HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2017-08-08 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Budget Measures Bill 2017

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 6 July 2017.)

Mr WINGARD (Mitchell) (16:22): I rise today to speak on the Budget Measures Bill which is centred around what has been a big talking point in South Australia of recent weeks, that is, the state bank tax. That is the Labor government's answer here in South Australia to any problem: throw a tax on it. When in doubt, put a tax on. When in doubt, take money from South Australians. When you have created a problem, and you have taken the state to the bottom of the pile of the ranking list of all states in this country, how do you get your way out of it? Well, according to this state Labor government, you put a tax on South Australians, and that is exactly what this state bank tax is and that is what the Treasurer and the Premier do at every turn.

We saw not so long ago, the last time they had a problem, what did they do? They increased the ESL. They take more money out of the pockets of South Australians, they rip it out and they put it back in their coffers so that they can go and spend and waste South Australian taxpayers' money. This is the measure they thought they would be really tricky with. They thought people would be okay with putting another tax on the banks, and they tried to use the banks as a shield, but South Australians are awake—awake to what the Treasurer and the Premier are trying to do here in South Australia.

South Australians know that this state bank tax means that they will have their hip pocket pilfered. They will have money taken out of their back pocket, money out of their wallets, money that they could be spending on their families or on their businesses or on trying to grow South Australia. if this state bank tax goes through. That is how this Weatherill Labor government operates and that is fundamentally why South Australia has drifted its way to the bottom of the pile after 16 years of state Labor government. I think the South Australian people are awake to what is going on here, and they can see what this constant regime of taking from South Australians has done to our state. We say enough is enough. It is no good.

I have said in this place before that when you go down the street and you talk to people at the local sporting club, local supermarket, school, shopping centre, or wherever you might be, and you ask, 'How is South Australia going?' no-one can say that we are going well. They say that we are going poorly. We are struggling and our state is really languishing when you stack us up against all the other states and, quite frankly, South Australians are sick of that. We have great people in this state. We are seeing a lot head interstate for better opportunity, that is for sure, but we know that we produce great people in South Australia and we need to give them more optimism.

This whole idea of taxing your way to prosperity is not working, and that is why our state has been heading south for a long, long time. We really are situated at the bottom of the table. We know that because we look at the unemployment rate and see that for 31 months in a row we have had the worst unemployment rate in the nation on trend. We have languished at the bottom of the table, below every other state, including Tasmania. We used to mock Tasmania and say how bad they were going. Well, they are in front of us now when it comes to unemployment—that is how bad this state Labor government is going.

We can see that from this bill and through this measure of the state bank tax, and we know what happened the last time this government got its hands on the State Bank. We know the catastrophe that happened when the State Bank collapsed under a Labor government and here, coincidentally, we now have the government again with a state bank tax. There is a little bit of irony, I suppose, in those two terms, but that is where this government has got us: we are in a poor situation and again they are trying to claw back funds.

We looked at this state bank tax and we asked the Treasurer: why have you gone down this path? Who have you spoken to? How good an idea is this for South Australia? How is this going to grow opportunity, grow investment and ultimately grow jobs for South Australia? We asked the Treasurer: who did you model this with and what modelling was done to implement the state bank tax? We asked the Treasurer that question and the answer was, 'We didn't do any modelling. That didn't happen.'

We asked: did you check out the negative impact that this might have on South Australia and not just the money it is going to put in your pocket that you want to spend and waste? I will talk more about that a little bit later. We also asked: did you look at the impact it might have and what it might do to small businesses, big businesses and anyone who might have an involvement with a bank, such as someone with an EFTPOS card or someone who does internet banking? How is this going to impact South Australians? Again, the Treasurer said that no economic modelling had been done. Through the estimates process, the Treasurer was asked further questions along those lines, but again he had no responses.

The Labor government does have an Economic Development Board and an investment attraction agency made up of esteemed people who have operated in business and right across the spectrum, people the government could go to and lean on when they needed economic advice. Again, the question was put to them: did you speak to anyone on these boards? We know that the former head of a bank, Rob Chapman, who is a very astute person in South Australia, is involved in the Investment Attraction agency; in fact, he chairs that committee.

We asked: did the Premier speak to Rob Chapman and ask what this state bank tax was going to do to South Australia? That was put to the Premier and the answer was no. It was put to the Treasurer and the answer was no. We said, 'You have a banking expert here. Did you speak to them and ask them what impact this state bank tax would have on business and the community of South Australia?' No, they failed to do that, so where the idea of this state bank tax came from and how the Treasurer feels it is going to help South Australians beggars belief.

I have talked about taxes. We are debating the state bank tax here and now, and I have also mentioned the ESL increases. We know that this state Labor government went to the last election wanting a car park tax and, whilst they did not talk about GST increases after the election, lo and behold, what did they want to do? They wanted to increase the GST. Foreign investor surcharges on stamp duties and land tax on the family home—that is what this state Labor government know and that is all they know.

When they need more money, they just come for people's hip pockets and they want to take it out in any form of tax. Again, to the state bank tax now, we say no. Enough is enough. South Australia has been dragged to the bottom of the pile over a number of years with this state Labor government and you cannot keep taxing your way to prosperity. On this side of the chamber, we are saying no to the state bank tax. We know that, when you have a tax like this, the state Labor government will talk about the banks paying the tax and not consumers paying the tax, not South Australians, not people here in this state. This is a state tax, so South Australians will be paying for this state bank tax, and they are very well aware of that.

A lot of research has been done. A lot of independent groups have gone out to find out how this is going to work. There was a Galaxy poll just recently, which found that 65 per cent of small and medium-sized businesses are against the state bank tax and believe that it will impact negatively on the state and will not help to grow jobs in South Australia. That is a significant finding.

On the more technical side, we know that a tax like this will create higher borrowing costs for banks and therefore higher lending costs for businesses and households, lower interest rate payments on savings deposits and lower returns for shareholders, including superannuation accounts, via reduced dividends and/or lower share values. If you are a self-funded retiree and have a bank account, if you are working with banks in any way, shape or form—and, let's be honest, we do it all day, every day on the internet or however it might be—this will come back to hit you and hurt you.

We always talk about the other factor. I have spoken about unemployment in South Australia and how we are perceived across the state because we have been languishing at the bottom of the table for 31 months in a row with the worst unemployment rate in the nation. With this state bank tax, we need to think about companies wanting to come and invest here in South Australia. I have been out visiting a number of really good companies and industries in South Australia over recent times. I try to get out and speak to these businesses as often as I possibly can.

I was with one last Friday, and we were talking about the investment opportunities. They are owned by a foreign entity, and they say they have to report back to the shareholders of this entity. They are questioned and quizzed often about what is happening in South Australia. Firstly, they have to explain our electricity situation, and I can talk more about that later, but we hear about that ad nauseam. We have the highest priced electricity in the world, and businesses have to go and explain that to foreign shareholders and people running their company, but then they get word of this state bank tax.

These people who own this company run it out of Belgium, and they say, 'Why are we in South Australia when these extra fees and charges are put on top of what we are trying to do in running our business? Why do we not go to another state and set up there? Why do we not leave and go somewhere else altogether?' We are playing on a national stage, and the government is adding these taxes, fees and charges onto these businesses. The businesses make commercial decisions, and they say, 'Why would we be in South Australia?'

That is the competitive disadvantage being created in this state. Not only do we have high water prices and high electricity prices but this state Labor government now wants to put more taxes, more fees and more charges on businesses. It is businesses that provide jobs for South Australians, so business, and industry more specifically, says, 'We do not want to keep this industry here. We cannot afford to have this industry here anymore. We want to leave.' That has a really negative impact on jobs and a very negative outcome for South Australia. Those are some of the major concerns we have here, and South Australia really cannot afford to be in this situation again.

In looking at some of the surveys that have been done, I want to refer to the Sensis Business Index that was released on 28 July. This took a look at the attitude to state and territory government policies, and it was alarming because South Australia came off incredibly poorly. South Australia was the only government whose rankings deteriorated, and they deteriorated by 16 points.

The main criticism of the South Australian government focused on cost of utilities, power and rates, and too many cost impositions, government charges and hidden taxes—there we go. This is the state bank tax. That is what we are talking about. There have been ESL charges, the car park tax that they tried to bring in and the GST increases they tried to push as well.

The state Labor government are just addicted to taxes. What people are concerned about when it comes to our state Labor government is the cost of doing business and taxation that is too high or increasing. Other relatively prominent concerns included excessive bureaucracy and a lack of support for country areas, which is a real key here. That was the Sensis Business Index. It is a totally independent report that talked about where South Australia is at. Again I stress that this Budget Measures Bill, with the state bank tax, hinges on how we are perceived as a state.

This state bank tax is just another noose around the neck of South Australian businesses and it will ultimately come back to hit and to hurt South Australians in the hip pocket. That is taking money out of the family budget. That is taking money from businesses that could reinvest in their business and potentially employ more people. We need to change the culture of this state. At the moment, everyone is feeling dragged down and constricted by this state Labor government. People are not feeling like they want to get up, have a go and take a chance.

Business SA has also had a look at the state bank tax. I know those on the other side will say, 'Of course Business SA is going to side with you.' That is not entirely true because Business SA is an independent body and they will talk about what is good for South Australia wholly and solely. If the government does something good, Business SA will come out and support them, but in this case Business SA says that there are some major concerns with this state bank tax. It states quite categorically that this tax will be a drag on South Australian businesses, and we know it is businesses that grow jobs. You need to have that business confidence to be able to grow jobs within the state.

Nigel McBride, who is in charge of Business SA, is concerned that people will not want to borrow money, people will not want to take risks and people will not want to employ more staff and grow their businesses. That is where this state bank tax has placed South Australians. Last week, a Bank SA State Monitor showed that confidence levels had crashed to a four-year low and had fallen 16 per cent since February alone. The survey was taken within weeks of the June state budget, reflecting the inevitable conclusion that the budget did not send the kinds of signals required to build business confidence.

They are the sorts of things that Nigel McBride is talking about. To have that hit in the confidence of South Australian businesses is not what we need when we are languishing at the bottom of the table. The State Monitor shows that net pessimism in the SA business community sits at negative 46 per cent compared with negative 10 per cent after last year's budget. Again, that shows that this state bank tax has a real negative impact on our state. The NAB business index, another independent report, showed a 10 point drop in business confidence in May, with no states improving in that time.

At a time like this, with all these negative indicators aligning, the Weatherill government have failed to recognise these sentiments. Instead, they have taken the South Australian public for granted. That is what has happened here. They think, 'We need more money; let's rip it out of the pockets of South Australians,' and they are happy to go after everyone: mum-and-dad investors, anyone with a bank account, someone who has a superannuation policy or small businesses that actually work in our economy, trying to grow our economy. They are the ones who are being attacked by this state bank tax, and it is a major concern—a major concern for everyone.

While the Treasurer thinks, 'I just need money. I need it to prop up by budget. I am going to grab some cash any which way I can,' no long-term thought has been given to the implications it will have down the track, and that is a real concern. As I said, did the Treasurer consult anyone, speak to anyone or do any modelling to find out what the knock-on effect was going to be by bringing in the state bank tax? The answer is no.

What we need to do is grow business confidence. That is why we have said right from the get-go that one of our key policies—this was announced a long time ago now in the whole electoral cycle, given that we still have about eight months until the next election—is that we will return the ESL remissions to South Australians. This is the money that the government took out of the pockets of South Australian families and businesses to again prop up their own budget failings.

We have said that we will give that money back to South Australians because it creates an environment where people have confidence, people have money in their pockets and they want to go and spend it. People will go and spend that money in our economy here in South Australia. Businesses will also say, 'Right, we've got a bit more money in our pocket. Let's invest back in our business. Let's invest in a new staff member. Let's invest in new plant and equipment. Let's grow our business.' If we can grow businesses, we can grow jobs.

It is not for the government to create jobs; that does not create a sustainable economy. We need to actually give confidence back to businesses and the South Australian people who run businesses so that they will go out and grow their business. I have not met anyone who has a business in South Australia who says, 'You know what? My goal and ambition are to wind my business down and reduce the number of people I employ.' That is not how business works.

Business wants to actually grow the economy, grow what they are doing, employ more people and have more success. We need people with that attitude. This state bank tax, through this Budget Measures Bill, is what is holding up South Australia. It is a great flagship example of what is strangling South Australia and preventing that optimism, that have-a-go spirit that we are so well known for. I stress again that we have wonderful people in South Australia—talented, capable people—but they are being strangled by this state Labor government.

This tax really epitomises that exact nature. We see what this government does with its money. On this side of the chamber, we are not a high-taxing government. We do not want to be a high-taxing government. We do not think that we should be putting our hands into people's pockets and ripping money out like those on the other side, like the Treasurer and the Premier always want to do. That is what a state Labor government has done for a long time: they want to rip money out of the pockets of people.

We do not believe that. We want to leave the money in the pockets of people, and we back the people to actually do good things with it: to go and create businesses, create jobs, spend that money in our economy and create a far more vibrant, go-getting sort of place. We have talked about the young people who are leaving South Australia, who are heading overseas and interstate. We know that net migration to other states last year was 6,900 people. These are some of our youngest and brightest people who are saying, 'This state is strangling me. This state is choking me. I need to get out and take my opportunities to the eastern seaboard or beyond our borders.' That is not good.

We need to grow as well. We need to grow as far as bringing money in from outside our state is concerned. That is why we have a policy in place to open trade offices overseas. We need to be really focused on making sure that we are bringing money in from outside our borders. The leader on our side has said many times, 'You don't get rich selling lattes to yourself.' In simple terms, what that means is that money just going around inside our economy is not growing our economy.

We need to be selling goods and services outside our borders to be bringing money in. That has to be a key focus of government, and that is a key focus of the Marshall Liberal team. That is what we know has to happen. That is why we want to open these trade offices overseas. I stress again that we have wonderful people doing wonderful things, creating wonderful services, goods and commodities that we can sell overseas, but we need to have an environment in South Australia that is not being tied down, strangled and choked by the tax after tax that this state Labor government wants to impose on South Australia. This state bank tax typifies what we are talking about.

The upside is that South Australians are seeing what is going on here. They see the numbers, they see the figures, they see where our state is at and they realise that we cannot keep going on choking our state and inhibiting people from growing, creating and making our state a better place. We want to work with South Australians. We back South Australians. We want to allow them to do what they do best, and this state bank tax will not do that. That is why we oppose this state bank tax in the Budget Measures Bill.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (16:42): I was highly impressed by that contribution by the member for Mitchell. He did an outstanding job.

The Hon. P. Caica: You are easily impressed.

Mr PENGILLY: Get in your seat if you want to have a go. Despite the interjection from the member for Colton, what we seem to be witnessing here are the final days of the Holy Roman Empire circa the state Labor government in South Australia. For the life of me, I cannot understand why they would even consider bringing in this ludicrous bank tax in South Australia. As has been stated, and no doubt will be stated again over the next few speeches, the answer to this Labor government's problems is always to go and tax, tax, tax.

I can assure you that the good people of South Australia are completely over it. It does not matter much where I go, what I get is, 'When are you going to get rid of this government?' They are completely over the Labor government in South Australia. The sooner polling day comes the better so that the good voting public of South Australia can get out there and have their say. To quote another cliché, 'They fiddle while Rome burns.' It is an outrageous disgrace.

It has been thrown around the place a bit, but this morning there was yet another piece of news that came out definitely saying that we have the highest power prices in the world. We then had the Minister for Regional Development this afternoon who could not put two words together and come out with a sensible response. He could not answer any questions on power and where it is going to go. He said he had complete faith in the government to handle the electricity issue.

I am sure that the good people of Frome in particular will be delighted to hear what he said in parliament this afternoon. Even his most ardent supporters in Port Pirie will have another think about just what on earth the member for Frome has delivered for them in his time in this place, particularly in the last few years when he has aligned himself closely with a Labor administration. It was an insipid, pathetic performance, quite frankly. We deserve more from somebody who is getting paid to be a minister of the Crown.

This bank tax is just completely ridiculous. Why on earth do this government think that the only way that they can get themselves out of trouble is to tax, tax, tax? It was mentioned earlier and it will be mentioned again, at the risk of repeating myself, about the emergency services levy, the price of water, the price of power—the list goes on and on. There is no light at the end of the tunnel financially for the long-suffering taxpayers of South Australia. It is arrant nonsense to believe almost anything that is uttered from the lips of the Treasurer, the Premier or the Deputy Premier. They really do not have the answers. They have no answers.

The only answer they have is tax. The only answer they have in this latest budget is this bank tax, which is the most stupid thing they have ever dreamed of for South Australia. This is not the federal government: this is the government of poor little South Australia, with about 1½ million people, with the highest unemployment rate in Australia and going south even further. It is just terrible and it is a disgrace. It is no wonder that families, young people and so on are leaving the state in droves and going elsewhere where they think they can see some daylight.

Three and a half years ago, the people of Tasmania, despite their curious electoral system, threw out Labor and put in place a Liberal government, under Premier Will Hodgman. What a turnaround that has been. It is an amazing turnaround. It has been stunning to watch and it just shows what can happen if you get a good Liberal government in with good Liberal policies, people who have an understanding of how things work and how you do not have to tax the daylight out of the population of the state to achieve a turnaround.

It is bewildering to me to see where this state is after the State Bank disaster, which led to the election of the Liberal government in 1993, and to think that we are back in this parlous economic state that the Labor Party thinks that they can sort out by increasing taxes. The new President of the United States, Donald Trump, had a cliché he used often about becoming president—draining the swamp. In this case, the swamp is the Labor Party government in South Australia and they want draining completely and putting out of their misery. It cannot come soon enough and, along with many others, I wait with bated breath for that day. I am hoping, when I wake up on 18 March next year, that Labor will be—

Mr Duluk: Dead, buried and cremated.

Mr PENGILLY: The member for Davenport says, 'Dead, buried and cremated'—politically speaking, not practically. That is what I hope, and then it is my earnest hope that a good Liberal government under the Leader of the Opposition, Steven Marshall, will get in there to try and start to sort this mess out.

The government have had 16 years of creating a disaster. All they have done is increase taxes and increase debt and go on and on, puffing and blowing and spending millions and millions of dollars on spin. We saw another example of this today with the announcement that they are sending people out to have conversations about transport. How absolutely ridiculous! I have never heard so much nonsense in all my life. They think that the answer to everything is spin, that the answer to everything is creating committees and that the answer to everything is raising taxes, but they are not giving the people of South Australia a fair go.

I would have thought that they could learn a thing or two from Port Adelaide on Sunday. They got out there and did not know what they were going to do, and they ended up getting an absolute flogging. It is a sad state of affairs in South Australia. I hope that I will not be delivering another budget measures speech in this place, and I hope that those who are on this side of the chamber are in government next year, if the good people of South Australia elect them, and that the budget measures speech will be very positive from our side, if in government, and get South Australia back on the track to a bright and promising future.

With those few words, I remind the house of this iniquitous bank tax that the government is trying to push through. Although we cannot stop it in the lower house, I am very hopeful that it will be stopped in another place and that the good members of the Legislative Council will have the fortitude to carry through with what they said and do something about it. That is enough from me, and I look forward to a contribution from the member for Stuart.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (16:51): I rise on behalf of the people of the electorate of Stuart to make my contribution on the Budget Measures Bill. As I said earlier today, I accept and everybody on this side of the house accepts that budgeting is difficult. It really does go without saying. There is never enough money to do all the things you want to do, whether it is a small household trying to pay the bills, looking after the kids, maybe buying a house rather than renting, or perhaps upgrading your car—all those sorts of regular everyday challenges that most South Australians face.

Of course, there are many South Australians with many more hardcore, almost day-by-day and hour-by-our challenges. There are a lot of very disadvantaged people in our state. Fortunately, they are in the minority, but they deserve attention, too. Even for those people, perhaps even on a day-to-day basis, budgeting is a big issue. All the way through—councils, states, federal governments—budgeting is very difficult issue. As I said before today, it comes down to priorities, and we do have different priorities.

We also have different ways of going about the management of money. We do not believe that when things get tight and it is hard to balance your budget, you just go and tax people more. We do not believe that is the answer because of course that sends you on an ever-downward spiral. When you start taxing people more, you put the handbrake on the economy. As our leader says very often, and he is quite right, if you put the handbrake on the economy, then the income from the state government's perspective starts to dry up. Your budget is then under even more pressure, so then the Labor government goes and taxes even more. It is just a forever-downward spiral and it is not necessary.

As our leader says very regularly, we need to take the handbrake off our economy so that productive people in a productive place with productive equipment and good minds, and a whole range of positive attributes, can actually start to grow the economy. Then, instead of being consistently the state with the highest unemployment rate in the nation, we will start to turn that around. We will start to slowly move our way up the ladder and get off the bottom of the table, which is what we need to do at the moment. After 16 years of government, what they are doing is not working. It is just a fact.

What the current government is doing is not working. It is not as if they have been here for two years, four years, six years or 10 years, and we should give them another chance, give them another try and give them time for their way to slowly filter through and become effective. It has been 16 years and it clearly is not working.

We need a change, and there is no greater example of that than the predicament we find ourselves in in South Australia with regard to energy. We have the highest priced electricity in the nation and, some say, the world. That is completely unacceptable. When Labor came into government 16 years ago, it was nothing like that. Electricity prices have gone up and up and up. We were competitive with other states back then. Now we are not anywhere near competitive with other states.

In fact, the ASX forecast of future electricity price, based on future contracts, shows that up until March 2022, South Australia is expected to have electricity prices 18 per cent above the national average. That forecast comes with the ASX being fully informed about the state government's energy plan. The ASX can look at everything that the state government has published, everything they have said, all the information that they have, all that everybody else has said about the energy plan, and weigh up all those things.

It is largely based on the forward contract prices, all the people selling electricity and all the people buying electricity. It is important to point out that it is a market. The data that the ASX publishes is factual, with market data and willing buyers and sellers. Even the willing buyers, who are looking for contracts years into the future, are saying that they will lock in prices at 18 per cent above the forecast national average. Clearly they do not think things will improve, clearly the ASX does not think things will improve, and the buyers and the sellers do not think things will improve.

South Australia's own Labor energy minister has said in this place that the very best forecast of future electricity prices is the forward contract market. By any definition, the plan that the government has announced is not expected to work. That flows through to employment and, unfortunately, to unemployment. Electricity is a cost that places pressure on households and businesses, and the reason businesses are so important is that they employ people.

On a per capita basis, South Australia has the highest outstanding debt on electricity across households. We have the highest number of customers in electricity hardship repayment plans and we have the highest number of disconnections of any state in the nation. Unfortunately, there is no end in sight for that under the current government's energy plan. That is a really shameful issue.

As members of parliament, we are extraordinarily fortunate in the work that we do and, by most standards, we are very fortunate with regard to our lifestyle and income. We are fortunate and we should never take that for granted, but we should always be focused on the most vulnerable people. We should always be focused on trying to help the people who struggle to pay their bills. Those statistics that I just mentioned about outstanding debt, hardship repayment plans and disconnections are shameful. It is shameful to find our state in that situation.

One of the ways to get out of that is to support businesses, and not because we want business owners to be ultra profitable, extremely wealthy, or anything like that. Good luck to them if they are; I do not begrudge them that, and that is terrific for them. The reason to support them is so that they can offer secure employment to more and more people. If a family wants to go to a bank to get a loan to buy a house so they can have a secure home ideally for the rest of their lives, they can only get that loan if they have secure employment. They can only have secure employment if the company they work for has a secure future, and that is not happening in our state at the moment. It is just a very unfortunate fact that that is not happening in our state at the moment.

I have spoken about energy, and I will turn to mining. Mining is and has always been incredibly important in our state. Agriculture has always been and will continue to be for a long time a bigger business, a greater contributor to our state's economy and to our state's employment. I keep coming back to employment. I want people to have jobs so that they can get on with their lives and have useful, enjoyable, productive lives.

Mining, while not as big as agriculture, is an incredibly important contributor, and it is a very important growth area, too. It is a very important growth area for us, and one of the most important things that we can do as a government, Liberal or Labor—do not worry; on this side we have plans for how we would go about it—is deal with that land access issue, when an exploration or a mining company wants to access what is currently agricultural land to go about their business.

After 16 years of Labor, that issue is a mess. That issue has never ever been more volatile in our state than it is today. There are people all over the state who are very concerned about this issue. There are times when it is, and it should be, a concerning issue, but there are other times when there are good solutions. It does not need to be that bad. There are very good and very positive solutions, but let me tell you that the current government is not addressing those issues as far as I can see.

In fact, the current Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy is actually inflaming those issues. He is out there in rural areas trying to make them worse than they need to be. I know that the government are undertaking a review of the Mining Act, but let me tell you that no proposals have come from the government yet about what they intend to do. They have received all their consultation. They have received the messages loud and clear from players, whether they be in the mining industry or the agricultural industry or anybody else who has an interest, but we all wait to hear publicly what the government intend to do in that area.

Let me be fair about this. The government have said that they want to take proposals forward that the government and the opposition would both think are positive. Let's get on with it. The government have done the consultation. I am happy to meet with anybody to talk about these things. I am happy to be very clear in my discussions about what I think. I am happy to go back to my colleagues and help formulate our Liberal team's position. I am very happy to articulate that on behalf of our team, but why is the government holding off on sharing with the public what they plan to do with regard to the Mining Act?

That holding off is doing nothing to allay the concerns of people in regional South Australia, whether they be agricultural producers or whether they be exploration companies or prospective mining companies. This is a very important issue. Of course, that work must be done with regard for the environment. Of course, that work must consider the appropriate use of our environment, which belongs to all of us and in fact makes an incredibly important contribution to South Australia, Australia and the rest of the world. We have extraordinary landscapes and seascapes in South Australia that must be protected, but we have to get on and start to use them sensibly, respectfully, responsibly on behalf of all South Australians.

When I think about this budget, and when I think about all things the government does, my mind turns to all the corners of the electorate of Stuart. I think about the people in the far south of the electorate, which starts only 75 kilometres north of Adelaide, and the people in Kapunda and Truro. Not many people would know that a chunk of the Barossa Valley is in the electorate of Stuart. I think about those people and what this will mean to them, what this budget means to them, many of whom commute every day to and from Adelaide for work.

They have a life in a beautiful part of the state after hours. They have a fair bit of time commuting: some drive all the way, some get a car to drive to Gawler or share a car to Gawler and then get the train from Gawler into the city. There is a whole range of different possibilities. What does it mean to them when they are thinking about metro issues and rural issues? What does it mean to the people of Oodnadatta and Innamincka? They are over 1,000 kilometres from Adelaide. What do they think about the budget? I can tell you they feel sorely forgotten. Whether they be pastoralists or Aboriginal people living in important Aboriginal communities a long way from Adelaide, they feel sorely forgotten.

What about the people in Port Augusta, the people at the heart of the electorate of Stuart? That is a very important regional centre. I can tell you they are not impressed with the budget. They look at what the government has done for Port Pirie particularly and for Whyalla and they are unimpressed with this government's budget. It would be incorrect to say all of them, but they at large are hoping for a much better government to give them a much better budget next year.

There are some tiny parts of the electorate of Stuart. Think about the township of Bower between Eudunda and Morgan. That is a very small community but a very proactive community, and their heart and soul is in what goes on there. When they have a community gathering, it is not at all unusual for 150 people to turn up. The casual observer who is not familiar with the area would look around and wonder where all these people have come from, because it is a community with a very big heart.

Part of the Riverland is in the electorate of Stuart, and they are calling out for all sorts of services. They are still suffering, let me tell you. Morgan, Blanchetown, Cadell, Murbko, that part of the electorate of Stuart and that part of the river are still in many ways suffering from the Millennium Drought, suffering from the lack of support from the government during that time. Of course, we come to that very large Mid North, Southern Flinders section of the electorate of Stuart, and I spoke earlier today about the need for freight efficiencies.

There are 30 different communities in Stuart; not one of them is the same with regard to their make-up, where the people come from, what they do, where they work or where they live. But there is one thing that is common between all of them: they are dissatisfied with this state budget. In rural, regional and remote Australia they are feeling completely forgotten by this government. The reason at the heart of it is that they look at this budget and there was not one cent for the upgrade of one school in regional South Australia, there was not one cent for the upgrade of one hospital anywhere in regional South Australia and there was not one cent for the upgrade of one road anywhere in regional South Australia.

Regional South Australians are pretty resilient. They do not want everything laid out for them on a platter. They do not want the government to do everything for them, but they do want to be given the tools they need so that they can get on and live their lives and be productive. They need schools, they need hospitals and they need roads. That is not everything, but it easily summarises the highest priorities that the people in rural and remote South Australia want from their state government. It is not one cent just in my electorate; it is not one cent anywhere for regional South Australia, in any of those three areas. That is absolutely shameful.

We move on to environmental issues, police, corrections, the Attorney-General's Department, Aboriginal affairs, regional development, manufacturing, primary industries, trade, child protection, infrastructure, River Murray, road safety, on and on and on—these are all issues that are very important to people in regional South Australia, but not one cent spent to upgrade a school, a hospital or a road in regional South Australia is a dreadful shame.

But let me tell you that there is hope on the horizon. Let me tell you that we have made it very clear over the last few years that if we are successful at the next state election—and, let me be clear, I am a very cautious person; this is not in the bag and we know that we have to work incredibly hard to be successful at the next state election—there will be a huge change. There will be a huge change for all South Australia, not just for regional South Australia but for the people of Adelaide as well.

We will be very much focused on cost of living. We will be focused on reducing taxes and reducing charges. We will be focused on reducing red tape so that people can get on and live their lives and be productive, whether it is in their home or whether in their business so they can employ more people. We will be focused on productive infrastructure. We will establish infrastructure SA so that we know that when the government—a Marshall Liberal government—spends taxpayers' money on infrastructure in South Australia it has been fully assessed.

It will not be a callous vote-grabbing exercise like the O-Bahn, for example, which the government has embarked upon. When we talk to people from the north-eastern suburbs—of course, good luck to them, that is fantastic, we do not begrudge them their good fortune—most of them cannot understand exactly why the government is spending $170 million to give them a four-minute faster commute. I say again: good luck to them. I am pleased for them that they will get that.

With trade and exports, we will significantly boost our performance as a state in that area to bring wealth from other states and other nations into South Australia. We will be very focused on regional development. We will also be very focused on getting the very best that we possibly can out of our state's Public Service. We value South Australian public servants incredibly highly. We know that the overwhelming majority of them want to make a very positive contribution to our state, and that they are there to work hard and diligently for the right outcomes, but at the moment they are hampered from doing that.

We will unlock their talents, their skills and their abilities so that they can help us, and so that they can help all South Australians get the outcomes they deserve, and we will do it through much better budgeting than we have seen for the last 16 years.

Mr BELL (Mount Gambier) (17:11): I rise to make some comments on the Budget Measures Bill and, in particular, the state bank tax. Is it not interesting that tax is always Labor's answer to any problem? Whether it is real or perceived, the answer is tax. Over the last couple of years, Labor has tried to implement, has implemented or is considering implementing the following taxes: state bank tax; emergency services levy increase; of course, the car park tax; GST increases; foreign investor surcharge on stamp duties; and land tax on the family home.

Make no mistake: South Australians will pay for this tax because somebody has to pay, whether it be by one or a combination of the following: higher borrowing costs for banks and therefore higher lending costs for businesses and households; lower interest payments for savings deposits or lower returns for shareholders, including superannuation accounts by reduced dividends and/or lower share values; and increased sovereign or reputational risk.

The bank tax is a punitive tax levelled at five businesses operating in South Australia. I guess the difference between the federal bank tax and the state bank tax is that the Australian government provides a guarantee for the major banks that protects their deposits and ensures the stability of the financial system. This guarantee allows these banks to go out to the market and borrow at a lesser rate. The federal government is saying, 'Since we give the guarantee with taxpayers' money, we are looking for a return to the taxpayer because of that guarantee, and we want a return to the taxpayer on that guarantee.'

That is very different from a state-based tax that will pit our state against other states with lower overheads, which will mean that business will flow away from South Australia and into other areas. In fact, I had one very large trucking company come and talk to me about it and their accountant had already investigated moving all their accounts to Queensland which, again, would be detrimental to the State of South Australia, the state that we all want our children to grow and prosper in.

Of course, in the budget we have electricity and the number one issue in this state, bar none, is the price of electricity. It is forcing businesses out of South Australia. It is increasing hardship on the most vulnerable. No matter which way they try to spin it, Labor have had 16 years in government. In fact, the Premier has been in cabinet for the entirety of those 16 years, so the buck stops to a large degree with the Premier, because he has sat around that table for 16 years and had a hand in every decision that has been made. That $550 million of taxpayers' money will really just try to cover up the mess that has been created after 15 years of Labor.

South Australia already has the nation's most expensive electricity and many believe that this latest policy will push up the price even more. What I find astounding is that $550 million is basically there for backup generation in case there is load shedding. That $550 million will not actually enter the market at any point other than as a backup, so it staggers me to understand how the government can come in here and say that it will reduce power prices.

In fact, if you listen carefully, they have moved away from those words and now they are using words, undoubtedly from a well-paid spin doctor, that it would put downward pressure on the price of electricity. As we all know, you only have to look at this and say, 'Well, hang on, if this $550 million isn't actually going to enter the generation market to drive prices down'—that is, competitively bid against private generators—'and is only there for a backup, how can it drive prices down?' The reality is that it cannot.

It will be there as a backup for load shedding or days of extreme weather. Of course, we now find that in this substitute plan, plan 3.0, the backup diesel generators do not work at optimum efficiency on days over 40°, but that is okay. We are hoping the South Australian people just gloss over the finer details of that part of the energy plan that they carry around next to their chests like it is a beating heart.

Different from Labor, a Marshall Liberal government will have a comprehensive electricity policy based on the following principles, including certainty, that is, cooperating with other governments to manage the transition to a lower carbon economy, including a single agreed renewable energy target for the nation. We are not going to have an artificial renewable energy target for the state; in fact, we will agree on one that is good for the whole nation. There will be reliability and more operating base load that will deliver on-demand electricity to strengthen the stability and security of the network.

There will be more gas supply from the Cooper Basin to support electricity generation. This notion that we are preventing gas extraction in South Australia, or banning it, is absolute nonsense. Even the Minister for Energy cannot say it with a straight face because he knows that it is not true. What we propose is a moratorium on a technique of extracting gas called fracking. Let me tell you that gas extraction is going on right now in the South-East of South Australia, or at least exploration for that gas, with a view to it coming online, and that will be done via a conventional method. We have no problem with conventional gas extraction; it is only the newer technology of fracking or slick water hydraulic fracking, to be more exact.

Of course, we know that storage is important, and we will be accelerating the development of storage technologies for renewable futures. There will be demand management to give consumers choices to better manage their demand for their own benefit. There will be improved competition in the retail electricity market and the national energy market, actually working together with the federal government and other states to improve the market operation for the benefit of all consumers.

It is this national energy market that I think the government should turn their minds to, in that at the moment the energy markets operate as different states because that is how it is determined, yet there are rules around the bidding and also the transmission of electricity into another market. It is not a single market. It is basically made up of five markets.

There has been a suggestion of working with COAG, Victoria and Tasmania to create one market that would be South Australia, Victoria and Tasmania where the generation and flow of electricity in that single market would actually drive prices down. I had an expert in the field, who was doing some consultancy for a large energy producer in my electorate, talk to me and say that that one change, if the three states would agree, would drive the price of power down by 10 per cent in South Australia at a minimum, just by changing the rules around how energy producers can bid into the market and actually look at Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania as a single market within the national energy market.

Of course, when talking about energy, you know you are on the wrong track when you see the level of hardship payments increase. In South Australia, 1.8 customers per 100 are repaying debt under a retailer's hardship program. That is up from 1.5 per 100 in 2014-15. The average electricity debt of customers when entering a retailer's hardship program in South Australia is $1,081.

The average electricity debt amongst hardship customers in South Australia is $1,706. This is the highest in the nation, and if we take that from the previous figure of $1,081, which is the national average of electricity debt, you can see that we are about $620 more in debt before going on hardship programs in South Australia. The number of residential customers who are disconnected for non-payment increased by 3.6 per cent in South Australia. This, again, is the highest rate nationally.

It staggers me when the Treasurer and the Premier come in here and try to rewrite history. I am just going to go through a few quotes from both the Premier and the Treasurer over the course of this journey. I will go back to 26 September last year in The Advertiser. The Treasurer said, 'If they close Hazelwood, it's going to be good for South Australia,' which just shows the naivety of the Treasurer at the time.

The Premier, on 3 November last year, on the closing of Hazelwood, said, 'Perversely it could have a positive impact for South Australia'—unbelievable. Then, of course, the Treasurer would come in here and lament the national energy market. In fact, he would use words like, 'It's broken. We have to do something about it. We need to stand alone and again fight everybody else in the country.' Quite frankly, they cannot manage their own system, so the easiest distraction method is to pick a fight with somebody else instead of looking internally. On 29 September last year, the Treasurer said, and this is from Hansard:

I have to say that Matt Zema, God rest his soul, and I worked tirelessly to help us integrate renewable energy into the National Electricity Market. His successors and Tony Marxsen at the Australian Energy Market Operator have been fine advisers to the state government; indeed, they are great advisers to all state governments. They are the first port of call that we make because these people run our market…

As I said, the entire framework for AEMO's operation, for the operation of the National Electricity Market, is based in this parliament. In bipartisan ways, we have built the National Electricity Market in this chamber and in the other chamber by bringing amendments and bills here to this parliament on behalf of all other Australian parliaments, and we voted on them.

That is from Hansard, 29 September 2016. On the same day, the Treasurer said:

We are the lead legislator for the National Electricity Market. We have a lot of in-depth, in-situ advice given to us constantly by world experts based here in South Australia—people whose lives have been dedicated to the management of the National Electricity Market and its establishment...

We have designed it, we have built it—

That is from Hansard, 29 September 2016. I quote from 28 July 2015:

Increasing the capability of the Heywood Interconnector from 460 megawatts to 650 megawatts in July 2016 will deliver greater access to generation invested at peak times, maintain reliability and facilitate the export of renewable energy out of South Australia. It also has the potential to reduce the level of frequency of extreme wholesale prices. I am quite confident that we will be fine. Like you said, if they were making money and the demand was there, it would not be an issue.

So on the one hand he is saying that the Hazelwood interconnector is good and that in fact that is going to drive prices down and increase reliability, then, 12 months later, he is saying, 'If Hazelwood closes, that will be good for South Australia.' This is a Treasurer who does not know his portfolio. He is obviously being briefed as his lips are moving, and it quite astounds me that this person, the Treasurer, is in charge of our electricity market with comments like that. With those final remarks, I commend the bill to the house.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:27): I rise to speak on the Budget Measures Bill 2017, which essentially is to introduce and provide the legislative framework around the government's budget, provided by the Treasurer in June this year. The government, of course, via the Treasurer promised another jobs budget; instead, it delivered new taxes and higher charges, which frankly are the last things South Australia needs. Already our communities are haemorrhaging in debt and the fear of losing their jobs, for those who have them, and things such as the $370 million bank tax certainly will not be delivering jobs. It will make the risk even greater, far from relieving the households that are struggling with the cost of living.

The key revenue initiatives, some of which are covered in this bill, are the $370 million over four years that will be received from a new state bank levy, $48.8 million over four years for a foreign investor surcharge on stamp duty liabilities, $230 million in revenue from the sale of the Techport Australia Common User Facility to the federal government and the distributions from the Motor Accident Commission, now forecast at a total of $2.76 billion: $947.5 million in the 2016-17 year and $321.7 million in dividends budgeted for the 2017-18 year plus $16.9 million in return of capital. Of course, there is another half a billion dollar sale in the background, which is the sale of Land Services, which of course could be significantly higher, but clearly the government have now admitted that that is going to be sold.

The government, of course, have sold everything they can get their hands on, run up debt and now has another tranche of ways that they can take from South Australians, in every possible way, money to provide for their election campaign for 2018 and to continue their rampant expenditure, among which there has been disgusting waste. Just in the last few days, the government have acknowledged that something like $4 million is being spent on pre-election advertising campaigns, which is a scandalous application of funds. Little wonder that we now have a situation where, when asked what the difference is between the state government and a bank, the answer is that one is a blood-sucking leech and the other is a financial institution.

Can I say that, in respect of the bank tax, we on this side of the house will be opposing that provision in the bill. We will be opposing it. In the past, we have opposed some initiatives of the government when they have been inconsistent with an election commitment or when they have been a tax or claimed to be a tax under the guise of other legislation. Examples of these include the biosecurity levy and, after the last election, the car park tax, so it is not without precedent. It is not something we do without careful consideration. We certainly do consider carefully.

As lead speaker on this, I want to outline some of the disadvantages of this tax and some of the concerns we raised about the briefings provided before reaching our decision in respect of this matter. It has not been a kneejerk reaction; we do listen to the advice of the Treasury officials, who were finally able to provide us with briefings within a week or so following the budget announcement. We thank them for that.

I want to say at the outset that I am a client of the National Australia Bank, to which this new tax is to apply. The four big banks and the Macquarie Bank will be subject to this tax under the new rules. Fortunately, I have more of the National Australia Bank's money than they have of mine; nevertheless, for the purpose of this exercise, I disclose that interest.

The financial institutions to which it will not be applicable include institutions such as Bendigo Bank and Suncorp. I make no direct or personal reflection on these entities, but I want to highlight the difficulty raised in providing an advantage to some financial institutions in South Australia and not to others. Bear in mind the very significant employment of people in the banks to which it will apply in South Australia and the risks which it will place on those jobs and the government should realise what a serious impact this will have.

It is quite clear from the briefings we have had that this was not something that was dreamt up by Treasury: this is the brainchild of the Treasurer and/or members of cabinet. This is not something that has come as a recommendation from Treasury. Clearly, the Treasurer had seen that the federal government had instituted a nationwide tax under its Major Bank Levy Bill 2017 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Major Bank Levy) Bill 2017 following the federal budget. He decided that he would piggyback on those, notwithstanding the disadvantage that would give South Australia in the federation of states; nonetheless, he progressed with the desire to provide funding for his spending splurges. Let us first look at clause 13 of the Budget Measures Bill, which provides:

State major bank levy payable by an [authorised deposit-taking institution] ADI under this Act cannot be directly recovered from customers of the ADI and must be paid out of profits or other funds of the ADI.

The government briefing and information provided subsequent to the briefing advised that, in response to the question, 'In which court would any legal action be taken over an alleged breach of section 13 of the bill?' the answer would be the Supreme Court. They have provided that to us. I have asked the question, and I think all the people in this house should ask this: what is the penalty? What is the sanction in the bill for a breach of this directive under clause 13? The answer is nothing.

There is not an offence. There is not a financial payment. There is not an obligation to be able to be subject to some civil claim. There is absolutely nothing in the bill. I do not know what they will be asking for in the Supreme Court. They might be seeking a declaration that there has been a breach. What is that going to do to protect the public against that? As is quite clear from the Economics Legislation Committee, which is a national committee which provided its report in June 2017, there are not protections against this. That is the risk that is taken.

The problem with it being in South Australia as an extra tax is that our people are going to risk being the subject of having to carry the burden of that because, although it says there is to be no direct payment, the banks, of course, can provide that indirectly. There is no prohibition even on that as some kind of quasi request. There are other circumstances in which banks are liable for prosecution if they do not do the right thing.

Just in recent days, the Commonwealth Bank was the subject of allegations and charges of breaches of anti-money laundering and counterterrorism financing laws, which suggests that there have been multiple breaches—53,506 cash transactions of $10,000 or more. There is an obligation for reporting on this. There is a claim that they did not do it. They counterclaimed to say that there was a coding error and that they had remedied it as quickly as possible. That will be a matter sorted out in the courts.

I will say that the Commonwealth Bank, to its credit, has stripped its chief executive officer and its high-level executives of their bonuses—about time, frankly. One thing that really upsets the public and really sticks in their craw is not so much that bank executives are paid so much money—as that is a matter for the shareholders to make decisions on at their annual general meetings and their boards to be accountable for—but that banks create massive profits or create huge blunders and then still get their bonuses. Unsurprisingly, they have not, so well done to the Commonwealth Bank for actually taking some initiative in that regard.

We have a bank tax applicable to some and not to others. That is discriminatory and will obviously directly affect the jobs of those working in those areas, several thousand of whom are at risk in South Australia. Secondly, we have no protection or enforceability in respect of the transfer of that to the consumer.

Finally, in respect of the actual measure itself, when asked whether there had been any legal advice on the enforceability of the major bank levy proposal as a state tax—for example, in respect of whether it might breach the obligations under the free trade arrangements between states—can I say that these are matters obviously of concern to a number of people as to whether there may be some constitutional challenge to this legislation in the High Court or on the way to the High Court. They are matters of concern because we are being asked to deal with this legislation.

Far from the government saying, 'This is novel in its approach. We appreciate the concern of the opposition or anyone else who might ask in this house. Here is a copy of the legal advice we have received.' They confirmed that they did obtain legal advice from Professor John Williams, who is an academic at the University of Adelaide, but they will not show it to us. I find it unconscionable to ask us to take the risk of passing legislation and not present it to us with some reassurance when clearly there is some controversy surrounding this.

This is not some Crown Solicitor's advice about whether a public servant has done the wrong thing or a minister has stuffed up. This is about a major piece of legislation and, frankly, I find it very concerning that the Treasurer has not actually walked in with it and said, 'Here is the basis of the legal stability of this legislation,' and presented it in support of their argument to encourage us as a parliament to support it. No, that is a secret and we are not allowed to see it.

When the shadow treasurer asked in the briefing how the bank levy will be administered, the Commissioner of State Taxation advised that they would go out to consult the affected banks to make the process of compliance as simple as possible, utilising information provided to the commonwealth government agencies. There had not been even any discussions with the commonwealth agencies at the time we had this briefing, so again we are in this space of no identified process as to how this will operate, yet the government is asking us to sign up to that and accept it.

Finally, at the briefing I inquired why there is an omission from this bill, in my view, and that is why there is no protective provision in the bill for the proposed sale of the Land Services Group data, which the government has also announced. There is no mention about it in the bill, yet we have had repeated statements by this government—in respect of the period over the last 18 months and in documentation they put out in respect of invitations of expressions of interest to acquire this data that has gone out in published material by this government—that the privacy of people in respect of the data would be protected.

Issues about protection against any increment in the cost of access to data in the future and protection against the sale of data are all things that have quite reasonably been raised, in addition to the security of that information, its storage and the like. These are all quite reasonable questions being asked by all the stakeholders, yet there is no provision in the Budget Measures Bill to protect the interests of South Australians in the sale of Land Services Group data and the like, and I think that is scandalous.

What they told us at the briefing was that that was going to be in the contract. Can I say, firstly, that we do not get to see these contracts. Secondly, if the government's capacity in drawing up contracts is evidenced, for example, by the Royal Adelaide Hospital and the subsequent years of litigation in respect of the compliance and/or progress of contracts, then frankly I do not have a lot of confidence in signing up to a budget measures bill with no statutory protection—

The SPEAKER: Or the contract with United Water.

Ms CHAPMAN: —we will get to the Allwater contract later as well—and I think that is unacceptable. I think the omission of that from the Budget Measures Bill goes to show the disrespect the government has towards the people of South Australia and the protection of their interests.

Of course, I could speak for a long time on Sir Robert Torrens and how he might be turning in his grave at the very prospect of the sale of this data, but I will not today; suffice to say that I am very concerned. That asset has not as yet been sold, but clearly that is on its way. We are probably going to face a situation where there will be alarming outcomes from the disclosure of data and the sale of that data which, let's face it, is very valuable to financial institutions, for example, or to people who have access to information on who owns property. The exclusion of that from what is necessary for conveyancing, registration of mortgages and easements over property and so on, we may find that access to that data will be at a higher penalty rate. I think there is a very substantial omission there.

In respect of the bill itself, the government claims that this will not have an impact on jobs. I asked the Parliament Research Library to provide me with a list of significant reported employment losses in South Australia over the last few years, and it is a very concerning list. I will read it as quickly as possible because I do not propose to address the parliament at any length on this bill, but it is important that we consider it. Some members will remember very significant losses of employment from the closure of companies or the stripping down of jobs in companies, even in your own electorate, Mr Speaker, which is very concerning.

In 2004, Sheridan lost 150l. In 2005, Kimberly Clark, lost 70; Ratbag, 70; Carter Holt Harvey, 90; NAB, 80. In 2006, AGL lost 200; Conroy's Meats, 60; Hills Industries, 87. In 2007, Motorola lost 66; GMH Holden, 600. In 2008, Mitsubishi lost 930; Cooper Standard Automotive, 116; Boart Longyear, 55, Le Cornu, 10; and ANZ, 10.

In 2009, National Foods (Berri) lost 200; Exacto Plastics, 101; Trident Tooling, 40; Media Monitors, 20; Clipsal, 200. In 2010, Bridgestone lost 600; Carter Holt Harvey, 130; Clean Seas Tuna, 22; Australian Submarine Corporation, 41. In 2011, Bianco Steel Supplies, lost 50; Tantanoola, 80; and Malaysian Airlines, 32.

In 2012, Autodom lost 60; Santos, 100; Carter Holt Harvey, another 207; Digislide, 40; Orlando, 85; Accolade Wines (Reynella), 175; Qantas, 150; Hills Holdings, 150; Elders, 75. In 2013, Brown Wood Panels lost 47; Boral, 80; Modular Furniture, 40; Saab Systems, 30; McCain Foods, 59; Mondello Farms, 140; GMH, 400; and Penrice, 70.

In 2014, Penrice lost 11 to 180; Nilsen, 30; ForestrySA, 66; Pacific Services Group, 100; Australian Office, 55; Edinburgh North, 70; Royal Park, 100 (bus makers, not the suburb); Nyrstar, another 124. Continuing in 2014, Pacific Brands/Sheridan lost 30; Arnott's, 120; Ingham Aldinga Turkeys, 79; ACI, 60; Caroma, 76; Treasury Wine, 33; Bradken, 120; and ABC Adelaide, 37.

In 2015, Mindarie mines lost 36; Holden, another 270; BGC Contracting, 125; Arrium, 580; Santos, 520 across SA and Queensland; Santos, a further 200 in SA; United Dairy Power (Murray Bridge plant), 90; JBS Australia (meat processor, Bordertown), 62; and BHP, 90. In the same year, BHP lost another 140, and again in the same year BHP lost 380. In 2015, Monroe lost 30; SA Outreach, 400. Fairfax, 35; ASC, 120 contractors; ASC, 101; Beach Energy, unknown but speculated loss; Unibooks, 100; Origin, 800 across four states. I do not have a specific number there, but obviously a significant reduction.

In 2015, the University of Adelaide lost 120; Australia Post, 1,900 nationwide; Alinta (Leigh Creek coal), 200; Arrium (Whyalla Steelworks), another 55; Arrium (Whyalla Steelworks), another 250; Tagara, 50; ASC, another 45; and Korvest (Kilburn plant) 30. In 2016, we then had another loss of 240 at Alinta, at the Port Augusta power station; Schweppes at Payneham, 28; SMR car components, 140; OZ Minerals, 70 to 100; Iluka, which is the Jacinth Ambrosia mine, mothballed, 33; de Bruin Group Timber/Tech Engineering, 20; Industrial Engineers and Spring Makers, 54; Dick Smith, 3,000 nationally; and ASC, 26.

At Arrium Whyalla steelworks, obviously at risk of even further losses, another 30 were actually lost; Holden's, 400; Hewlett Packard Enterprise, 200; Hillgrove Resources, as flagged, a further 200 jobs at that stage; and SA Pathology, 332, although I note the announcement today that some of those jobs are going to be salvaged apparently. At Optus, 200 jobs were lost; VIP Electrical, 45; State Library, 20; ASC, 175; CSM Steel, 40; Telstra, 27; Martelco Hire, 50; for Homestead Homes, I cannot say, as that is not well known, of course, but there has obviously been the demise of that enterprise with Mr Day; and Plympton Steel, 20.

This year, at ASC, the speculation is that there will be a workforce fallout of 1,130, obviously with the valley of death in lack of work as the programs come online. That is not entirely the state government's fault, obviously. Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard failed to do anything for seven years in respect of the defence industry, so we have a valley of death, thanks to them. AGL at Torrens Island is speculating reduction, and TAFE SA has 500 to go by 2019. The years 2015 to 2017 were shocker years, obviously. The years 2017 and 2018 are not looking good. I make the point that—

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