HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2018-09-18 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Appropriation Bill 2018

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 6 September 2018.)

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Industry and Skills.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI (Unley—Minister for Industry and Skills) (11:10): Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I say how refreshed you look this morning. As you were coming down the aisle, opening the parliament session today, did that bring back memories from last week, sir?

The SPEAKER: It did. Thank you, minister. I will get your advice later.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: You are beaming, sir. I am pleased to be able to speak about the first Liberal budget in 17 years. The budget that was delivered on 4 September surprised everybody. I think there is no doubt that everybody was surprised by the detail in the budget and the fact that it delivered on election commitments, including a return to surplus in the budgets in the forward estimates. Most importantly, in my area of responsibility as the Minister for Industry and Skills it provides additional money for apprenticeships and traineeships here in South Australia.

The budget provides $235.9 million of new initiatives over the forward estimates. Our investment focus includes a skilled workforce to meet the future demands of industry in South Australia. This is important because we have been given a tremendous opportunity from Canberra, starting with the offshore patrol vessels that will start production in November down at Osborne, followed a couple of years later by the submarines and the ships. These will demand enormous skills in South Australia.

There are two ways we can treat this opportunity. One is that we can simply be an assembly plant based at Osborne, putting big components together that have been shipped in from overseas and across the world. Alternatively, we can use the opportunity we have here—which is around about $2 billion a year over the next 50 years, an incredible opportunity—to do as much of that work as possible, to have as much of that money that has been provided for this continuous build of ships and submarines as possible and to have that work done in South Australia to provide those jobs. In order to do that, we need to have a skilled workforce.

One of the key changes in the machinery of government that the Premier instigated immediately after being sworn in to office was the setting up of the Department for Industry and Skills. This is the first time we have seen so much collaboration between industry and the business sector—the engine room, if you like, of the South Australian economy—connected with the provision of skills in South Australia. Over the last six months, my department has been actively working with both industry and the training sector to establish what their needs are and where the skills gaps are. They have been talking to industry about the barriers that have evolved that stop businesses from taking on apprentices and trainees.

It is an important question to ask because under the previous Labor government, from 2012 to 2017, year by year we saw a dramatic drop in the number of apprentices and trainees commencing in South Australia. Over that period, there was a 66 per cent drop from about 25,000 commencements of apprentices and trainees in 2012 down to about 8,500 in 2017, a shocking indictment of the performance—and the interest, if you like—of the previous government in providing industry with the skills it needs to grow here in South Australia.

This is a very strong indication of difference in policy, difference in emphasis, with this government compared to the previous government. We believe a very strong and growing private sector, a strong industry base in South Australia, is the way to deliver real jobs, real careers, increased salaries, increased wages. That is how you pay for the services South Australians require that are delivered through state government, whether they be schools or hospitals, by making sure you have a strong and competitive private sector in this state. In order for that to happen, in order to grow their businesses, they need the skills base; without that skills base they will not be able to find the staff they need to do that.

On Friday 7 September, the Premier and I launched our Skilling South Australia initiative. Skilling South Australia is funded by $202.6 million in the budget—$100 million from the state Treasury and $102.6 million from Canberra—and I am very pleased that South Australia was the first state to sign. We worked very cooperatively with then minister Karen Andrews, who was managing the training and skills portfolio for the federal government in Canberra; her department and my department worked together to establish the guidelines, establish the outcomes, the measuring points, the baseline measurements of where we are starting from and where we are heading with the Skilling South Australia fund.

A lot of people asked where the 20,800 number came from. That number is actually South Australia's share of the 300,000 that the federal government has committed to delivering through this policy over the next four years. We have $202.6 million; in round numbers we are looking at about $1 million a week extra funding for the next four years to spend on trainees and apprentices in South Australia.

We were very quick off the mark. The revised subsidised training list was released in May this year, and the first thing we did was go out to industry to consult on where that money should be spent and how it should be provided. We expanded the number of courses available for funding to the non-government sector and, with the same amount of money being spent, with that revised list we were able to deliver an additional 4,000 training places over the period. We are providing training opportunities in line with industry requirements, and our reforms will ensure real career options and real career outcomes for South Australians.

The Marshall Liberal government is leading the way. We were, in fact, the first state to sign the National Partnership Agreement on the Skilling Australians Fund. Other states are looking at what we have done and even the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has written to other states asking them to look at the South Australian model before completing their agreements with the federal government.

They were very pleased with the industry engagement, which is a key plank of the policy and the implementation of the Skilling Australians and the Skilling South Australia partnership, and they would like other governments around Australia to model their rollout on the South Australian rollout. Why would that not be a good idea? Why reinvent the wheel? They have identified that the South Australian plan was a very good plan for industry engagement and they understand how important it is for industry to be engaged in the process.

We took to the March election a commitment to create jobs and boost training opportunities for all South Australians and this is exactly what we are delivering. Incentives for employers and learners under the Skilling South Australia fund include support for first-time employers to take on an apprentice or a trainee. This is important as there are 94,000 businesses here in South Australia that do not have a single employee. Many of them have been trading for decades. Certainly, in my own instance, the very first employee I took on in my business was an apprentice. For a lot of businesses, understanding what the responsibilities are and removing some of the barriers or perceptions of barriers that there might be for employers is important. We are offering support for first-time employers in that area.

We are also providing additional funding for Group Training to encourage growth, including in industries that have not traditionally used this model. The beauty of Group Training, of course, is that it removes the risk for many of the smaller employers in particular. They do not need to commit to an apprentice for four years, or a trainee for 12 months: they can be a host employer of a trainee or an apprentice who is actually employed by the Group Training organisation. They simply require a monthly arrangement with a group training organisation. It is also great for apprentices and trainees who are engaged or employed by a group training body because they can actually move around.

We are seeing some businesses that are very specialised in one particular area of a trade, so for that apprentice to get a full, rounded training, it may very well be that they might do six months, 12 months or 18 months at one particular employer that specialises in one particular skill related to that trade and then they may do another period of time at a business that might specialise in a different area of that trade, delivering broader skill sets. We see Group Training as being valuable. Traditionally, they get better completion rates as well, so we are very keen to work with Group Training and offer them incentives to expand their usage to employers throughout South Australia.

Through the delivery of a contestable funding model, non-government providers can access more funding and far more courses under the subsidised training list. This is important, of course. We saw that damning review of TAFE that was handed down by the Minister for Education in the last sitting week. It is a very difficult situation for South Australia to deal with now. Unfortunately, the previous government just kicked the can along and did not take any action.

They charged the former chair, Peter Vaughan, with one task only, which was to sack people—and that is what he did—without any plan in place to change the model, to modernise and update TAFE so it was responsive to industry needs. It was a government business that was able to do what it had set out to do, and that was to provide vocational training for jobs so that people have the skills they need for jobs in the broader workforce.

Through a statewide advisory service, we will support employers from the first contact right through until the apprentice or trainee's first day on the job. This is about preparing employers, getting them ready to take on those employees, because we want employers to feel good about what they are doing. We want them to feel confident so that they become engaged in the process.

Employers will be able to access tailored project funding and additional support, where required, on a case-by-case basis. We are taking advantage of the fact that we are a small state. We are offering almost a bespoke service to businesses out there. It is not one size fits all, not like previous models from the previous government, where business had to change to try to fit in with the criteria that were laid down by the government. Actually, the department is changing and the programs are changing to suit the businesses, because the businesses are the customer.

This is a new phenomenon for government in South Australia. We are actually here to serve. We are here to do what we can for those who pay the taxes in the state. My department is very keen to participate in that process and deliver the services that industry needs to participate in the government's program of increasing the number of apprentices and trainees in South Australia, to prepare South Australians for the tsunami of opportunities that are coming here in the defence and related sectors over the coming years.

We will be introducing our flexible apprenticeships for school students, making it possible for them to start an apprenticeship at a younger age, earn while they are learning and still complete their high school certificate. It will be possible for them to still gain their SACE while they are doing their apprenticeship. It is very exciting stuff, particularly for old tradies like me, who were very keen to get into the workforce early and start an apprenticeship. This is an option that will now be there for South Australian students to take up.

We have a lot of work to do in that space. We need to lift the profile and the prestige of the apprenticeship and take it to where it was 20 or 30 years ago, when it was seen as being a pathway into a career equal to a white-collar job or going to university; it was just another pathway into a career. There is more and more research telling us that for the first 10 years somebody with a trade background is earning more money than somebody who has gone through the further education system, who has a bachelor's degree. The Training and Skills Commission has recently released a report that was able to establish that of the top 50 most in-demand vocations in the future, 84 per cent will not require a bachelor's degree.

The Skilling Australia group released a report last year identifying that five years out from completion, the average salary is $56,000 for those with a graduate bachelor's qualification compared with $58,000 for those with a trade qualification. We need to remember that. There was a great article in the paper at the weekend, 'Wealthy tradies are the new middle class'. I have news for the author of that article: tradies have been middle class in Australia for a very long time, particularly those who have gone on to start their own businesses, where the bulk of the businesses come from.

I will just finish off quickly on some of the exciting things that we are doing, as part of my department, on the old Royal Adelaide Hospital site that has been renamed Lot Fourteen. We have $30 million in the forward estimates for the establishment of the hospitality and tourism international school of culinary excellence, which is basically a new site, a new school, for the Regency Park Centre that has been operating since the 1980s. We have Le Cordon Bleu, we have the International College of Hotel Management and we have TAFE, with the three of them sharing that facility and working together. We will be moving that into the city.

We have seen, around Australia, the city-based schools that are similar to this and that have been able to attract more foreign students, who are a big part of their business. We will see a dramatic increase in the number of foreign students attending this college when we have this open during the forward estimates. A scoping study is underway, and of course we will start to get some runs on the board as that continues to grow. Expressions of interest are now sought for anchor tenants for the new innovation, incubator, start-up and growth hub on that site as well. So things are very exciting in the Department for Industry and Skills, and we are very pleased that we have a budget allocation to deliver on those promises.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (11:30): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I commence my remarks by congratulating you on your recent nuptials. That is wonderful news. I was told it was pronounced 'nuptials' because it is the last time you get to say 'nup'. I am sure I will not be the only other person in this chamber who wishes you a long and happy marriage. While I am at it, can I also thank the member for Unley for warming up the crowd in the way that he did with his contribution on the Appropriation Bill.

Budgets are a reflection of a government's priorities—a demonstration of their values. We certainly have that in this budget. We see what is important to this new Liberal government, who they support and who they choose to leave behind. Budgets are also, ideally, an opportunity for a government to set out a strategy to improve the services that a government provides to the community; set out a strategy for the state to develop its key industries, and of course the economy; and develop a strategy for the state's finances for the consolidation and improvement of the state's fiscal position. Unfortunately, on those last three measures, we do not have that in this state budget. This state budget is a massive missed opportunity for our state.

There is no strategy to improve services, only a strategy to cut, close and privatise them. There is no strategy to improve the state's economy, to foster its key industries and to grow more jobs. Indeed, the only contribution of this state budget is to slow the rate at which jobs growth occurs in our economy. There is no strategy to strengthen and improve the state's finances; in fact, this budget does much to weaken them. It only takes the briefest glance at this budget to see how the Premier and his Treasurer, Rob Lucas, have run up the white flag on financial management.

The fiscal targets of government have been weakened in this budget, in particular fiscal target 3 regarding debt. There is no longer a net debt to revenue ratio target set in the state budget. The former government set and kept under a target of 35 per cent. That target has vanished. In fact, any target has vanished. We see debt balloon as a result: up an extra $3.32 billion over the forward estimates. In this budget, spending is up and debt is up. This budget will be in worse shape in four years' time than it is now. It puts some focus on the lie that sits at the centre of the government's big sell of this budget: that they are allegedly fixing a mess. Indeed, what they are doing is creating a mess.

Central to this complete about-face and complete and utter broken promise made at the election is how the budget is to be managed by the new government. We were promised by Rob Lucas that the Liberals would introduce modest savings to pay for their election commitments. This commitment of course still sits up there, on their pre-election websites, available for all to see. We were then told, after the swearing in of the Premier and the Treasurer, that there would be no blaming of circumstance or of the former government for the situation—and the task and responsibility of government—that those two now find themselves in.

They told us that they would not be crafting some excuse of 'finding a mess and having to introduce cuts and closures and privatisations as a result'. But that, of course, is exactly what they have done. This is a budget of cuts, of closures and privatisations. Central to this fundamental change, this about-face, is the dawning realisation upon coming to government that the state is being flooded with extra and unbudgeted additional revenues: extra GST and payroll tax pouring in through the door in the 2017-18 financial year, and becoming a flood for GST revenue in 2018-19—$1 billion extra over forward estimates.

It presented a conundrum for the new government, that is, 'How do we say that things are dreadful in the state when indeed things have never been so good?' So on federal budget day, Rob Lucas made his political strategy clear: run the books into the ground as well as you can, create a massive deficit in the three months left to you in the 2017-18 financial year and blame the former government.' We are now told, contrary to what was promised in the election campaign, that the cost of new election commitments would not be delivered through modest savings but they would be delivered through the unexpected deluge of extra revenue, and that the savings that they are introducing are required because of the aforementioned, manufactured budget mess created by the Liberals.

It starts with a decision to run the 2017-18 financial year into the ground. It is caused by two things: the decision to spend nearly $270 million extra in the three months they had of government in that financial year, as well as completely taking their hands off the wheel of financial management across the general government sector for the remainder of that year. The impact of creating a nearly $400 million deficit is to ramp up debt and increase interest repayments.

The transfer of $146.4 million from the Attorney-General's portfolio to the South Australian Government Financing Authority was a deliberate and calculated move to worsen the finances of the 2017-18 financial year, prepaying $150 million out of the general government sector to prove a political point. It is outrageous. It is deliberate and it costs the budget and taxpayers real money. And, yet, from those opposite, it passes without comment or judgement or, if they do pass comment or judgement, comment is passed with endorsement and acclamation.

This is from the so-called party of fiscal rectitude. We also have the repeated and deliberately misleading references by the Premier and Treasurer to the budget position of the health portfolio. At every opportunity, the Premier and Treasurer avoided talking about the health portfolio and its budget position and instead chose to focus on one component within the health portfolio: the overspend in the Central Adelaide Local Health Network. They both described the health budget as being in trouble, and they both described it as being in trouble to the tune of $244 million, referencing the financial position allegedly of the Central Adelaide Local Health Network. Yet documents released to me under freedom of information show advice from the Under Treasurer to the Treasurer that says, quote:

The CALHN deficit is overstated for a number of reasons when you look at the health portfolio position as a whole.

Firstly it does not factor in its share of the $132 million in additional resourcing that was provided to SA Health in the Mid-Year Budget Review.

SA Health has taken the decision to hold that funding centrally at this time. Also, the projection includes $18 million in 'intra portfolio' pressures, which CALHN has flagged as pressures to its budget, but for which offsets reside within the Department that mitigate the impact at a whole of portfolio level.

Also, the whole of portfolio projection includes other reserves that are held…and benefits that LHNs do not see, for example the additional Commonwealth revenue in 2017-18…

Oh, dear. The Under Treasurer told the Treasurer on 20 April that the $244 million figure is 'overstated', yet the Treasurer and the Premier repeatedly use that figure in public to try to justify the budget strategy that they were delivering. What we still do not know, of course, is how much additional commonwealth revenue is coming on top of the $150 million in benefits I have just walked through.

It should be no surprise, though, that Rob Lucas has manufactured a deficit. Of course, it is the position he is most comfortable with. He has never delivered a budget surplus in his time as Treasurer in this state. Even while he was selling ETSA for $3.4 billion, he was racking up operating deficits of more than $1 billion and net lending deficits of more than $1.3 billion. He was running up the debt while he was selling off our electricity assets, allegedly to pay down that debt, and now he is at it again. He is racking up debt while he is selling off assets and telling us he is allegedly fixing a mess. Well, as I have already said, he is creating a mess.

Even though surpluses are forecast in this budget, in the 2018-19 financial year and across the forward estimates, these are fake surpluses. No-one can have confidence that, despite the extra $300 million of unbudgeted revenue being delivered to this budget from additional GST and other state revenues, the surplus of $48 million can be delivered. Not only is that $48 million surplus built on more than $50 million of extra dividends extracted from government businesses—half of that, of course, coming from SA Water—but it is also built on $134 million of unidentified savings required in the same financial year across general government sector agencies.

This is the flimsiest, most poorly manufactured surplus you could imagine—at least until you look at the following year. A forecast $108 million surplus in the 2019-20 financial year is built on over $125 million of extra dividends extracted from government businesses—principally, SA Water. More than $60 million will be extracted out of SA Water. Just like the current budget year, the 2019-20 financial year has a massive task in meeting unidentified savings across general government sector agencies. The sum of $269 million of unidentified savings in that financial year has to be found even to get close to the budget forecasts. It goes on and on in the out years, with $376 million of unidentified savings in 2020-21 and $481 million of unidentified savings in the last financial year of the out years.

Of course, we are told by the Premier and his Treasurer, Rob Lucas, that there were no more salami-slice savings—'We have done the hard work to identify all the savings'—and that they have taken a zero-based budgeting approach. None of that is true—not one iota. There is $1.25 billion of unidentified savings that need to be delivered by this government over the next four years above and beyond all the cuts, the closures and the privatisations that the South Australian community is now learning about.

It is surprising that, given the rollcall of people this government has chosen to punish in this state budget, they still have so much farther to go. Surely this is already, without these additional cuts, the most mean-spirited, uncaring and punitive budget for the way it targets the most vulnerable people in the South Australian community. Let's have a look at those people the Liberals have felt like punishing in this document.

They include Housing Trust tenants, AIDS sufferers, women playing sport, local community groups, public school children, health consumers, Crime Stoppers, bus and train commuters, people trying to pay government bills at Service SA centres, prison officers, police, TAFE students, TAFE teachers, people parking at the Klemzig and Tea Tree Gully park-and-ride facilities, agricultural researchers, publicans, the waste industry, regional communities, firearms owners—and they are even going after doctors. After doing over all of them, there is still over $1¼ billion of savings to be delivered over the next four years.

I will not use the term that many people in the community have used when describing to me how they felt they had been done over by this government, but it seems that the cabinet has run out of vigour while they were enjoying a post-coital cigarette as a result of their budget. It raises the question of who is going to be targeted next, and they have done zero work to find the savings.

However, it is a fair bet that we can bank on a further round of outsourcing and privatisations. Rob Lucas wears his record like a badge of honour. ETSA, the Ports Corp, SGIC, the Central Linen Service, even the TAB, sold for less than one year of profits, and now we have prisons and SA Pathology, if they do not deliver $105 million of savings over three years.

This is despite South Australians repeatedly being told by the Premier that there would be no privatisations under his watch. Before the election he said, 'We do not have a privatisation agenda.' He also said, 'We have ruled out privatisations,' and he also said after the state election, 'We made it clear in the lead-up to the election that we have had no plans for asset sales or privatisations here in South Australia.' Not two weeks after the state election he said that, but it sounds familiar from a Liberal, does it not?

Indeed, it was the Premier's mentor, Liberal Party president, former premier John Olsen, who said before the 1997 election, 'We are not pursuing a privatisation course with ETSA.' Well, of course, actions speak louder than words. Just as John Olsen went on to break his election promise to South Australians, so does his protégé, the member for Dunstan, the Premier, break his election commitment to South Australians, with the privatisation of the Adelaide Remand Centre and the impending doom of SA Pathology.

They also, of course, have a chief spruiker for outsourcing and privatisation. We have a new chief executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet who is quite up-front about it. 'If it's the right solution, if it's the right answer, then do it,' he says. 'If the business case stacks up and you can execute, do it.' Well, they have got their man, and I can tell you, Mr Speaker, Rob cannot wait. I am sure they have a long list of candidates ready to send off to the private sector. It is no coincidence that the government is packaging up all the public transport services and public transport assets ready for such a move. I wonder if the Productivity Commission or Infrastructure South Australia, also outsourced entities relying on people external to government to do this government's hard thinking, are going to recommend that. We will wait and see.

The other thing we are waiting for is the 'more jobs' that we were promised at the last election. According to the state budget, there will be fewer jobs going around in the future. Jobs growth actually slows under this budget. Last financial year, jobs growth was 2.1 per cent across the state economy, yet that falls to only 1 per cent within two years. They are pulling the handbrake on the state's economy. They are cutting the programs which were delivering extra jobs and growth to our state's economy.

After staying quiet while their federal mates chased Holden out of South Australia, they have cut the programs helping former Holden and car industry workers find new jobs. They have cut the programs helping component manufacturers diversify and keep their businesses going. They have cut 29 job creation programs, and the results are now baked in to the economic forecasts of the state budget. State final demand slows from 3 per cent last year to 2¼ per cent. This is all while we see the federal budget predicting the national economy speeding up over the coming years.

But that is not the only thing they are slowing down. Let's have a look at how the budget targets regions. The Liberals trumpet, 'Oh, but we've got our Regional Growth Fund,' except the budget papers make it clear these are redirected existing funds from PIRSA and the state budget. Then of course they spruik their regional roads and infrastructure funding, but it is actually a reduction of what was previously being spent on regional road maintenance and upgrades. Worse, new projects like the Port Wakefield overpass, is to further reduce regional road maintenance funding from this pool. They are taxing new mines harder, and the Minister for Environment jacked up NRM levies by 5 per cent, of course conveniently just before he introduces a new cap on our NRM levy increases.

Speaking of unexpected tax increases, this budget also unleashes a raft of new fees, charges, taxes and rent increases. Pubs, clubs, small bars and hotels—all hit with over $3 million a year in higher liquor licensing fees. Real estate property managers are being asked to fork out for a new licensing fee. Opal miners are being hit. New mines are being hit with higher royalties. Service stations are being hit with new fees. Firearm fees are being hit. The South Australian Research and Development Institute is being hit with higher costs. Those paying court fees are being hit for more money and, of course, the Liberal's coup de grace: the outrageous hit on Housing Trust tenants.

While the member for Chaffey—and I am glad to see him in here laughing as I raise that—was riding around Texas in the back of a $1,600 a day limo, and the member for Gibson sitting next to him is claiming back Woolies receipts for packets of chips, Trust tenants, who can barely afford to feed themselves, are being hit with rent increases.

This is a dreadful budget. This is a budget that damages the state's finances, that racks up debt, that squanders windfall revenues, that privatises public institutions, that closes vocational training centres and closes off access to training, that manufactures pretend surpluses based on massive unidentified savings and pilfering from government businesses, that increases taxes and charges to a range of industries and business groups and that punishes vulnerable South Australians. If it were not for our collective understanding of how feeble and how incapable the Liberal Party of South Australia is, it would be beyond belief that this budget was the culmination of 16 years of wandering in the wilderness, planning how to do things better. What a massive missed opportunity.

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE (Chaffey—Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development) (11:50): I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill—and proudly so. The rhetoric we have just heard from the shadow minister really does pale into insignificance. He must have a very, very short memory: 16 years of government I would say have put South Australia into a considerably darker place than it has been for many decades.

I am standing here today to look at where this budget has promoted and put in place what we consider is a good economic stimulus, creating an environment that South Australia has been yearning for over such a long period of time. It is really important to understand that this budget has been firm but fair. It is a budget that I think has put the regions back on the map with $773 million over the five-year period. We will look at ways that we can create an environment in our regions; 28 per cent of the state's population is in regional South Australia. It is really important to understand that they are the economic powerhouse of South Australia's economy, generating $22.5 billion of our merchandise exports. It is very important that 55 per cent of the merchandise exports comes out of the primary industry sector.

It is also important to note that, of the $773 million in the budget invested in regional South Australia, there have been significant programs upheld. Coming into government, we set ourselves a very ambitious target to introduce measures within our first 100 days, which have all been kept—the first six months. Yesterday was six months to the day when we have had the opportunity, the pleasure and the privilege of being the elected government here in South Australia.

After 16 years of neglect under Labor, particularly within regional South Australia, what we are now seeing is a change, a shift in focus on regions and on just how we are going to support them. Gone are the days of picking favourites. Gone are the days of a government that had no real interest in programs. It was about splashing cash and making sure that some of it stuck—not all of it, but just some of it.

In many of those programs money was awarded to individuals and to businesses and a large amount of that money was actually given back. The due diligence was not there. There was a large amount of funding through these investment programs, but all of a sudden these businesses were unable to match the dollar for dollar or were unable to secure bank finance. What sort of a government gives taxpayers' money to institutions and businesses that cannot stump up the business case or the business plan to justify taxpayers investing in their business?

Over some of our election commitments, particularly during the budget, we have seen $15 million per annum into our Regional Growth Fund, and that is a long-term investment—we are going to invest for 10 years. It is also part of our Royalties for Regions, another 10-year commitment of $314 million over the four-year forward estimates period. This is about giving surety to our regions that we are going to invest in productive infrastructure, and we are going to put money where we promised and pledged to the regions.

Of course, we will talk about the $10 million blackspot program, which is allocated over three years. Have blackspots not been a bone of contention for the poor people of regional South Australia? The previous government said, 'There are no blackspots. We're not putting any money up-front. We're not going to be a part of this program.' It was a $225 million commonwealth government initiative that was to reconnect regional South Australia with the business world; it was about connecting regional South Australia with the global marketplace, yet we squandered it here in South Australia.

Of the over 860 base stations that the nation proudly has approved, 20 were approved in South Australia. It is an absolute disgrace that we were put at that competitive disadvantage. We were put on the backburner by a government that had pet projects and election cycles. They were electioneering in marginal seats. I can say that we are going to govern for all of South Australia. Of that $10 million into the blackspot funding, we are also going to use that to leverage round 4 of the commonwealth's blackspot program, which is $25 million.

It is also about collaboration. It is about working with industry, local government and the telcos to come together to put a support package in place. It is almost a package of economic prosperity when it comes to being competitive in a marketplace. If we are going to sell product, if we are going to be part of a market or trade process, we need to make sure that we are competitive and that we can have connection to those institutions.

It is also good to understand that the $12 million over four years has bolstered the RDA boards, making sure that they can get on with the job of developing our regional economy, making sure that we can highlight the importance of what regional programs and businesses need, and that is certainty. The RDAs now have that certainty to get on with the job.

It is also important to waive the $1.6 million of oyster industry fees over two years to recover from the impact of POMS. I will admit that the previous government acknowledged that there was a problem in the oyster industry and that, yes, they were going to put support there, but there was no money in their budget. There was no money allocated to an industry that was on its knees due to the Pacific oyster mortality syndrome. It was absolutely all care and no responsibility when it came to the oyster industry.

This government has stood tall through negotiations with Treasury and PIRSA, working together. We have found the funds. We have actually put the money on the table to support an industry that never, ever had the support of the previous government. Yes, they talked about it, but it was all talk and all spin. Again, that was something that really was smoke and mirrors—it really was.

The $260,000 funding for Rural Business Support to continue rural financial counselling services until June 2020 is another very important service. I note in particular that some of our primary producers, farmers in certain parts of the state, are doing it tough. This is where the Rural Business Support team comes into play to give people the support that they know is needed.

The budget is also delivering on key election commitments. The wild dog trappers program has been rolled out and is proving very successful. That is looking after a $4.5 billion livestock industry in South Australia. It is a simple measure of a coordinated approach—baiting and traps being installed—to a program that is not only looking after a very valuable industry in South Australia but also supporting those pastoralists and primary producers who are being attacked by the scourge of those wild dogs that are also heading south.

My call today is to all those pastoralists: remember to keep in contact with the department so we know where the pressure is on, particularly with wild dog numbers on the increase, making sure that the government, the pastoralists and the industry work together for a coordinated approach in putting the wild dogs out of business. We know that is very important.

It is also really important to understand not only that the red meat industry in South Australia is one of our key economic drivers but that alongside that sits the great work that Food South Australia do. We have provided $1 million per annum of funding to support a great organisation that promotes not only the great work our primary producers do but also the value-adding we put into that product. This is making sure that they assist those businesses, those exporters, those value adders or the vertically integrated businesses that are so reliant on Food SA's great work.

We are enhancing our biosecurity measures. Again, we are addressing the issues with fruit fly here in South Australia, making sure that South Australia is the only state in Australia that is fruit fly free, making sure that the Riverland continues on its march to global glory when it comes to supporting a $1.2 billion horticulture industry that is so reliant on its market advantage, particularly going into some of these new markets and particularly with free trade agreements. It also should be noted that we have just recently announced with industry a partnership that is going to move forward. I will talk about that shortly when I talk about some of the initiatives that the government have supported in Chaffey.

There is no doubt about it: this government is cleaning up the previous government's mess, and it is a mess. In every drawer that ministers are opening up, they are finding some of the stench that has been left there by a government that had all care and no responsibility. It really is absolutely outrageous.

I read with interest my local paper, TheMurray Pioneer, and some of the outrageous comments of the shadow treasurer and the opposition leader when it comes to the cuts we had installed. Let me assure the house that we will expose what those cuts have meant. If we talk about cuts to PIRSA, if we talk about cuts to the people who produce our food, I note that since 2010—not 2002—under the previous government there have been $87.58 million in cuts.

It really does give you a little bit of a chuckle when you get an opposition leader who rarely finds his way out of his own backyard, let alone into regional South Australia, who has gone up there to say that I presided over more than $30 million worth of cuts in PIRSA yet forgets to tell the good people of Chaffey that in the forward estimates the government of the parliamentary party he now leads presided over pushing $28.6 million worth of cuts. It really does make a mockery of what they are all about. They are all smoke and mirrors.

Despite this, with our government and with me as Minister for Primary Industries, I have found ways to implement and increase policy to enhance our regions, to enhance primary industries and to make sure that we do not have cuts in SARDI and we do not have a decreased program in biosecurity, which we know is very, very important to our food producers in South Australia.

We talk about wine and food programs discontinuing. Let me tell you, Deputy Speaker, I chose people over programs. There are a number of programs that were cut, yes, but when we talk about jobs and about people within the departments, one of their strongest assets is their workforce. We continued and prioritised what we could. Yes, we did cut some of the programs in PIRSA. We cut some of the communication programs because we are not going to continue with the spin and the lack of substance within any of our departments. We are going to cut these communication programs so that we do not have all these big, glossy, full-page ads about promoting a government. They are not about promoting the regions or the primary producers. It is all about the individual ministers and the government, not understanding how important it is to promote our primary sector.

I turn to enhancing our infrastructure spend and making sure that the facts are on the table, noting that when we talk about government support for road maintenance programs, community safety funds or the highway funds, we are actually talking about apples with apples, whilst the opposition is, as I said, full of spin and no substance.

I want to touch on the regional infrastructure which we know is very important, namely, the Regional Roads and Infrastructure Fund at $315 million over the forward estimates. There is $200 million for the Joy Baluch AM Bridge; $88.5 million for the Port Wakefield overpass and the Augusta Highway widening; $14.6 million for the Penola bypass. Finally, we have a government that is committed to finishing the Penola bypass. For too long we have had a government that continued to start it, stop it, fund it, defund it, and this has been an ongoing saga for the people of the South-East for far too long. It is important that we talk about that, and the $5 million to the Nairne intersection upgrade.

There are 20,800 additional apprenticeships and traineeships. We are abolishing payroll tax for small businesses and returning $360 million to South Australians through cheaper ESL bills. All of this will assist regional businesses and families as well as every South Australian because, as we said, this is about governing for all of South Australia, not just for the pet projects and the pet seats.

In delivering on our election commitments to create those jobs, I note that the shadow treasurer was asking where our jobs policy is. The $203 million is what I think is the centrepiece of our government's growing more jobs or creating more jobs policy. It is about upskilling and making sure that we can keep our young people in the regions, making sure that we have a workforce that is capable of undertaking the skills and upskilling we need that workforce to do, particularly with our red meat sector and horticulture sector. We know that there are many jobs which need to be found for which we need to upskill the current workforce, so it is laying a strong foundation for the future and delivering what I consider to be vital economic reform.

As to the government's position, particularly for some of these pre-election cuts, the previous government left me $28.6 million in the forward estimates to deal with. As I said, I chose people over programs, and that is why we have seen a number of these programs that have ceased. There are some programs that will continue and they are the programs that we can justify that will be a clustering or collaboration of being able to build and further promote our communities, particularly in the regions. So, there has been an increase in staff numbers in biosecurity by 3.9 FTEs, and that is reflecting a commitment to all of the biosecurity issues here, whether we are dealing with fisheries or horticulture or, sadly, the issues at the moment with the strawberry saga making its way into South Australia. That is also something we will be talking about a little later.

I think what we should talk about, particularly with the small amount of time that I have left, is that in Chaffey I am delivering on election commitments with the $600,000 to open a community legal service. This is actually to re-open a community legal service that the previous government deemed would be more appropriate to run—a Riverland-Mallee legal service—from the southern suburbs of Adelaide. They were reprioritising money that should have been left in the regions to provide a vital service to regional Murraylands and Riverland, but they shipped it on down to the southern suburbs. I think that was outrageous.

I would also say that there is no reduction in compliance activities in fisheries and aquaculture and no change to the staffing at SARDI. I want that on the record so that we can stop the nonsense and the scaremongering that I continue to hear from those opposite in talking about reductions in every corner of the department. Again, the wine and food centre has $200,000 over two years.

There is $160,000 to undertake a Riverland matrix pilot program for the crystal methamphetamine addiction. It is a very sad situation. The issue of drug addiction, particularly in our regions, has been very well documented with the analysis of our wastewater. What we are seeing now is that with the scourge that addiction has on our society and the impact it is having on our small regional communities, it is really taking its toll, not only on individuals, not only on families and the small communities that present themselves as part of the support for these people because what they are encountering is not just a social drug.

It is not a drug of choice. It is a drug that is mind-altering. It is a drug that alters the mind. It makes people's personality change immediately, and it is something that is very sad in today's society. It is something that all governments should work together to stamp out and to make sure that regional South Australia, as well as all South Australia, addresses the issue. That pilot program will be very important.

We talked about extra awareness programs, particularly with biosecurity and fruit fly. We have put a fruit fly coordinator in place as well as on-ground staff to liaise with growers and packers. We are making sure that we have bin hygiene and that we have a quick response with any concerns. We will have a turnaround policy at the border. If trucks come to the border with contaminated bins, those trucks will be turned around. That is a warning to not only the growers but the industry that there will be no tolerance when it comes to noncompliant freight logistics. We are seeing greater pressures on our borders. We are seeing more biosecurity programs needed. I will continue my remarks during the next grieve.

Dr CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:11): I appreciate the opportunity to speak about this budget on behalf of my electorate, as well as on behalf of the portfolios for which I have responsibility on this side of the chamber. I note that we are at an interesting stage in the maturity of the government, which undisputedly won the last election and has duly formed government, where they have maintained an opposition-like obsession with us.

I was amused but concerned to hear the number of times the Treasurer referred to Labor during his speech and the comparatively few times he talked about jobs, for example. It reminds me of being at university and the young adults who think that they are terribly mature and have everything sorted and understand how difficult life can be, but spend most of their time obsessing about their parents and all the failings that their parents visited upon them in their childhood. It is a phase that people go through. I am hopeful that this government will emerge, having delivered this budget, and cease to be quite as obsessed with talking about us and truly assume the responsibility with which the people of South Australia have entrusted them.

I would like to talk about the impact on the seat of Port Adelaide first. Port Adelaide is not a wealthy area, although it has some pockets of great privilege and wealth, particularly along the seafront. It has a reasonable degree of multiculturalism, although not as much as with the boundaries I had before the election. A reasonably high proportion of Aboriginal people live in the Port and trace their very deep history all the way back in the Port. Quite a lot of people live in Housing Trust homes, are retired or are on fixed incomes. We have a number of public schools and a smaller number of non-government schools.

It is, in many ways, representative of the nature of South Australia: not overtly wealthy, such as the showy wealth of Sydney or the ancient wealth of Melbourne, but lots of decent people who have worked hard all their lives who are trying to make something for their future and their children's future, or are trying to settle into retirement and not be anxious about what government might choose to do to them. I describe it that way because I think this government has been particularly cruel to people who live in Port Adelaide and others who share their characteristics.

Port Adelaide is an area that is on its way up with Port Adelaide itself, the inner harbour, the developments that are about to start springing up on both sides of the harbour and the incredible effort that has been made, led by the state government starting about six years ago in intensity, having the area become renewed and revitalised, with some contributions also from the local council. But that is not completed, and I am concerned that in this budget there are some signs that it may not be given sufficient priority.

Although the train spur, which the member for Lee initiated—and for which I believe he signed contracts—is listed in the budget, I continually hear rumours and concerns from people who have meetings with the relevant department (DPTI) that there may be a delay, or it may be put off forever. I trust that is not true; that train spur is absolutely essential to the development of Port Adelaide.

I am deeply concerned about bus services. We know that bus services are going to be cut if they do not have high patronage. Guess what happens when you are on the end of the line—when you are on the Lefevre Peninsula and there is no further to go than Outer Harbor? You have fewer people the further up you go. A bus line that may well have had good patronage earlier in its journey from the city will have far fewer by the time you reach the end of the Lefevre Peninsula. I am deeply concerned that the government and the department will see fit to curtail the service earlier than the extent of the Lefevre Peninsula, and redirect those resources elsewhere. That would be a terrible tragedy and I will fight that tooth and nail.

The TAFE campus has been identified as one to be closed. As has been discussed to quite a degree in this chamber before and since the election, there were a number of TAFE campus closures in the last three years, I think, of the previous government. A review was undertaken, which identified all of those campuses that could be closed, given the changes in the way in which courses are being presented, such as the blended learning using digital approaches. It also took into account that people were increasingly taught on farm and in other locations, and the making over of campuses to schools in order to make sure that equipment is still available and able to be used.

During that review, at no point were the seven campuses identified as the minimum to be closed under this budget flagged as being appropriate or reasonable for closure. My question is: why these campuses? Has the Port Adelaide campus been chosen because it is in Port Adelaide and because the government does not care? I would hate to think that politics has infested this decision. It is baffling to me that the north-east is losing a TAFE campus, because it makes sense neither for the delivery of the service nor politically. These poor new members must be feeling horrible about what has happened to them in the north-east, and about the needs of their constituents being overlooked.

I know that my people in Port Adelaide are outraged by the loss of the Port Adelaide campus, particularly at a time when we have the need to provide a decent education for more people from disadvantaged backgrounds. We have the ASC and Future frigates and this incredible opportunity for jobs growth, yet we are walking away from a campus that is ideally located to expand, not to shrink. I will be very interested to hear more about that.

Returning to the question of Port Adelaide proper and its revitalisation, the previous government made an arrangement for the creation of a government building that would house 500 public servants who would come from the city. This would ensure that the businesses in Port Adelaide had the day-to-day traffic they needed to be stable and to thrive. The Public Service Association complained about that through the newspaper, and I am sure that some chief executives were not thrilled about the idea of having to make the journey to Port Adelaide every day.

I did not expect a Liberal government to come in and bow to those demands; I expected a Liberal government to be a little tougher with the Public Service. I was astonished and disappointed to discover that the 500 had shrunk to 200. There was an idea that defence companies would take that place, yet the campus is being advertised for lease on a website. They are now actively hunting for other people to come and take those leases, which are the obligation of the government. It was the foundation of creating that building. That is an appalling dereliction of duty in the obligation to revitalise Port Adelaide and in an existing obligation to fill that building.

As I understand it, tall ships have been cut: the One and All and the Falie. The heart of Port Adelaide is its maritime history, and no longer to fund the maintenance of those two ships or support volunteers in the work they do is an absolute disgrace. I will be looking to understand more about that in the process of estimates.

We know already that the government has been very slow to do anything about the report that came out in March from the Museum about the death of dolphins due to boat strike and the fact that the minister, although he expressed some time ago that he would definitely be meeting with Dr Bossley, has only just arranged to have that meeting. It is hard not to assume that that is somehow related to the public outrage that has been expressed very clearly in over 20,000 signatures in the Messenger press's petition.

When we have the privilege of having a dolphin sanctuary that houses a resident population that is nearer to a CBD than anywhere else in the world and the tourism potential that that brings, it is an absolute disgrace to overlook the terrible negative publicity that will occur as a result of those dolphins dying and the concern that people very genuinely have for the suffering of those animals. The political or financial imperative that is preventing the government from solving that problem baffles me.

Women's sporting facilities are being cut. I am now involved with Woodville-West Torrens Football Club because their women's team, which will be starting next year, has a zone all the way through my electorate as well as elsewhere. They have suddenly been halted in their progress to make the Ottoway oval come alive, as the funding has been taken from them. They were expecting every day to have that funding, only to be told that it was suddenly going to be yanked from them. There is this bizarre obligation that the money will only be made available over two years, not this year, if there is concomitant money coming from the council. So they are having to start right from scratch to get that funding.

It is not only Woodville-West Torrens at the SANFL level but North Haven Football Club. The Lady Ravens, of which I am a proud patron, have been going for a couple of years now with huge enthusiasm from the local community. They are suddenly losing the funding they thought they would have access to.

Poor old Port Adelaide baseball club not only have lost the funding in this round but do not have access to the next round because their sport is not regarded as worthy of having female facilities. Even if they should be so lucky as to get the shrunken amount of money, even if they should be so lucky to have council support, they are not even eligible because they are baseball and it is not on the list. That is deeply disappointing for that community.

Finally, on my local community issues, I found the decision that has been made about the Housing Trust breathtaking. I know that the Liberal side of politics tends not to pay attention to people from impoverished backgrounds as much. I know that tends to be the case, but I did not expect that people who live in bedsits would have to find up to $2,000 more a year. That is absolutely breathtakingly cruel. It will affect a number of people in my electorate. It will affect a number of people across this state. To think that that was the only place that the government could scrape out such little additional money is beyond me.

I will turn to some of my portfolio areas. In the context of Port Adelaide TAFE, I have already raised questions to understand about TAFE's future. In an environment where we need more people trained not fewer, in an environment where we need better quality of training, to have booked that TAFE will be earning less money in the future, to have put more money in but to have balanced it by removing more money so that the amount in and out is almost identical over the four years, suggests a mixed message about the future of TAFE under this government.

The review that I initiated has now reported and made recommendations that campuses should be opened up for more community use, more non-TAFE providers should be offering training and that more employers should have access and localised decision-making, yet the first decision about campuses is to simply summarily close at least seven campuses. It is deeply concerning. Regarding education, the only real differentiator in policy between all of the policy that we had initiated and took to the election—apart from the baffling reversal of the idea that kids in public schools, once they hit year 10, should have a free laptop—was over year 7.

I understand why the government want to move year 7 into a secondary setting. Every other state and the other two sectors in this state have done it, and it takes some guts to say, 'No, we're not going to invest our money in that.' Coming in, being new, not being convinced by the complete lack of evidence that it makes any educational difference, but probably being persuaded by the logistical complexities of moving between sectors and the embarrassment of being a stand-out, I understand why they decided to do that. What I do not understand is why they have not funded it properly.

They have put money in for the first half of the school year in 2022, which is the second half of the financial year, because it costs more to educate year 7s in a secondary setting. It costs about $40 million more every single year, and they have put the $20-odd million in there, but what they have not funded is the infrastructure cost. They have said, 'There's a pot of money that has already been identified for school infrastructure,' which is all about the growth in demography. Schools need to get bigger because there are more people with kids living in the area and/or there is an absolute need to fix up the facilities at these schools, particularly high schools, because they did not get the benefit from Building the Education Revolution funding that primary schools did.

Some of the secondary public schools look like my school did when I was there. My children's school, a public school of course, looks as it did 30 years ago. The local high school very near our house is exactly the same as it looked 30 years ago. These schools need funding to improve their aspect, to improve their capacity to teach well with the changing curriculum demands and the integrated curriculum demands and also so that local parents have a look and say, 'I wouldn't mind sending my kid to that school.'

What has happened? That money is being taken away to build classrooms for 12 year olds who currently have classrooms down the road. If you are going to have a policy to move 12 year olds, at least you can fund it. There is also the question of these new programs presented in the education budget as being exciting and new. All of them are labelled in the detail as being funded from existing departmental resources, which means either we had already committed to do it—languages, literacy—or they are taking money away from somewhere else in order to fund it. I want to understand where they are taking that from.

As promised many times by the Treasurer, the environment has taken a pretty deep cut, and it is a cut that I do not find easy to understand. I do not understand why you would cut the environment. Sure, it is easy to do.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Continue, deputy leader.

The Hon. D.J. Speirs: Just providing the member with some guidance.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, the deputy leader will be heard in silence.

Dr CLOSE: There is no accompanying explanation for why one would cut $11 million out of climate change, for example, or why one would cut over 200 staff out of the environment department. I note that one of the great commitments that was made by the Liberal government—

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Point of order: the figure of 200 staff being cut from the environment department was grossly inaccurate, and I ask that the deputy leader withdraw that and correct the record.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your figures have been challenged by the minister, deputy leader.

Dr CLOSE: If I may, I would rather go and confirm my figures than assume that is correct. Are we able to take this up later? I have made an assertion and the minister has made an assertion. I am happy to correct it if I have that wrong. I would like to confirm it.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you are able to come back and either confirm that your figures are correct or provide the correct figures, that would be much appreciated.

Dr CLOSE: Thank you. I appreciate that so that we are able to keep moving.

The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell interjecting:

Dr CLOSE: Well, no. I am very happy to look into it. I just do not want to have an interjection be assumed to be accurate. One of the election commitments that was made was that there would be additional rangers, which is a worthy goal, but in the budget papers it is very clear that those additional rangers are listed as coming from existing resources. My question is: what is being cut in order to fund an election commitment? Election commitments ought to be clearly understood by the public of South Australia as something that will be given to the public of South Australia, that is, an additional effort that is being made. To have that come out of existing resources makes me question what is not happening in order to fund that election commitment.

I am interested in the reform in NRM, and I would like to be as constructive as possible about making the new NRM legislation a useful piece of legislation. As members may be aware, I am on the Natural Resources Committee of parliament, and I see that there is a great ambition to have a landscape act. I am concerned about the language currently in the discussion paper that appears to regard landscape-scale restoration, revegetation, threatened species work and biodiversity conservation as being optional extras in managing natural resources.

I am concerned that the idea of having a cap on the amount of money that can be raised for and spent on NRM may result in going backwards in our capacity to really support a healthy ecosystem, a network of healthy ecosystems, particularly in the context of climate change putting tremendous pressure on the way in which ecosystems are able to function. These are the issues I will be exploring further in the committee stage of this bill.

I return to my initial point: this budget is quite a cruel budget for people who do not have a lot already, and my people in Port Adelaide will be expecting me to pay very careful attention to how it is rolled out.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart—Minister for Energy and Mining) (12:31): It is my pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Stuart to discuss the budget. I am incredibly pleased with the fact that in our budget we did exactly what we said we would do back in opposition. Back in opposition, we made election commitments. We said to the entire state that if we were elected to govern we would do these things, and this budget has funded all the things we said we would do. That is a very important foundation because not only is it a foundation of our budget it is also a foundation of our principles and of how our government intends to operate moving forward.

We all accept, that in budgets there are people who go away happier and people who go away less happy. We all understand that it is impossible for any government, Liberal or Labor, to provide all the funding for all the programs and services, the capital spends, that all the people in the state would like. We know that; everybody in this chamber knows that. We have decided that what we will do is start by funding our election commitments, and we have done exactly that. I think that is very important.

I will not go through all of them, but as well as infrastructure and capital spending, as well as program spending, as well as cost-of-living reductions—emergency services levy, NRM levies, council rate capping—all those sorts of things that we have taken to the election, we have tried to deliver through the budget or through legislation or they are still to come. We are setting a platform of reliability.

I understand that part of reliability, unfortunately, is that it can sometimes be clear that you are not going to be able to deliver something people would like to have delivered. However, at least people will know that we will deliver the things we said we will deliver and the budget cuts—for lack of a better word—will be in the other areas. From my perspective, that is a very important principle.

In my portfolio as Minister for Energy and Mining, we took a lot of energy commitments to the election and they have all been funded in this budget. We have $100 million set aside for the home battery scheme that we launched about a week and a half ago, which will be very beneficial for the people who directly participate.

More importantly, it will be beneficial for those people who cannot participate because that program has been crafted very deliberately to be there not only for the people who invest in the panels and the batteries but very deliberately so that when those people, when 40,000 of them have invested in the panels and the batteries, there will be a positive impact on the rest of the electricity market. It will push prices down and improve reliability in the rest of the electricity market so that all other South Australian electricity consumers benefit.

The $50 million grid-scale storage fund is in the budget. We will announce more details about that in the not too distant future, but let me say again that is about investing taxpayers' money to create benefits for taxpayers. In government, we know it is not our money: it belongs to all South Australians. We need to invest that money in ways that all South Australians will benefit. Our grid-scale storage program may well include pumped hydro, solar thermal, big batteries like the one at Hornsdale in my electorate of Stuart, potentially biomass, potentially hydrogen. A whole range of different things could be involved. It is about storage as opposed to necessarily being about a battery that will also improve reliability and push down the price of electricity.

We have allocated $30 million to a range of programs. We will invest that money to prove up demand response, demand aggregation, supply integration programs. Let me say right here, very openly, that 'prove up' may well mean funding a trial and finding that that trial does not work. That will not be as good as if we find that a trial does work, but that will still be beneficial because we will know not to push down that path anymore. This is very clearly money that is set aside with partners, with universities, with industry and with other bodies to trial ways of managing demand, giving consumers voluntary ways to manage demand for their benefit and also for the benefit of the grid, and as well as for individual consumers, demand aggregation and supply integration as well, which is very important.

In the lead-up to the election, we committed $200 million towards an interconnector fund. We always hoped that the interconnector would be able to get up as a regulated asset. It is looking very positive. We will not know until the middle of the 2019 year, but it is looking positive. We put forward the proposal of an interconnector between South Australia and New South Wales for very clear reasons because we know that we need to be able to match supply and demand in as many states as possible and to connect supply and demand as well as possible to gain efficiencies.

We need to connect with New South Wales. We are already connected with Victoria, and we are very glad to be, but we are at the end of the line. We need to connect with New South Wales as well so that we become part of the loop, as opposed to being at the end of the line. We need to broaden the opportunities for South Australia not only to import electricity when we need it but, probably more importantly, to export our often overabundant renewable energy when we have it to two states instead of one.

Importantly, New South Wales has different weather from South Australia than Victoria does compared with South Australia. Weather has always gone directly to affecting demand, but these days, with renewable energy from wind and sun, it also goes directly to the supply of electricity. To get the benefits of being able to swap both supply and demand, essentially, or of being able to help each other with supply and demand, you need to be connected to a state that has different weather patterns from yours. We are pushing very hard into that. We know that there will be savings for consumers.

The ElectraNet draft RIT-T report and others that have come out, including AEMO's Integrated System Plan, have all pointed to the fact that this is a good plan. On the strength of that, we have $14 million in the budget to commit towards the underwriting and/or up-front loans for early works to bring that interconnector forward, to have that interconnector built and operational as quickly as possible.

If, by chance, the interconnector does not get up as a regulated asset then we will have put that money at risk, but it will not be wasted, because we will still pursue that work through a different pathway. The early work on route selection and engagement with landholders, with environmental clearances and others, will not be wasted. It just means that we will have paid for it up-front. The other $186 million of the $200 million is currently sitting in the Treasurer's contingency, as opposed to being a line item, because we do not expect it to be needed in that way, but if it is, it will be brought back from Treasurer's contingency into a line item specifically for this work.

We are determined to get the price of electricity back to an affordable level, to stop the increases that we have had over the last decade or so under the previous government, to make electricity more reliable from the supply side and, importantly, to continue to make sure that it is green and clean and environmentally responsible.

The previous government pushed enormously hard into additional renewable energy. Renewable energy, on the face of it, is fantastic, but they forgot about how to manage that energy. They forgot about how to harness that energy. They forgot about the fact that consumers were being punished with higher prices and more blackouts. We will correct those problems. We will show how renewable energy can be harnessed and how it can be managed, for the benefit of consumers as well as the environment. By consumers, I mean all consumers, from the smallest household through to the largest corporate employers in the nation.

We have committed money to the Joy Baluch Bridge duplication, something we said that we would do before the election. This is a very important commitment, requested by many organisations and many people, not the least of whom are the people of Port Augusta. This is a local, a statewide and a national project. This bridge carries road freight between Sydney and Darwin, Adelaide and Perth. It was the South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy's highest infrastructure request before the election. We delivered on that with a commitment before the election and also with money, partnering with the federal government, in the budget just released.

We also committed to the Strzelecki Track sealing before the election, but that commitment was very clearly and very publicly with the proviso that, if the then state government had money in its budget for it, its budget going towards the election, we would match it. Unfortunately, the previous Labor government did not have that money in its pre-election budget or in its election costings, so we were not able to deliver on that, but the commitment was very clearly made subject to the previous Labor government having it in their budget. Unfortunately, it did not.

As I mentioned before, there are always, unfortunately, cuts in budgets as well. We have had savings tasks across entire government. A percentage target in a small department has the same impact on that workplace and on the productivity of that organisation as the same percentage in a large department. We have all battled with the same obligations to make savings on behalf of taxpayers. In my department, the Department for Energy and Mining, one of the most prominent areas of savings was a cut to the PACE program. There is no more funding at the moment to PACE, the plan for accelerating exploration, either in the minerals or the petroleum side.

PACE is a very good program, but PACE is a program that is government taxpayer-funded support for exploration in the downtimes in the resources price cycle. We have been going through those, and the previous government, to its credit, had PACE funding throughout that downtime, but we are now coming out of that downtime. We are coming out of it. This is not the time when PACE funding is needed. Yes, it would be nice, but it is not needed. Now is the time to build on the benefits of the previous PACE funding that was done, and that is exactly what this government will do.

Another important area of savings is the removal of the concession on royalties for new mines. That is a program that has been very helpful for mining and resources projects through the downtime so that if a new mine got up it would be eligible to apply for a 60 per cent reduction in the mining royalty that it would otherwise have paid in the early years of that mine. It is a lovely program, terrific, but again, very clearly, it is a program that you deliver when you are in the bottom of the mining cycle and it is hard to get projects up.

Just like PACE, you need extra support for exploration, and on the mining side you need extra support to actually get mines up and running. We are now coming out of that cycle and we are on an upturn, so that extra support is not necessary. Mr Speaker, let me also share with you and the house the fact that mines have got up in South Australia for decades and decades without this mining royalty reduction being on offer.

In fact, even over the last several years, while the mining royalty reduction for new mines has been in place, nine new projects have got up that did not actually receive the royalty reduction. So this removal of the royalty reduction for new mines is not expected in any way to slow down the development of new mines. Mines have got up in previous years without that support. Mines have got up in recent years while that support was in place, but those mines did not qualify for that support because they might have been too small or had too short a time line for the mines, but they got up and got running and started producing anyway.

Very importantly, the timing in the budget for the removal of the royalty reduction for new mines is such that any project that gets its application in before 30 June 2020 would still be eligible for consideration. If the application were successful, based on the same criteria that have been in place for the last several years, those new mines would still qualify. So it is quite conceivable that a new mine could get their application in for the mining royalty reduction before 30 June 2020 but might not actually be operating for one, two or three years, maybe longer, after the application date, yet could still be eligible for the reduction in royalties. It is very important for people to understand that.

Of course, while it is unfortunate that this has had to be a cut in our budget, I think it will have absolutely minimal impact on any new mine that may or may not get up. In fact, the advice to me is that, while the reduction in royalties is very welcomed by industry and greatly appreciated by industry, it is not actually the thing that has made the difference between mines getting up or not getting up. I accept that any new mine, or any company starting up a new mine, would of course like to have it rather than not to have it but, as I said, we do need to get the budget back in balance after 16 years of Labor's financial mismanagement.

Our government supports the resources industry incredibly strongly. We are very in tune with the fact that it is one of our most important industries in South Australia. It contributes enormously to our economy, and it contributes enormously to our economy in regional areas. We understand that exploration and mining must be done with strong majority local host community support. We want to work with local communities, the agriculture sector and other sectors that operate in regional areas, because of course agriculture is not the only one that does that, as well as with the resources sector, to find ways that local communities can have a strong majority of people welcoming in new mining projects.

Whether they be petroleum projects in the South-East or the far north-east or whether they be minerals projects in other parts of the state, we are also very focused on ensuring that we bring in a much tighter, much stronger and much higher compliance regime. We want resources companies, whether they be in exploration or mining, to be completely committed to high operational standards with regard to what they do on site with both people's safety and environmental safety and other high priorities.

We want to be a government that is not ashamed at all to wield a fairly large stick to ensure that the operational standards that are expected and agreed upon up-front are adhered to and delivered for the benefit of not only local communities but also those operations. They cannot continue if they do not operate properly.

There has been much said in this place and others about the potential for offshore petroleum in the Bight. We have had BP come along and say that they were going to undertake deepwater offshore exploration and then change their mind. We have had Chevron come along and say that they were going to do the same, and then they have changed their mind as well. Equinor from Norway are now saying that they are going to undertake deepwater offshore petroleum exploration in the Great Australian Bight. I hope that they do continue to do that. It is no accident that I make these comments immediately after talking about high compliance standards and high compliance expectations from the government with regard to the way that Equinor would go about that.

We will only approve exploration in the Great Australian Bight if meets the highest compliance standards possible; otherwise, we will not have a bar of it. But if Equinor can put together a program that will meet those standards, that can be safe with regard to people and the environment, then we will be strong supporters of them proceeding with that because there are thousands and thousands of jobs in this state that are likely to benefit from it, but that will only be acceptable if they do no harm to people and the environment. We have communities and people at the front of our mind all the time, but we want industries to have opportunities to succeed with the support of our state.

Mr GEE (Taylor) (12:51): I rise today to speak about the recent state budget, which is, again, a budget of cuts and privatisation, fee and rent increases, and promises really lacking any detail. It really does not matter which area of the budget that you look at, there have been cuts or privatisations in just about every area. The Treasurer's latest budget is just a continuation of his last budget 17 years ago. There will be TAFE campus closures, Service SA closures, privatisation of the Adelaide Remand Centre, the possible privatisation of SA Medical Imaging services and Pathology SA, and up to 4,000 public servants are being axed.

I will look at the budget now and how it affects the state and my electorate. I will start with road safety. This budget delivers nothing for the road safety projects needing attention in my electorate. I speak of course about the Curtis Road duplication; roundabouts at the intersection of Curtis Road and Heaslip Road, and Stebonheath Road and Womma Road; and further about safety upgrades at Andrews Road and Womma Road, Angle Vale Road and Baker Road, and Gawler Road and Robert Road, better known as the five-road intersection.

I understand that there is not only no action on these projects but that overall rural road funding is being cut. Recently, in the last week of sitting, the minister talked about attending a community event at the intersection of Curtis Road and Angle Vale Road. In fact, that was not the case: he did attend briefly a meeting at the intersection of Heaslip Road and Curtis Road, and he referred to his concerns in my electorate about the intersection of Womma Road and Curtis Road. Of course, that intersection does not even exist.

I was pleased in my last term to deliver a $3.5 million roundabout at One Tree Hill that the local community had been looking for for 20 years. Under Labor that was delivered, and I think the praise for that from all the people, especially our emergency services up in that area, is still ongoing. The intersection of Yorktown Road and Blair Park Drive, outside the Craigmore Village Shopping Centre, was another project delivered under Labor. Also, improvements to Peachey Road and Black Top Road and resurfacing Womma Road occurred over the last four years.

My community hopes that the minister will listen to their concerns about the dangerous intersections in my electorate and will deliver these projects soon. Plans are being drawn up for the delivery of a lot of these projects, so we just need the funding so that we can get local workers on the ground and prevent further serious injuries and fatalities.

One of the targets for cost recovery in this budget is Housing SA tenants. Around 4,000 Housing SA tenants will be subjected to rent rises of up to $50 a week, as the Liberal government increases Housing SA rents for some tenants between now and the end of 2021. At the same time the government is reducing funding to Housing SA and cutting 125 staff in an agency that is already struggling.

There has been a shortage of Housing SA staff across the north, with staff informing my office that there is only one private rental liaison officer across four Housing SA offices. It is shocking because with long lists, any assistance that people can receive to secure a private rental property is crucial so that other people who cannot afford private rental can take up those houses that these people will be moving out of. There is one person for four offices to cover the entire north.

Housing SA tenants have a right to be concerned as some rents will rise and staff numbers will fall. We need to ensure that we have quality affordable housing for our seniors, disabled and most vulnerable in our community and do not just look at efficiency and cost recovery. We need to consider people, not just dollars. Taking money from the most vulnerable members of our community just does not pass the fairness test.

Treasurer Rob Lucas from the other place said that this state government will not pick winners and will review, reposition and reprioritise funding. The Liberal budget axed 29 programs supporting workers or job creation mostly in the north, including the jobs accelerator program, the Future Jobs Fund, the Automotive Supplier Diversification Program, the retrenched workers program, the Jobs First Employment Projects program, the career services program, the Unlocking Capital for Jobs fund, the Small Business Development Fund, the Food Park tenant attraction grant program and the Advanced Food Manufacturing program.

Sadly, the list goes on and, just as my community was starting to turn the corner towards a future of new jobs being created, the budget has slammed the brakes on in the north. The Food Park that was starting to fill under Labor has stalled. There is no new business investment in Edinburgh Parks or Edinburgh North. The government has had to reannounce the commitment by Sonnen to move into the Holden site, now named Lionsgate Business Park, just to present some good news.

The axing of the Automotive Supplier Diversification Program will impact our economy, which is still in transition, as this important program is helping smaller businesses to adapt and diversify. The government has abandoned those businesses and the people who work for them. The Liberal government clearly does not care about those companies that are still transitioning.

Last week, I was pleased to catch up with several hundred of the former automotive workers at the Holden site on R U OK? Day. I have to say that emotions were running pretty high on the day. Because of that transition centre and because of the funding that went into skills training, many of those workers gained full-time work. They are financially secure, which is a good thing. A lot of them have started their own businesses and franchises. A lot of them are working in small business with one or two people, and a lot of people have retired. Those people are very grateful for the actual programs that gave them the skills, the confidence and the know-how, after many years of working on production lines, to move into those jobs. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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