HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2018-05-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Supply Bill 2018

Supply Grievances

Adjourned debate on motion to note grievances.

(Continued from 17 May 2018.)

Mr MULLIGHAN (Lee) (20:29): How is it that I find myself speaking once again on the Supply Bill?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Point of order on a point of clarification: as I understand it, the Supply Bill was concluded at the last sitting of the parliament on the basis of second reading contributions that were identified at the time. I am not sure whether the Opposition Whip has had a change of heart in that regard. My understanding was that we were to conclude the matter at 6pm on the last sitting day in relation to this bill and move into committee. If that situation has been changed, I invite the opposition to indicate that there has been some change in that arrangement.

Mr MULLIGHAN: I am happy to indulge the—

The SPEAKER: One moment, member for Lee. There is provision for a grievance debate, which I believe we have started.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have no doubt there is, Mr Speaker. I just want some clarification about whether the previous understanding was to conclude that and move straight to committee when the parliament resumed.

Mr MULLIGHAN: No.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No? Okay.

The SPEAKER: On to the grievance, member for Lee.

Mr MULLIGHAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have searched high and low, yet it appears before me: Order of the Day No. 1, Supply Bill (No 1), that the house note grievances. Perhaps the Attorney-General might want to divert her attention to the business of the house. Given that it is a grievance, I will take the opportunity to talk a little off topic from the Supply Bill and grieve—not literally—about a subject with which I have some familiarity, albeit relatively brief compared with some other people in this chamber, and that is the work I was privileged enough to undertake as both a minister and the member for Lee over the last four years.

I am gaining an appreciation that there are some members, particularly those opposite, who find themselves newly installed as cabinet ministers and who are coming to terms with the demands of the job. It is an extremely demanding job. Some jobs are more demanding than others, depending on portfolio allocations. I found myself in the situation where I was certainly not expecting to be a member of the cabinet, let alone in this portfolio. I was certainly hoping that in my first term in parliament I would be able to serve and work very hard as the member for Lee, and I have spoken in my Address in Reply speech about some of my work as member for Lee.

I was very lucky to have some role in the superintendence of the transport and infrastructure portfolios, and later on in the housing and urban development portfolios, and I am very pleased that we were able to advance quite considerably the cause of some key imperatives for the state of South Australia in those areas. I was also very proud and very privileged to work with some of the highest calibre public servants and ministerial staff—and I should also say electorate staff—in the time of that four years.

Of course, it is a matter of public record that there was a change in chief executive not long after I became minister. We were very lucky to secure the services of an individual who had not only been the chief executive of Infrastructure Australia but was also the former chair of the National Transport Commission.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: And a key witness in the royal commission into unions.

Mr MULLIGHAN: I note that the Deputy Premier not only continues to interject against standing orders but also continues to denigrate the character of that individual, which is more a reflection on her, I should say, than a reflection on the individual in question. It was terrific to work with Michael Deegan as the chief executive. He fundamentally reformed the department.

At one stage, we held recognition ceremonies for people who were longstanding public servants. I attended the first one, and of those people who had worked for the department, with a headcount in the order of 3,200 full-time equivalent positions, I think at one of those ceremonies more than 400 had served the public for more than 30 years. Indeed, as the day went on, there was even a gentleman who had worked for the Public Service for 58 years and was still working for the department. It was incredible. It was great to recognise their contributions, ongoing as many of them were, and also great to see some change and reform in the department to align it more with a sophisticated Public Service agency.

Much to the chagrin of the member for Schubert, who finds himself with a tissue-thin deal from the federal government for an alleged $1.8 billion that is yet to eventuate, and of course is not going to eventuate over the next four years, it was terrific to secure $2.5 billion of road funding, which of course came into the forward estimates nearly immediately. We see the fruits of those negotiations, the substantial works—the Torrens to Torrens, Darlington and Northern Connector—underway.

Those agreements would not have been possible without the hard work of the chief operating officer, Paul Gelston; Don Hogben; those staff who had been responsible for many years proving up those projects and putting compelling cases to the federal government to get those projects funded and, of course, the people who make the services run. Whether it is in rail operations, road operations in the traffic management centre, managing access to outback roads or making sure that we have the right infrastructure in the Walkley Heights facility of the department, the reach of the transport department is further, I would say, than that of any other agency within government.

Everybody uses transport services or assets every single day in South Australia. Fortunately, people do not have to go to hospital every day. Fortunately, people do not have to visit a police station or be attended to by police. Not even schoolchildren go to school every day, of course, with weekends and holiday periods, but everybody uses transport. It is an important area and I take my hat off to those staff in the department.

I was very lucky also to work with some of the best ministerial staff in government at the time and I cannot thank enough my chief of staff, John Bistrovic; my personal assistant, Sandra Swalling; Gary Hough, who I spent more hours with in a car than probably he cared to, but I was fortunate enough to; as well as the number of advisers I worked with over the time: Connie Blefari, Ben Rillo, David Wilkins, Jonathan Schombergk, John Atkinson, Manny Chrisan, Mathew Leyson and Vince Puopolo, who was also a ministerial liaison officer. I am sure, as many members opposite who are also ministers are realising, for many people who contact government or who contact ministers seeking assistance, ministerial liaison officers can make the world go around for them, and I was very blessed to have several people come in from the department to assist me.

I think one of the most thankless jobs when working for a minister is that of media adviser, or press secretary as it used to be called, and I was very fortunate to have Pat Cronin, who started out with me, but latterly Rebecca Brice, who is one of the most assiduous workers I have ever come across. It is a dreadful job at times having to field inquiries nearly 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and throughout weekends and to wake up increasingly cranky ministers, especially ministers with young children who have kept them up all night, and ask them to go on Bevan and Abraham at 7 o'clock in the morning, yet she did so time and time again, which was of great assistance to me.

Of course, I was blessed to have a wonderful electorate office. Karen Abineri, who started out working for me, first started serving the member for Lee and the member for Lee's successors in 1979. She brought all her wealth of experience and contacts within the community to my benefit, which was a huge help. Understandably, Karen chose to retire after such a long period of service, and I was fortunate to be assisted by Kyall Smith, also a constituent, and Pauline Mannix, who has worked in electorate offices for nearly 50 years—if she works a day in July, then she will tick up the 50 for her work in state and federal electorate offices—and Shan Fowler.

I will leave my last thankyous to, most latterly, my campaign manager, John Atkinson, who ran one of the best campaigns that I think has ever been run. Despite the hardest effort from any Liberal candidate who ran at the last election and the resources that were thrown at the seat of Lee, I am very pleased to say that we got a swing to us.

However, none of that would have been possible if it were not for the extraordinary forbearance—not necessarily of this chamber which, of course, gives me a lot—of my wife, Antonia, and our two young boys, Benjamin and Isaac, who we were very blessed to welcome into the world during the last four years while I was a minister. They give me a wonderful reason not only to jump out of bed in the morning with a heart full of happiness but to continue working hard to be a good father and husband and I thank them for their assistance.

Ms COOK (Hurtle Vale) (20:40): Today, I rise to speak on this Supply Bill as a grievance. I know that everyone on this side of the house will agree that it is really only Labor that will stand up for South Australia against relentless negativity and cuts, not just from the federal Liberal government but now we are going to see it from the state government, too.

Since Tony Abbott took office in 2013, South Australia has been in the Liberal Party's crosshairs, treated with contempt or disinterest from the Liberal Party's then North Shore cabinet. This was evident from the disgusting comments by the then defence minister that he 'wouldn't trust the ASC to build a canoe'. With this groupthink of the federal cabinet, it is little wonder that the Liberal Party did a secret deal with the Japanese government to construct the Future Submarine program, a decision that was only later overturned in the death throes of Tony Abbott's prime ministership in the hunt for critical caucus votes.

While the accession of Malcolm Turnbull to The Lodge in 2015 may have instilled in South Australians real optimism that the vicious attacks on our state from the Liberal Party might cease, we quickly learned just how wrong we were. As minister Malcolm Turnbull abandoned Labor's plan to deliver high-speed fibre internet to every premises and instead opted for a fibre-to-the-node, copper-to-the-house policy, the prime minister was lambasted for this policy position, and rightly so. Next, we were told that every South Australian would have access to the NBN by the end of 2016. Now, as Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull has crab walked away from his past commitments, roasted the NBN project as a mistake from the get-go and blamed the former federal Labor government for all his woes as minister. Honestly, you cannot make this up.

We know that South Australia sustained $5.5 billion in cuts under the Liberals' infamous 2014-15 federal budget, a measure that state Labor stood up to while in office, fighting these unfair federal cuts to South Australian services. These cuts included over $650 million ripped out of South Australian hospitals and over $330 million ripped out of South Australian schools, but we do not need to go back that far to see just how heartless the Liberal Party has been to South Australia: Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull committed to ripping $210 million out of South Australian schools just last year.

I am proud of and acknowledge the really good work of the member for Port Adelaide who, as minister, stood up to these relentless attacks on the South Australian education system. We know that those opposite want to go harder. We know that Malcolm Turnbull, in lockstep with the Premier, wants to rip $557 million in GST revenue out from South Australia, as signalled in the federal government's Productivity Commission report. It is only because of the good work of people like the member for Cheltenham, the former premier, that Malcolm Turnbull's half a billion dollar cut to South Australia has currently been stalled.

However, while South Australia has been the victim of federal Liberal cuts for nearly five years now, affecting everything from health and education to critical public infrastructure and transport funding, it is the mismanagement of the River Murray and the blatant water theft by New South Wales that have most revealed the true extent of the Liberals' disdain for South Australia. While New South Wales irrigators and public servants were busy undermining their own water laws and subverting the intention of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, South Australian farmers and irrigators were yet again left short-changed by another indifferent Liberal government.

When state Labor—

Members interjecting:

Ms COOK: Shh! When state Labor in office called for an urgent COAG judicial inquiry into the water theft—

Members interjecting:

Ms COOK: —shh, Adrian!—South Australian Liberal Senator Anne Ruston instead backed in the New South Wales government to investigate itself. It is still unclear why this happened and why she trusts the New South Wales government enough to investigate and report on their own water theft—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member will be heard in silence.

Ms COOK: —thank you for your protection—instead of standing up for South Australia. But what is not unclear is that the federal Liberal government has once again been caught out targeting South Australia. It is a government prepared to let petty partisan politics override the strong federalist principles of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The latest insult from the federal Liberal government came on budget night this past May—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hurtle Vale, take a seat please. Members, please extend some courtesy to the member for Hurtle Vale.

Ms COOK: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. The latest insult from the federal Liberal government came on budget night this past May, when the $1.8 billion cash injection into South Australian road and rail projects, much hyped by those opposite, was put off into the never-never, beyond 2022 and outside the forward estimates. Even as late as this afternoon, the Minister for Transport called this new money and defended his federal mates.

The Liberal Party in Canberra are treating South Australians like mugs. With this abdication of leadership, Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison are saying to South Australians, 'Vote for me this federal election, and vote for me at the next federal election, and then and only then will we talk about South Australia getting its fair share of infrastructure funding.' Indeed, South Australian infrastructure grant funding is projected to sit at just 2 per cent of the national infrastructure spend, despite the state being home to 7 per cent of the national population and facing unique public transportation and infrastructure challenges not seen in other major cities.

While the Prime Minister might like a good selfie on the train or tram, his cut to the electrification of the Gawler line, together with the federal government's failure to invest a single dollar in the Adelaide tram network, a position that is sure to be parroted by his state colleagues, makes it clear that the Liberal Party have failed South Australia when it comes to crucial transport infrastructure.

While those opposite are pressing on with their $1.8 billion infrastructure investment talking points, no doubt forwarded to them by Christopher Pyne's office, South Australians are already waking up to the truth. In the wake of the federal budget in May, the South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy, the South Australian Freight Council, the RAA and the Civil Contractors Federation joined forces to describe this budget as 'misleading, untimely and inauspicious for South Australia'.

Now, of course, we have the recent election of the South Australian Marshall Liberal government. While I have congratulated those opposite on their electoral success—and I genuinely wish them well over the next four years and look forward to working with them—the early signs do not fill me with confidence. Firstly, there is the Premier's post-election abandonment of Labor's Virtual Power Plant program, an initiative that sees 50,000 South Australian homes fitted with batteries and solar systems, a truly game-changing program that will help drive down power prices, increase South Australia's renewable energy mix and maintain South Australia's excellent relationship with Tesla while advertising ourselves to the world.

I am heartened that the Premier has recently been rolled by the member for Stuart and has since been forced to backflip on this knee-jerk response to cut the program, but it is disappointing that the Premier was forced back to the table kicking and screaming by his minister. It is these cascading early failures by those opposite that concern me.

While South Australians have become accustomed to the federal Liberal Government talking down to them, it is the state Liberal government's inability to provide the certainty and the reliability of a stable cabinet government that has me even more concerned. Those opposite said they were ready. They said it was their turn. Yet all we have seen in the weeks and months since 17 March is a government on training wheels, lurching from one debacle to the next.

In my own portfolio, we have the decision of the minister and the Premier to undertake the audit into Housing SA stock, with the awarding of the audit going to the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute. We are still waiting for answers to why this contract was awarded without going to tender as well as on the issue of the minister becoming aware of the behaviour of one of the members of the organisation's board. Then there are some small failures of leadership that have disappointed many South Australians who placed their goodwill and their vote in the South Australian Liberal Party.

We have seen issues with the member for Adelaide and the golf frolicking and with Grandparents for Grandchildren. I am heartened now that that has been reversed. There has been the member for Gibson's failure to attend our very important southern suburbs community forum. And who can forget 'doughnutgate'? Saturday mornings for many people and their trips to Krispy Kreme will never be the same again.

The member for Schubert has continually failed to meet his self-imposed deadlines for the North Terrace tram extension, with the minister recently revealing the third delay in as many months. If the minister cannot manage those deadlines concerning a project that was nearly finished when he took office, what hope is there that the Marshall government will truly move South Australia forward?

Only Labor can be counted on to stand up for South Australia, both here and in Canberra. We have a clear, positive, progressive vision for South Australia. We are unwavering on this and it benefits every South Australian. We will work with the community, not at them. We will develop strong, positive policies to bear ahead of the next election in 2022. Until then, I will be working hard every day to ensure that we see a majority Labor government elected both here in South Australia and federally because one thing is painfully clear to us on this side of the house: only Labor fights and governs in the interests of all South Australians.

Mr BIGNELL (Mawson) (20:50): I bring to the attention of the house that there is no minister in the chamber at the moment.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Clerk informs me that there is no need to be at this point of the debate, member for Mawson.

Mr BIGNELL: Thank you, sir. I rise tonight to wish the government well in looking after the people of South Australia over the next four years. I look back at the five years that I had as a minister and the work we did across the portfolio areas that I had responsibility for, and we saw some incredible growth there. Tourism went from $4.9 billion a year to $6.6 billion a year and there is still one quarter to come in, which will be the March quarter, to work out where we finally ended up.

We did some amazing things by working with the private sector and tourism operators right throughout South Australia, as well as with airline operators and tourism operators from right around the world. It was terrific to have responsibility for that area—one of the fastest growing sectors in the South Australia economy and, as I said, now worth at least $6.6 billion to the state. More importantly, it is an area that put 5,400 extra jobs into the South Australian economy, taking it up to 38,700 people employed in the tourism sector. Those figures are probably even higher than that. Unfortunately, because of some cutbacks from the federal government and the Australian Bureau of Statistics, there is a real lag, so the latest figures we have are to 30 June 2016.

In the area of recreation and sport, we spent an extra $146 million in the 18 months up until 17 March, and there is still some of that money to be rolled out. I have spoken to a lot of sporting organisations in my area and they are very nervous about money that was committed by our government. It is there, it is in the budget, but they are really worried that they are not going to get that money. I know he has a few other things in this plate at the moment, but it would be good if the minister could actually get across that and work with the fantastic team down at the Office for Recreation and Sport. They are a terrific group of people. They are not a really big organisation, but they sit within the DPTI department and get a lot of support from DPTI.

To everyone in the Office for Recreation and Sport, I thank them for the great contribution they make. They are out and about in our community, right around the state, and we have to remember that this is a state with one million square kilometres. It is a huge area to get around. For any new members of parliament, I remind you that the officers at the Office for Recreation and Sport will come and sit down with your clubs and work through their aspirations and they can help them fill in the forms for applications. They want to see this money out to the clubs.

Sometimes, what we see is the same clubs getting lots of money because they were successful once and they know how to do it. There are a lot of clubs out there that have never applied for grants, so I really encourage local MPs to get out and talk to them. That $146 million was a record amount of money to be spent pretty much in grassroots sports. I think one of the things I am most proud of is the money that we put into women's sport: $24 million to build or upgrade change facilities for girls and women because they were getting changed behind bushes, in cars, in offices and in other places that were inappropriate. They deserve the same standard of facilities as the boys and the blokes have enjoyed for years.

I was down in the member for Lee's electorate early on, making an announcement about change rooms at Jubilee Reserve. It was a fantastic day. In my own electorate, Dudley United Netball Club received $200,000 to build new change facilities. They were the first announced and they were also the first built. It was a great pleasure to be in Penneshaw last September to open those change rooms. I congratulate everyone involved in the club who succeeded in that grant, and also in getting a new netball court, which will be opened in the next few weeks. I was down there a few weeks ago and it was terrific to see the progress being made on that court—the only court of its type anywhere in South Australia. Congratulations to everyone at Dudley United.

In the area of agriculture, food, fisheries and forest, there have also been some great advancements over the past four years. We now know that food and wine is worth $19.97 billion to the South Australian economy. Again, one in five working South Australians is employed in that area. We unashamedly helped businesses, either individual businesses or sectors, from time to time. I know the new government say they are not going to pick winners, but sometimes you just have to; you have to pick regions that you need to be winners and the Riverland is the great example of that.

We got the money for the South Australian River Murray Sustainability program, which has absolutely transformed businesses there, and I want to congratulate all the people at PIRSA who worked so hard on the SARMS program. It has seen people grow blueberries on a mass scale for the first time ever in the Riverland. It is seeing people save even more water to ensure that those flows are returned to the mighty River Murray. We were already the most efficient users of water anywhere along the Murray-Darling system. To see even stronger efficiencies gained by these changes is a credit to all those people in the Riverland and the Murraylands who came up with ideas on how they could save water and also be more productive and make more money. To everyone in PIRSA involved in that program, I say thank you.

We have an amazing team in PIRSA, including the biosecurity team. Without biosecurity you have nothing. To everyone there who works on the fruit fly program, who works on keeping a lid on outbreaks like the Khapra beetle—of which we had an outbreak on Kangaroo Island two years ago—and the work that was done with the Russian aphid, these people spring into action, they are all over it and they have contacts right around the world who help them. There are few jurisdictions in the world that can claim to be phylloxera free, fruit fly free and where it is illegal to grow GM crops. I think we have a very proud history in South Australia.

Again, and I have said this before, if we look at the carpet in here there are no submarines, there are no cars and there are no mines. The images we see in this carpet are of wheat and grapes. They are so important to the economy of South Australia. Whether you live in rural South Australia or you live in the city, you depend on the farming community—you depend on regional South Australia.

Another area where I am a bit concerned about the new government and their claim not to pick winners is the assistance that we have given to cellar doors around South Australia. Adelaide is the great wine capital of Australia. We are a part of a network of 10 winegrowing cities around the world and we are very proud to be Australia's representative in that elite group of cities. If we are going to be in that group we need to have world-class facilities. We have given grants of up to $25,000 to wineries right across our 18 wine regions in South Australia. My understanding is that that program is going to stop, along with a lot of other assistance we would give industry. The minimum contribution by a winery was at least dollar for dollar. I know one place that took our $25,000 and invested over $900,000 of their own money.

We made contributions to the Cube at d'Arenberg. The Osborn family at d'Arenberg spent $13 million of their own money. We wrote a cheque for $2 million to help them out, but that money did not just go to the Osborn family and to d'Arenberg wines; it went to an entire region. What we are seeing in McLaren Vale are record numbers of visitors. Every other cellar door in the area, all the hotels and the B&Bs are reporting a boom in the number of visitors because of the Cube, which the member for Cheltenham, as premier, and I opened in December last year.

The guarantee that the Osborn family had to sign up to was that they were going to employ at least 58 more staff, and those people are there. Chester Osborn has told me that the cost of employing 58 more people is basically about $2 million a year, so we may have helped them with a cheque for the first year, but the Cube is going to be there and the visitors are going to keep coming and those 58 people, and more, will continue to be employed there.

As I said at the outset of this speech, I wish the government all the very best for the next four years. I guess it is a little like a child you are handing over to someone else to look after: you hope that child continues to grow and prosper. When that happens our whole state prospers, and they are really important areas for us: agriculture, food, fisheries, forests, tourism, recreation, sport and racing.

They are all very important portfolios for South Australia and I wish the relevant ministers all the very best in working with a great public servant team and also with the terrific people in industry, the individuals who help make this state so great, who bring so many dollars into our state and who employ tens of thousands of South Australians.

Motion carried.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 passed.

Clause 3.

Mr MULLIGHAN: I will perhaps make my introductory remarks until the advisers are seated.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Ask your question.

Mr MULLIGHAN: Thank you, member for Bragg. I was provided with a briefing by the Treasurer's office, with Treasury staff attending, which mainly related to clause 3. Subclause (1) of clause 3 provides that the sum of $6,631,000,000 be appropriated for the purposes of supply for the government. In the briefing, I was advised that the department did not anticipate that any of that $6 billion would need to be raised for the Consolidated Account, that it was anticipated that the state's own-source revenues and other grants and other receipts would be sufficient on a month-by-month basis to enable the Consolidated Account to be furnished with the $6,631,000,000 in total.

In asking my question, can I first confirm that that is the advice from the department, that none of this $6.631 billion will need to be raised on the financial markets? In the event that the advice provided to me is correct, does that mean that the revenues expected to come into government from those various sources will be sufficient or is there an outstanding positive balance in the Consolidated Account which will provide some assistance in meeting that funding requirement?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In short, the expectation is, as I understand it and am advised, there are cash reserves and funds from which those funds could be drawn in expected revenue in that time. There would not be the need to borrow funds to support the financing for the Supply Bill payment.

Mr Mullighan: Sorry, there would not be?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not be, no.

Mr MULLIGHAN: To what extent are cash balances available in the Consolidated Account as anticipated at 30 June 2018 to effectively give the Consolidated Account a head start in meeting that $6.631 billion funding requirement?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: You are asking the balance of moneys in cash reserves as at 30 June?

Mr MULLIGHAN: Anticipated at 30 June.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: We cannot provide that information at this point. Obviously we are still in May. Is there something else you can identify?

Mr MULLIGHAN: Sure. I just want to be clear on that. If an estimate of the cash reserves within the Consolidated Account cannot be estimated now—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: As at 30 June, it can't be estimated.

Mr MULLIGHAN: Yes, that's right, because that will be the end of and the foreshadowing of the beginning of the financial year for which money is being supplied to the government to continue its operations. So there is no estimate the department has about the level of cash balance in order to inform its advice to me that they will not need to go to the financial markets to raise funds for the purposes of this bill?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think the shadow treasurer is at cross-purposes here. It is not an indication that whatever is in the fund as at 30 June is the fund that is necessary and available for the five months of supporting—

Mr Mullighan: No, that's not what I said at all—you're misrepresenting my question.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The indication at this stage is that we don't know at this time what the total cash reserves will be as at 30 June 2018.

Mr Mullighan: Yes, we established that in your previous answer.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, you can get cranky if you like. I am trying to—

Mr Mullighan: I'm not cranky; you're just being needlessly repetitive.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —give some information to the house that there is income, as you would appreciate, coming in and out of government funds from various sources, which will support the provision of the funds of the $6.631 billion over that five months. Let's be clear, first, that the funds in reserve, as at 30 June 2018, will not provide illumination as to how all that money is going to be paid over the next five months.

Mr MULLIGHAN: The Deputy Premier either mistakenly or deliberately has misinterpreted my question. My question was quite simply interpreted and specific.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Well, ask it again.

Mr MULLIGHAN: I will have to because this will be the third time I have had to ask it, and it is that, if the advice from the department and reiterated by the Deputy Premier is that moneys will not need to be raised on the financial markets in order to supply the $6.631 billion, and because the Deputy Premier has advised me tonight that in part that is because there will be cash reserves in the Consolidated Account to count towards that $6.631—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: And other funds.

Mr MULLIGHAN: And other areas?

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: And other funds.

Mr MULLIGHAN: And other funds. Well, what is the estimate that will contribute towards the $6.631 billion that will be left in the Consolidated Account and, based on the Deputy Premier's advice, contrary to what the bill is saying, that funds will be drawn from other sources, what are those other sources and how much is estimated to be drawn from them?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, the original question was—

Mr Mullighan: Oh, you know what the original question was now, do you?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, the original question, when you stood up and made your first speech, shadow treasurer, was: is it expected that there will be funds available for the purposes of servicing the $6.631 billion over the five-month period as per the Supply Bill from the cash reserves of the government and, in particular, whether it will be necessary for the government to borrow moneys during that time.

Mr Mullighan: I said 'Consolidated Account'.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Look, are you listening?

Mr Mullighan: There are different things, you see.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Are you listening?

The CHAIR: Member for Lee.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As you have been advised, the purpose of having this bill is to ensure that, post 30 June 2018—

Mr Mullighan: Yes. I don't need a lecture on the purpose of the bill.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am answering the question, okay?

Mr Mullighan: It doesn't seem that you are, that's the problem.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: After 30 June, in the absence of there being a Supply Bill of this nature, there will be no capacity to draw funds from the state's reserve to pay the public sector, etc. Last year, for the first time in the 16 years that I have been here, the then government decided that they would seek from the parliament a five-month period of estimated expenditure to aggregate the total amount that would be required. That was an unusual situation.

Mr MULLIGHAN: Point of order: could you please draw the attention of the member for Bragg to the substance of the question and entreat her to address her remarks to the substance of the question rather than regale us with some pointless history lesson.

The CHAIR: So the point of order is relevance?

Mr MULLIGHAN: Yes.

The CHAIR: Member for Lee, you have asked the question; the Deputy Premier is answering the question.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: This established precedent of a five-month period, allegedly at the time to ensure that there would be no shortfall if there was some delay in the passage of the Appropriation Bill, is the same basis upon which this is presented to the parliament today. Obviously, on a daily basis there is a change in the total funds in the Consolidated Account that are in cash reserves for the purpose of drawing on.

I presume the shadow minister is asking us to provide an estimate of the balance of moneys in the Consolidated Account in cash reserves as at 30 June 2018, and I have explained to him that that is not an answer that is available as we discuss this today. That is the information I have. If there is a further question on what the $6.631 billion in funds will be used for, please identify what it is specifically.

The CHAIR: Member for Lee, this will be your last question.

Mr MULLIGHAN: Yes, I know. I have just been invited to ask an additional question beyond the three that the standing orders provide. Just so we are clear, the advice provided to me thus far by the department and now you is that the Consolidated Account will be able to furnish the full $6.631 billion. None of it will need to be raised on the financial markets. The reason is that the mix of revenues coming into government, as well as the anticipated reserves within the Consolidated Account, will provide a sufficient source of funds combined.

My question very specifically was that in order for that estimate to be made, that we will not need to go to market to raise any of the $6.631 billion. Clearly the department must have some estimate, firm or otherwise, about what the balance of the Consolidated Account will be at the end or indeed the beginning of the next financial year—either 30 June 2018 or 1 July 2018—so that they can provide that advice to me and to the house that they will not need to go to market. If they have an estimate, what is that estimate?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As explained, we do not have an estimate of what will be in the Consolidated Account as at 30 June 2018. I think that where the shadow treasurer is confused in respect of this is the Consolidated Account receives revenue and the government receives revenue on a continuous basis. To be able to answer, the reliance on funds and income (without having to go to borrowings in the five months) assumes, obviously, the estimated income of the government during that five-month period. If the shadow treasurer is seeking any further clarification as to assurance as to the income stream during that period, together with any combined reserve, I am happy to get that answer from the advisers who are here. Is that what you want to know?

Mr MULLIGHAN: I have exhausted my questions.

Mr PICTON: I hope to furnish some more information than the shadow treasurer has been able to. As I understand it, subclause (3) is essentially proposing to move funding between agencies on the basis of changes to those agencies and the government arrangements. Does the department have an estimate on how many agencies are affected by changes in their functions and duties outlined in subclause (3)?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Under the machinery of government changes, which I as a member of cabinet know are progressing, hopefully to be all effective as at 1 July, there is a change of the structures of departments and the allocation of some units and agencies that occurs at the request of cabinet. Essentially, irrespective of where they go or change as at 30 June or 1 July, the funds that they had allocated to them will continue as per the previous financial year. For example, as the Attorney-General, I have SafeWork SA committed to me as a unit within the Attorney-General's Department. I am rather pleased to note that under our machinery of government changes it is going to transfer to the Treasury office. Good luck with that!

In respect of that, as of 1 July it is expected that that agency will be under the responsibility of the Treasurer. Whatever allocation that unit would have received in the preceding financial year, it will receive for the next five months a similar amount. That is as I understand the process of how that works. I have a nodding of support from my trusty adviser here on that matter.

Mr PICTON: But do you have an estimate?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: We do not have an estimate of them. Another structural change in relation to education and child protection is that matters that were under the former DCSI are now realigned into the Department of Human Services and the Department for Education and a separate unit in relation to child protection. So there are some very substantial changes like that and then there are smaller units that are just moving from one to another. I do not have an exact number. I am sure that ultimately that will be made clearer, but, as you can imagine, there are a number of agencies transferring as of 1 July.

Mr PICTON: Thank you to the Deputy Premier. I understand, as she is outlining, that not all those changes have necessarily happened yet. However, the government is asking the parliament to approve this on a certain basis of those changes happening. I think it would be reasonable, and I hope she would be able to take on notice, to provide the parliament between the houses with a list of those agencies and what the effective changes to those agencies are in terms of the Supply Bill.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am certainly happy to try to advise that, but I just want to assure the member for Kaurna and other members listening in to this important committee stage that the allocation of funds for these units and/or departments is no greater or less than what they have received in the 2017-18 financial year. They will continue to have the same allocation. New initiatives and election promises of the government, etc. are not funded under this Supply Bill. They do not have the funding yet until they are debated through the normal processes, which of course is expected in September this year.

Mr PICTON: So you will take that on notice?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am happy to identify at least those that have traversed and been approved for the purposes of that approval process. I expect, if it is available, there will be a list of others that are expected to be transferred or in the process of a machinery of government change. If that is able to be disclosed, we will arrange for that list to be made available.

Clause passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

The CHAIR: I might just advise the house that that is the first time the Supply Bill has been into committee since 1992.

Third Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (21:20): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I wish to indicate how pleased I am that the Supply Bill is about to pass through this house. I want to thank with considerable praise the representatives from the Department of Treasury, who were here for most of the day waiting for this matter to be brought on. We appreciate their valuable time and patience in waiting for these penetrating questions. In expressing our gratitude to them, there may be a couple of matters that they may follow up to contain that information. If members are not able to read gazettal changes, we will see if we can help them with that information in the machinery of government.

I indicate to the two members who contributed to the committee on this matter, one of whom is the shadow treasurer, that, in addition to providing information about bills and the availability of government briefings, I would like them to be aware that if extra information is required it can be requested at the briefing and, where possible, a representative is present from the minister's office who can make a note of those and provide that information.

Mr Mullighan: Then we are left with nothing for this evening.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, as the shadow minister points out, it left them nothing to ask tonight. I know that they are only a short time out of government, but in terms of spending money and wasting people's valuable time—just sitting here waiting for a case, when every day I have presentations to me for things like police officers wasting time sitting around in courtrooms waiting for their cases to come on for them to give evidence—we are concerned about the expense of valued people in our public sector waiting for matters to come on. It is quite reasonable to ask for the information that has been sought. We are not suggesting that at all. I am just encouraging members that if at the time of their briefings they either do not have time to ask questions or seek further information, we are more than happy to provide that where it is available.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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