HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-11-12 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Appropriation Bill 2020

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Dr CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:20): I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise to speak about the budget. I would like to focus particularly on the areas of my portfolio that are concerned with climate change, the environment and water. I will start with the overwhelming issue in the budget of the electric vehicle tax, which appears to be a direct affront to any claim that this government has had to take climate change seriously and to want to transition to a low-carbon future.

The government has come up with an excellent target of cutting our emissions by 50 per cent by 2030 and, of course, achieving the existing target of zero by 2050. To do that, we need to see the government not only continue to support the renewable energy profile that Labor initiated but take seriously the initiatives that are associated with transport. This electric vehicle tax of course runs entirely counter to every message and every policy approach that might help deliver a low-carbon transport fleet.

I will start with the process issue because often that is where these things go awry. This appears to have been an idea that has come probably from Treasury or the Treasurer and has been taken on board by the energy department, although it was spruiked and supported very much by the Minister for Environment and Water. In his speech yesterday he said that he made no apology for the policy. There does not appear to have been a lot of either research or evidence undertaken—certainly none presented to the public to justify why having attacks on electric vehicles would not inhibit people from purchasing electric vehicles—nor much consultation.

I have the highest respect for the Minister for Energy. I asked the Premier about consulting with the Premier's Climate Change Council, but the Minister for Energy answered today and he certainly did not say that they had consulted with the Climate Change Council, but he did say that he was meeting this afternoon with the chair, Martin Haese. That suggests to me that there was no consultation prior to the decision. There certainly was not any with the Australian Electric Vehicle Council's SA branch, because we spoke to them and they were astonished that this policy had come up. They had heard nothing about it, had not been included in discussions and had not had the opportunity to give feedback, nor had the Conservation Council of South Australia.

You always worry, when the process starts a little secretively and perhaps the wrong people are having the wrong conversations and perhaps not with all the relevant people, that there might be a problem. The message that comes through in this policy is, of course, 'Don't buy an electric car.' There can be no other message. When you put a tax on something, it is usually explicitly to say that you are going to charge for the use of that and that if there is an alternative please take it. Electric cars are already more expensive than similar vehicles that are fuelled with petrol. The one advantage they have is that they are cheaper to run, but that advantage is being eroded through this policy. The messaging about that policy change I genuinely believe to be disastrous.

The economics of it trouble me most. What we need is the creation or the encouragement of a very early market for more electric vehicles. We have one of the poorest electric vehicle markets in the advanced world. There are cheaper and a wider variety of makes and models in other nations, incidentally, and in subnational jurisdictions like California, where substantial subsidy has gone in to encourage people to buy these cars, and that has worked.

We have seen that happen in South Australia with the solar panels where some people railed against the idea of a feed-in tariff, but my goodness did it work, and with people having that massive uptake of solar panels down came the price. That is what we need to see here: a great enthusiasm to take up the option of electric vehicles and then, of course, the price coming down and making it accessible for all, because it is not enough for us to have a small number with electric vehicles. We have a carbon challenge facing us, a carbon budget that is running out, and we must make the shift as quickly as possible to the majority of vehicles being electric or at least zero emissions.

The fiscal dimension of this I find very curious. The problem that this purports to solve is that there is a federal tax on petrol that is not hypothecated on road maintenance in South Australia and spent on road maintenance in South Australia—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: That's right, it's not.

Dr CLOSE: That's right, it is a tax on petrol—

Mr Knoll interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Schubert will cease interjecting.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: I know you're under pressure.

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: I know you're facing a lot of personal problems.

The SPEAKER: Order! The deputy leader has the call. The deputy leader will be heard in silence.

Dr CLOSE: Mr Speaker, it is not hypothecated for roads and it is—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for West Torrens and member for Schubert! I remind members of standing order 142, and I further remind members of standing order 141. The house will interfere to prevent quarrels. The deputy leader has the call.

Dr CLOSE: It is purporting to solve what is actually a federal tax issue that is foreseen sometime in the future, because when there are more electric vehicles there will be less petrol being bought and therefore less tax being raised by the federal government, but without any calculation of the benefits both to the state and federal governments of people owning electric vehicles instead of high emission vehicles.

The greenhouse emissions are not the only emissions from cars, of course. The impact on air pollution and therefore on people's health is significant and substantial. This is a little bit like when someone stops smoking cigarettes saying, 'Well, you're not paying the cigarette tax anymore, so we're going to have to take an extra charge off you in another way because we can't be having us losing this money,' although that money is required in part to deal with the health consequences of cigarettes.

The absurdity in the heart of this is not only in the jurisdictional element but also in what this is being spent on. I presume that this is made still more true by the fact that the government is not proposing to take this money and give it to the federal government in lieu of the money they are missing out on through the petrol charge. They are not saying, 'Well, because you're missing out on that we will collect it for you just in South Australia. Don't worry about the other states. They will work out what they're doing. We won't have a national solution, and then we will give it to the federal government.' Not at all. This is simply a state-based tax. They have found an opportunity for a market that they hope will grow in the future, but I will come to my theory about that shortly.

There are also concerns, of course, about privacy. It was rather alarming to hear that there is a prospect of perhaps GPS being used to track where private vehicles go in order to be able to have this charge that is related to what roads and for what period of time the cars are running so that they can accurately judge how much the cars ought to be charged.

I can actually help them out. It is going to be something like a $330 charge per car, because I understand that there are about 3,000 electric vehicles in South Australia and they are saying that it is $1 million. I have the old calculator out and I think it is about that. Anyway, they will work out how they want to do that using GPS or some other form of tracking citizens and where they are going—perhaps requiring a travel logbook. We do not know; we will find out in due course.

This brings me to the concerns about privacy, of course, which are overriding. But, more significantly, if the government are now turning their mind to thinking that what they need to know is how far each car is driving in order to know what impact it is having on which roads—perhaps state roads, local roads, federal roads. Does that mean that, in fact, this is the beginning of a shift in the way we will be taxed for the use of cars? Does this mean that this will not be confined only to electric vehicles?

I have to say that to raise $1 million with not only the amount of pushback that is occurring already but also the administration that will be involved in it does not really make sense on the face of it, and it troubles me that this might be contemplated for a more extensive application of how we can fill the budget hole that is being generated, which I am sure the Treasurer is deeply concerned about. It is not in his nature to be happy with the amount of debt the government has taken on.

Is this a little sleeper that perhaps in a second term could turn into a more widely applied tax? I have no idea if that is the case, but it certainly puzzles me that, in an area where otherwise this government has been pretty consistent—they understand that climate change is real and they understand something should happen—they would come up with a $1 million a year charge that runs entirely counter to their arguments.

The second area that I want to touch on is marine parks. The minister is often at pains to talk about how much he cares about our natural environment. I am very disturbed about the discordance between that statement and the decision to go ahead and change management plans for marine parks that reduce the sanctuary zones that have been protecting those areas for some years now.

The minister spent something like $120,000 on a scientific review of marine parks. He said he would do that in the election campaign. He won the election, his team won the election and he duly went out and got a very reasonable firm, EconSearch, to do that work and they came back with a report which said leave it alone. So the scientific review he said he would undertake and undertook and received said, 'Leave these alone. They are working,' and they were set up in a sensible and sound way both in community consultation and on the scientific basis, yet the minister has proceeded to produce these management plans that tear up very important sanctuary zones in the marine parks network.

As part of preparing those management plans, he then went through the process of consultation that is required by the act and 95 per cent of the respondents said do not reduce the sanctuary zones—95 per cent of the respondents—yet he went ahead and did it. So no science and no community support. I struggle to understand why a minister who claims to care about the environment would nonetheless proceed.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: You mean he capitulated to Treasury.

Dr CLOSE: He may have capitulated to interests that want to get in there and commercially take from those sanctuary zones. I find it alarming that a minister—and perhaps, as an environment minister, with some gratitude—would not say, 'Well, look, I know that you really want me to do this, but the science isn't there and the community support isn't there, so I am actually going to stand up and say, no, I will protect the environment in this case.' That has not happened. I find that disappointing and I can only hope that we are able to achieve a disallowance in due course and protect those sanctuary zones.

Yesterday, the minister came forward in the context of the budget with an argument that more than ever, ever, ever is being spent on the environment, and I am all for spending more on the environment. I am on record as saying that I think there should be an acceleration in the amount of money that is spent on our natural environment in South Australia, particularly given the challenges faced through the crisis in biodiversity and global warming. But we need to be clear about what money is being spent and whose.

The vast majority of the money that is being spent is being spent on tourism infrastructure in parks. Lest the minister jump up at some point and accuse me yet again of being the lock-it-up left, as he accuses people who think that the environment matters—it suddenly turns into that we do not want people to be in the environment—that is not true. I am all for people engaging with nature, with seeing nature, enjoying nature and therefore, of course, becoming champions for nature. We are on a unity ticket there.

But spending money on that tourist infrastructure is not the same as spending money on species recovery, on habitat restoration, on weeding, on planting. That is not the same thing. When you are building a trail or you are building a campsite or you are fixing up fences (fences can have a biodiversity advantage), what you are doing is looking after the infrastructure for the people. Terrific, but the people are there to see nature, and we need to make sure that we are putting an equal effort into restoring and protecting nature. That is what the environment minister's job is; that is what the environment department's job is.

Equally, the vast proportion of the money that is talked about is federal money, and that is excellent: it is always good to get federal money. A lot of it is for various bits of the River Murray and for the Water for Fodder program. Terrific, take the money and spend it, but do not claim that it is your own; that is all I am asking. Let's not pretend that that is the largesse of this state government. Of that, $45 million is insurance money. Of course it is because of the devastation of the fires. Of course I want that insurance money to come through. I am not decrying it; I am just saying: do not wear it as a virtue. Having insurance money is a sign of tragedy; it is not a celebration of prioritising the environment.

I will be asking more questions about this in estimates, but I note that $48 million is associated with additional fees. So that is raising money from South Australians or South Australian businesses rather than, again, the largesse and generosity of the Marshall Liberal government. We will see in estimates whether we can get to a little more precision about how and why that money is being spent.

I am of course also delighted with my new suite of portfolios. I have maintained, as always, my deep fondness for the environment and water portfolio, having worked in the department for a number of years and previously having been quite active in the environment movement for a number of years. It is extremely important to me and I am delighted to have been able to add the title of 'climate change' to that. But equally important is the pairing with innovation, industry and higher education.

I am concerned that the government do not talk about industry. It is quite confusing. I do not think they know that industry is a thing that one usually talks about in government. They have an innovation and skills section and they have an investment and trade section. The areas that one would normally expect to be working together in lockstep are separated into different departments.

Defence industries is somewhere else because the Premier is that minister, and space and so on. It is a little confusing, but I am sure that all the public servants, who are largely excellent public servants, are doing their absolute best to pull all those bits together and not have too much fall between the cracks. In any case, if I look at the Department for Innovation and Skills, in which I have an interest from an industry perspective, I am disturbed to see that not only have there been significant cuts, in previous budgets, to that department, but that a further $13 million cut has been put into this budget.

I am not sure how much is left. It is now a tiny department and it has another $13 million cut. If this were to be taken in FTEs, it would be a reduction of something like 40 FTEs. I am concerned that we are starting to get to a cutting of that department that will make it very difficult to functional. Why do we need it to be functional? Well, 'skills' speaks for itself, and I will let my colleague the shadow minister for education and skills (member for Wright) speak on that.

The importance of innovation, of industry and of business in the context of the changing economy, we have before us has been made so much more complex and more difficult as a result of the pandemic. The changing economy we have is being rushed on by digitisation, automation and artificial intelligence and by the internationalisation of our economy, with the pressure that is applied from the need desperately to get to a low-carbon economy as quickly as we can, both for the future of the planet and also to ensure that we do not have stranded assets.

We need an innovation industry portfolio that is absolutely staffed with the best people who can work with small business—because that is largely what we have in South Australia—to make sure that their capability is being increased, developed and supported so that they are able to participate in this emerging economy. If you reduce the resources and the capacity of a government department, in a state like South Australia you risk ruin because government is essential in a small economy.

Government is important in every economy but, in a small one like South Australia, if you do not have great people working in a government department and understanding what the pressures are on business in this case, understanding what can be done, how collaboration can occur and how grants can be applied sensibly and intelligently, then we risk not making that big shift that is so urgent. Every budget is essential. Every budget is important because every budget is a decision moment about where this state will go next.

This budget having this $13 million efficiency tucked into an innovation and skills department I think really undermines any claim the government has that it understands what is happening in our economy, that it recognises where business wants to go and needs to go and will be able to do that collaboratively alongside business for the sake not only purely of economic growth but, importantly, of employment for all the people in South Australia, particularly all those who are currently looking for work either because they have none or, in very great measure, because they do not have enough because they are insecurely employed or because they are underemployed. That is what the government should be doing. I do not see that priority in this budget.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (16:39): I thank the deputy leader for her contribution and for highlighting the issues and concerns that this budget does not seem to solve in the portfolio responsibility areas that the deputy leader is tasked with on behalf of the Labor Party. I wish to rise today on a couple of matters. First and foremost, it is always important to compare and contrast past budgets with the current budget, to know where we were, to know where we are going.

There were two very interesting statistics that bear out in the Budget Statement, Budget Paper 3. Budget Paper 3 is, without a doubt, the comprehensive account or the report card, as it were, on how the government is tracking. In the last year Labor was in office, for that financial year the expenditure on interest payments was set to be $392 million. This year, the budget for interest payments in 2020-21 is $464 million. The government somehow are trumpeting that as a success.

It is also interesting to note the general government sector revenue and expenditure as a percentage of gross state product, two graphs that are I think very important in the budget. These are graphs that are often overlooked by many commentators when looking at government expenditure, but they are by far two of the most important graphs and most important statistics in the budget papers. It is how much of the government's revenue and expenditure is a percentage of gross state product—that is, the economy we tax and the economy we oversee.

What you see in the current government forecast is pretty shocking. Total revenue as a share of the economy is projected to average 18.1 per cent. In Labor's last year, over the forward estimates, it was 16.9 per cent around the GSP, getting down to 16.1 per cent this financial year. This government has increased spending as a percentage of gross state product by over 2 per cent on itself. Its expenditure line gets above 20 per cent of GSP. Under Labor, it never passed 18 per cent over the forward estimates.

There used to be fiscal conservatives on the other side of the house. I make no comment about the current level of expenditure; I just want to point that out. The government says they are not baking in this expenditure. The graph published in their own budget papers shows something very different. It shows expenditure locked in and growing over the forward estimates. This is not a one-off increase in spending: this is baked-in spending. That might be exactly what the state needs right now, but let's not pretend for a moment that it is not baked in, because it is.

We are $33 billion in debt and we still do not have the $8.9 billion taken into account. To be fair, only half of that is the state's responsibility. The other half comes from the commonwealth if, indeed, it remains a fifty-fifty split. So far, we have not heard from the commonwealth government whether they will accept the government's plans for tunnels and whether they will accept the extra expenditure required for tunnels. I hope they do. We do not know whether it will be a fifty-fifty contribution. Darlington was 80:20, negotiated by the former Labor government, and I understand Regency to Pym negotiated by this government is fifty-fifty. It will be interesting to see what happens when we get to the north-south corridor.

I point out the level of opaqueness and vagueness about what the government is planning. While people were initially reassured by the government's announcement of tunnels, there is now a growing level of anxiety about what that means. I encourage the government now to go out and speak to its citizens about what it is planning. This is by far the largest piece of expenditure this government will ever undertake if it is re-elected.

None of this work on the north-south corridor starts this term. The government is hoping to get re-elected, hoping it can start this project. Again, a concern the opposition has is that this project should be brought forward because, quite frankly, the stimulus is needed now. I doubt very much on the projections that this will all be completed by 2030. I think that is fanciful and quite frankly misleading. I do not believe for a moment that the government can complete this by 2030.

When the minister was asked if the construction would be consecutive or concurrent, he said, 'Concurrent. We are doing one section first and, when we complete that, we are doing the next section.' That was met with great laughter and hilarity by the media pack. I was also very concerned about the minister's transparency on some issues. At the press conference that the minister did with the Premier straight after the budget, where they were wearing hard hats and high-vis for no apparent reason other than as props and a stunt, Minister Wingard was asked a question repeatedly by journalists.

He said there was one heritage property that needed to be compulsorily acquired, and he would not say which one it was. He was asked repeatedly, 'Which one is it? Why can't you tell us?' The minister's response was this: 'I'm not going to say which one it is and I'm not going to discuss it before we have a chance to negotiate with the owners.' This back and forth went on for about two or three minutes.

Then the Premier stepped in and said, 'I will answer the question. It is the underground bunker on South Road, next to the Ashwin Parade community centre, just in front of a playground.' What concerned me about that exchange was not that the Premier was prepared to answer the question but that the minister was not. What does it say—when you have a Premier and a minister being asked the same question, and the minister refuses to answer, but the Premier then volunteers to answer the question—about the transparency of that minister? I have grave concerns about that.

For the remainder of my time, I am going to speak almost exclusively about the privatisation contract that is expressed within the budget papers. I have grave concerns about the probity of this transaction. I believe that ultimately it will end up at an integrity agency. I believe that this contract has serious probity issues from start to finish.

The allegations that we have been given by a whistleblower within the department include a breach of adherence to tender rules and tender processes by Keolis Downer; governance and frameworks, including roles and responsibilities, risk management and probity issues not being followed; evaluation processes being compromised; the inability for all bidders to be provided with equal opportunity throughout the bid process and information equally; and the negotiations between proponents and the department. What is the final sum compared with what it costs the taxpayer to run the operations? What are the recommendations that the department gave and the processes that led to those approvals?

A loser fee was announced, and that was announced because we discovered it through a leak. We have three different answers from the government about why there is a loser fee in place. The first one was 'standard practice'; it is standard practice to have a loser fee in place and the IP is owned directly by the government. That is what the Treasurer said publicly. Departmental leaked documents show that the IP is not owned by the government and that a loser fee was suggested by the department because of the COVID-19 restrictions not allowing proponents to fly to Adelaide to look at infrastructure. Already, two disparate versions of why a loser fee was introduced.

The third reason, according to an inside informant who is giving information to the opposition, is that the loser fee was asked for by Keolis Downer or they threatened to walk. A proponent threatened to walk unless the government of South Australia paid them money to stay involved in the process. I believe that is corrupt.

Is the privatisation value for money? We know the government commissioned Ernst and Young. How do we know that? Again, a whistleblower has come to the opposition and told us that Ernst and Young were commissioned to do a baseline report on the cost of providing heavy rail services to South Australians through the public transport system Adelaide Metro. That was then given to all three bidders as a baseline.

We understand that the cost of running Adelaide's rail network is about $125 million per year, including GST and including maintenance. It will surprise members in this house to know that the cost of a Keolis Downer outsourcing exceeds that amount. It is more expensive for the private operators to run this system.

The minister went on radio, and when he was asked specifically how much taxpayers would save through this privatisation he said, 'Hundreds of millions of dollars per year.' How humiliating; how humiliating that a minister who is responsible for some of the largest expenditure in the government can get something as basic as this right—sorry, wrong. I apologise, I just did a Corey then. Again, the government will not release the report—and they should.

I believe there was preferential treatment for one bidder. I believe, the opposition believes, that Keolis Downer were always going to win this contract. Former Minister Knoll met with Keolis Downer when he should not have. How do we know that? The Auditor-General says so in his own report tabled in this parliament. We are told that the minister was warned not to meet them, but he did anyway.

We know that representatives of Downer EDI were briefing government members, giving them fake and false quotes attributed to me, the shadow treasurer and former Premier Weatherill, claiming that we wanted to privatise our rail network if we were successful at the 2018 election. They were working behind the scenes to give the government ammunition, give them the political will to go out and privatise our trams and trains—and surprise, surprise, the very people who did this are the ones who end up winning the contract. That type of behaviour is, I believe, corrupt.

Keolis Downer was always going to win this. We know from leaked documents that one proponent wrote—this is a letter I gave to the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure when he said that the letter was fake, the emails were fake, and then said they were fake until two minutes ago—in a letter dated 18 August to probity officers, Bombardier Transportation Australia stated:

To date, Bombardier Transportation has received negligible questions in relation to any aspect of its submission. In our experience of competitive tenders, this is highly unusual.

The department were not interested in Bombardier's submission; they had made up their minds before the process started. I believe that as time goes on we will find the corrupt negotiations that went on behind the scenes that gave this to Keolis Downer.

In terms of rail safety accreditation, Keolis Downer did not operate heavy rail anywhere in Australia—nowhere. Their only expertise in running heavy rail is, I understand, Downer operating heavy rail in France. It is a different system, a different continent, yet the government championed and trumpeted the idea that Keolis Downer run trams—not heavy rail—as the reason they should be awarded this contract.

We were told that the department—people who were looking at and assessing this bid—warned the government that Keolis Downer might not receive accreditation to operate heavy rail, yet they were awarded the contract despite having no experience in doing so. They have also been awarded the maintenance contract despite it being Bombardier's trains. What is going to happen, sir? You can bet London to a brick that Keolis Downer are going to hire Bombardier—who currently do our maintenance—to do the maintenance. So we are going to add a middleman to the expense of maintaining our trains. Why? A corrupt deal.

We are told that one of the bidders involved in the tender process raised concerns about the equality of opportunity throughout the bid process. We are told by whistleblowers that the evaluation team were immediately directed to the Keolis Downer proposal and focused on what they had missed and how they would cost the difference. They were advised not to waste time on the Adelaide Next proposal, another bidder, and that focus should be on the gaps in the Keolis Downer proposal so the overall outcome could be fully costed knowing the difference between the two proposals would still be large enough to justify the Keolis Downer decision—corrupt to its core.

We now find out through leaked documents about a Mr Fergus Gammie. I think this is the most alarming part of the entire process. The public were never made aware that Mr Gammie had been appointed to oversee the Adelaide Rail Transformation Project by a direct appointment by his former colleague and the current CE, Mr Braxton-Smith. We first became aware of Mr Gammie's appointment to oversee the ARTP by a whistleblower contacting us.

Mr Gammie's personal work history shows that he resigned the previous role he held in New Zealand under extraordinary controversial circumstances. He was appointed CE of the New Zealand Transport Agency in March 2016 and resigned two years later in December. He had been publicly criticised for failing to adequately carry out the department's basic regulatory functions, which led to the death of at least one person due to a frayed seatbelt in a vehicle that was issued a WoF, which is a regulatory inspection certifying safety and roadworthiness. A QC in New Zealand was engaged to investigate the matter, with over 20,000 dodgy regulatory approvals granted according to New Zealand media reports.

Another independent investigation completed by Deloitte found that the New Zealand transport department's innovation unit had, and I quote, 'An extensive disregard of the proper processes for business finance, governance, procurement and staffing.' The report went on to conclude that it was largely the result of the leadership of McMullen and the former CE, Fergus Gammie. The media quoted the Deloitte report saying it offered 14 key findings, starting with the concerns over the bypassing of the New Zealand TA governance and controls, including the way staff were hired. This is the man in charge of the privatisation of South Australia's rail network—Fergus Gammie.

Mr Gammie was initially appointed without process to the South Australian Public Transport Authority in July 2019; then, without a public call, he was appointed by his old friend—they still worked together—Mr Braxton-Smith to head up the Adelaide Rail Transformation Project. I do not believe he should have been, and I believe that should be the subject of an inquiry. Mr Gammie and Mr Braxton-Smith are friends. If you are going to appoint someone to privatise public assets, do not choose your mates. Hold a public process. And if you do know someone personally, how about recusing yourself from the decision-making because there might be a conflict.

Given all the information and all the documents we have received, we believe the entire process is compromised, rotten and corrupt. The very idea that the government has outsourced the operation of our trains and trams, especially our heavy rail, to be run at a higher and greater cost than it costs us ourselves to operate, quite frankly, is stupid. The very prospect of having to pay people $15,000 to keep their job or just transfer from the Public Service to Keolis Downer is laughable.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON (Ramsay) (17:00): I rise to make my contribution to the appropriations debate. I want to start by talking about trade. We are now in a time of challenge. We have had dry conditions, bushfires, COVID-19, rising trade tensions with China, and the decisions of Brexit have put us in a new position with our relationship with the United Kingdom.

But what I see from this government is inaction. We are underprepared for this time of challenge. The budget papers show a 5.7 per cent decline in the real value of goods exports from South Australia. That is a fact. The Marshall Liberal government came to lead South Australia with the initial target of a 7 per cent share of national exports. It was a key part of their election policy. They felt that we had been underdone for some time and that we needed to improve South Australia's share of national exports.

I know that even before COVID we were nowhere near that goal. In fact, we were going backwards. This government has been trending on average around 3 per cent of national share and, year on year, our goods exports are down by 700 million. So let's have a look at what this government has been doing when it comes to trade. It has ripped up our regional trade strategies. It sacked our regional trade advisers. There have been constant machinery of government changes and we are onto our second minister for trade, all in a very short period of time.

We lag behind in rolling out trade missions and then we rolled out a trade office program that came at the cost of direct assistance in our state. I have said it before in this place but I will say it again: my message to the Marshall Liberal government is just to get on with it. Trade is incredibly important to South Australia. Listen to the experts, act on that advice, and stop cutting and shuffling the deckchairs.

It was very clear to me that there was a dismantling of the previous trade strategies based on a political vendetta. Of all the things that we make decisions on, trade should be something on which we agree the way forward, but we know they just could not help themselves. So all the combined work of people involved in exports to develop those trade strategies was ripped up overnight because it happened to be under a Labor government. How insulting to the people in that industry.

What that brings me to is our big risk, and the clear strategic risk that we have with our global trade is the lack of diversification. For example, let's look at the international education sector. Prior to the pandemic, the top export market for international education in South Australia was China. It had a 40 per cent market share. That market is nearly the equivalent of the next top nine markets combined. It is significant. It had been growing and it had been substantial, but that made us very vulnerable—40 per cent market share.

In our merchandise exports, there is a similar story. In the 12 months leading to September 2020, our goods exports to China were 3.75 billion—that is, 30 per cent of our total export portfolio from South Australia goes to China, which means that we are more heavily exposed to the potential challenges of trade with China. When we look at our key export industries, such as international education, tourism, wine, minerals, wheat, timber and rock lobster, I have my concerns.

As shadow minister, I think this government needs to get the most at-risk industries around the table and work through a plan. I am sure that if I spoke to any business and said, 'Would you be worried about a shutdown of 30 to 40 per cent of your total income?' the answer would be yes—not only yes, but there would be a mad scramble to address this issue. I am not seeing concern or energy from this front bench—in fact, quite the opposite. Where is the leadership and expertise for these challenges for us now? Where are the plans to support these industries?

These are industries that employ South Australians all over South Australia, whether it be in the South-East, with the rock lobster or timber, or our beautiful wine regions exporting, Barossa Valley, Clare, Fleurieu, Adelaide Hills; there are many. Throughout these areas where there are high exports, there are jobs. There are 79,000 Australians employed in export industries—11 per cent of our workforce—yet there is inaction and a lack of urgency from this government about the challenges of trade before us.

There are 165,000 South Australians who are actively looking for work. We know that in this budget paper there is zero per cent job growth this financial year, yet a key part of our employment industry—trade—barely got mentioned in the budget. Where is the urgency? Where is the money in this budget to make sure that our trade remains at the levels it is? We can only hope that it gets to 7 per cent of the national share. We are not even where we were when Labor left government. Get on with it, but where is your urgency and your action?

When we turn to the area of investment, the government's budget papers report a decline in South Australian business investment by 4.8 per cent last financial year. The opposition has made it consistently clear that this Marshall Liberal government made a terrible error in disbanding Investment Attraction South Australia, an agency that brought the likes of VeroGuard and Boeing to South Australia, creating thousands of local jobs before it was abolished in 2018.

Until this day, it still astounds me that this government made the decision to abolish the Investment Attraction agency, an agency dedicated to encouraging investment from companies that will be looking for future work opportunities to relocate to South Australia and dedicated to being a smart state and building jobs for the future, but once again political vendetta come in and says, 'We can't have that just because you did it.'

We need increased business investment to flow for more jobs, and that is why we recommended in our budget reply the reintroduction of an investment attraction agency. We proposed that you put $50 million from the Economic and Business Growth Fund to assist that work because we need to be out there, aggressively bidding for that investment. We have an opportunity. We have done a very good job in responding to the health needs of COVID. We need to follow that up with aggressively going out there to market South Australia as a safe place to invest.

We now have this moment in time when we can show to the world the runs on the board in terms of what we have been able to achieve, but we need to get out there because there is lots of competition. Everyone wants jobs for the future, everyone wants industries for the future. This is our moment, and we need to get out there and grab it.

When I have talked about tourism I have often spoken about the very challenging conversations that I have had with tourism operators. I have spent most of the time during COVID, during lockdown, calling people, talking to them. They asked, 'What's happening?' The single biggest issue was the uncertainty that, overnight in March, everything switched off and people did not know when that would end.

We have seen some rebounding in our regional areas, but there are still many areas of the tourism sector, including tourism operators, that are focused on international guests, and our very own travel agents are still in a world of pain. We know that JobKeeper came in and that helped us survive, but when that finishes in March there are still people in tourism and hospitality who will struggle to survive. One of the areas that I am concerned about is the lack of focus on those who make up our tourism industry.

Tourism Research Australia in June of 2019 showed in their data that 90 per cent of all employing businesses in our state tourism sector are classified as micro or small. These are smaller businesses, normally family run, that employ between one to 19 employees. These are the people our tourism stimulus should focus on. These are the real people who have mortgaged their homes, built their businesses from scratch, spent their life savings and their blood, sweat and tears to build their business and who are now trying to survive through this COVID challenge.

My message to the Marshall Liberal government is: do not forget the small operators. That is why not only did I call for a tourism voucher back in July but also I criticised the Great State voucher because of its narrowness, because it did not encompass any accommodation providers who had less than 10 rooms and it did not give the opportunity for tourism operators to participate. They feel ignored because of the limited scope of these vouchers.

Recently The Advertiser quoted Ben Neville from the Off Piste four-wheel drive tours on Fleurieu Peninsula, and I quote:

We were disappointed the first round was only for accommodation and would love a round where tour operators were included—our guests spend on all sorts of things on a tour so there is a ripple effect.

Mark Gleeson from Food Tours Australia told Channel 9 news, and I quote:

There are a whole lot of small operators like me out there who are holding onto a very fine thread to whether or not their business is going to survive in the next six months.

The government needs to focus its efforts on making sure that our SME tourism operators can survive. The existing stimulus does not spread far enough, and I have called it out many times that only 3 per cent of tourism operators registered on southaustralia.com can even be part of the voucher system. We need a broader scope and investment on the sector that is currently available.

In anticipation of this budget, the Transport and Tourism Forum called on this government to invest in efforts to attract new direct flights to appropriate locations, such as the trans-Tasman bubble, as well as major investments in new tourism-related facilities and infrastructure. According to their analysis, the South Australian Tourism Commission would need at least $400 million over the next four years to address the economic black hole that the pandemic and the bushfires have left, but instead we see a continuation of the cuts that tourism has to continue to accept. The trend of cuts continues.

In the previous budget, the government made cuts to tourism to the tune of $11 million. This cut meant a reduction in international marketing and direct flight attraction. The cut meant a reduction in sector development, activity and projects that help small business and this led to cutting the support for events such as the Adelaide Fashion Festival and the Adelaide Motorsport Festival. Now, of course, the shock is still reverberating. We know there is a rally this weekend about the biggest cut of all and the biggest shock of all—the Adelaide 500.

As I said many times, if you are going to make a big decision like this, if you are going to cut a major event, you need to have a plan. We have no plan. We have no plan to replace the economic hole that is going to be left by the Adelaide 500. For all the concerns I had previously about the other cuts to those festivals, festivals that gave us an extended calendar of events through the year, nothing came close to my shock about the cut of the Adelaide 500.

There is no plan to reshape our festivals and events. We have decades of history with the Adelaide Festival of Arts and the Adelaide Fringe. We are known as the Festival State and I am very proud about that. In this budget there was no reference to our homegrown festivals and events, such as the Fringe, the Festival of Arts, OzAsia, WOMAD and all the major festivals that contribute to the vibrancy of Adelaide and deliver economic returns to the state and we saw no mention in this budget of additional support for these events.

This has been the most challenging year for people in tourism and hospitality. We have seen the visitor economy reduced from $8.1 billion to $6.5 billion. The tourism sector in South Australia is losing on average $453 million a month. Every mechanism that is available to government should be used to support this industry.

If it were not for the advocacy of the Labor opposition and the bus and coach industry, the concessions on bus and coach licences would not have happened. If it were not for the advocacy of the Labor opposition and the outdoor tourism sector, there would not have been a clear pathway for these accommodation providers to open. The government was slow and reacted to taking a holistic approach in supporting this sector. We called it out months before, that tourism and hospitality had been fundamentally impacted, but they were too slow to respond.

I have mentioned many times the cuts to tourism in the first and second budgets that have been presented to South Australia. I have to say to you I thought, after this most difficult year, with our national borders shut and our state borders reduced, that these cuts would have been reversed. It is very, very clear in the budget papers that these cuts remain—$10 million worth of cuts in the forward estimates.

I say again: has tourism not suffered enough? We know that businesses are fighting to survive. They are not thriving: they are trying to survive. Now that some of the bank loans have unfrozen, people are questioning whether they will be able to do that. It is a really challenging time for them, so let's reverse these cuts, let's take them out of the tourism budget and let them get on with it.

Today, we talked about what we would do if Labor were here. We talked about an investment attraction agency with the $50 million. We talked about accelerating infrastructure projects. We would encourage South Australians to buy local. From a tourism perspective, we said the underspent tourism vouchers should be rolled out again in a matched program, with $200 matched for interstate and for South Australians, because we want to support our tourism industry going forward. There is going to be a lot of competition out there, so we want to put our best foot forward. These are some of the hardest hit sectors and I remain bitterly disappointed that they did not get the attention that they deserve in this budget.

Mr DULUK (Waite) (17:20): Like other members, I also rise to make a contribution in relation to the 2020-21 budget. In most extraordinary times is the handing down of this state budget, several months later than usual, obviously on the back of a global pandemic. I would like to talk about a few things that are key to my electorate. The elements in the budget around support for the Country Fire Service, local businesses, schools and community groups, road infrastructure and the environment are really big key issues to the people I represent.

It was great to see some $30.5 million in funds for bushfire response and recovery on the back of the Mick Keelty review, which was obviously on the back of a devastating bushfire season last year. I think the additional funding that we are seeing going to the CFS, the SES and, to a certain extent, the MFS is symptomatic of the lack of funding that these services have received for many, many years. There is a lot of catch-up being played and there is a recognition that our volunteers need the best equipment that they can get.

In terms of government going out there and investing in CFS infrastructure, new trucks, new fleet and new equipment, there really should be an insistence on the government using South Australia-based suppliers almost primarily and, where it is not possible, to look at interstate suppliers and then finally overseas suppliers for these investments. I think it is so important that we not only support our CFS in terms of the equipment that they need but go to Australian made and South Australian made policies around that to support the local jobs and the people who provide services to the CFS.

As I said, there will be new money for new fire trucks, safety protection, regional staffing enhancements and replacement of fleet and rollover. Really, the automatic vehicle location system is something that many have been calling for. I remember earlier in the year when I was out at the Eden Hills brigade something that was certainly mentioned to me about their experience in the Cudlee Creek fires was the lack of those systems in their patrols. Mental health support is so important, and, as I said, capability and resourcing, which needs to be done.

On top of this, $16.7 million in federal and state government funding will be invested over five years into the South Australian Disaster Risk Reduction Grants Program, while a further $11.5 million will go to the MFS for new urban appliances. I look forward to further reviewing the budget in terms of these details in the budget estimates program and ensuring that in my electorate the Sturt brigade and the Sturt CFS and SES brigades receive their fair share of funding.

We know that over the last 12 months small businesses have been heavily impacted by this pandemic as a result of decisions made by the government that have limited their ability to trade and to go about their normal business, so it is good to see the state government supporting the small business sector. There is another round of sole trader stimulus grants of up to $10,000 and $3,000 grants for eligible businesses that do not employ staff, including sole traders and partnerships operating from a commercial premise and suffering financial hardship as a result of this pandemic.

It is about striking the right balance. We have no doubt seen a lot of traders and industries doing quite well or relatively well. Certainly, those in the home industry—garden centres, nurseries and large chains, such as Bunnings—have done extraordinarily well, as people have been spending money on their homes because they have not been able to travel or go out. They have been investing in lifestyle and the like. I think that places like Bunnings have also been assisted in a way by a perverse outcome of their being able to trade all through the pandemic, whilst other businesses had restrictions put on them.

It was really good to see a further extension of payroll tax relief. Businesses with revenue greater than $4 million and on the extended JobKeeper will also not have to pay any payroll tax until January 2021, and of course there are payroll exemptions on JobKeeper payments. Larger businesses will also be able to defer payroll if they continue to be impacted by COVID restrictions, and there is no new payroll for any new trainee or apprentice brought on for 12 months.

Of course, this is something that should be a long-lasting policy. It is a perverse notion that a business that seeks to bring on trainees—and it does not matter what they are, whether it is a butcher bringing on a trainee, a business in the motor vehicle industry, a carpenter or a builder—should pay payroll tax on trainee labour.

One really good part of the budget that has not really been talked about and I think is sort of tucked away in the agency papers is support for newsagencies and lottery agencies, which will hopefully see a pay rise for employers and employees. In the budget, there are mooted to be changes to the State Lotteries Act to remove agent commissions from the calculation of net gambling revenue in South Australia. This will allow the level of lottery agents' gross commissions payable by Tabcorp on lottery products sold in South Australia to rise from around 7 per cent to 10.3 per cent.

The taxation mechanism within the act has long prevented any adjustments to agent commissions. This will enable our hardworking lottery agents to receive their first commission rate change in a very long time—a rise of more than 40 per cent—and will bring their commissions in line with other lottery retailers around the country.

I know that in my community, whether it is Alan, who runs the Blackwood newsagency, or Ben, who runs the Mitcham newsagency and obviously sells a whole suite of products, including lottery tickets, this is great news for them. They are small business traders, they are open six or seven days a week and they are a really important part of our communities. You know as well in your community, sir, how important the local newsagency is. Of course, this measure is supported by Tabcorp, the Australian Lottery and Newsagents' Association, the AHA and Clubs SA.

Another thing I am always very supportive of is investment in sporting clubs and community groups. Of course, I am glad to see there is a sport and rec plan with additional funding and $35 million for new community sporting and recreational infrastructure, including an expansion and extension of the existing grassroots football, cricket and netball program to now incorporate all sports, because we know that in our communities people do not just play footy, cricket and netball. They play softball, basketball, volleyball—

Mr Odenwalder: Soccer.

Mr DULUK: Soccer, of course, thank you, member for Elizabeth. The Sturt Lions Football Club is one of the biggest clubs in the state and they play all throughout my electorate. I look forward to working with my community clubs in ensuring that they participate in the upcoming grant funding rounds.

School is so important. Education is the key to anyone's future, and we are continuing to see a rollout of the year 7 to high school programs. In my electorate, that is additional funding for Unley High School and Urrbrae Agricultural High School. But one thing that has come to me, especially through my local schools, is sometimes the inability for the department to meet the needs of the school community because of the requirements to tick many boxes.

It is great to see big capital investment in schools and I am very supportive of the early childhood centre $20,000 capital investment project. There is no doubt that all primary schools across the state, including the schools within my community—Eden Hills Primary School, Coromandel Valley Primary School and Bellevue Heights Primary School—are looking for funding for additional projects that I know will create immediate workforce jobs for them to be met.

At this stage, they have had trouble negotiating with the department because they do not tick the necessary boxes. At Eden Hills, they are looking for a replacement of their astroturf. Coromandel Valley is in much need of new landscaping due to the topography of the school, as many of the garden beds are shifting and there are cracks in the concrete. Bellevue Heights Primary School is looking for new air conditioning for the gym.

One of the biggest impacts of COVID on primary schools has been their inability to hold fundraisers this year. Normally, these capital works projects that need investments of $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000—the parents and friends associations or school governing councils have not been able to hold their quiz nights and movie nights, etc., to raise these important funds. It would be fantastic if the department could meet the schools halfway on these matters.

Infrastructure is so important and it is good to see in the budget the north-south corridor will be happening. I think there probably have been one or two missed opportunities in terms of looking at statewide nation-building infrastructure projects. In terms of responding to the budget, Ross Womersley, CEO of SACOSS, said that the budget 'has missed the opportunity to really make some very big investments back into the social housing system', and I could not agree with him more.

Master Builders Association of South Australia's CEO, Ian Markos, said, 'There are no new large-scale construction projects in the budget.' That is quite an interesting comment from Ian. As we know, he is a passionate advocate for his industry. On that note, I would like to thank Ian Markos for his service to the MBA over the past five years. I think they have done a great job representing their industry in the time he has been the CEO. The Master Builders Association represents thousands of South Australians and their industry. I wish Ian all the best in his retirement and look forward to working with Will Frogley, the new CEO of the MBA. COTA CEO, Jane Mussared, said:

Without funding for incentives and training, there is no clear pathway back to work for older people who continue to face ageism in their job search.

I think that is another important statement from the CEO of COTA, as of course South Australia still has some of the highest unemployment in the nation and we need to encourage people at all levels—not just young apprentices and school-leavers but also older South Australians—to continue to be in the workforce.

One issue I constantly talk about and I think is another missed opportunity in this budget, as it could be a fantastic nation-building project, is an alternative freight bypass that will ensure that we do not have big freight trucks going down the South Eastern Freeway. Once again, on Tuesday morning, I think, we saw another accident on the South Eastern Freeway involving a truck and the delay that caused.

The KPMG report that was released by the government earlier this year stated that South Australia has some of the slowest roads in the nation and reported Adelaide to have the lowest traffic flow speed of all capital cities. Sitting in traffic rather than being productive members of society is what that causes. I believe we need an alternative nonstop corridor diverting road freight from the South Eastern Freeway and away from Cross Road and diverting rail freight out of the Mitcham Hills.

The KPMG report noted that the Melbourne to Adelaide rail corridor is amongst the tightest and steepest corridors, so there is certainly a need to fix that. It has also noted the need for an alternative truck corridor. We know we cannot get B-triples down the South Eastern Freeway. I know that my community does not want B-doubles going down Cross Road.

For many, many years, a discussion about an alternative truck bypass through Truro has been mooted. I believe it can be achieved. It would be a perfect time to be part of a state building project that will create many jobs and, not only that, guarantee a safe and reliable truck alternative, which will not only create safety and efficiency for our freight industry but also take away and alleviate so much stress and concern about the constant complexity of the South Eastern Freeway and the constant fight we see between motorists, commuters and the freight industry.

In the budget, it is good to see ongoing funding for existing road projects in my electorate, including the Mitcham Hills corridor, which is so important, and the allocation of that funding. It has been a bit of a slow process, so I look forward to working with the department over the coming months to see further community consultation on that Mitcham Hills road corridor and making those projects shovel ready.

We know there is additional funding for road maintenance in the budget. It is so important that the Civil Contractors Federation has been talking about this a lot this year: the need for shovel-ready projects and to fix the road maintenance backlog in South Australia. Certainly within my electorate, Old Belair Road and James Road, which has been focused on in the Mitcham Hill study, is also prime for investment, as is the resealing of Belair Road at Lynton, below Windy Point. The Laffers Road-Main Road intersection at Belair certainly needs a lot of attention. Sargent Parade and Shepherds Hill Road at Bellevue Heights is another intersection that needs to be looked at and warrants investment from the department, as does Main Road through Coromandel Valley. People who drive along that road know it is in very poor condition.

I am glad to see a lot of investment in the environment in this budget and also an investment, through the Department for Environment and Water, for prescribed burns. That really feeds into the recommendations out of the Keelty review. One of the big numbers in the budget is the staggering $33 billion of net debt that is projected in the forward estimates. For South Australia and our economy, this is a phenomenal number.

Matthew Abraham, veteran political commentator on FIVEaa, made some very interesting points about this debt figure and what it means for South Australia. I would like to quote Matt Abraham. He states:

One of the key figures of the debt isn't the total amount of debt but how much you can afford to pay for that debt as a state. Consider this is your household budget: it's ok if you've got a huge mortgage if you've got a huge salary…

There's a thing called the net debt to revenue ratio. This is your capacity to pay debt. At around the State Bank time that hit an alarming 65 per cent—

so we are talking about 1992 to 1993—

and everyone said we are going to die. The magic number is meant to be around 70 per cent—you go over that you're in huge trouble…

Since [around] 1999 it's…slowly coming down. It's been about 3 per cent in 2009, then 2011—[up to] 19 per cent, so it's slowly been going up. Last year it was sitting on 30 per cent. That's ok…this year, 51 per cent. Ok, 51 is not bad. Next year, 78 per cent. 2022: 92 per cent. 2023: 99.8 per cent. By 2024 when our debt is projected to hit $33 billion it will be 104 per cent—way over the tipping point. Is that a worry? Nobody seems to be worried anymore.

Where debt sits on the balance sheet of any budget is very important. We know that we are sitting in a historic low interest rate environment at the moment, but we will not always be in a historic low interest rate environment. Economies and interest rate environments move up and down over time.

There is no doubt that over the next five to 10 years we will see interest rates increase and we will not be sitting in historic lows as we are at the moment. Of course, servicing a $30 billion debt at an interest rate of 0.5 per cent is very different from servicing a rate at 5, 6, 7 or 8 per cent. As a state, we cannot be lulled into thinking that, year on year, we can continue to increase this net debt figure over the forward estimates.

We need to invest in productivity to increase our GSP. We need to grow that state pie. We need to grow the population of our state. We need to continue to keep up with the eastern seaboard. Population growth is a huge part of that, a flexible economy is a huge part of that and investing in productive infrastructure is a huge component of that as well. Ensuring that over time we balance the budget and responsible financial management are paramount for any government.

Sitting extended beyond 18:00 on motion of Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (17:41): I rise to speak in relation to the Appropriation Bill and this year's state budget. I begin as other speakers have in talking about the situation we are in at the moment in relation to COVID-19 and the pandemic. Clearly, this is the all-encompassing issue of the world this year and is likely to be for at least a significant part of next year, as well.

I think we can all acknowledge that South Australia and, indeed, all of Australia has done exceptionally well. We should be thanking all South Australians for their efforts in following the right advice and in doing their part to keep our state safe and particularly thanking all our leaders in the public administration of the state for playing their role under the Emergency Management Act in terms of their leadership.

In particular, the response under our legislation has been led by Grant Stevens as the police commissioner and State Coordinator. He has been the one under our legislation making the decisions and he has done so in an excellent way. He has been ably advised and assisted by Professor Nicola Spurrier, and I think all South Australians are tremendously proud of her exceptional role in handling this pandemic.

Right through the bureaucracy, through our health services, through our hospitals, through our police force and through every department, people have done an exceptional job in terms of managing this. I acknowledge the role of the cabinet as well, in playing their role under our Emergency Management Act. The decision-making is made by the State Coordinator, of course; the Premier is not part of the Transition Committee that meets to decide and to advise the State Coordinator. I think it is appropriate that he has taken the decision not to be actively involved and leave those decisions to the State Coordinator. I think that has left us in a good position.

We as the opposition have continued to play our role in assisting the government to move legislation through this house on a bipartisan basis to make sure that our state is protected. We have been constructive in offering a number of proposals to make sure that we get the resources where they need to be over time, and we appreciate that the government have taken up and implemented many of the constructive proposals that we have put on the table since this began. It is a very different situation that we have seen in South Australia compared with other states around the country, where there has been a lot more politicking of the COVID-19 situation than we have seen here in South Australia.

However, when it comes to the state budget, these are decisions that are not made by the State Coordinator. These are not decisions that are made by the Chief Public Health Officer. These are decisions that are made by the cabinet, made by the Liberal government and their members of parliament and elected representatives. Unfortunately, we do see a significant difference in terms of the management of the pandemic and the management of the budget and the economy, and some of these decisions, particularly in my portfolio as the shadow health minister, in relation to the running of our health services.

We can see the continuation of the approach from the government since the get-go in health, which has been to put cuts at the forefront, to put privatisation at the forefront, to put corporate liquidators at the forefront of their approach to the health system and to our public hospitals. It is disappointing that that continues again in this state budget. We can see in the budget papers in black and white that the government is still proposing to cut hundreds more health staff this year. These are our frontline doctors, nurses, allied health professionals, people on the frontline. All around the world, there are health systems preparing, hiring more, getting more people on the frontline.

The response of the Marshall Liberal government has been to cut health staff. According to the Auditor-General's figures in his latest report, over the past year, in which we were battling this global pandemic, the Liberal government did not increase the number of nurses in our public hospitals. They did not even keep the number of nurses at the same number. They have reduced the number of nurses in hospitals in our public hospital system.

There are 112 fewer nurses now than there were a year ago. That is because of the decisions by this government, by the Liberals, to cut frontline clinicians. Despite their promise that they would not do that before the last election and their confirmation afterwards they would not be cutting frontline doctors and nurses, we see the number of nurses go down by 112. This budget sets out in black and white that they hope that that continues and we see hundreds and hundreds more health staff cut.

Unfortunately, we have seen a continuation of dangerous, record levels of ambulance ramping. What we saw during COVID was that there was a dip in terms of presentations at hospitals while people were basically staying away, but we have now seen the number of people being ramped in ambulances soar back to those record levels. It is almost double the level it was under the previous government. It has gone from a once in a few weeks situation to a daily situation when our hospitals are ramping and patients are waiting on those ambulance ramps for hours to get into public hospitals.

Last year, we saw three examples reported publicly in which a patient died within minutes of being stuck on the ambulance ramp. We do not know if that was the full extent of what happened. This is just what has been revealed publicly, but potentially there have been others this year the government will not reveal either. It just goes to show how dangerous the situation is and how little is being done to address it. Cutting nurses is only going to make that situation worse.

It also means that our paramedics are under even greater pressure. Our paramedics on the frontline, responding to cases, responding to 000 calls in the community, instead of getting to those cases, they are stuck on the ambulance ramp, waiting for hours and hours. It means that they are under more pressure, they are under more fatigue, causing them more stress. It also means that the response time for getting to those people in the community for urgent cases is at a record low.

That clearly impacts upon those people waiting. It is delaying their treatment, delaying getting them to hospital to get the care that they need, delaying even the paramedics starting that treatment, given we have very well-trained paramedics in South Australia. That means that this situation is going from bad to worse. This budget does not increase the resources going to SA Ambulance Service but reduces the resources going to SA Ambulance Service. They are dealing with this outrageous level of ramping, and they are now going to have to do it with fewer resources and more cuts.

There are more staff cuts to come, with 80 staff to be cut from the Ambulance Service this year. These issues flow through to all the other hospitals. We know that a number of very significant issues have been revealed in the past year at the Women's and Children's Hospital. A year ago, 215 doctors from the Women's and Children's Hospital wrote an unprecedented letter, concerned and outraged about the state of services at that hospital. In October 2019, just over a year ago, they said:

The universal concern, expressed by all medical staff, is that many services that our community (a catchment…of [approximately] 2 million [people], in a developed country) should expect to receive from a specialist Women's and Children's Hospital, seem unachievable in South Australia. The resulting adverse effect on the safety and quality of the care that we can provide has become increasingly hard to justify to our patients and the community.

These doctors went on to say:

There is concern that medical advice relating to the provision of appropriate contemporary care is being consistently ignored without explanation or justification. This relates to the resourcing of both hospital and community departments. The medical interventions and equipment provided at the Women's and Children's Hospital are falling behind those available in peer hospitals [across] Australia.

These 215 doctors went on to say:

Responses from junior and senior medical staff in the recent WCHN 'Your Voice' survey consistently demonstrated dissatisfaction with Executive leadership, vision, behaviour and communication despite being highly satisfied with relations between and within clinical teams. Worryingly, medical staff did not feel confident that safety concerns that they raised with management would be acted upon. Similar concerns with medical engagement by Executive and Executive performance, action and transparency have been repeatedly raised at [Medical Staff Society] meetings.

The reductions across nursing and allied health services such as social work and psychological services, in particular, are negatively impacting on the overall quality of patient care. Medical staff are having to independently seek supports from other LHNs due to lack of our own care resources. This is not in the best interests of either patients and/or their families.

You can see the extent of the concerns raised by those frontline doctors at the Women's and Children's Hospital, and what has been the response from the government? Nothing. There are no extra resources going into the Women's and Children's Hospital to address those concerns. The minister is out there triumphing a CPI increase this year, which is not going to address those issues whatsoever.

These doctors are being consistently ignored, and we are seeing issue after issue. We saw the very eminent Dr Michael Rice, one of the most respected doctors in South Australia, speaking out on his concerns about oncology patients, kids with cancer, not getting the care they need at the Women's and Children's Hospital. They have been ignored. Nothing has happened. There is not one dollar in this budget to address those concerns that have been raised.

We have an inquiry underway in relation to four deaths of kids with cardiac issues that have occurred at the Women's and Children's Hospital. We are still waiting for that report. The board have made a decision that they are not going to go down the path of surgery even though they have not seen what that report says yet. It is completely baffling that they would put the cart before the horse in such a serious matter like this.

We heard that doctors at the hospital tried to raise concerns about those deaths through the appropriate mechanism, the Safety Learning System, but they were denied, in an absolute cover-up, being able to raise those concerns about those patient deaths. That means that clearly we have a situation where doctors have to speak publicly. If it were not for Professor John Svigos, a very respected doctor, raising those concerns before a parliamentary committee, clearly the government's intention was that no-one should ever know about it, because we know Minister Wade was told about it and he did nothing.

Now we see the new Women's and Children's Hospital, which does not have a budget, does not have a number of beds attached to it and does not have a number of services attached to it. No details have been released about it except that we have obtained, under freedom of information, a document to the minister that shows they are planning to have fewer overnight beds at the hospital and fewer car parks at the hospital than are currently available.

All of this for a $1.85 billion cost, which is far in excess of the costs of other women's and children's hospitals around the country, far in excess of the cost—probably double the cost—per bed of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital, and clinicians are not being consulted about the plans for that hospital.

Clinicians are not being given the task force report, which the government keep under lock and key of cabinet confidentiality and they are not allowing those clinicians to see what they have decided in their secret task force report about this new hospital. It is absolutely shocking, the way that clinicians are being ignored about that. This is a pattern across the delays that we are seeing with the Women's and Children's Hospital—which has been delayed at least two years, probably 2½ years or more now—that is being repeated in other hospitals around the state.

At The QEH we have seen a two-year delay in starting that project and significant cuts to what is being proposed in the scope of those works. At the Lyell McEwin Hospital we are seeing a delay to the emergency department there. There is a delay at Modbury Hospital, the high dependency unit, of years compared to what was originally promised. Even at the Flinders Medical Centre—where the government are triumphing their apparent $80 million upgrade, even though the budget papers say it is only $11 million—that upgrade is only going to deliver, according to their own papers that were released, five extra beds. Only five extra beds is not going to deal with the situation that is unfolding.

The Auditor-General's Report reveals that the infrastructure spending over the past two years of this government has been the lowest in a decade. It has ground to a halt. What these budget papers reveal is that we have yet another year of where they had promised they were going to spend a lot of money on capital but they just did not do it: $80 million less spent on capital works in our hospitals than was planned. In addition to the year before, there was another $80 million less spent than was planned. That means fewer jobs for people, which are desperately needed right now, and it also means fewer services and fewer upgrades for those important services.

Mental health is one of the key priorities as well and, as I spoke about in the house earlier today, we are clearly dealing with a very serious situation in terms of mental health and the response to COVID. Clearly, this is a worldwide issue, it is a country-wide issue, but here in South Australia we have the lowest per capita spending on a COVID mental health response of any mainland state in Australia. Their response is to spend just $15 million compared with $79 million in Queensland, $74 million in WA and $79 million in New South Wales. All these other states have spent significantly more than us on their COVID mental health responses.

We are hearing from clinicians on a daily basis about their concerns on the frontline. We heard, even before COVID, about some of these issues. We have had the issue at the Royal Adelaide Hospital, where the emergency department was so overwhelmed with patients from mental health care that the Chief Psychiatrist had to intervene in terms of the running of that emergency department and put restrictions in place around the use of restraints, because patients have been stuck there for days and days on end.

Twenty-eight doctors have written to the government—once again completely ignored—raising their concerns about what is happening in mental health care in our emergency departments. They stated:

We have been forced into unethical, inappropriate practice by a health service that cannot provide timely access to inpatient care. These incidents of restraint are a symptom of an underlying problem that is not being adequately addressed.

It goes on to state:

We know that many restraints occurring in the ED are avoidable, and we know why they occur—because patients are left for many hours or days in an inappropriate environment…We already know that there is a clear, present and well-documented risk to patients from prolonged stays in the ED.

It continues:

The Emergency Department continues to be forced to 'ramp' on a daily basis [with consequences for all patients, SAAS and the community]; it is not difficult to see how this could largely be avoided by resolving Mental Health access-block.

So here we have more doctors speaking out about their very serious concerns regarding what is going on in our health system at the moment and, once again, those concerns—in particular about mental health—are being absolutely ignored.

What the government should do is take the approach it has taken to COVID where, instead of putting Rob Lucas and Stephen Wade and the Premier in charge, it has been listening to the clinicians, listening to Nicola Spurrier. Clearly, under the legislation, as I said, it is actually the commissioner, not the Premier, who makes decisions in relation to COVID, and in that relationship we have had decisions being made on the basis of advice.

Here, in the running of our hospitals, we have these politicians making decisions about cutting services, and we have decisions being made by KordaMentha, interstate corporate liquidators whose only goal is to cut money from the health budget. They are succeeding in cutting the number of nurses in our hospitals, and they have been brought back now after COVID to cut more money from our hospitals. Instead of listening to our clinicians, we have the corporate liquidators and the politicians making decisions around making cuts.

We do not see the investment in mental health care, there are no additional beds going into mental health care, there are no additional services going in. The only small service the federal government is funding is going to be a privately run service that the government chose to privatise, instead of the public option, which was actually going to provide more services. Even the COVID mental health services are going to expire soon.

We need a boost to mental health services, we need the cuts to stop across our health system and we need to stop these continual privatisation of services and listen to the clinicians—because what is continually happening is not working for patients.

Ms HILDYARD (Reynell) (18:01): As others have rightly said, it has been an extraordinarily difficult year for South Australians. Many have struggled with worries about their physical health and with mental health challenges as they contemplated the health risks the pandemic brought, worries about the loss of loved ones to that, as well as dealing with the devastation of job loss, ongoing employment insecurity, economic inequality and the rising cost of living, sudden change and isolation.

Many who continued to work faced new and unprecedented challenges. To keep us safe, cleaners, allied health workers, nurses and doctors dealt with enormous risk day in and day out. Early childhood educators, SSOs, teachers and other school staff, in the midst of uncertainty carried on providing education and support, innovating in ways that kept our youngest South Australians connected to their learning and to their school community. Our police and other emergency personnel took on new roles and carried them out in an exemplary way, and the leadership shown by our police commissioner and our Chief Public Health Officer was excellent, giving our community confidence, clarity and hope.

These unprecedented challenges that COVID brought us came after sorrow—the terrible loss caused by bushfires here in South Australia and across the country. The member for Mawson, and his beloved Dusty, has recounted just how heartbreaking and hard it was and continues to be for those on Kangaroo Island as they contemplate what they will deal with in the weeks, months and years ahead as they rebuild their homes, their businesses, their local clubs and, again, deal with loss.

More than ever, South Australians needed a state budget that delivered action and, through that action, hope that the future can be brighter. As our leader and others have said, many will not begrudge debt, but debt without a clear vision and action to bring that vision for recovery immediately to life is unforgivable. It leaves many who have already dealt with way too much unclear about the way forward, frustrated and deflated by the fact that no immediate action will be taken.

Crisis and hardship demand action and empathetic leadership that focus on the best opportunities and equitable outcomes for all, that include people, that are forward thinking and that provide a sense of purpose underpinned by compassion—not simply a repetition of poorly workshopped clichés.

No-one cares if those opposite repeat 100 or 1,000 times their tired and untrue cliché that they are 'building what matters' when that building is maybe, possibly, perhaps happening in 2023 or beyond and if that building is subject to 'looking into the detail' and some unspecified final plans purported to be 'delivering for South Australians' at some later, unspecified date. Clichés and vagueness are ice-cold comfort to those who have lost their job, fallen ill or are wondering how to keep the doors of their small business open.

South Australians needed and deserved better from this year's state budget. Delivered during the biggest health and economic crisis our country has seen, this budget has failed to deliver one new job this financial year despite plunging the state into $33 billion in debt. Again, we hear those opposite roll out their 'We're creating more jobs' cliché when their budget actually says in print that there will be zero jobs created. With more than 165,000 South Australians out of work in our state, people rightly could have expected the Marshall Liberal government's priority was job creation. What it seems to be is the creation of tired old clichés and spin.

Before COVID-19, the Marshall Liberal government had increased debt from $13 billion to more than $22 billion in the space of just a couple of years and managed to deliver the highest unemployment rate in Australia at the same time. This budget will come as a huge disappointment for thousands of hardworking South Australians who look to governments to guide them through tough economic times like this to offer hope, compassion and understanding. Whatever lines those opposite wheel out and no matter how much they repeat them, their own budget says there will be no jobs created this year. It is an inescapable fact.

Sadly, we will also see no major works on our state's two biggest infrastructure projects—the final stage of the north-south corridor and the new Women's and Children's Hospital—at a time when the economy is screaming out for stimulus. Nor have we seen any progress on these projects from those opposite for 2½ years and no action on any others either, that is, the South Road duplication, social housing and the list goes on.

Many, many questions remain about what some of the COVID-19 stimulus was actually expended on. It certainly was not spent on sport and recreation and it was not spent supporting sole traders. It is utterly unconscionable that this Liberal government could blow our state debt to $33 billion and not offer a single new job this financial year, no progress on any major project and no plan to specifically focus on those who have been hardest hit through the pandemic.

At times of crisis people want their governments to be there for them. This government is not there for South Australians. This budget fails them. This Marshall Liberal government's budget utterly fails to provide desperately needed support to South Australian women adversely affected by the COVID-19 crisis. Budgets are an expression of a government's priorities, and this budget makes it clear that this government does not prioritise women. Jobs that are predominantly undertaken by women were hardest hit by the pandemic in industries including child care, hospitality, tourism, retail and many others.

Women are twice as likely to be engaged in insecure work than their male counterparts, with data showing that 22 per cent of women work fewer than 20 hours a week compared with just 10.6 per cent of men. However, like the Morrison Liberal government before it, this Liberal government has completely overlooked the disproportionate impact on women in its budget stimulus measures and focused on male-dominated industries. They have done so without any plan to encourage women into those male-dominated professions.

Despite the pressing need for our economic recovery to clearly consider the situation of women, no plan of action, nor economic stimulus nor any other budget measures, has specifically focused on women. The COVID-19 crisis has compounded existing pressures on female workers, including the persistent gender wage gap and the fact that women on average continue to retire with much less superannuation than men. Women were economically behind before the pandemic and are even further so after this budget.

This budget fundamentally fails to specifically fund and target programs that could make a real difference to South Australian women. This government does not seem to understand what it takes to achieve gender equality nor what equity is, which is unsurprising given their appalling lack of female representation in their parliamentary ranks.

This budget lets down half of our population. It fails to specifically target programs that make a difference for women. It has no specific job creation strategy for women, no strategy to address insecure work, nor the gender pay gap, no state money for domestic violence prevention, no money for new domestic violence prevention hubs, nothing for dedicated female sporting facilities and a reduction in the Office for Women FTEs.

As I have said in this place before, protecting children and their wellbeing requires a steadfast commitment to improving the lives of South Australian children, particularly those who most need our support. It is about positively and collectively addressing some of the most difficult and complex social issues impacting children and their families through a focus on prevention and early intervention.

It means relentlessly prioritising the health, the safety and wellbeing of children, and taking real action to ensure all South Australian children—no matter their background, their postcode, their starting place in life—are nurtured, loved, heard and engaged.

Despite the number of children in care growing exponentially, the Marshall Liberal government is insisting on cutting $4.5 million from the department's budget each year over the forward estimates. These savings will be achieved by cutting about 22 full-time staff each year over the forward estimates.

The government says spending on child protection has increased by 8 per cent this year, compared with 2019-20. Sadly, the number of children and young people entering care is projected to continue to increase, resulting in the government needing to commit funds over the next four years simply to cover the growing costs associated with these growing numbers of children in care.

Despite this growing need, the budget shows $7.2 million in employee benefits not spent in the last financial year because of delays in recruitment. Given the huge increase in children entering care under this government, this is simply unacceptable.

Likewise, a further $3.2 million was not spent on staff development and training because of these delays in staff recruitment. How the government can justify a more than $10 million underspend on child protection staff whilst record numbers of children are in state care is of the deepest concern.

Sport and recreation plays such an important role in engaging and supporting both children and adults. It is fundamental to our way of life in our suburbs and regional and remote areas. The camaraderie, bonds and friendships that endure through sport, sometimes over years and sometimes over generations, are as important as the competition itself.

As we move through the COVID-19 crisis, it is more important than ever that our sporting clubs and codes have what they need to keep supporting our community to keep bringing people together and giving them a sense of belonging.

Given sport's capacity and role to support and include all, it must always be a bastion of equality. The Marshall Liberal government's revised grassroots program will continue to overwhelmingly favour wealthier areas because they have not changed the unfair funding model at the heart of the problems with it.

The sports minister announced on Sunday he would expand the program to include other codes but under the same co-contribution model that saw the overwhelming majority of projects in the old program go to Liberal areas.

The third and final $5 million round of the Grassroots Football, Cricket and Netball Facility Program went almost exclusively to Liberal areas. Fifteen projects were funded, only one of which was in a Labor area. The previous $6 million round 2 funded no clubs in Labor areas. In total, just six clubs in Labor areas have received funding from 47 successful bids. This is despite roughly half the state's population living in these areas.

The formula underpinning this program is fundamentally flawed because it is geared towards more financially secure clubs. The government's required 50 per cent co-contribution from clubs is skewing the grants program towards those with the most money, many of which have also received federal funding. The minister has said that clubs 'don't give a rats' about electorate boundaries. If you are in a club like the South Adelaide Football Club, that has consistently missed out because of this flawed formula, you care deeply about being overlooked by this government.

This government has again also failed to respond to concerns from the racing industry about the point of consumption tax and the formula for funding return to the industry. Despite the minister's big grievances containing multiple repeated clichés, again there is no concrete action.

This Marshall Liberal government's initial decision not to participate in the FIFA Women's World Cup bid sent a terrible, terrible message about their well-known lack of regard for women's sport and was a severe blow to those hoping to see the event in Adelaide.

The 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup is a defining moment for women's football in this country and for women's sport generally. It presents a fabulous opportunity to move towards equality in sport, and to shift how women are seen and respected.

After scrapping plans for a second city stadium earlier this year, the government has announced it will now spend $45 million upgrading Hindmarsh to a contemporary elite sports standard.

The upgrade is said to include, and I quote, 'a new shade covering over the eastern grandstand, new lighting, upgraded change rooms and toilets, a replacement pitch and improved disability access, media, broadcast and corporate and catering facilities'.

There is, however, absolutely no mention of any new seating to meet FIFA standards for Women's World Cup finals matches, a failure that has the potential to weaken our bid.

The reality is that this government weakened our potential to host games from the outset. It was only after our campaigning with the community, and thousands of people signing our petition, that they even agreed to be involved. It is only at a very late stage that they are promising an upgrade to Hindmarsh and, given their appalling track record on getting any projects moving, who really knows when this development will start.

Backing women's sport means fighting really, really hard from the outset to participate in bids, including for one of the greatest sporting contests in the world, the Women's World Cup. This government has hardly fought at all; it simply fell over at the first hurdle.

I am proud every day to represent, advocate for and bring together the incredibly kind, connected community members of Reynell, people who have reached out to one another in kindness throughout the difficulties of this year, people who go out of their way to support one another, understand struggle and what a difference a listening ear, kindness, a willingness to act together makes, people who also know how to campaign together around what is important.

After two years of collective campaigning by our community, rec fishers, the Christies Sailing Club, the Sea Rescue Squadron, Volunteer Coast Guard, the boat ramp kiosk, Sullies Social and legendary Onka Stompa fishing comp creator Mark Mills, the government finally responded to our calls for an upgrade to the O'Sullivan Beach boat ramp. The promise again comes with no detail, and I eagerly await a response to my correspondence seeking much needed detail from the minister.

Whilst this was good news for our southern community and the people of Reynell, despite more than 15,000 people signing our petition to Save the Hopgood Theatre, and repeated short-term funding extensions due to our community's action, no sustainable funding commitment for our beloved theatre has been made.

This government fails to understand what this much loved social, community and heart's hub means to the fabric of our community and how important access to the arts for all is. Shame on you, Premier, for refusing to make this commitment. Again, this speaks to what you value and what you do not.

Thank you to the incredible people who have relentlessly fought for our theatre: Harry Dewar, Don Chapman, Bill Jamieson, Erin Thompson, Amanda Rishworth, Kate and Jenna Turner, Luke Wagner, and so many others. We will keep fighting until we safe our theatre forever.

Our community will also keep fighting until we have a funded domestic violence prevention hub in the south. Our Southern Women Matter campaign group is utterly committed to preventing and ending the terrible prevalence of domestic violence and is resolute that we will not stop campaigning until women have the support they need.

South Australian Labor has an actual immediate plan with real strategic recommendations, not just cliches, to economically recover and to ensure we build on the success we have had in avoiding the worst health impacts of the pandemic.

Our leader outlined a number of these recommended strategies in his speech earlier today. Amongst them is an $8 million recommendation to bring back Brand SA to encourage South Australians to buy local.

It has been heartening to see just how much South Australians want to support local and this strategy would be very well engaged with. Alongside this is a $20 million 'Made in SA' program to support manufacturers to innovate and grow.

Unlike those opposite, we have clearly contemplated the challenges facing South Australian women and made clear recommendations on how we can best support them to equally and actively participate in every aspect of life, including in decent secure work and in sport.

We have committed to bringing back the Adelaide 500, an event that just last year created over 400 jobs which are incredibly important to hospitality, tourism and other workers and their employers. As our leader said, we will fight for these workers and fight for those families who absolutely love this event.

In the wake of appalling stories about how people with mental illness are kept waiting in our emergency departments, we will also fight for better health care. This budget has been delivered at a difficult time; however, it is a time when clever and compassionate leadership is most needed, when jobs simply have to be created, when South Australians are crying out for empathy and understanding.

This budget is one that does not respond to the immediate needs of South Australians, and it has been delivered by a government that does not understand struggle and certainly not what is needed to make people's lives better.

Debate adjourned on motion of Dr Harvey.


At 18:22 the house adjourned until Tuesday 17 November 2020 at 11:00.


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