HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-12-01 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Appropriation Bill 2020

Estimates Committees

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (11:02): I bring up the report of Estimates Committee A and move:

That the report be received.

Motion carried.

Mr TRELOAR: I bring up the minutes of proceedings of Estimates Committee A and move:

That the minutes of proceedings be incorporated in the Votes and Proceedings.

Motion carried.

Mr COWDREY (Colton) (11:02): I bring up the report of Estimates Committee B and move:

That the report be received.

Motion carried.

Mr COWDREY: I bring up the minutes of proceedings of Estimates Committee B and move:

That the minutes of proceedings be incorporated in the Votes and Proceedings.

Motion carried.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (11:03): I move:

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

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (11:03): Thank you for the opportunity to make a further contribution on the Appropriation Bill. I guess colloquially we would refer to these as the 'summing-up speeches' from the estimates process.

The SPEAKER: The member for Lee might indicate if he is the lead speaker.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, I am the lead speaker, much to all of your disappointment. No-one will be surprised to hear me refer to the unusual nature of this year's estimates, interrupted part way through as they were on the first day, with both the Premier and the Treasurer and their hearings being halted due to the unfolding—

Mr Pederick: Pause.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN:—pause. It was not called a pause or a lockdown—

The Hon. S.S. Marshall: 'Circuit-breaker'. We used both.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Circuit-breaker, yes—the electrician's response to the management of the pandemic because we would not want to use the term 'lockdown', would we?

The Hon. S.S. Marshall: 'Stay at home order' often was used as well.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The Premier has got further advice. I will not peeve him off; otherwise, I might be called similar names to the worker at the Woodville pizza house, and we would not want to be cast with those same aspersions.

The Hon. S.S. Marshall: Don't say anything false and misleading.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Are there two speakers in the house or just one? I am confused.

The SPEAKER: The member for Lee has the call.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you for the call, sir. I understood I had it; I do not know if the Premier did. I commenced my questioning—it is a laughing matter for the Premier—of the Treasurer focusing in on the economic stimulus payments that the Premier had spruiked as being so generous, particularly in a national context, and that the government continues to claim meet the needs of the community, the community that has been so hard hit, not necessarily just those people who have been directly affected not only by the actual virus itself, by the pandemic, but by the collateral impact of that—that is, the restrictions on the community.

I asked the Treasurer whether there would be further support to what had already been announced by the government. It is important, I think, that we spend a little bit of time focusing in on this issue. The opposition has supported and continues to support the health response to the coronavirus pandemic here in South Australia. We have offered bipartisan support—unfettered bipartisan support—to the government, and along the way, where there are opportunities for the government to respond in ways which would assist the community deal with the impacts of the health response to the coronavirus pandemic, we have made those suggestions.

I in particular have consistently called on the government to be quicker and more generous with the financial support it has been willing to provide the community. The Premier liked to claim that he was the first Premier in the nation to announce an economic stimulus package, in mid-March of this year. He claimed there would be $350 million of economic stimulus money on the table to help people adapt and adjust to the impacts of the restrictions.

Of course, it quickly came out that the vast majority of that funding was existing funding committed for other purposes, worthy purposes of course, but not related at all to helping the community specifically respond to the impacts of the coronavirus restrictions, such as rebuilding Flinders Chase or getting on with the job of ordering medical equipment in country hospitals. This was all money already budgeted and set aside but incorrectly called economic stimulus by this government.

When it became clear that $350 million of pre-existing money was manifestly inadequate to respond to the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic, the government made a further commitment of $650 million, some of which actually was economic stimulus funding, including small business grants, and we welcome that. What we did not welcome was the tardiness with which those grants were being rolled out into the community.

Those $10,000 small business grants were desperately needed by the community as transitional support, particularly for those businesses that were applying for and reasonably expecting to receive the first iteration of the JobKeeker payments from the federal government. They were not able to trade either completely or in any way which could sustain their normal operations or continue paying their employees, let alone somehow maintain their livelihoods until they received that JobKeeper payment.

The payment of those small business grants was absolutely necessary to get them through that period. Unfortunately, those small business grants largely started being received by businesses after JobKeeper became available. Just at the time when state government support was needed, it was not able to be actually provided out into the community, and that was a shortcoming.

Fast-forward, of course, and we have had the recent state budget and the announcement of further economic stimulus measures which, for those people who will be in line to receive them, I am sure will be most welcome. What has also been occurring is a continuing change in the number of and the types of restrictions being imposed on the community, in particular on South Australian small business owners.

As I said, the opposition continues to support the government and SA Health's response to the coronavirus pandemic and continues to lend its support for the imposition of restrictions onto the community. But what we also do is call on the government to recognise the impact that those restrictions are having, particularly on the business community and, if those restrictions are to be maintained, recognise that the state government must do more to assist those businesses which are prevented from operating either in total or in a way which means that they are viable, let alone profitable.

The prime example, which we are discussing at the moment, is the continuation of the one person per four square metre rule in hospitality venues across South Australia. Liquor licences usually are allocated on the basis of a venue's square metreage, and the number of people who can be in that premises is usually one person per square metre, not one person per two square metres, let alone one person per four square metres. In that context, you can understand how a business seeks and then receives a liquor licence, which allows them to operate viably, based on having one person per one square metre.

When that is reduced to one person per two square metres, that is a 50 per cent reduction in the number of people who can frequent that premises. Then, when it is a reduction to one person per four square metres, that is a maximum capacity of those venues of 25 per cent. When there are further restrictions imposed on these venues, for example, having a maximum capacity across the venue regardless of size of 100 people in addition to the one person per four square metres, and when you are a venue which was previously licensed for many hundreds of people across several different areas, whether it is different restaurants or different bar facilities and so on, you can understand why they are unable to operate viably. You can also understand why they are unable to support their regular cohort of employees.

When we went into the snap lockdown a few weeks ago on that first day of estimates, from midnight of that Wednesday night, it was widely regarded that, at the end of that, South Australian businesses hoped to re-emerge with at least a return to the one or two square metres. They thought they were going to go back to what they had previously. South Australia in this regard has the toughest restrictions in the country, and that means we have the toughest business conditions in the country. If the government is going to maintain those restrictions based on the health advice in an effort to keep South Australians safe, that is fine, but it also has to be accompanied by additional financial support.

The government set up three funds. The first fund was established as a business grants fund or business loans and grants fund called the Economic and Business Growth Fund and it had $100 million placed into it over four years, $25 million per year. In addition, in response to the pandemic, two other funds—the Business and Jobs Support Fund and the Community and Jobs Support Fund—have also been established.

According to the budget papers themselves, there is at least $140 million of unallocated funds sitting across those three funds. I asked the Treasurer at the outset that Wednesday, knowing how tough venues are doing it across South Australia, whether there would be any support. He said, 'We have an extra round of small business grants,' both the continuation of the $10,000 and, if you are a sole trader, a glaring oversight by the first scheme, you are able to access a $3,000 grant.

Bear in mind that there were $186 million worth of grants, or over 18,000 grants, paid out in the first round and in the second round there is only $78 million worth of grants, and that $78 million is to be split between the $10,000 and the $3,000. That means that what we will continue to see is many thousands of South Australian businesses continue to fall between the cracks of government assistance programs. That includes JobKeeper for those many businesses that are not eligible for JobKeeper or no longer eligible for JobKeeper and it also includes those other businesses that have not been able to meet state government requirements.

It has been put to me repeatedly by many businesses that they cannot continue under this current regime without further support from the government. As I have said to this place before on a number of occasions, I take my hat off to Josh Frydenberg for being willing to put in a wage subsidy scheme like JobKeeper. It has staved off the absolute worst impacts of what the pandemic would have done to the South Australian economy and to all the businesses whose activity constitutes that economy.

But that scheme is being wound down and it will come to an end early next year. We have businesses in South Australia under the harshest restrictions in the country that have lost access to JobKeeper because, when restrictions eased, particularly on those hospitality industries, for that five-week period where they had both the one and two square metre rules and the capacity to allow people to drink standing up—or in the euphemistic tones of the government, 'vertical consumption'—that enabled a bump in their sales and their operations. That bump unfortunately means they are not able to demonstrate that they are 30 per cent down on equivalent periods in other years. They might only be 20 or 25 per cent down, hence they are no longer eligible for JobKeeper.

I make the call again on behalf of all those thousands of struggling small businesses to the Marshall Liberal government: please do more to support the South Australian business community, which is labouring under the toughest restrictions in the country. We are prepared to support the restrictions and the efforts that come with that. Venues are more than happy to have QR code facilities to ensure that they can continue trading, but that is not enough while they labour under the toughest restrictions in the country.

There is an opportunity for the state government to respond in a way which has been occurring in other states around the nation where more support is being provided than to South Australian businesses. It is becoming glaringly obvious to people with a close interest in these matters that the Premier, the Treasurer and the government are failing the business community and failing the community at large as a result of inadequately supporting South Australians through this pandemic.

We have also learnt that the government continues to maintain secrecy and a lack of transparency over some of the payments it has been making to particular businesses. There was much song and dance made by the Premier when the announcement was made that Accenture would be coming to South Australia, one of the largest professional service providers globally. It was sold to us as a choice by this company to come to South Australia, such was the attractive business environment, operating environment and access to staff that would be available for them to establish their operations and gear up their operations.

The claim was made that up to 2,000 South Australians would be employed by Accenture on their arrival in South Australia. What we were not told, of course, was that they were paid money to come here and participate in that announcement with the Premier. How much money were they paid? We do not know because the government refuses to make that information clear.

If you are a struggling venue operator in South Australia, I think it is pretty dispiriting when you learn that millions of dollars are being paid to businesses that currently have no presence here in South Australia to come and set up an operation while you are just trying to keep your head above water and continue employing staff and keep contributing to our state's economy, and there is little assistance available for you.

Speaking of assistance, we do know who is getting some assistance from the government—yet another round of assistance—and that is the Stadium Management Authority. Not only have they managed to squeeze a concessional $42 million loan out of the government for the Adelaide Oval Hotel but in the early stages of the pandemic they were also given a $4 million free kick by not having to pay some of those required payments under the terms of the Adelaide Oval Redevelopment and Management Act, including contributions to the sinking fund and to community sport grants. They have had a further round of that and the amount of financial support that has gone to the Stadium Management Authority now totals over $7 million in less than a year.

Imagine that you are the proprietor of a restaurant, a cafe, a small bar or a pub, not necessarily here in Adelaide's CBD but perhaps out in regional South Australia, and you have been ordered to close and then permitted to reopen with only one in four square metres, that you are not entitled to any of the small business assistance that has been made available to select businesses and that you are just expected to struggle your way through and to rely on the goodwill of your customers to try to support you through these very, very difficult times.

Then imagine how you feel not getting any assistance from the state government and learning that the Stadium Management Authority is receiving $7 million worth of assistance. That is extraordinary and a double standard that should not be allowed to continue. If the state government can find it within themselves to provide a $42 million loan, in addition to $7 million of further financial relief—a nearly $50 million package that has gone to the Stadium Management Authority—then surely they could be making some of this unallocated $140 million available they have sitting in these funds yet to be allocated, let alone yet to be spent, in the community. It is just remarkable that the government would allow this to continue.

One thing we called on the state government to do was to initiate a tourism grants scheme, similar to what happened in the Northern Territory and Tasmania: a $200 voucher South Australians could use to go and spend across South Australia in order to try to get people out of the house again—when we are able to—to go and stimulate South Australian tourism and hospitality businesses.

That was met with a scheme by the government of $100 if you are going to spend it in the marginal electorate of Adelaide, in order to try to protect the political fortunes of the member for Adelaide and Minister for Child Protection, or $50 if you wanted to travel further abroad than the CBD and North Adelaide. So it was $100 if you wanted a tourism experience in the city or $50 if you wanted to go to the West Coast, Eyre Peninsula, Flinders Ranges, Mid North, Yorke Peninsula, Barossa, Limestone Coast and around the South-East.

Does that sound reasonable? No, of course not and, unsurprisingly, relatively few of these grants were taken up. Today, we see an announcement from the government where the unspent balance of the funds they had set aside for the original voucher scheme is having to be repurposed into round 2 of the scheme. If they had got it right the first time, perhaps the initiative would have had the desired impact for the hospitality and tourism industries, rather than trying to rehash it again because they did not target it in the way that (a) other states had successfully rolled it out and (b) they were called on by the industry and the Labor opposition to do in the first place. That was very disappointing.

Of course, we also recognise that, aside from the additional spending in this budget on economic stimulus, the budget seems to be spiralling out of control under the Premier and the Treasurer. It is remarkable that before the coronavirus pandemic hit South Australia the state government had somehow managed to increase the state's debt burden, doubling it almost to nearly $24 billion by the end of the forward estimates.

That would be one thing if there was a lot to show for it. The problem is that you look around South Australia and there is very little to show for it. Now we are being asked to accept the fact that $33 billion of debt will be accrued by the end of the now forward estimates period and that this is a reasonable level of debt.

Under the current circumstances, with interest rates at genuine historic lows and the cost of borrowing correspondingly cheaper, yes, that debt can be accommodated more easily within the budget, but I would like to think, and we would all hope, that there will be an economic recovery in Australia, that there will be an economic recovery in South Australia, that economic growth will return to normal levels—maybe even grow stronger than trend—and that at some point in time that will be reflected in the fact that interest rates will increase to more normal levels, the sorts of levels that we have seen at least over the last five to 10 years.

If and when that occurs, the government's interest burden will escalate, and escalate dramatically. The budget papers make it clear that if interest rates were to increase by one percentage point, in the general government sector alone that would constitute an extra $248 million, I think it is, by the end of the forward estimates. That is $248 million that is not available for other areas of expenditure across government, that is not available for spending on health or in our schools or on our police force or out on our roads.

In an environment where last financial year SA Health exceeded its budget by $547 million, with barely over $50 million of that coronavirus-related expenditure, that should ring alarm bells to South Australians. This government has removed a fiscal target specifically about debt. There is no debt target anymore. There was a debt target under the previous Labor government, and that target was 35 per cent of revenues. There is now no target. There is a vague allusion to a sustainable level of debt.

Each year, I have asked the Treasurer what he believes a sustainable level of debt is, and he cannot answer that question. There does not seem to be any conception by the Treasurer or by this government about what a sustainable level of debt is. If there is no limit on this debt, it permits poor budget management, the escalation of debt and the running of structural deficits within the budget, with little to show for it at the end of it except a very significant debt burden.

That will not trouble the Treasurer, of course, because he is not here for too much longer, but it will trouble subsequent treasurers, whether it be one from this side of the house or from the other side of the house, and that is greatly troubling to me as the shadow treasurer. That should be greatly troubling to anyone who is interested in management of the state's finances in the future.

It is also troubling, of course, because we know not even half of the funding that is required for the north-south corridor upgrade is included within that $33 billion. That is remarkable. The federal government tells us it has set aside $2.5 billion for this project; none of that is inside the forward estimates. The budget papers themselves tell us that something in the order of $2 billion from the state is allocated within the forward estimates. That means that several billion dollars more debt needs to be accrued by the state government in order to meet its funding obligations to deliver this $8.9 billion project.

Likewise, for the Women's and Children's Hospital only $685 million, out of what we understand to be at least a $1.9 billion hospital project, is provided for across the forward estimates. If the state is to fully fund this hospital, which we all expect, then more debt will need to be accrued. This means that, if you think the state's finances are not in a great shape already, they will only get worse in coming years. What happens in coming years? At the moment, between now and 2026, the state government is party to a revised GST deal—a GST deal that means that our GST allocations are allocated on not the fiscally strongest state but on one of either New South Wales or Victoria.

This was specifically advised against by Treasury in signing up to this deal. Freedom of information determinations have released briefing papers to us where Treasury specifically recommended that the Treasurer not sign up to this deal; this was not a good deal for the state. Why? Because the original GST deal with the unfettered application of genuine HFE principles meant that we would get our fair share of the GST allocation based on need, not some artificial allocation based on propping up federal Liberal seats in Western Australia, which is what the new GST deal does.

There is a bridging guarantee from the federal government that no state will be worse off under this new deal that South Australia has been signed up to by the Premier and by the Treasurer. There is a guarantee until 2026 that South Australia will not be worse off. After 2026, that guarantee runs out. To demonstrate what that means, the federal government has recognised the dire situation that states face in terms of GST entitlements, and they have had to top up the pool to make sure that states can continue delivering those basic services to the standard that Australians expect.

So we have escalating debt and now we have a structural change to the level of GST receipts that we can expect to receive in the future. There will be more debt to service and less revenue coming in in only a handful of years' time, after 2026. What a dreadful legacy this government has left us when it comes to budget management.

We have also had to see other projects increase in cost as well. As projects have been delayed, of course costs increase. There is an escalation factor well understood across Australia for the cost of civil works and civil construction projects. That escalation factor will vary depending on the economic conditions of the day, but something in the order of 3 to 7 per cent has been experienced in the last 10 years. We see The Queen Elizabeth Hospital upgrade delayed by nearly three years by this government. Despite all the funding necessary for it being allocated by the former Labor government across the budget, they have had to kick in an extra $50 million and do that while reducing the scope of the upgrade.

We have seen other projects like the Springbank Road/Daws Road/Goodwood Road project blow out in cost from $26 million to over $60 million. We have seen the Port Wakefield overpass project, committed to by those opposite for $24 million. They even had former head of the transport department Rod Hook come out and swear black and blue on radio it would only cost $24 million. It would cost the same amount of money as the overpass at McLaren Vale over that portion of the Victor Harbor Road. Now it is costing somewhere in the order of $80 million more than that.

What is happening is this government is accruing debt obligations for these projects. It is delaying the projects so that the projects themselves continue to cost more. Right now, I am sure there are hundreds if not thousands of civil construction workers who would like to be gainfully employed on the next stage of the north-south corridor upgrade, or on the intersection upgrades that have been delayed, or on the Main South Road duplication project that has been delayed or even on the Victor Harbor Road duplication project that has been delayed. Not only are those people non-employed and those projects delayed but their costs are escalating as a result of those delays.

Of course, the budget metrics themselves over the forward estimates are based on what can only be described as absolutely heroic assumptions buried within the budget. We have the state's economic forecasts in the budget papers outlining that South Australia is expected to grow beyond the national average of economic growth during some periods over the forward estimates. That is a rare event indeed and has not been achieved for many years here in South Australia, including GSP growth forecast at 4.25 per cent, which would be absolutely heroic.

The revenue estimates, which are baked into the budget to explain how the government can try to demonstrate a path back to surplus, are heroic as well. There are huge increases year on year in the amount of state-owned source revenues coming in, including stamp duty and payroll tax. We already recognise that we are not going to get there because only a few days ago we had the Australian Bureau of Statistics release their annual national accounts data, which shows how each state and territory, as well as the nation as a whole, has performed over the most recent financial year. The national accounts data showed that in the last financial year, the 2019-20 financial year, South Australia recorded the worst economic performance in the nation of minus 1.4 per cent—significantly below the next lowest state and territory.

If that is where we are up to with our economic growth under this government, then you can expect that the forward estimates certainly will not be delivering on those forecasts contained within the budget. There is no rationale that the government can hide behind for that economic performance. It is not like South Australia was COVID-affected and the rest of the nation was not. This is significantly worse economic performance than Victoria's, which was locked down for more than 100 days; so there is little excuse for the government here.

We also expect from the budget figures that there will be no new spending across the next four years and that a surplus will be delivered in the last of the years in the forward estimates on the basis that no further spending is announced between now and the state election, let alone now and the end of the forward estimates. Do we honestly think that that is likely to be the case? Do we honestly think that Health is suddenly going to start meeting its budget?

Maybe it will now that it is not having to compensate the corporate liquidators who are unable to fly in from Victoria to send more bills out, such as the remarkable effort in savings they claim they are achieving for SA Health—just extraordinary. And, of course, we see very significant increases in fees and charges and the government sale of goods and services going forward again, just as we did from last year's budget when there was an extraordinary increase in those costs as well.

I did ask the Treasurer about one area of public spending that is always of interest to the community—and it has always been an area that he has been interested in, in particular—and that is government spending on government advertising. This was something long criticised by the Treasurer, saying that it was a waste of money. You do not need to look too far back into Media Monitoring or to his press releases or into Hansard to find repeated references about this. The current Treasurer hated it so much that, upon getting into government, he put himself in charge of government advertising and unleashed the greatest spend the state has ever seen on government advertising—some of it complete rubbish.

Who could forget the 'old mate' campaign, authorised by the Government Communications Advisory Committee? When this humiliating statewide campaign was drawn to his attention, he came out and said, 'It's been axed now. I didn't know about this and, as soon as it was brought to my attention, I told them to axe it.' Remember, there were two 'old mate' advertisements. The claim was made after the airing of the first one, and then of course we were subjected to the second 'old mate' campaign, where old mate and his contemporaries were wandering through the Adelaide Airport.

Maybe a reason for that is that in last year's estimates, when the Treasurer was waxing lyrical about how tough he was being on teachers and holding back their demands for a pay increase, it came to light that his media adviser had in fact been awarded a 6 per cent salary increase without any process whatsoever. There had been no work value assessment and there had been no determination of extra productivity or extra duties, until, of course, the Treasurer said, 'No, no, there are extra duties. I have made the assessment myself. She is my delegate on the Government Communications Advisory Committee, and that's why she is being paid the extra 6 per cent that she is receiving.'

Part of the responsibility of that committee is to publish monthly reports, not only outlining how much money is being spent on campaigns but evaluating the effectiveness of the campaigns. As we have seen this extraordinary increase in government advertising under the current Treasurer, those reports have not been published. You can imagine my confusion.

I thought, 'Well, someone specifically has been singled out for an extraordinary pay increase of 6 per cent to be performing these duties, and the duties aren't being performed. Surely there must be some sort of disciplinary action or perhaps even a wage reduction that's being imposed on this.' But the Treasurer said, 'No, no, it's not her fault. It's not anyone's fault but mine,' of course making it clear that there is no recourse for the community and the media, let alone for anyone else, to get access to that information. How convenient.

Then we moved to other areas particularly under the Treasurer's superintendence, including SafeWork SA and ReturnToWorkSA. ReturnToWorkSA has lost $450 million over the last two years. Perhaps you might excuse some of that over the course of the last financial year with regard to investment returns. Investment returns for any investment schemes, of course, have been down. Most superannuation funds, for example, have recorded minor investment losses. That might excuse part of it for the most recent financial year, but it does not excuse the performance in the financial year before that: losses of $150 million in the 2018-19 year and over $300 million in the 2019-20 financial year.

This raised significant questions about the management of the scheme: is the scheme viable? Its capital adequacy ratio has reduced from 112 per cent to 102 per cent. If that continues this financial year and falls below 100 per cent, what does that mean for employers? Will their ReturnToWork levies have to increase to subsidise the performance of this organisation? SafeWork are not quite so affected; indeed, they have been quite constrained in recent times, not being able to do some of their regular onsite inspections and so on, but the concern over the ReturnToWork scheme needs to be flagged and recognised by the house.

It was of interest, when we resumed the following week after the break that had been imposed on all of us by the snap lockdown—the interruption to those proceedings—to discuss some of the issues that have come out of some of the Treasury agencies that the Treasurer is responsible for: the South Australian Government Financing Authority and its insurance arm, the state fleet, Funds SA, Super SA and the CTP regulator.

The South Australian government's financing agency are responsible for managing loans and grants to businesses, not only making them and doing the paperwork but also making sure those businesses are meeting their obligations. They are also responsible for raising the large amounts of debt that will need to be placed into the market over the coming four years.

They are also responsible for managing the governance relationship with the Stadium Management Authority at Adelaide Oval. I have already spoken about the additional $3 million of financial support they are receiving but, once again, it goes to show how tenuous this concept was from the Stadium Management Authority: to pursue a hotel and to choose to do it not using their own available private commercial bankers but trying to seek a concessional loan arrangement from the government. At the first sign of trouble, here we are with the state government a further $7 million in the hole following that $42 million loan.

Perhaps we will get to it this week, but there are significant changes mooted by the government with regard to superannuation and funds management. Standing orders perhaps preclude me from talking about that discussion on choice of fund, although—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The Attorney says we may be getting to it at some point, but I was surprised to learn that in an environment where public servants may or may not have the choice to place their superannuation contributions elsewhere rather than in the state public sector scheme, Super SA will be recruiting an extra—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Point of order: again, the member knows full well he cannot canvass the substance of the matter in a bill. This bill is the next matter before the parliament and he can, of course, address those issues during that debate. It is not relevant to this matter. Also, it is in the bill before the house, which I think he already knows.

The SPEAKER: I note the point of order. The member for Lee has the call.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I was not seeking to canvass the merits or otherwise of fund choice. What I was seeking to canvass was what came out during the estimates hearings, and that is that Super SA, despite pursuing that, is seeking to increase its staffing levels by 45 per cent. That is remarkable. If you are doing less, why would you recruit more staff?

Coincidentally, Funds SA are doing the same thing—not by 45 per cent though. They are seeking to increase their staffing levels by 60 per cent over the next four years. Together, that is an extra 100 FTEs proposed to be recruited between Super SA and Funds SA over the next four years. I thought that was astounding.

At the same time, Super SA has also announced, via its website, that fees will go up for existing members. That is remarkable. There is also, unfortunately for members of both Super SA and Funds SA, no identified increase in investment performance. There may be a change by insourcing some of the investment management facilities, which is what we are told Funds SA is pursuing. Rather than farming out more of the funds to external investment managers, they will seek to directly place investments with some of these additional staff. That is fine, but what is in it for the people who are having their funds managed? Are they to expect a more bespoke or tailored service?

The answer to that, we were told, is in some regard, but it is remarkable to learn that where there will be fewer funds under management in the future they are gearing up to recruit an extra 100 staff. One part of the South Australian Government Financing Authority's (SAFA) duties that I did not make reference to was that they also manage the state government's fleet. This is of interest in the context of the current budget because we are being told that at some point in the future there may be some legislation coming forward to introduce a new type of motor vehicle tax here in South Australia—an electric vehicle-specific tax.

We were told by the Minister for Energy that Fleet SA will be showing the way. They will be using their $80 million of purchasing power to change the state fleet into the future. There are 6,742 fleet vehicles at the moment and 0.1 per cent of them are electric vehicles—six or maybe 6.7 or maybe it is 7; it would be somewhere between six and seven if it is 0.1 per cent. This is remarkable really. I am not quite sure what the estimate will be of that $80 million and how is it going to revolutionise the composition of the state fleet, but suffice to say there were no estimates forthcoming in that regard from that discussion. I found that very strange.

When it comes to the employment of executives, you would think the Department of Treasury and Finance would be amongst the most prudent in government. It was a surprise to learn that not only is there a significant increase in the number of staff in those two areas—Super SA and Funds SA—but there is also a very significant increase to the remuneration of those staff. Last financial year, there was a 26 per cent increase in employee expenses, the total cost of employing people in Funds SA. Further, there was a 36 per cent increase in the number of executives employed at a cost of $150,000 a year or more.

Before these additional staff are recruited to Funds SA, executives are being paid 55 per cent of the total remuneration costs of Funds SA—nice work if you can get it, no question about that. In Super SA, not only that but there has been a predilection in the last two financial years for spending on consultants. It has massively increased in the financial years from only three years ago. I think it was $40,000 to over $900,000 in the 2019-20 financial year, and that was just the expenditure to date as well—truly a remarkable performance.

When we turn to RevenueSA, we once again asked the question on behalf of those thousands of landowners who are being stung for the first time by the $85 million increase in land tax by virtue of the aggregation arrangements—or perhaps not $85 million, but perhaps more like $70 million to $75 million now. We will not actually ever know because the government refuses to tell us how many more people are impacted by the aggregation arrangements after the land tax census, which was undertaken by RevenueSA in order to finally try to get some accurate information about the impacts of the land tax aggregation bill.

The Treasurer maintains that there will be a little over 4,000 individuals, I think, who will pay more and a bit over 2,000 companies that will pay more, so 6,000 or 7,000 landowners who will be stung with higher land tax bills, paying in excess of $70 million of higher land tax bills. That is a significant hit and, while there has been some relief in terms of being able to defer land tax bills or apply for an actual bill reduction if you are facing land tax aggregation for the first time, that relief is temporary.

There has been a very low take-up of the land tax relief that had been set aside for landlords, who presumably were to pass it on to their tenants. It just goes to show that, rather than the government advertising how good they think they are as a government, it would be helpful if they would advertise the availability of financial support to South Australians to help get them through this pandemic. Of course, there is very little—perhaps no—government advertising alerting landowners to the relief arrangements in this regard.

Finally, we looked at Renewal SA and HomeStart. We asked whether Renewal SA had any involvement representing any interests that the government might have in 88 O'Connell Street. We were told that the government retains no interest in that, that it was merely an initiative under the former Labor government to help the Adelaide City Council purchase that site. You can imagine the frustration of residents in North Adelaide. Here we are, three years on from that initiative, and we have seen a sign go up, we have seen some bollards go up and some temporary car parking arrangements and no activity on site.

We were told a year ago by the Adelaide City Council that they were in negotiations with one preferred proponent to develop that site, and here we are a year later with no progress on it. Imagine if we did know who the developer was, the developer was required to get on with the job and start building there and employing hundreds, if not thousands, of South Australians in building whatever development was agreed to by the council. Would it not be good for the state's economy? Would it not be good for O'Connell Street as a strip? Of course it would.

We saw that the government had little explanation as to why a former director of Renewal SA, Georgina Vasilevski, was, to use the words of the current Chief Executive of Renewal SA, 'terminated from her employment' while she was on leave, coincidentally the day before she had a court appearance for a matter referred to prosecutors after an ICAC investigation. There was no explanation about the timing of this, no explanation about why her role had been replaced with up to four different staff.

It makes the concept of a role being redundant in itself, does it not, if the role that you performed has to be performed by a number of other people. We were told that it was okay, that there was a whole bunch of people, that it was part of a bigger restructure that was made, but they were not coincidentally terminated the day before Ms Vasilevski's court appearance. I do not think anyone needs to think too hard to guess what is going on there. That is disappointing.

We also see that Renewal SA has now taken a particular role in the new properties that have been purchased both at the former Le Cornu site on Anzac Highway and down off Churchill Road, not too far from Regency Park at Prospect. We do not have any idea, though, what might happen on that site, although we do know that that purchase was made with the current planning arrangements in mind that might see development of up to eight storeys on that site.

I will conclude my remarks there. Estimates tends to be a period of time when departments and their staff put an enormous amount of effort into preparing information and briefings for their particular minister so that that information can be made available to the community. One thing I will commend the Treasurer for is that this year was the first time he did not take a Dorothy Dixer during estimates.

I was told by a former treasurer that you can always tell a minister who believes they are across their brief and has some confidence in their management of their own portfolio when they eschew making an opening statement and taking a Dorothy Dixer. While I will not say that the Treasurer is managing his portfolio well, I will at least grant him some due respect for not wasting the time of Estimates Committee B by taking Dorothy Dixers. Although, of course, I understand in that regard he was virtually alone amongst his ministerial colleagues.

The SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Hurtle Vale, I refer to the point of order raised by the Deputy Premier earlier. I refer honourable members to standing order 184. I do not uphold the point of order and note there the reference to a motion and the prohibition against an attempt to anticipate debate has been interpreted to include debate generally, which might be regarded as a series of motions. As I say, I do not uphold the point of order.

Ms COOK (Hurtle Vale) (12:00): It is a good point to pick up on, following on from where the member for Lee was talking, with respect to the estimates process. It is my pleasure to make a contribution from Estimates Committee B, which I participated in last week, predominantly questioning the Minister for Human Services across five different parts of her portfolio, of which she has six, the sixth being under our spokesperson for women, the member for Reynell.

I agree completely with the member for Lee and his comments in regard to feeling that the minister is over their brief when they just allow the estimates process to flow and the questions to come from opposition members in relation to the portfolio. This is the third estimates process that I have been involved in as an opposition spokesperson, and I was also involved in three as a government backbencher. My recollection of participating as a backbencher was of asking very few government questions—or Dorothy Dixers, whichever you would like to refer to—and the committees I was in did not have lengthy introductory remarks either.

Sadly, Estimates Committee B for human services, as it is broken up into five different sections (and the one for the member for Reynell, for women, obviously) offered me the great pleasure of sitting and listening to five introductory statements, several of which took close to the maximum allowable time of 10 minutes. In a couple of these sections, there were then government questions asked, which had lengthy prepared and well-structured answers made up by the department advisers. They are the same as is offered up as government questions in question time.

An example of this was in housing, which all members will agree in our current climate is topical. One of the most important, fundamental human rights is having safe, secure, ongoing shelter. The sad thing about estimates for housing and the Housing Authority within human services is that it allowed only 45 minutes of questions. We had nearly 10 minutes of an introductory statement and then my recollection is that there were at least two government questions that had lengthy responses already manufactured and read off the page.

I am here to tell you no-one is watching. Nobody is sitting at home and tuning in from TV land saying, 'This is fascinating. Let's listen to the government questions and the pre-prepared speeches.' No-one is listening. The punters who are listening at home are probably working from home and are part of the department. They are either celebrating the speech they have written, or their friends or work colleagues have written, from the suburbs under the current work from home directives.

We had, from memory, nearly 25 minutes of housing estimates taken up by government statements and Dorothy Dixers that could be asked as part of question time. God forbid the Legislative Council sits beyond 5.30 or 5 o'clock and has a longer question time because more government statements or ministerial statements are made before question time commences. I am sure we would encourage that if it meant we were then given extra time within our allotted 45 feeble minutes to ask questions on and inquire into the fundamental human right to housing.

Instead, we had 25 minutes, to be generous, to ask questions on what I would have thought would be a cornerstone of policy. Instead, it was a $500 million pre-Christmas 'slip it out on a Sunday' announcement called a housing strategy, which contained some vision for providing building and investment opportunities for affordable housing. I think they are clearly missing the boat on this.

We have seen in the women's pilot program, for example, nine women's houses put up for sale. These were targeted affordable opportunities for women who have experienced terrible situations of domestic violence. These women have had interruptions of work life, so their superannuation is down and they are unable to accrue enough money to be able to purchase properties.

These nine properties were released on the market, and while there were around 50 inquiries in the past year about these affordable properties, which were preferably but not essentially targeting older women—it was preferable because it then just goes to market and anyone can buy them—we then saw 20 women qualify for them but we have only seen three of these houses go to the target market. If that is indicative of what is going to happen in their plan for 1,000 affordable homes, by ratio, we are going to be celebrating and popping the cork on around 30 or a couple of dozen people moving into houses.

I have no confidence at all that this affordable housing program is going to hit its mark. I am very grateful to the member for Enfield. We are working together and talking at length about opportunities to make policies like this work and to actually make products fit. I was given the opportunity to attend the Treasurer's estimates committee on HomeStart. I acknowledge the Treasurer did not have an introductory statement. The Treasurer was not asked a government question; we just got on with it.

As I said before, no-one is listening at home, so I am pretty much talking to myself, but in relation to HomeStart products for people on low incomes we specifically asked about the government's target and process to get people from public housing—social housing—into home ownership. When we asked how many people actually applied and were successful, I think the response was around 13 people in public housing, which is less than 1 per cent of HomeStart loans.

If the plan of this government is to move people through the continuum, we have a failure at the product end, we have a lack of conversion at the price point end and, in between that, today we have the confirmation that South Australia is the least affordable city to rent on this whole mainland of Australia.

Given that we are in the middle of an economic flux, so to speak, and the wise owls have decided that it is time to pull the cord on some of the products that are out there to support incomes like JobKeeper and such, I think this is alarming, because we have this failure at the product end, we have this failure at the price point end and we have this pile of people in the middle who are paying more than a quarter of their income every week on rent, so they do not have disposable income to spend on other things.

They certainly do not have the money to go safely into home ownership, even though there is the $10,000 grant that we know. That is not a lot when you are looking at products on the affordable market being $300,000 to $400,000. This whole thing is a bit of a catastrophe. We did not have time to predicate these questions further in the housing estimates because there were very long government speeches and Dorothy Dix questions and no time.

Frankly, in the middle of it all as well, as soon as questions get a little bit tough—and this happens not just in estimates but in regular question time—it is, 'The opposition is just making it all up. The root of the questioning is all a fable.' Suddenly it is, 'Oh, the member has a vivid imagination.' Well, go and tell my teachers, because I am very structured. I follow the science. I do not have a very good imagination; I would be the world's worst author. I can barely follow a movie because I cannot anticipate what is going to happen next, so to be accused of making up some pretty wild accusations, I tell you: someone has done a brain transplant—because that is not me, that is not what I am there for.

I was there asking questions based on—and no exaggeration—the hundreds of reports we have had over the last couple of years from punters in the community who have been aggrieved, people's family members who have felt aggrieved, people who have worked in the departments who are aggrieved, people who might still work in the departments who are currently aggrieved and have brought very legitimate concerns to us. Guess what? Estimates Committee B is where it could happen, where you could open up and ask those questions, but either we did not have time or we had time taken up with government introductions and we had government questions.

I will give the Minister for Human Services her due. She was not as bad as the committee I sat in later in the day, and that involved the Minister for Child Protection, who, I am sorry, I think barely answered one question by herself. It was over to the CEO or over to the deputy CEO for every question. The poor people at home who are struggling to pay their rent on an average household income in Adelaide of about $60,000-odd—if there were actually real people at home tuned into Facebook land watching estimates—would say, 'My goodness, that person earns over $350,000 a year and they can't answer a question.' I think they would be horrified.

I will give the Minister for Human Services her due: she answered a couple of questions off her own back; it was much better than the effort later in the day. Mind you, by that time of night I had completely lost the will to live and was ready to call it a day. It is a very long day in estimates. My main issue with the process is sucking up the time and accusing people of making stuff up. It does not happen. People come to you. You do a lot of work to validate the origin of such allegations, otherwise you would not actually raise them, because that would just be stupid.

In terms of the full picture, we got some information. We managed to ask some questions about important portfolios that represent people with vulnerability, young people and people who volunteer, who often have vulnerabilities themselves. Volunteering is a great way to be able to connect them to supports, communities and employment opportunities. We managed to get some clarification around some of that.

We also got some information about youth justice, which has been an excellent journey over decades now to change the way we as a community advocate for support for and education of young people who have found themselves on the wrong end of the rules. Of course, the member for Ramsay, who is in the chamber with us now, was responsible for the portfolio of youth justice under the Labor government and made some fantastic reforms. We continue to speak now about how we can continue to move forward but, again, credit where it is due, the reforms that were already happening have continued with their momentum.

We see an inordinate reduction now in the number of young people who are part of the Adelaide Youth Training Centre system. I did congratulate the team who were behind that. I was grateful to have that opportunity; you do not get that opportunity to talk to people who are heading up teams. In fact, that gives me the chance to raise another point. I have asked to have a briefing from the chair of the Housing Authority board in relation to governance, processes and policy. I know he is quite happy to do so, but that has been refused. Another reason we go into estimates is that people have to front up and answer questions.

While it was disappointing in some ways that we did not get enough time to ask questions, do not worry: you will be getting them all on notice. Of course, in this house it will be the Attorney-General who will receive those on behalf of the minister in the other chamber. I am sure she will take that big thwack of paper with absolute joy, pleasure and glee and have a look at it and see all the questions that could not be answered but will now be answered through the notice stage.

There were more questions than answers in some of the responses. Of course, the parliamentary process, while it can be stymied to some degree, will give us the opportunity to ask many more questions as we move on, particularly, as I have said, in relation to housing. Housing is a human right that I will continue to ask questions about, hold the government to account for and actually in some areas shame the government on in terms of their lack of investment in public and social housing.

They are on a unity ticket with the federal Liberal government and should be embarrassed at the numbers coming out of states such as Queensland, New South Wales and Tasmania. A state like Tasmania has announced a $3.1 billion public housing package—$3.1 billion. I am not sure what their state annual budget is. I would have guessed it was somewhere around $10 billion, thinking about the size of the state, but that is an enormous commitment over the next few years.

Then we go to Victoria. Victoria have done it tough. They have acknowledged and recognised there is an issue with how some of their public housing tenancies are structured and they have announced a $5 billion package; I think it is $5.3 billion, if my memory serves correctly. That is an enormous commitment. It shows that they acknowledge that there is an issue, that it needs addressing and that it needs real investment. We have the federal Liberal government asleep at the wheel when it comes to public housing.

We have seen in answers to questions we have been provided from the Budget and Finance Committee and other committees that, in spite of all the huff and puff by this state Liberal government about public housing, and the 'you were terrible' and 'we are amazing', I am sorry, you say that you are going to stop the reduction but you are not. The answer provided in the Budget and Finance Committee by the South Australian Housing Authority was clear: over the next three or four years social housing will go down by 600 properties. Given that we have seen release after release and lines in the media to the contrary, that is pretty embarrassing.

We will continue to ask questions. I know the current Treasurer is proud of the ice in his veins. He wants to spend like Paris Hilton, but I do not think he wants to spend money on public housing. I do not believe that will happen. I urge the government to do something about it as soon as Rob gets on with his holiday plans, retires and goes off into the sunset with our best wishes, because I do not believe that it is going to happen under the current Treasurer. I look forward to another estimates session next year and questions in the meantime. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON (Ramsay) (12:21): I rise today to talk both about Estimates Committee A and Estimates Committee B. First, I would like to acknowledge that, unfortunately, I was unable to participate in person due to my quarantine. I had the absolute pleasure to attend Thomas More College on 12 November, but subsequently I got caught up in the Parafield cluster. It was a wonderful bonding family experience, but we are also happy to be free and active now. Can I just acknowledge both the leader and the deputy leader, who stepped in for me for these estimates sessions. Obviously, a lot of work is done in preparation, and I would like to thank them for their ability to step in on my behalf.

I would like to talk about Estimates Committee A first, in which the Premier talked about tourism. We know that this has been an incredibly challenging year for people involved in tourism. We know that there are more than 4,500 South Australians who are employed in this industry. It is very diverse, and it is driven by many different businesses, many of them micro and small and family, but we also have large providers as well.

When we are talking about tourism, we are talking about people like travel agents, who make bookings, tourist coach operators, business and leisure events, accommodation providers, festivals and events staff and outdoor tourism. Of course, the list goes on, and there are lots of different occupations—hotel managers, CEOs, cooks, cleaners, travel agents, as I have said—so the impact has been quite significant.

There has been a lot for us to ask the Premier in estimates, but the key topic we wanted to talk a bit more about was the shock decision to cancel the Adelaide 500. This event brought enormous economic benefit to the state. We know that 15,000 people came from interstate to stay in our CBD to see this event. For many years—I think it is more than 20—it had bipartisan support. Our questions to the Premier were: how was this decision made? When was this decision made? How much is it going to cost us now that you have made this decision? I have to say that his answers provided no clarity around that.

While I now know the decision went to cabinet and the decision was made on a recommendation of the SATC, it was the Premier who made this decision. He made the decision to cut this event. Not only was it a shock that he cut the event but it was a shock that he did not know how much that decision would cost. How much is Supercars going to ask us for because we ripped up a contract? Who makes a decision before knowing how much it is going to cost?

This is a seven-year agreement. We were at the last of our years in 2021, but we should ask these questions about how much it would be. There was an understanding that more than $2½ million had been in previous motorsports contracts, but the Premier would not confirm that that is the cost, nor would he confirm how much it costs to hold the Adelaide 500 as a managed event. I find it quite curious that he said that. He came out at one point and said it was north of $10 million but would not say in this house how much it would cost because it is commercial-in-confidence.

At the same time, the Premier has made the decision that he is going to ring-fence the money saved from running the Adelaide 500 to put into leisure events. If you are going to ring-fence a certain amount of money, obviously South Australian taxpayers deserve to know how much that is. The questions that have come after this shock decision remain unanswered. It is unbelievable that South Australian taxpayers cannot be told and do not know how much it is going to cost us to cancel this event and how much we are going to take from this event to put into other events.

We asked the Premier about the events advisory committee. I have spoken before about my concerns that this shock decision was made with absolutely no plan whatsoever regarding the events that are going to replace that event. In 2019, $45 million came in for that event. That is a lot of money. And we now know that the Tour Down Under is not going to be in the same form it was. So we are talking about almost $100 million not coming into our economy over the summer this year.

The plan is to have the events advisory committee, and there has been some commentary about who is actually on it and the process to appoint people to it, but it is after the horse has bolted. The decision has been made, and now this committee is coming together to come up with innovative ideas to fill the calendar throughout the year. I believe that the people on this committee will have the best intentions—I am sure they will come up with ideas—but it takes time for an event to be successful. It takes time to build the audience and the loyalty to an event.

I am very concerned that this rash decision, this shock decision, leaves us with a very empty calendar going forward—and what will be the outcome? Jobs. We know that in 2019, 400 FTEs were employed for the Adelaide 500 and when we asked questions in Estimates Committee A about how those jobs are going to be replaced there was no response, because there is no plan.

We also asked the Premier about the travel vouchers—the idea that we had back in July. We have heard today that there is going to be a second round of travel vouchers. I am really pleased to hear that some of our constructive thoughts about the travel vouchers have been taken on board. The travel vouchers that were put out initially were only for accommodation providers who had 10 or more rooms, and I was very concerned about that limitation.

In fact, for the $4 million in travel vouchers, only 3 per cent of the sector registered on southaustralia.com were even eligible. It is the narrowest travel voucher scheme that we have seen anyone provide—incredibly different from that in the NT and Tasmania. We also know that only 20,000 of the 50,000 were actually used. Now we have round 2. In this round 2 are accommodation providers with five or more rooms, and I welcome that. I welcome the fact that the Premier, when we are being constructive, occasionally listens.

One of the other key issues very concerning to me about tourism is that departmental efficiencies are still there for tourism. They were absolutely gutted this year by bushfires, COVID, border closures and no international tourists: 'But, by the way, do you think you can find $2.5 million each year for the next four years?' I say to the Premier: waive these efficiencies; tourism has had enough to deal with. In fact, you have just told them that they have to come up with a whole calendar of events and start them new while cutting out $10 million over the next four years. Give them a break.

Our borders shut and, for anyone involved in international tourism, overnight no-one came by—all the blood, sweat and tears to build up your business and your reputation, and it ended. I welcome the fact that the Victorian border is down today, as that is our main source of domestic tourism, and this is good news, and we have also seen South Australians go back to the regions, and this is good news. But nothing can replace the fact that we have been fundamentally impacted. Before, we saw $8.1 billion and it is already down to $6.5 billion. We know that they have been impacted, so why on earth do you persist with these departmental efficiencies?

I would like to turn now to Estimates Committee B, trade and investment. This is the first time the Minister for Trade and Investment, a new minister, has participated in estimates. I once was a new minister, so I know the preparation that goes in so that you are ready to go. But I have to say, given that our state faces one of the biggest trade shocks in recent history, I was incredibly disappointed by the response from the minister. By all accounts, he is a lovely person and he is a dedicated person. What I did not see was urgency, what I did not see was attention and I did not see a minister who sees that we have a trade sanction before us and that we need to respond. It just was not there.

I am very concerned about that because, when I said to him, 'How many jobs are supported by exports in South Australia?' he did not know. I said, 'How many direct clients does this department support?' and he did not know. What is our plan to deal with this pending crisis? We do not have one. We heard over the weekend that things got far worse than we ever imagined for our wine sector because of an up to 212 per cent tariff. Our premium wines that we export from South Australia and that are much loved in China have been punished. My concern about this is that we had already seen activity against beef, barley, timber and lobster. We knew that this was pending when they were looking at the fact that China believed we were dumping. This was pending, but there is no action and no activity.

When this news came out on Friday, the Labor leader and I called for an urgent task force for those people in wine exports, but we have seen no announcement here. I am really not surprised, given the types of answers and commentary we heard during estimates. Two former ministers were sitting in that estimates committee: the member for Chaffey and the member for Schubert. Frankly, I think they were surprised. While there was information about programs and things they had done, there was no detail about the brief and the pending issues that face us in trade. I think they were surprised at the lack of detail.

The minister said he has had some conversations with the consul and he has written a letter. What we need is urgency, being proactive. What is it that our wine exporters need from us? Do we need to make sure that every South Australian family has a bottle of South Australian wine on the table at Christmas? Do we need to make sure that the storage challenges for these exporters are supported? Do you even know what their needs are right now? I got none of that clarity, none of that information, from estimates.

We talked about the International Freight Assistance Mechanism. We did some good work here—it was started when our rock lobster industry was impacted back in January—and we welcome that assistance to get the airfreight moving, but we have questions. Will this continue? Has the federal government committed to continuing that mechanism or are they going to ask us, as a state, to step up and contribute?

The other area I asked questions about was trade offices. This was a very fundamental, core policy of the Marshall Liberal government when they came to government in 2018. These trade offices, a little smaller than intended, have rolled out: we have five more this year. However, what is the point of a trade office if we do not actually have a plan, a strategy, for engagement in that country? The minister was asked, in estimates, what trade strategy documents we had.

Previously we had a very, very thorough China strategy and an India strategy, to name just two. They were formed with the involvement of many people in South Australia who were interested in these areas. I would almost go as far as to say they were bipartisan documents, those trade strategies; however, because of the vendetta they were ripped up. Now it seems that our only trade strategy is the opening of a trade office. I say to members that the opening of a trade office is not a strategy: it is an office, mostly with Austrade. More work needs to be done to make sure we are truly engaging in those regions.

This was the first time the minister was here. I have to say, I somewhat missed the former minister from the other place, the Hon. Mr Ridgway, because if there is one thing I know about him it is that he is a straight shooter. It was actually his data earlier this year in July that told us that 79,000 South Australians were employed in export. That is about 11 per cent of the state's workforce, which means that 11 per cent of the state's workforce is at risk because we do not have a plan about how we are going to deal with these trade sanctions going forward.

It is a huge part of our economy. Just the other week the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership was signed. This is a fundamental time in Australia's history, to sign this agreement with 15 different nations. We signed this agreement, yet here in South Australia we do not have a plan to deal with that new economic partnership. You have to do the work, and you have to be clear about how we are going to benefit from that new opportunity.

What I took from both Estimates Committee A with the Premier, focusing on tourism, and Estimates Committee B with the Minister for Trade and Investment, is that it seems this government, the Marshall Liberal government, has run out of steam. I know it is a tough time and there is a global pandemic, but there is a lack of urgency and a lack of attention and decisions are being made without a plan. It is simply not good enough. Let's remind ourselves that the tourism industry employs more than 40,000 South Australians and that the trade industry employs more than 79,000 South Australians. We need urgent action to make sure we save these jobs.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (12:40): I thank all members, small numbers as they are, who have a made a contribution to this debate. I thank the parliament, particularly those who chaired the estimates committees, and the support staff for providing the opportunity for members to scrutinise the budget initiatives and all budget matters that have been published.

I would also like to thank each of the members of the departments who prepared material for the ministers and also a number of staff who attended here. Even with COVID restrictions, they were able to sit a metre and a half or two metres apart and provide the information to the parliament, which we greatly appreciate. Having been one of those ministers at estimates, it was doubly valuable to be able to have that. With that, I commend the bill to the house.

Motion carried.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I move:

That the remainder of the bill be agreed to.

Motion carried.

Third Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (12:42): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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