride. He claims that many schools in his electorate need funding. Why has he not taken this up with Christopher Pyne?

I have outlined time and time again the losses his schools and schools in Liberal seats face because of the federal Liberal government turning their back on a signed agreement. Our children, our parents, our schools and our teachers are left in the lurch. No Liberal—certainly not the member for Hartley—has stood up for them, and the member for Schubert considers them to be a waste of time.

The member for Hartley spoke at length today about the Attorney-General in estimates and his concerns. He did not ask one question—not one question—other than to read out the omnibus questions. The real frustration Liberal members must face is that a few shadows hog all the time. Little backbenchers like the member for Hartley do not get to ask questions and, when they do, they do themselves no credit.

I referred to the member for Hartley's newsletter. The state government made an announcement prior to the budget of the provision of the new cost-of-living concession. The federal Liberal government scrapped payments to the state for that but, lo and behold, in the member for Hartley's newsletter he claims they forced the state government to make this payment. Quite frankly, it is codswallop.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Chaffey has a point of order.

Mr WHETSTONE: Regarding the member for Hartley's newsletter, is there some relevance in what is coming out of the member for Wright?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are listening to her contribution and I am sure she is going to draw in the relevant matter in her last six minutes.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Thank you. The relevance is the fact that the member for Hartley's newsletter is talking about the state government's budget initiatives, and that is what I am referring to. He voted away the ability to raise funds for his park-and-ride that he so badly wants and his federal Liberal mates took away the pensioner concession, and now he is claiming credit for an initiative by this government in this budget to provide that concession.

Mr Goldsworthy: We fought hard for it and won it.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Sorry, what was that?

Mr Goldsworthy: We fought hard for it and won it.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is unparliamentary to interject.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Quite frankly—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am reminding members of standing order 142, under which members are entitled to be heard in silence. It will be your turns shortly, and we will be able to offer you the same protections. Member for Wright.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Thank you. Quite frankly, the contribution of these two members is far below par, trying to model themselves on people like the member for Unley, who has successfully seen off two leaders, and who campaigned in the seat of Ashford that needed only 0.6 per cent to change from Labor to Liberal but, under his stewardship, saw a swing against the Liberals and cost them government. For him, as an incumbent opposition member in an election where Labor was seeking a fourth term, to get a swing against him was truly remarkable. This is not someone any new member should try to emulate or look to as an example of how to conduct themselves.

I would suggest they look to the member for Goyder, who is always respectful, always considered in his comments but a tough opposition operator. Look at the new member for Mount Gambier. He conducts himself in a similar manner. The contributions of the member for Schubert and the member for Hartley are reminiscent of high school student debates. Even then, I would expect teachers would have challenged them about verifying the content—a grade C at best, as far as I am concerned.

I have been in this place for 17 years, and for 12 years in government. I could just about write the speeches—the same speeches for the same people, every year. They complain about estimates, but they do not know how to use it. They do not come in here and ask proper and effective questions about the budget, but I will say that the member for Chaffey actually did. The member for Chaffey is sitting here. He is not one of my favourite people in this chamber and he well knows that.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Point of order.

Mr KNOLL: It is unparliamentary to reflect on a member's presence within the house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is really, yes. The member for Wright is going to fix that up right now.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I am sorry for congratulating the member for Chaffey, but he is in the chamber—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, don't compound it.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: —and I did not think it was inappropriate to—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Knoll interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Schubert!

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I retract the fact that I said he is here, but what I am—

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Kavel! I am getting out the question time book. Who has got a tick? The member for Kavel gets his first call to order. Member for Schubert, you are already on your first warning, so you are on your second warning now, which is unfortunate because you are going to make a contribution shortly, aren't you? Okay, member for Wright.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: The member for Chaffey (and I was in the estimates committee that he came into) actually spent the time that he had asking questions about the budget. It was a refreshing change. We had the member for Schubert dashing in and dashing out as the TV cameras came in, along with the member for Unley in tow. When the Today Tonight cameras appeared on the balcony, so they appeared, asked their trashy questions and, as they left, the cameras left and off they went—not a very good model for any young member.

Quite frankly, I think he needs to take a step back and have a look at how he conducts himself. He likes to tell people he is interested in waste and he is monitoring the waste of government. You know what? I am interested in the codswallop. I am going to be monitoring what they say, what they do and what rubbish they bring into this place. So, he might be waste watch; I will be rubbish watch.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (17:08): After listening to that, I think anything would be a good speech really. I would like to provide a few views of estimates. Yes, there are good sides to estimates and there are the poor sides to estimates. I guess this year provided some entertainment in some of the portfolios. It showed some of the weaknesses in both sides of the debate, but to hear the member for Wright say that you, Deputy Speaker, were doing a poor job in your role as the Chair, allowing anything to be answered, allowing any question to be put forward to a minister or their department, I think is a sad indictment of your very sterling chairmanship.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We have a point of order from the member for Wright.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: One of the things I did not point out was the fact that the opposition come in here and consistently verbal—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hang on, I am waiting to hear.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I am giving my point of order like you make your questions.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you could point of order me, that would be useful.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Thank you. They—

Mr Whetstone: Number?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Sorry?

Mr Whetstone: Number, for your point of order?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You would probably just say 'relevance' and sit down.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: No, no.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am trying to help.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I didn't say any of the things that the member for Chaffey has attributed to me, and in no way—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, let's listen. You can make a personal explanation later.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: —was I reflecting on you.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let's listen to the member for Chaffey.

Mr WHETSTONE: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. You know, it is ironic that the member for Wright, sitting far back there on the backbench—I remember her in estimates.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, everybody! I am on my feet.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am on my feet. Now, we have upheld a point of order earlier this afternoon about reflecting on people being in the chamber and all those sorts of things. I just remind members that it is important not to waste the house's time. Let's all keep focus on what we are doing here. We have had a very big week. I know you are all keen to get back to your electorates, so let's just listen very quietly to the member for Chaffey and stay on task.

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WHETSTONE: Can't hear you back there. Anyway, I would just like to get back to the estimates committee—

An honourable member interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Listen!

Mr WHETSTONE: —and just give a reflection of previous years. I remember the member for Wright as a minister, screaming and yelling and doing anything bar answering the questions and, for her to come in here today and attack two brand new members of this chamber, and her being a 17-year veteran of this place, I think it is outrageous that she can try to make—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think it would be really good if we got onto the debate around the estimates committee.

Mr WHETSTONE: —examples of outstanding new members in this chamber.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let's use our time wisely.

Mr WHETSTONE: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the good work that all the departmental people—CEOs right the way down to bureaucrats—for the work that they put in to the answers for their ministers and their departments. I think they do an outstanding job. It is quite sad that, for those many months of work that is undertaken in the answer folders, in a lot of cases it is not used. Sometimes it is, but it just shows that, as the member for Bright has said, ministers who are across their brief do a good job. Ministers who are not across their brief have their weaknesses shown through the estimates period.

The public servants, the bureaucrats, the executives of departments do a good job, and they are the backbone behind a minister. The minister is just a mouthpiece for their department and, in some cases, shows great leadership; in other cases, not so great. Over my time here I have seen poor examples of ministers with answers. I have seen poor examples of questions asked. Just as importantly, what I would like to reiterate is about the estimates process. I think that we have to give recognition to those people who have put many hours into the backgrounding of ministers and departments to give the people of South Australia the answers to the budget lines. I think it was very revealing this year that there really was not a lot in the budget, there were a lot of cuts. There was a small amount of sweeteners. When we have unemployment where it is going, I see very little there that is going to stimulate unemployment.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. Caica: That's right. We don't want to stimulate unemployment!

Mr WHETSTONE: Hey? You are the kings of unemployment. What are you laughing at? Are you laughing at the people who are unemployed in South Australia?

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am back on my feet. I remind the member for Chaffey that he is on his first warning. Even though he is on his feet speaking, he can be pulled up and warned. I am asking all other members on my right to cooperate and to listen to him in silence which will be the courtesy accorded to you when you each have an opportunity to speak.

Mr WHETSTONE: This is what a little bit of criticism—and I have given balance on both sides of the estimates, whether it was the government, whether it was the opposition, and yet we just continually see that slanging match, particularly when ministers cannot answer questions, will not answer questions. It is a bit like question time. There are no answers in question time, let me tell you, it is all about the questions, no answers.

We have members on the government benches over there laughing about the unemployment rate in South Australia. I think it is at crisis point: 8.2 per cent and it is heading north. There is no sign of it heading south, not even close, and yet we have members of parliament and ministers laughing about it. I think it is a disgrace. If we look at unemployment in regional South Australia, it is continuing to decline. If we look at the government's focus on regional South Australia, they are looking more at centralisation than they are at decentralisation. Again, it is about looking after their own backyard.

Part of my role during the estimates period was with minister Hunter on water, the River Murray, DEWNR and the arms of DEWNR, the EPA, Zero Waste and climate change. Recreation and sport, racing, investment and trade, they were some of the roles that I was also a part of in the estimates process. I pay respect to those ministers who are across their brief. They answered the questions and understood what the questions were about.

I want to reflect on some of the portfolios, and I will touch on water and the environment. While there was a big announcement by the Treasurer about the Save the River Murray levy, that was just a cost shifting exercise and nothing more. What we are going to see now is—get ready for it—the NRM levy is going to be increased or we are going to see programs within NRM extinguished. There is nothing more than that. All it is is a cost shifting exercise from the general ratepayer in South Australia to the people who are using the water and the people who are using the NRM services—nothing more, nothing less. I think it is a disgrace. It is a cost shifting exercise that was touted as a win for South Australians, but when we get into the detail it is nothing of the sort.

We are seeing separation packages within DEWNR, within water. It has been replaced by a contract workforce—nothing more simple. I asked the minister questions about the exact impacts, why there were memos going out, why there were emails going out, putting the executive to task to undertake setting up a workforce under a contract regime. Potentially, that could be good. I think the voluntary separation packages are good, but we do need to leave a workforce in place.

I know the previous minister for water would agree with me that those departments have been cut to the bone. They have been absolutely cut to the bone and there is very little more there that the government can cut. It is a sad state of play, particularly with that side of their politics of looking after the environment and looking after water security for South Australia.

In asking questions of the Minister for Recreation and Sport, and Racing, I wanted to pay homage to the Office for Recreation and Sport, who work particularly hard in this area. I note that they have taken over 4,500 telephone calls from community organisations, in excess of 6,000 emails, attended more than 100 individual meetings with clubs, associations, councils and MPs and they have assessed about 1,720 grant applications. I think they do an outstanding job and the recognition those people get is probably quite underrated.

I raised a motion in this house for the need for grassroots sport in South Australia. I went to the front bench and asked the two Independents whether they would support my motion. The minister said that there is no cut to the community recreation and sports facilities program—no cut—yet it was revealed during estimates that there is a $3.5 million cut. I asked for the Independents' support, the minister said no cut, so they sat down and supported him without doing any background on a vote. It just shows that maybe they need to do a little bit more homework on things they are going to vote on and back the government on.

The minister said the decision was made by the previous sports minister, who is present in the gallery—that decision was made when he was not minister, so it was not really his responsibility. He has had three years to overturn that community grants funding cut—three years—and he has done nothing other than rollover on it. The Office for Recreation and Sport advised against any reduction to this funding cut, yet the current minister has just rolled over on it, and I think it is a shame, because the grassroots sporting community will be that much poorer for it.

In the state budget, $1 million of this cut was offset by spending on the $50 voucher scheme, which the minister denied, saying it was all new money. Well, it is not new money when you cut out 3½ from one program and put money into another program. Again, it is just cost shifting, it is grandstanding. The taxpayers South Australia should be made aware of this, and I hope that through my contribution today they will hear about it—I will make sure that many of them do.

There has been no official grant review since 2011 despite cuts to major funding. The minister said that the Office for Recreation and Sport undertakes its own review annually, but it is considering a full grants review every three years. By 2018 we might see another review. We do not even see these grants increase with inflation, and we do not see any form of support other than just the basic raw grant funding, which has diminished by almost half.

Things are tight across the general budget. We would take more money any day of the week. It is of course tight economic times, but we do not have any such money, particularly for top-up funds, within sport. We have seen a great stadium built in Adelaide, and we have seen South Australia relish the great stadium, but that is as far as it goes. We have got our stadium and now we are just seeing grassroots sport cut more and more.

There were 21,400 vouchers redeemed for a total of $1.06 million to March by having a different model of delivery program. One half-time person managed to do the grant program this year. It is envisaged that the voucher program will escalate by about four times, yet there is no budget to put on any more staff to address these voucher programs. I think that people will be worse off for it. The 2,180 registrations of interest have been made, and 1,389 eligible providers emailed and provided with a username and password, and 1,095 accepted the vouchers. It is getting out there. It is a program that has been well accepted, but the government is a bad sport in funding these grassroots sporting programs. While they give $50 to individuals, they are cutting $3½ million out of community sport.

The number of athlete scholarship services dropped from 300 in 2013-14 to 220 in 2014-15, and it is targeted to only 230 in 2015-16. This is at a time when we are leading up to the Commonwealth Games, the Olympic Games and world championships, yet we can see what the priorities of the government are when it comes to sport. It is just cut and keep cutting and keep cutting. They are only interested in the big ticket items, where we can open up a big stadium or put some polish on something. I think it is just bad sportsmanship and, again, it shows what this government's priorities are when it comes to the real world of sport, the grassroots level of sport.

The recreation and sport youth traineeship incentive program was discontinued by the Office for Recreation and Sport in 2014-15. The minister claimed it was due to a pattern of decreasing applicants for the incentive allocations and because a large number of organisations funded under the program had the capacity to fund positions themselves. How are sportspeople able to fund themselves, particularly heading to an elite level? It really does beggar belief. When we send our athletes to these great sporting events, the great world games, we are always looking for a champion, yet this government is prepared to walk away from programs.

We listen to the minister talk about the Commonwealth Games bid, and he just did not know whether it was worth the bid money. He did not know whether it was really money well spent—no rush. So, where are the planning stages, minister? It will be 2018, 2019 when the bid is put in. The Commonwealth Games bid year is 2026, and I think that South Australia will be a much better state if we do get a bid and we do win that bid.

Let us be smart about it. We are not going to put money into a bid that we know that we are not going to win. It is about doing your homework and making sure that it will be, perhaps, Australia's turn to get the games here and move on. The minister needs to really sharpen his pencil and to work out exactly why he should be putting the $5 million in to outlay basically the tender. Just imagine the facilities that would be upgraded; look at the partnerships between the federal, state and local governments to make South Australia a better sporting state and to give us much better facilities.

Again, questions were asked of the state budget. How much of that money is actually designated to women in sport? I notice that members on both sides of the chamber at that time said, 'That's a great question. We would really like to know where women and sport is within these programs.' We really did get a wishy-washy answer about women in sport. The minister blamed the media for not giving any support for women in sport, and I think that is an absolute cop-out.

The minister should be about setting an example and promoting women in sport. It is not about blaming the media or blaming someone else as to why there is no support there for women in sport. I did want to touch on investment and trade, and I guess that the minister implied that the opposition did not support overseas trade missions. However, the question was about whether the ratio of 1:4—one business to four public servants—was money well spent.

I reckon that if you do pretty easy maths there would have been close to $1 million spent on five ministers and a Premier and 80 public servants on that trade mission. Now, yes, trade missions are a great platform for businesses to work off, but is that money best spent here in South Australia at a time when we have seen trade programs cut, we have seen representation in other countries cut and we have seen that support mechanism in place there for businesses that want to be exporters, that want to trade and being too hard to achieve with the Gateway program?

The minister is working towards making it easier to access the money. I am sure that he is having a tough time getting money out of the Treasurer. I am told that the Treasurer is a bit of a taskmaster when it comes to anything that is not his golden duck. What I would like to see is that the government support these exporters, support the economy and support small business at a time when we need it. We need jobs in South Australia, and, at the moment, the government is not doing enough.

The Export Partnership Program is oversubscribed—48 applications for round 1 and just 12 were given grants instead of putting further funding to go directly to our exporters to access those markets. South Australia is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars travelling but we are not actually supporting the people who are going to do the exporting. Again, the priorities are just all wrong.

The minister claimed reported commercial outcomes from the trip, and I questioned what sort of real, tangible outcomes do we see? We saw photo opportunities, we saw a lot of handshaking. We saw a good exercise with the Premier and the minister standing next to Chinese government dignitaries, but it is hard work—the three and four years prior to those photo opportunities—that those businesses have undertaken to make sure that they get their product right, to get their packaging right, to get it on the right platform when it gets to China to make sure it is what the Chinese business people want.

I think that those businesses are doing a great job, and I think the government just needs to get out of the way and let those people do their job. The China Advisory Council has not met for 15 months and the India Advisory Council has met once in nine months. So, really, what are the minister's priorities? Is it about photo opportunities or is it about addressing these councils that are giving good, on-ground advice? The trade strategies, again were questionable. The investment attraction fund, we will wait and see how that turns out. International education has not met its strategic plan. I will continue my remarks at a later time.

Time expired.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (17:29): I am pleased to make a contribution in relation to what did and did not take place in the estimates committees. I particularly want to commend the members for Bright and Chaffey, whose contributions I have sat here and listened to over the past little while, for the accurate assessment and summation they have made concerning how the estimates committees are conducted.

I would like to make an observation. I think it was the 14th series of estimates committees I have been involved with and, this year, if I total up things correctly, I think I sat in on 10 different portfolio areas of responsibility across both chambers. I want to make the observation the members for Chaffey and Bright and, no doubt, other members on this side of the house have made, that is, the more competent ministers conduct themselves reasonably well, they do not take questions from government members, they do not take Dorothy Dixers, they do not make long opening statements that wind down the clock and they do not take a lot of questions on notice.

The less competent ministers always look to take Dorothy Dixers and they obviously always have pre-written answers to those questions, again in an effort to wind down the clock. It is really the usual tactics from the government in relation to how they deal with estimates. As I said, if a difficult question arises that might pose a bit of a problem or it is in an area where the minister feels vulnerable, they will often take the question on notice and come back at quite a later stage in the process and deliver an answer.

Another tactic I have noticed is that the government members sitting on the committee raise points of order on anything that gets a bit tricky or a bit difficult for the minister, particularly a less competent or inexperienced minister. It is a tactic that the government members raise a point of order if they see an opportunity to, again, wind down the clock so the minister is not necessarily exposed to more questions from the opposition. I could also comment on the member for Wright's contribution, but I do not particularly want to waste my precious time in the house on making comments in relation to what that member has said.

The first committee I sat in on was the one relating to agriculture, food, fisheries and Primary Industries and Resources. I am very interested in agriculture, horticulture and viticulture because all those primary production pursuits are undertaken in the electorate of Kavel. Obviously, we have a big horticultural industry, with the apple and pear industry, and we have a big viticultural industry, with the vineyards and wineries. Also, we have an area to the east of the electorate through what we call the Bremer Valley, through the townships of Callington and through there, which is an agricultural district. While the electorate of Kavel does not cover every area of primary production, particularly obviously in relation to fisheries and things of that nature, we do cover a reasonable spectrum of production.

Agriculture and the associated industries are a key part of our state's economy. They are major industries within the state, and they are a significant economic driver within South Australia. It was one of the first industries that commenced when the state was settled. Farming, agriculture, animal husbandry, running stock and the like are what actually got the state established, and then mining and other activities ensued.

I know from my own personal experience about how the state benefits if we have a strong, vibrant and profitable agricultural sector. I worked in rural South Australia in my previous banking career for quite a number years (probably 10 or a dozen years, if I count them up) and I know the effect that a good season has out there in the rural sector, and I know the really positive impact it has on the local economy—and when I say 'local economy' I am talking about the machinery dealers and the stock and station agents.

In banking, customers would pay their loans, make loan repayments, and if they had good seasons they would look to buy new machinery, which would obviously help the banking industry; we would write new business and keep things clocking over there. They might buy some more land if a neighbour wanted to retire or for whatever reason wanted to exit the farming industry, so the whole thing cranked along.

The government knows that agriculture is a key part of our economy and, while they pay lip service in terms of supporting the industry, we do not see any real tangible results from their efforts. There are trade missions to China, and that is all good, but the things that really matter are the free trade agreements the federal government negotiates through the hard work of the very competent and accomplished federal minister, Andrew Robb. He an outstanding minister, and he and his department and others have worked very hard to achieve these free trade agreements.

But what do we see from the Labor Party in relation to the free trade agreements? We see at their national conference on the weekend that they voted against it. We have asked questions in the house today about who voted for them, but no answer. The Premier was not there; he had to go off and do something else. Well, that is all very well and good. And then we have the unions, the CFMEU, running television advertisements opposing free trade agreements with China.

We have had the Treasurer get up and try to lecture members on this side of the house on where we need to take control of what is happening. Well, my advice to government members is: you need to take control of what your party is doing and what the left wing of your party is doing in terms of the CFMEU. You, the members opposite, the government members, need to take control of what is happening within your party structure because it is painting a very negative image to a key market—the Chinese market—when we have the national conference of the Labor Party voting against these free trade agreements.

It is a very bad look and it is sending a very bad message, and the government members, as I said, need to seize control of what is going on. We do not need the Treasurer lecturing us when he had trouble in his own backyard over in Melbourne on the weekend. The Treasurer needs to look in his back garden, clean his mess up and take control of what these left wing unions are doing in terms of the CFMEU.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: The government members need to check out what they are doing before they look to criticise anything over this side of the house. I move on in relation to some other committees I sat in on. There was the Disability Services committee, and there were some issues with the NDIS which were raised. Obviously, it is a very important scheme. There was also the committee in relation to Veterans' Affairs. I think the veterans' affairs portfolio is actually very important, and I think it should have a higher profile. I think it needs a higher profile in government.

I have made this statement before: everybody knows a veteran. It does not matter whether your close relatives have not been involved in serving in the Defence Force; everybody knows a veteran. It really goes to the heart of our community and our society. I think how we deal with veterans' affairs is indicative of what is important to a government and to the parliament.

As I said, we should honour and value the contribution made by our veterans, and then, obviously, care for them on their return to their duties on Australian soil. We know that PTSD is a big issue. It is or may be an issue for every returned serviceman and woman. It can affect any serviceman or woman from any conflict over the history of our nation, whether in World War I, World War II, Vietnam—we know there are some issues with the Vietnam vets—Korea, and the more recent conflicts in which we have been involved in Iraq, Afghanistan and other areas of conflict. I believe that the Veterans' Affairs portfolio should have a higher profile within government.

We also had a look at emergency services. I sat in on the Emergency Services committee and we raised questions in relation to the emergency services levy hike. I made these comments and observations in my budget speech, but really, the Premier—sorry, not the Premier; well, him too—the Treasurer has had his way with the 9 per cent ESL hike. He has got his way in terms of having a backdoor tax on the family home.

The Treasurer was out there early on saying, 'We are going to consider it; we want to talk about it, but it is not our policy,' prevaricating and wobbling around it. But, he has got his way, because we have seen the 9 per cent hike on the ESL, which is a direct tax on the family property. That issue was raised.

The member for Morphett, as shadow minister, was the opposition lead in the Emergency Services estimates committee. We asked the minister about the ESL hike, and he talked about how we needed additional funding for the Sampson Flat fires. The question was: what are we going to do if we have another bad fire next year?

Mr Duluk: Put up the ESL.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Does that mean that we are going to put up the ESL again? We have a 9 per cent hike; does that mean we are going to have another hike in the ESL if we have a bad fire event in the 2015-16 fire season? The minister could not really answer that question. This is a pretty fundamental issue we are dealing with, because we want to know the answers to those questions. We need to know, and the public of South Australia needs to know, if we are in for another ESL hike. It is very important. Every property owner in South Australia needs to have a clear answer to that question, but unfortunately the minister—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Who created this mechanism for this land tax you are so opposed to?

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I will tell you who created it: the Bannon Labor government created the need for it, because they bankrupted the CFS.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: The CFS was serious—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, I am on my feet! Sit down; stop the noise. Members are reminded—if I could just let the Treasurer know he is already on his second warning and the member for Kavel has been called to order. Irrespective of the fact that you are on your feet speaking, I will not have any hesitation in warning you, and the Treasurer will want to stay, I am sure, to hear the remainder of the remarks, so we will just go straight back to your speech.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Thank you, Deputy Speaker.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, Treasurer!

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: It prompts me to talk about the reason for the establishment of the ESL. It was the previous Labor Bannon government that almost bankrupted the CFS. They had an enormous debt that they could not manage and the poor old CFS volunteers were out there running sausage sizzles and fundraising events to try to assist the brigade. I will tell you: the CFS brigade in Mount Barker were so short of money (they had two units in their station) and so bereft of funds from the previous Bannon Labor government that they could only afford the diesel to put one unit out on the ground if there was a call. I know that for a fact, because the brigade members have spoken to me about that.

If the Treasurer wants to raise issues like that, we have got all day and every day to respond. It was only out of the necessity to get the CFS and emergency services adequate and satisfactory levels of funding that we introduced the ESL. It was a consequence of the abject of failure of a previous Labor government. I only have a short time to go, Deputy Speaker.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: I move for an extension of time.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: An extension of time has been called for. Unfortunately, it is not part of my prerogative to grant.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I just want to close my remarks in relation to the local government estimates committee I sat in on. The member for Bright gave a pretty good summation of what took place in the local government estimates.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: And you remember that we did have to call him to order about reflecting on members in particular?

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Yes, and the Minister for Local Government is a genuine person. There is no question about—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think either way we don't need to reflect.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: —his integrity and his—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let's just concentrate on the speech.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: He is an honest person. I do not doubt the integrity of the minister for one moment. However, anybody who observed the minister in the estimates committee knows—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You won't be sailing too close to the wind.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: —he was struggling.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You won't continue in that way.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: He relied heavily on his advisers. There were Dorothy Dixers and every tactic, every trick in the book that the government has to lessen the time for exposure to opposition questions was taken. As I said, I do not doubt the integrity of the Minister for Local Government for one moment, but any observation shows that he was struggling.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Treasurer has a point of order?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: All the good humour aside, personal reflections on members are disorderly and I would ask him to withdraw.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have asked the member for Kavel in his last minute to not reflect on the member in question.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I take your guidance, Deputy Speaker. Another important area of the estimates committee I was part of was that of road safety. I have a very strong interest in road safety, obviously representing an electorate that has many kilometres of winding road, up and down dale. I have said this before and I will keep on saying until I leave this place: I am a very strong advocate for guardrails. I think guardrails—whatever you want to call them: crash barriers, Armco; whatever the name is—are a very important tool in terms of infrastructure and improving our road safety, not just on the Adelaide Hills roads but all around the state.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (17:50): I rise to give my summation on what I do classify as being one of the greatest weeks on the calendar; it does rival Christmas. The reason I say that and the reason that I tweeted that was not for any other reason than the fact that it is the greatest opportunity that we have in this house, as new members of parliament, to understand the workings of government. I learned a great deal of things over the course of this week about the way government works, and for that I am entirely grateful. A lot of those things are too numerous to mention and go through, but again through the course of this week I did learn quite a bit. Sitting there and forensically looking at a budget paper, understanding in great detail some of the finer points of what the government is spending money on, I think is an extremely valid use of time and I am extremely grateful for the opportunity.

Can I say, though, that there have been reflections made upon me in this house and I am not going to respond to them directly, in accordance with Madam Deputy Speaker's wishes. However, I do take as a badge of honour the fact that I have had some comments made against me, because it shows that I have maybe had a level of success. Can I say that in this place I think anybody who sticks their head above the parapet has given other people the opportunity to chop it off, but the only alternative is to sit there quietly and do nothing, and I think that is a great waste of the opportunity that we have in this place.

What I would say is that the questions that I have asked and the issues that I seek to attack are the issues themselves and are not about the people who come behind them. It is the issues themselves and I will not resile from that fact. I will not resile from being frank and fearless in the questions that I ask, because I do not do this for me. I do not do this for any sense of personal satisfaction. I do this because I am here as a representative of the taxpayers of South Australia, and they deserve an opposition that will stand up and not be scared to ask questions that may from time to time attract criticism, because that is what they expect us to do.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Treasurer, order!

Mr KNOLL: For the 25,000-odd members of the electorate of Schubert, I am proud of the questions that I ask and my conduct. I would like to also point out that criticising spending will often not win you many friends, and I really do not envy the Treasurer's job in saying no. I would suggest that the Treasurer probably needs to say no little bit more often. In doing so, we may be able to get the budget back on to an even keel.

I came into this place and in my maiden speech stood up as a small government conservative. I would be doing myself and the values that I hold so dearly an injustice by not standing up, and I am unapologetic and will continue to be a harsh critic of government spending in a whole host of areas, because I believe that is entirely consistent with what I was sent here to do.

It is quite interesting that I did not ask that many questions on the Barossa in this past week. The reason for that is that there is nothing in this budget for my electorate—nothing! In the regional statement and the breakdown of government spending in regional areas, it breaks down into the seven RDA boundaries. RDA Barossa had the lowest spending—I think it was about $6.2 million off the top of my head—of any RDA region across South Australia, and it only outlined two specific projects.

The first of those projects is a dialysis unit in Gawler, which was already announced last year, and we are extremely grateful for that. We are extremely grateful for those four chairs. The second lot of that spending is the Evanston Gardens Primary School upgrade. They are both very worthy projects, but both are not in my electorate, so it is very hard to ask a question about them. So when it is suggested that we try to find spurious ways to tie government programs to the lines on the budget paper, it was pretty difficult for me because there were no lines to talk about.

I did congratulate the tourism minister when he discussed the continuation of the Barossa Be Consumed campaign into the 2015-16 year. That is a good win for the Barossa, but that is the only win that we had. For a region that is so productive for this state, it is an absolute disgrace. I will not cover that topic again because I covered it in my budget reply speech.

The other question that has been put is that somehow I have attacked worthy government budget spending because I attacked budget overruns within government spending, but I am not the one who set those budgets. All I am doing is holding the government to account for their own figures. These are not my budgets. I do not make them up. They are made up by Treasury, they are made up by government, and it is the job of the opposition to hold the government to account on their own numbers. So, to suggest that I was somehow criticising spending that is worthy because it blows over budget, I make no bones about whether that spending is worthy.

When the government turns around and says, 'When people rock up to a hospital, we treat them,' that is exactly right, but it is not like that is somehow a factor that could have slipped their mind. People have been rocking up to hospitals, every year, since the first hospital was built. This government has been here for 13 years. They should know very well how many people rock up to emergency departments. This idea that somehow, in 2015, the flu season was invented is an absolute joke.

Mr Gardner: Every winter, there is another one.

Mr KNOLL: It is like it is a surprise. It is potentially like the goldfish swirling around the fishbowl. Every time it gets to the front and sees the bottom of the fishbowl, where you get the gravel and the little castle, it thinks, 'Hang on, there is a castle here, fantastic!' It will swirl around again, 20 seconds later, 'Oh my gosh! There is a castle.' These things should be known to government, and especially after 13 years of this Labor administration, so I definitely hold the government to account on those figures. I definitely hold the government to account on their own figures.

One question I did not get to ask in estimates, and I am not going to reflect on members' presence in this house but I will put forward this question: in the Appropriation Bill—and I would like to get a hold of a copy of the Appropriation Bill—it outlines in the first schedule a list of spending by different departments and administered agencies within government. It lists a figure and, off the top of my head, I am going to say it is $12.039 billion worth of spending.

If you go to the end of Budget Paper 3 in general government sector spending, I think the figure is $17.055 billion. In the Supply Bill, we also had an appropriation of money, and I think again it is $3.039 billion. The question I have is that, in the Appropriation Bill it suggests that governments must not spend in excess of the amounts stipulated in schedule 1. I will read it out. Thank you very much, member for Morialta. It says here:

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

So, here we go. What did I say? It is $12.037 billion. I think I was about right. My point is that $12.037 billion does not cover off on all the spending the government makes. The question that I had that I unfortunately did not get to ask is: this bill says that the government spending 'must not exceed the amount set out opposite each of those purposes in that Schedule'.

Does that mean that contingency money is built into this budget—in which case, I will shut up because I would hate for the Treasurer to have to say what contingencies there are and potentially give different government departments the understanding of what leeway they have in their budget—or is it the case that, when the government blows their own budget, they are indeed exceeding the amount set out opposite each of those purposes in that schedule?

It is a question that nobody I have asked has been able to answer. I would love, if the Treasurer was indeed listening, to be able to get an answer to that question because I think it is quite pertinent. Certainly, if you put the $12.037 billion together with the $3 billion or whatever it is from the Supply Bill, it does not add up to the $17.055 billion worth of general government spending that the government is going to undertake.

I am just a simple sausage maker. As a new member to this place, I think I can, with a level of ignorance, ask these questions and have somebody give me a very sensible answer, pat me on the head and say, 'Everything is okay. This is what that really means.' So I put that on the record.

Having said that, it was a wonderful estimate season but, unfortunately, it did throw up some things where government spending has been, shall we say, suboptimal. First off, we have the fact that the Minister for Tourism spent $700 on a limousine to drive him to and from the NRL grand final. He also suggested there were a couple of other stops along the way. That is all well and good, except for the fact that that same limousine needed to wait for 1½ hours out the front of the NRL grand final, waiting for that grand final to happen.

Sitting extended beyond 18:00 on motion of Hon. A. Koutsantonis.

Mr KNOLL: He spent $700 on a limousine that spent 1½ hours waiting in front of the NRL grand final for the minister to finish to take him back to his accommodation. I think that is a bit rough; I definitely think that is a bit rough. Then we found out that the minister spent—well, there is conjecture about the figure. The way I equate the pound to dollar ratio is about $2.20 Australian per pound which says to me that the minister spent $150 on an Argentinian bottle of wine and gave this fantastic answer where he said, 'I tried that wine and it was actually a good wine.' Well, for $150 it would want to be more than just good.

He continued, 'Argentinia is producing good wine.' Well, again, I do not think that a $150 bottle of wine is representative of Argentinian wine. It is also not representative of what everyday consumers are consuming and understanding Argentinian wine to be. I do not care which country it has come from, if I am spending $150 on a bottle of wine, it had better blow my mind. He continued, 'We cannot go out there and say that Argentinia has crap wine and it is really bad if they actually have good wine because it points to our own credibility by our talking it down.'

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Where's Argentinia?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr KNOLL: The minister continued, 'That is the reason I went for an Argentinian over a South Australian wine, but I can tell you that when I was talking to the manager of the establishment I was definitely spruiking South Australian wine and congratulating him for the list that they had, which was very extensive.' That is all well and good. It is basically saying do as I say but not as I do, I will drink the Argentinian wine but spruik the South Australian wine and thank you for having the South Australian wine, but I am certainly not going to drink it.

I would suggest that if we were going to look at estimating Australian wine with Argentinian wine, it might do well to understand what comparable bottles of Australian wine sell for and then maybe look at Argentinian wine within that same bracket. Can I tell you that in London at the moment, a bottle of Jacob's Creek will set you back between £4 or £5 and then there are other Australian wines that are better that go up from there, but let's say four or five times that amount, so £20 to £25 is probably where it is at. That is the type of wine that maybe the minister, if he was to be credible on this issue, would actually have drunk, be he did not. He went through his answer, and that is all fine. We move on to the Minister for Social Housing—

Mr Gardner: The member for Ramsay.

Mr KNOLL: Actually, she is the member for Ramsay—admitting that the CASIS system was woefully over budget. In fact, it went from $600,000 in the end to $7.7 million and, at that $7.7 million figure, they decided that the system still was not going to work, so that entire amount of money is wasted. The minister told the media that she was disappointed with how the project was managed. Well, can I tell you that from the South Australian taxpayers' point of view, so are we. I think the minister should give herself a bit of a cross in red pen for that government spending because that is $7.7 million that we are never going to get back.

The minister has said but it is okay because we are going to try again and put $2.2 million in for a new system. Now, I will say this at the outset: I am willing to give the minister the benefit of the doubt, and I would dearly love for $2.2 million to deliver a system by which pensioner concession cards can be administered electronically. On behalf of the people of South Australia, we wish her the best of luck in her endeavours and we look forward to updates to the house, a wonderful ministerial statement in which she claims victory—mission accomplished on delivering a concession card holder IT system for the people of South Australia! We dearly wish.

We also have a previous revelation of the fact that the government spent $226,000 on a website promoting STEM subjects, only to collapse that website 12 months later and put the information into a different website—$226,000 of money that we are never going to get back. I know the Deputy Premier often refers to himself as a bit of a Luddite but can I say on that point that it would do well on behalf of the people of South Australia to please learn how to send and receive an email, please learn what a website is, please learn what the interwebs are because it may help us to actually get better value for money. I do not want to go into it, but there is a whole host and hundreds of millions of dollars that have been wasted on IT projects across this government.

We then move onto the Treasurer's estimates. I did appreciate the Treasurer's estimates. I do very much respect a minister who will sit there and say, 'No government questions. I am prepared to stand and fall on my own answers and I am prepared to think of myself as well enough across my brief that I will take the questions you have in the right light.' You can tell this by the number of questions that are asked and the back and forth that happens. As soon as there are no government questions you do not have to try to jam everything into one question because you know that after the third one we are going to government questions and the next 15 minutes is wasted.

So, we did get that from the Treasurer. We also got that from the Attorney-General, who at various points did not even have advisers. I think that is what government should be. Estimates should be ministers testing themselves as being across their brief. It is also a chance for ministers to learn about the little rabbit warrens we send them down to try to find very specific bits of information about the government they lead. We did ask questions of the Treasurer on his four-day journey to Canada and the $52,000—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Ten-day.

Mr KNOLL: Ten-day trip to Canada—sorry, the four-day convention in Canada and a 10-day trip, $52,000, and he decided to take a couple of ministerial staff along. We also asked questions of the minister with regard to ESL spending. When we look at the Economic and Finance Committee reports of last year and this year on ESL spending, it says that from budget to budget there was going to be an increase from $30.1 million to $48.3 million in expenditure in regions 1, 2 and 3, which are the regional areas.

We could not find, by adding up SES, CFS, SAFECOM and MFS—even if we included the MFS, although they are not in regions 1, 2 and 3 really; there is one in Tanunda but most of their spending would be in metropolitan South Australia—we could not get a figure that added up to $18 million. The Treasurer has committed to taking that on notice to bring back an answer about where our $18 million is because the truth is that there are parts of regional South Australia that, through their ESL payments, subsidise other parts of South Australia.

I move on to say that the minister was also asked questions about why his trip was not disclosed in the proactive disclosure requirements, which are normal, and he said, 'Well, actually, we don't have an answer.' That answer mirrored the answer the Minister for Health gave about not uploading his travel to the government website in proactive disclosure. But it actually does not matter, when they do disclose it does not really—and when I say 'does not really', it does not comply with Department of the Premier and Cabinet Circular 35. When they disclose the cost of the travel, they disclose the total cost. Well and good. But in the policy document, DPC Circular 35, it states:

5. Policy

2. Details of Ministers' overseas travel arrangements including the cost of travel paid for out of the budgets of Ministers and/or agencies.

All we get is two or three sentences to understand what the minister did on that trip. I do not think that on any normal person's understanding that constitutes details of ministers' overseas travel arrangements. That is not something that is unique to one minister, that is all ministers, that is a decision taken by ministers across government.

I would call on the government, in the interests of being fair dinkum about your travel expenses, and we all have to be accountable for them, to please provide that information in light of your own guidelines. Again, these are not guidelines that we put forward, these are the government's own guidelines, which were updated on June 2015. There you go. So, I daresay there are issues there that the government needs to answer.

We were trying to understand waste in terms of the scrapped new courts precinct. We have an understanding that there was $300,000 that was spent on a scoping study, but the government was not able to give us answers as to what other costs were incurred before that project was scrapped. Given there was a scoping study done—I think Activate 408 was the preferred tenderer—given they were gone so far down the process, I am extremely certain there is a significant amount of waste in terms of the work that was done that was ultimately then scrapped by this government. Again, funds and money that we are never going to see again.

In transport there was quite an interesting one where the government has not electrified Gawler but has electrified Seaford but still bought 22 railcars instead of the 17 (the 16 plus one spare) that it needed for the Seaford line. Those railcars, those trains, cost $10 million apiece. So, we spent $50 million on railcars that we do not necessarily need.

We are also maintaining those trains when they are not necessarily needed. This is where government decisions to scrap and delay projects mean that not only has $50 million been scrapped in terms of the Gawler electrification and the assets written down by that amount of money but that we also now have other assets that are not being used to their full potential because the government chooses to make the decisions that they do.

We also questioned the CEO of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, a man who, different from the previous CEO of DPC, got an extra $100,000 on his salary. What he did not disclose is the $35,000 a year he gets for a car allowance. I really want to see that car because for $35,000 I am sure we could get quite imaginative about the types of cars you could get. The fact is that that was not disclosed in schedule 2 of the CEO's contract and we were not able to get answers as to why that was not done.

We did get answers, however, about the 11 sacked executives from DPC, which cost the people of South Australia $2.74 million, not including statutory entitlements for early termination payments. To sum up, these examples of waste are exactly why we need to ask questions during estimates—because South Australian taxpayers deserve answers.

Time expired.

Mr DULUK (Davenport) (18:10): I also rise and appreciate the opportunity to reflect on my first estimates processes, and in doing that thank the member for Goyder for guiding me through my first estimates last Thursday during the planning portfolio. As a new member of parliament, it was my first experience of estimates and one that I was looking forward to participating in. In my eagerness, I put my hand up to sit on 11 committees.

I understand there have been quite a few comments already about this process, and quite a few of my colleagues, probably on both sides of the house, have not shared my enthusiasm for estimates. However, as an accountant and a banker, what more could you like than looking at the budget in the estimates process? Indeed, I view it as a great chance to learn and be involved in the parliamentary process.

My experience across those committees was interesting, although not as enlightening as I hoped it would be. The estimates process itself is designed to provide an opportunity to examine the budget in greater detail so that we can better understand the expenditure outcomes and policy highlights from the previous year, seek further explanation of the policy targets for the year ahead, and gain greater clarification on how the budget will be rolled out across the forthcoming year.

Estimates should be an integral part of the process of ensuring executive accountability to the parliament. Given its purpose, I am more than a little disappointed with the outcome of this estimates process. The lengthy opening statements delivered by some ministers, the use of Dorothy Dixers, the verbatim listing of organisations and grants programs as answers to questions, and the cumbersome answering of many of the opposition's questions limited the effectiveness of the committee hearings. In saying that, though, I do commend the Treasurer, the Attorney-General and the Minister for the Arts, when I had them in my committee, for their use of estimates and for not taking Dorothy Dixers.

It is worth noting that a significant amount of time and effort are invested in preparing and engaging in estimates, not just on both sides of the chamber but also by government departments. I would like to acknowledge and thank the efforts of the public servants involved in the process, not just those who attended the estimates committee but also the many others who assisted in preparing the countless pages of background information, talking points and answers for their respective ministers. I do feel for them and wonder if their time could be better spent because, after all the countless pages of background information, talking points and answers prepared for the ministers, there was a number of ministers who said they would take the question on notice and report back to the house.

Notwithstanding my concerns about the effectiveness of the process, I turn my attention to the budget and estimates committee hearings. Firstly, I would like to highlight my disappointment that the budget and estimates process does not offer further effective benefit for local businesses and residents in my electorate of Davenport. As I noted in my maiden speech earlier this year, road infrastructure, public transport and a dedicated transport master plan for the Mitcham Hills area have been a priority for local residents, councils and politicians for some time. The central corridor through the Mitcham Hills must be upgraded to deliver improved bushfire safety for residents and reduce peak hour bottlenecks that frustrate the daily commute on Old Belair Road, Main Road, Flagstaff Road, and many other local roads.

I appreciate the Attorney-General and Minister for Planning's acknowledgement during the planning committee hearing that there is potential for serious congestion in this corridor with 'only one way in and one way out as residents sitting on top of the gully'. I strongly encourage the Attorney-General and Minister for Planning to remember this during the review of the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide and to prioritise upgrading this important corridor.

Transport and land use are crucial to achieving measurable outcomes and integration in this area, and I welcome the Minister for Transport and the Minister for Planning highlighting the importance of linking these two areas in the Integrated Transport and Land Use Plan. I am also pleased to see the need for the review of the 30-year plan to incorporate the Integrated Transport and Land Use Plan, and this has been acknowledged on the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure website. I look forward to material outcomes for my electorate when the review is delivered later this year.

I also look forward to discussion of the Adelaide-Melbourne railway freight corridor. Priority 32 of the government's Integrated Transport and Land Use Plan for Outer Adelaide prioritises 'improvements to the Adelaide-Melbourne railway corridor through Adelaide Hills to allow for double stacking'. I would urge the Minister for Transport and Planning to give tangible consideration to improving South Australia's freight network.

Motorists experience lengthy delays at crossings as freight trains make the slow passage through the Hills, and residents suffer the intense noise emitted by the wheel squeals which often exceeds 100 decibels, a level that exceeds the state and federal noise guidelines and international guidelines. The health and safety concerns generated by the current passage of freight along this rail were constantly raised by my predecessor in this house, and I will also continue to champion this cause at every opportunity.

Identifying and delivering a long-term strategy for freight movement in South Australia is vital not just for the residents of the Mitcham Hills and surrounding suburbs but also for residents in the electorates of Ashford, Unley and Waite, especially for businesses importing and exporting goods that will benefit from the more efficient movement of their products. Indeed, this would be a better benefit for exporters and importers than moving our time zone in South Australia. The Melbourne-Adelaide freight corridor is a major policy issue this government cannot continue to put in the too-hard basket.

Small business is the heart of this state's economy and, as I noted in my budget reply speech, I welcome the changes to stamp duty announced in this budget, but I will say again: these measures should be introduced immediately. The budget does not deliver the urgent impact our small business sector is craving and this budget does not provide the significant impact the small business sector desperately needs. The budget also fails to provide any immediate relief or impetus for small business at a time when South Australia needs a government that will take action and, for me, this was validated by the answers from the minister in the small business estimates committee.

As to action to address the surging unemployment rate, when I spoke in this house in response to the budget last month, South Australia's unemployment rate was ballooning at 7.6 per cent and, four weeks later and today, I am now talking about an unemployment rate of 8.2 per cent and there are realistic fears it will hit double figures before Christmas. Nothing in the estimates committee indicated to me that the decisions of this government will be reducing unemployment in the short or long term.

A quick look at the other key indicators within the South Australian economy at the moment shows that the picture is very, very grim. South Australia's gross state product grew by only 1.3 per cent in 2013-14, compared with 2.5 per cent nationally. In 2013-14, South Australia had the lowest business entry rate of any mainland state or territory, at 11.4 per cent, compared with the national average of 13.7 per cent. In the same period, the number of businesses operating in South Australia reduced by 14. A reduction of only 14 may not appear to be alarming until you compare South Australia's performance with that of the other mainland states.

New South Wales gained 8,522 businesses, Victoria gained 7,160, Western Australia gained 2,929 and Queensland gained 2,032. In all major indicators we continue to fall behind our state counterparts and I do look forward to the answers of the Treasurer and the small business minister from my committee yesterday in relation to businesses operating in South Australia. We have fewer jobs, we have less growth, we have higher debt, huge interest payments, outrageous utility charges and a government that cannot put the brakes on South Australia's economic decline.

The Labor government has created only 1,670 jobs since its 2010 promise of 100,000 extra jobs over six years, although we did discover during the estimates hearing that the 100,000 commitment is no longer a commitment but merely an aspiration. The Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills, in response to a question about the government delivering on its 2010 promise to create 100,000 jobs, stated: 'The economic climate has overtaken our aspirations and it is most unlikely we will achieve that target.' When the minister was questioned about the change from a commitment to an aspiration, she confirmed, 'When we set the target, it was indeed an aspiration.' An aspiration—it is interesting that the government went to the 2010 election with only a jobs aspiration. It is interesting that the government went to the 2010 election with only a jobs aspiration.

The executive summary of the 2010 consultation paper Skills for All: Productivity and Participation Through Skills, released prior to the launch of Skills for All states:

The South Australian government has committed to jobs growth of 100,000 over the next six years, supported by the 100,000 additional training places.

So in the Skills for All document, a government-produced paper, it definitely was a commitment and not an aspiration. Today we barely have an aspiration for 100,000. Indeed, that aspiration is only about 1,600 jobs.

Former premier Mike Rann clearly stated in his 2010 post-election press release that the government has a:

…central commitment to creating an extra 100,000 job-training places available and an extra 100,000 jobs created over the next six years.

It certainly seems like a commitment to me and, as my colleague the member for Unley noted during the estimates hearing:

What the minister is telling us is that when the government makes a commitment, what they are really saying is that it is only aspirational.

Whilst the government is no longer certain it made a commitment, we can all be certain that this Labor government has fallen well short of creating 100,000 new jobs. I am certain that 13 years of Labor leadership has led South Australia into an economic quagmire. It should come as no surprise that any 'commitment' by this government should be seen as nothing more than an 'aspiration'. Their continued failure to deliver any benefit to the people of South Australia means the best they can do on a policy front is to hope because they have no track record on delivering.

It is important that the government creates the right framework for business to grow, a framework that makes it easy to do business. Whilst the budget and estimates process failed to deliver any immediate outcomes for small businesses in my electorate, I strongly encourage the Minister for Planning to take action now to deliver a real and tangible benefit for Blackwood businesses by rezoning the Blackwood business centre.

Rezoning this area would significantly benefit the local small business community as the Blackwood community centre is currently identified as a secondary renewal area, but elevation to a primary renewal area is essential to improving retail and commercial activity, and to improving local employment opportunities. It would be encouraging to see government action, particularly given the government has repeatedly stated its commitment to helping small business to rezone this area within my electorate—or perhaps helping small business is just an aspiration as well.

South Australia has identified itself as the Festival State since the early 1980s and, while our numberplates no longer spread the word, South Australians have made festival living a part of their identity. And whilst in the Arts estimates, minister Snelling valiantly tried to channel the ghost of Sir Les Patterson, our identity and our reputation as the Festival State are under threat. Cuts to arts programs and the cancellation, hibernation or relocation of the Festival of Ideas, Adelaide Food and Wine Festival, Word Adelaide and the Australian International Documentary Conference threaten our standing as the Festival State.

But it is cutbacks to our music sector, and the cuts that are deepest are the ones to music education. The music scene is an integral component of South Australia's art and creative industries, and whilst it is often overlooked, it is a major contributor to South Australia's festival stature. Music funding cuts to music education have been ongoing in recent years and funding is continually withdrawn from music education. Once again, our public instrumental music service, known as IMS, for school students is under threat with a review by the minister at the moment, and all South Australians will lose, young and old, performers and audiences alike.

Answers from minister Close in relation to IMS during my questioning in estimates on this issue have not reassured me in relation to the proposed IMS restructure. State government funding cuts have resulted in students being unable to enrol for music courses at Noarlunga TAFE from January 2014. The VET courses are instead delivered 50 kilometres north at the Salisbury TAFE campus. Whilst a 50-kilometre trip may not seem especially long for the Minister for the Arts or the Minister for Employment and Higher Education Skills—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Do you need a chopper?

Mr DULUK: Definitely not. No, for most students it would be a train and a bus trip. The majority of students attending or planning on attending the Noarlunga campus do not have the means of travelling to Salisbury regularly to attend these classes, and it is an absolute shame on this government for cutting services to Noarlunga TAFE in relation to their music program. There is no chance that students who want to do a VET course at Noarlunga could attend Salisbury TAFE, especially when they work and have other commitments as well.

Noarlunga TAFE courses are not the only casualty of the government funding cuts. The University of Adelaide's decision that all its vocational music courses would no longer be offered in 2015 has also been blamed on declining state government funding. Students from lower socioeconomic status schools have traditionally used the vocational programs offered by TAFE and the University of Adelaide as a pathway into South Australia's tertiary music school (Elder Conservatorium) and a Bachelor of Arts in music.

Without these pathways, the government is denying young musicians and prospective students equal access to South Australia's premier music programs, and it is failing to support the development of local musicians and the creative industries in South Australia. Adelaide's music scene will suffer, with fewer up-and-coming musicians performing around our city and our regional areas, and the quantity and quality of our future educators will suffer. Fewer courses means fewer graduates, and fewer graduates means fewer tutors, teachers and industry leaders.

Tertiary music education in Australia is seriously underfunded compared with our international peers. South Australia has an opportunity to invest in this area and create a world-class education program—a program that will separate our tertiary music programs from every other university program in Australia and make South Australia the preferred destination for aspiring musicians and educators alike. Alas, this is not happening. Instead, we are doing the opposite.

Investing in music education is also an opportunity to live up to our billing as the Festival State. Adequate funding would enable the delivery of educational opportunities to rival our international peers, and it would also enable South Australia to be the music destination for industry leaders and offer excellence in teaching. We would attract the best in academia. We would be a destination that teachers want to teach at and where students want to enrol to be taught.

The government's Destination Adelaide campaign commits $5.7 million over four years to market South Australia as a destination of choice for international students. It does not make sense to me that on one hand the government is spending a significant amount of money on a marketing campaign to attract students to our universities whilst on the other hand it is cutting funding to the very programs that the universities teach—programs that would gain international attention and attract students naturally if they received suitable funding. The social and economic benefits of tertiary music to Australia should not be undervalued.

Getting back to estimates, the estimates process does seem to have raised more questions than answers for me, not just in relation to the budget, but also about the government's priorities, the government's process for developing and implementing policy, and especially about the government's strategy for fixing South Australia: creating jobs, creating economic growth, and delivering a more prosperous state.

The Premier keeps telling the people of South Australia that the government has to accept responsibility for fixing the jobless mess. He keeps telling South Australians that the state is in a transition from old economy to new economy. He keeps telling us that the government is working hard to create jobs. I am just not sure that I have a better idea today of how this government is doing this compared to a week ago after the budget estimates process.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (18:28): This is the 14th estimates that I have sat through and participated in. One of the things that you do see as you sit there (particularly on the opposition benches, as has been my remit) is how ministers perform.

When I came into this place, the makeup of the front bench was completely different from what we see now. We had the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, as I called them, on that side. There was Mike Rann, Kevin Foley, the current Speaker and the current Treasurer. Why did I call them that? Because they were very tough operators. It was like hand-to-hand combat coming in here at question time. You had to toughen up.

If there is one thing I can pass on to the newer members of this place, it is this: do not take it personally. This is politics; if you cannot take it, go and read some of the books about the history of politics and understand that this is what you are dealing with. You are dealing with the political process. You are dealing with issues. You are dealing with people with passion and purpose, and also with many people who have the wiles and skill to talk their way out of any issue, talk around issues and sell issues. That is what we had.

If I was to rank the ministers, as you can when you watch the estimates process, certainly the Treasurer and the Attorney-General would have to rank as being the best performers. I think ranked third would have to be the Minister for Health. I did not see the Treasurer's whole performance, but I know he is quite capable of thinking on his feet. You see them performing in estimates and they are able to be relaxed about it. There are no long opening statements and Dorothy Dixers are kept to an absolute minimum, if at all. They are able to handle the process well. Younger members in this place should watch that.

Certainly, once you go past those frontbench performers (and credit where it is due, it is an interesting political process), unfortunately it goes downhill rapidly after that—and that is not personal; I like everybody on the other side. There was only ever one person in this place I never got on with, and I am not going to name that person—I just could never get on with them—but there is nobody on the other side that I dislike as a person. I know why we are all in here, but this is the political process: you watch them perform, and I am afraid some of them are just clearly out of their depth. It is sad for them to be put in that position.

I think you, Acting Speaker, should be up there. You are one of the better performers. You could be there; I hope to see a reshuffle and you get there. There are other aspiring members on that side who should be on the front bench, in my opinion, but, unfortunately, that is the way politics works. You have to wait your turn, as I will have to wait my turn until 2018 to be on the benches over there.

In relation to the particular portfolios I was involved with, Minister Snelling in Health had no opening statements and no Dorothys. I will complain, though: it was $38 million a minute on the timing we had. We used to have a long time. We would be here until 10 o'clock at night. We would be going right through the portfolios. We would be making sure that we were able to drill down on issues, but now it is under four hours for Health. I had an hour for the Office for the Ageing. For heaven's sake, where is the Office for the Ageing in relation to a $5 billion health portfolio? Veterans' affairs is a very important portfolio, but really, on the scale of financial expenditure, it is a minor portfolio—half an hour.

There was three-quarters of an hour for Disabilities, and we are about to start spending over $20 billion a year on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It would have been much nicer to have had a bit more time there. Emergency services is a dear portfolio of mine that I love very much, that had less than an hour, in reality, by the time opening statements and Dorothy Dixers were finished.

If everybody in this place is not aware of the fact, I try to work in a very bipartisan way with Aboriginal affairs and I am very passionate about it. Aboriginal affairs again had a fairly limited time, but that was not of such a consequence because minister Maher and I work in a cooperative way and we are able to satisfy the queries and questions and I know that he will be forthcoming with further information.

The whole time that is spent in estimates is criticised a lot. I feel sorry for the public servants. If it was not for the fact that it would cost so much in Public Service wages, I would put in FOIs to find out about the accountability and cost of preparing the briefs for the ministers for estimates, because I will be very surprised if it is not in the millions of dollars, preparing for estimates. There must be a better way.

I had the federal Minister for Disabilities (Hon. Mitch Fifield) in here a bit earlier on, and we were talking about the federal system. He will appear for four or five days, starting at nine in the morning and going through to 11 at night with his advisers before the Senate estimates committees. If we have not already done the work on looking at the way estimates committees work federally and could work in the state sphere, I think we should be doing that. It is my understanding that there has been some work done on that, and I would be very surprised if across the chamber here we could not come to some better arrangement that would suit everybody. The farce where you have an upper house minister coming down but cannot have an upper house shadow minister coming down, to me, adds to the whole puzzlement of the estimates committees.

The real thing is the time that I know my staff put in and the time that Heidi Harris, who works for me, has put in preparing for my portfolios. One day, members on the government benches will be in opposition and they will realise that their facilities, the resources you get, are very limited and you will wonder what has hit you. I know most of the young staff were probably still at school in 2002 when this government came in. They will never have seen opposition. They will not know what has hit them—the realities of life, the coalmine, the salt mine that you work in as an opposition, working away, burrowing away to get that information.

The need to reform the process is something that I just cannot overstate. In the time I have, I will talk a little bit more about the system. Let us just talk about where we are in 2015. I look back at 2002 and the rivers of gold to where we have come, and it is sad. I sat here with Mike Rann and I remember him haranguing us about any nuclear issue. The attacks were just searing, and he was very good at it. But now what do we have? We have a former governor with royal commission powers out there looking at nuclear power, nuclear waste and the nuclear processing industry, and good on them. I think it is fantastic.

I was in France in the mid-2000s as the guest of AREVA. I should not say 'guest': they took me to places. Obviously, through the parliamentary travel system, I paid for that and there are full reports there. Please, anybody, have a look at my travel reports if you are worried about what I have been spending on my travel, because I guarantee that I have given this state value for money.

The nuclear industry is one we should not have been ignoring. I think it was 1968 when the industrial development branch of the premier's department drew up plans for a nuclear power station—and the member for Giles will love this—at Whyalla. The two reasons were cheap electricity and desalination of water. I am glad they did not build it then, because the level 3 and level 4 power stations I saw when I was in France with AREVA are fantastic technology. I am sure that former governor Scarce will come back and tell us that there is a real future for us in South Australia in the nuclear industry. I do not know whether it will be nuclear power, but certainly at the other end.

When Mike Rann was Don Dunstan's press secretary—and I have the Hansard somewhere in my office; I had to do some real digging because it is not on the electronic form—Dunstan agreed even back then that there was an opportunity, if you felt that way inclined, because of the geopolitical stability of South Australia, to look at the nuclear industry and nuclear waste storage. Certainly, it has been an interesting journey.

We are talking about that as a diversion, I think, in some ways. In that case, it is a good diversion, but I do have problems with time zones and driverless cars and I certainly have problems with trams out to Norwood in 15 years' time. People in this place know that I was the only Liberal in this place who wanted to extend the trams.

I remember moving a private member's motion for the tram to be extended up to O'Connell Street, North Adelaide, back through the Parklands with the new third rail technology and no overhead catenary systems—it was just parkland and, like Victoria Square, you mow the tram tracks—and then bring the trams back down North Terrace, past the Wine Centre, the universities, the hospitals and back down here. I think it would have been a very good extension then, but I was not talking in 15 years' time: I was encouraging the government to do it then.

I am very pleased with what they have done. I am very pleased that there are further plans. I look forward to those plans not being in 15 years, not being unfunded, but actually being a reality. I do not see that at the moment; I do not see that at all. Certainly, I am not sure what the next diversion is going to be. Is it going to be a cable car to Mount Lofty or is it going to be something else? Who knows? Please, I ask the government, let us concentrate on the state of the state.

Let us have a look at the state of the state. I am more than happy to be corrected here if I have my figures wrong. I am just a humble veterinarian, not an accountant and not an economist. Going back to the Swan federal budgets and then comparing them with the Hockey federal budgets in the forward estimates, in the year 2014-15, the Swan federal budget GST payments for South Australia were $4.7 billion in round figures, but under the Hockey federal government, it is nearly $5 billion. It was $232 million more this year—not the total payment, but more than was expected even under the Swan budgets. In 2015-16, it is $678 million more; in 2016-17, it is $1.1 billion more. It is more than $2 billion extra GST on what the Swan budget was predicting.

The thing that is missing from the Hockey budget is that Monopoly money (the funny money) that was way out past the estimates for health and Gonski—money that was never there. It was never there, yet this government clings to the falsehood that there have been budget cuts. That money was never there in the first place, but in the meantime you have nearly $2 billion more than you ever expected. So you are getting a lot more.

There have not been the cuts, so how the heck can you justify even the ESL increases—$90 million out of a total of $232 million extra. This is GST. This is not money tied to specific purposes like roads or anything else. The GST can be spent on anything the government really wants and it is extra money. It is black and white; there it is in black and white. I do not think I have misread the figures and I do not think I have exaggerated in any way, shape or form. In fact, I have underestimated some of those figures.

The state of the state should be a lot better than it is. In the statistical summary for South Australia, we all look at the disaster of 8.2 per cent unemployment. To be employed, I think you only have to be in a job for about an hour or two. Who can say that is genuine, life-sustaining employment? A job is a job is a job—35 hours a week, earning money that you can actually live on, not an hour a week, so what is the real employment rate? What is the underemployment rate in South Australia? That is what we need to know.

Unfortunately, in South Australia economic growth is 1.3 per cent, with a national growth rate of 2.5 per cent. It is a real sad state. If you look at the debt of $279 million, the net debt of $11.27 billion, and of course when the new RAH—the third most expensive building in the world—comes online that is going to jump up. We are paying massive amounts, not to the Belgian dentists anymore, like it was with the State Bank in 1993, but it is to somebody else; they are getting this massive amount of interest.

In the few minutes that are left—and how time flies when you are having fun; and I do enjoy my time and consider it to be a privilege to be the member for Morphett—let me look at these portfolios. I did enjoy the Minister for Health's full and frank replies to questions. I am very concerned about the fact that we are going to have two half hospitals for a while there. I visited the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham in England, where their model of care was similar with lots of single rooms. They were still using the old hospital and they did not see any end to using the old hospital, so I hope that the Minister for Health is able to give us assurances that that is not going to be the case here.

In my emergency services portfolio with the CFS, MFS and SES, I will do everything I can to make sure that they are valued by this government and they get what they are worth, particularly the volunteers who put in over a million hours in attending incidents—add on all the training and all the community stuff they do, so how much more is that? Certainly, the men and women of the MFS do a fantastic job. People know my history with my father being in the MFS for 30 years, so I will do everything I can to make sure that they get a fair go as well.

To fund emergency services we have the emergency services levy, brought in by the Liberal government. What did we see this government do? They removed the remissions last year, and that was a big hit, but it went up again this year, and Sampson Flat was blamed. Let's go back to the estimates committee and see what minister Piccolo, Minister for Emergency Services, said about this when I asked him about increases in the ESL because, if it has gone up for Sampson Flat, what else? I asked minister Piccolo about what happens if there are more incidents, and he said:

We work out exactly what has been spent, whether it is Sampson Flat or whatever other event, whether it is a flood, etc., the money is then raised in a subsequent year and paid back—

I went on to ask, 'Raised from whom, though, minister?' I said:

So the ESL will go up. If there are two Sampson Flats the ESL will then go up again, further and further—that is what you are saying.

Minister Piccolo said, 'Well, we said that this year.' So, I said, 'So if we have an Ash Wednesday, where there is billions of dollars worth of damage, who pays?' Minister Piccolo started to say, 'Who do you—' He was going to say, 'Who do you think pays?' I interjected and said, 'The taxpayer,' and he said 'Yes. Who do you think pays…[and] pays all the other taxes…' 'The taxpayer pays,' minister Piccolo said.

It will be an interesting response from this government when they say what is going to happen if we do have an earthquake, say—we are in an earthquake fault zone—or if we do, heaven forbid, have an Ash Wednesday fire where there are literally hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars worth of damage done. I hope beyond hope that there are no lives lost, never mind the property damage.

Who is going to pay? The taxpayers will pay. We all know that taxes and charges go up with inflation, but to leap up the way they have is just incredible. So, with the ESL, the sky is the limit according to the Minister for Emergency Services. Look out the taxpayers of South Australia because there is no restraint on this government when it comes to the emergency services levy.

With the disabilities portfolio, this government has badly underestimated the number of participants in the trial. It is not a cost overrun when you say there are going to be 5,000 participants and there are nearly 10,000. The actual figure I think has come back to about 8,500 now. Every other state got it right. They used the Productivity Commission figures, but not South Australia.

How could we get it so wrong? It is not just a cost overrun, it is an absolute cock-up in working out the figures. No wonder kids are missing out and families are missing out. It is a terrible mistake made under minister Piccolo. The ESL is going up under minister Piccolo and disabilities is just a slow train to nowhere at the moment under minister Piccolo.

Communities and social inclusion are under minister Bettison. I have been asking questions about the Concessions and Seniors Information System (CASIS) for years now. I remember asking minister Bettison, or minister Piccolo it was last year, about this.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Odenwalder): Member for Morphett, can I ask you to refer to ministers by their occupation rather than their name, thank you.

Dr McFETRIDGE: That is why you should be on the front bench, Mr Acting Speaker.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Odenwalder): I get good advice up here, member for Morphett.

Dr McFETRIDGE: The Minister for Disabilities and the Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion really have some issues to answer. With the Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion, the Concessions and Seniors Information System really is a disaster. It is $7 million. Last year, I was told by the minister that it was going to be over $5 million. They have just thrown it out; they have scrapped it.

What could have been done with that $7 million and another $2 million to try to replace it? It is not a farce: it is a scandal. Where is the ministerial accountability with any of this? It started under the Premier, went to the now Minister for Emergency Services, and now to the current Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion. Where is the ministerial accountability? There is none.

As former governor Kevin Scarce said of the problems with the South Australian government, the executive ignores the parliament, there is no ministerial accountability and the Public Service has been highly politicised. Until this government recognises the state of the state and realises that they need to be more than just smart performers on the front bench, and that they actually have to deliver to the state, this state is really going to keep suffering under Labor.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Odenwalder): The member's time has expired. Thank you, member for Morphett, and I will overlook this one time the insertion of the word 'cock-up' into Hansard.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Gardner.


At 18:48 the house adjourned until Thursday 30 July 2015 at 10:30.


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