HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2023-08-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Appropriation Bill 2023

Estimates Committees

Adjourned debate on motion:

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

Ms SAVVAS (Newland) (15:45): It is a pleasure to continue my remarks with respect to the budget process and estimates overall. Before lunch, I did touch on all the people who are involved in the estimates process and was thankful of course for all the work they put in, particularly the departmental staff who put tireless effort into preparation for estimates during that week.

I also started to touch on my experience with my housing journey and just how important it is to be part of a government that is focused not only on increased supply of housing but also on increased access for those individuals wanting to enter homes for the first time. As I mentioned before lunch, when I started school we were homeless.

We were sleeping rough at times, going between motels and living in domestic violence shelters. For me, the question of buying a home, particularly as a young person, was not one that I had ever considered, and it was of course the First Home Owners Grant, a building grant, that assisted me to enter the housing market as a young person and is the reason that I am able to own a home on my own today.

I know firsthand just how important it is to be providing those supports and to help particularly young people now get into the housing market, because unfortunately if you are not able to enter the market early there are a number of reasons that mean you may have more difficulty entering it later on, such as cyclical issues. Of course, if you are trapped in a rent cycle as well, if you are leaving home, going into the rental market and those sorts things and makes it much harder to save a deposit and enter a home.

So I am incredibly proud of the initiative that we are taking to scrap stamp duty for eligible first-home buyers, but not just that—we are doing that in conjunction with the first-home buyers or the builders' grant that exists when of course there is the option to do one or the other.

I think the fact that we are able to do both is so important not just for those entering the market but for our economy and for the construction of new homes in our state. That, of course, is what it does. Not only does it help people get into the market but it has a significant impact on the build of new houses and the development of new houses here in South Australia.

When we were able to access that grant a couple of years ago, I remember all too well being able to point at a field in the Adelaide Hills where our property would be and then seeing within about a year the difference in the field, where we could not even point to our house or walk over to where the property would be, to see it in a large-scale development, which now has its own supermarket nearby which would not have even been imaginable when we purchased and built our first home there some years ago.

I think that says a lot about progress and it says a lot also about demand, particularly with respect to those newer developments. We are, of course, in my local community looking at the Golden Grove development, which would mean an extra couple of hundred homes up our way in the north-eastern suburbs. Again, we are at the point where we could point to rolling fields and see where houses may be one day.

An even greater number of houses are earmarked in your own direction, sir, in the northern suburbs. I know that is so important not just for those people who are seeking shelter, seeking homes, but to our construction industry and our economy as a state overall. I think that is something that is really important. We are a government that prioritises construction, prioritises increased land supply and prioritises getting people into the housing market, which of course is a great equaliser. It is something that is so important, not just for your own physical safety but for your sense of self and your ability to move forward.

I know that I feel such a difference in my life to be able to own my own home—the second person in my family ever to have done so—and what it means to me as an individual to go home every night knowing that that house is mine; it makes such a huge difference. I know that people in my community out there in the burbs are well and truly welcoming our announcements with respect to first-home buyers in particular.

On to our estimates committees and, of course, I was lucky to join the Deputy Premier, Minister Close, for her entire day of estimates for the second time in a row. Again, there is significant interest in my community in the work of the Deputy Premier in her capacity as the Minister for Water. For those who are not aware—you must never have heard me speak in the chamber before—I always find a reason to bring it back to our Tea Tree Gully CWMS (septic tank system). Of course, that was something that was questioned within the estimates: the process of the transition for Tea Tree Gully residents onto SA Water mains.

I believe it was some years ago that a former member who is no longer in this place referred to me as a local councillor as 'a partisan disgrace' when it came to my views on the septic tank system in Tea Tree Gully. That is a badge of honour that I am happy to wear when it comes to our septic tank transition because it was, indeed, a partisan matter. It was only the Labor Party who fully committed to transition the Tea Tree Gully CWMS system over to SA Water. It was the Labor Party who first committed to do so before the then government jumped onto our plan and, of course, it was only the Labor opposition who committed to scrap the CWMS levy—the outdated exorbitant levy that residents in my community were paying—and to move everyone onto SA Water rates, no matter what stage of the transition they were on.

In the City of Tea Tree Gully, there were 4,700 homes on an outdated septic tank system. When I say 'a system', I am actually referring to 76 different systems of septic that all meet together in different parts of Tea Tree Gully. In what is quite a strange decision perhaps from the redistribution commission, 4,000 of those homes are in the seat of Newland. It is an issue that is incredibly close to my heart, an issue that I fought for tirelessly when I was a councillor on the Tea Tree Gully council and something that I fought to get out of council hands knowing that the Tea Tree Gully council, despite their best efforts, were not equipped as a relatively small body in the scheme of things to manage this exorbitant system—a system that was no longer working, a system that was continuing to cost a significant amount of money—and that the only real solution was to transfer over the system to the ownership or management of the state government.

I was so incredibly proud to commit to that as a candidate, to knock on thousands of doors and tell residents who had been waiting upwards of 50 years that that was exactly what we were doing. Of course, there have been hiccups along the way, as there is with any large-scale infrastructure project, but on a regular basis residents still come to my office or they will call or they will see me at the shops, and they will say, 'I have just been transitioned. Thank you so much for fighting for us.' And that is so important—bringing our residents not just to the 21st century but to the 20th century, and bringing a modern, healthy, safe and affordable system of sewerage for a metropolitan suburb or a series of metropolitan suburbs is something that I will always be proud of and will always defend our position on.

In the estimates session with Minister Close, the opposition were able to scrutinise that process and that is important as well. As I said here earlier before lunchtime, the ability to scrutinise what a government does actually makes a stronger government. If it were not for campaigning for people in our community and scrutinising the decisions of former governments, we would not necessarily be in the position where we are transferring those septic tanks onto SA Water mains as we are today. And so far, so good. It has been about 20 months or so of the transition project going on and, for the most part, people have been really happy with the process.

I would also like to acknowledge in the house the work of BTR and Fulton Hogan, our contractors who have been undertaking the work, particularly when there have been issues. I would like to acknowledge just how quick and responsive they have been, whether it be fixing a road closure or, in the case of one particular incident, taking my calls at 7 o'clock on a Saturday morning to open up a road so that a local market could go on. I think the subbies have been absolutely awesome and certainly deserve our commendation for what has been a really difficult project and will continue to be so.

I also had the absolute pleasure of joining Minister Champion in his estimates committee. I do think that it is an incredibly important time at the moment for trade in South Australia. We are really lucky, I think. It cannot be overstated how lucky we are to have a trade minister who is backing in South Australian manufacturing, produce and the like. We also have a federal trade minister who is unashamedly pro South Australian, having been a winemaker in the past in the Clare Valley, my dear friend Minister Farrell.

It is a really important time to be backing trade in South Australia, and I think that we have a really good duo in SA with Minister Champion and Minister Farrell supporting South Australian products. Of course, one of the big components of that is bringing back Brand SA, which was a really big and I think important decision that we made as a government after it was cruelly axed by the former government, who clearly were not prioritising South Australian trade and South Australian products.

We are encouraging shoppers in South Australia to buy local. A few weeks ago, on the back of the budget, we launched the Buy SA. For SA. campaign. The aim of that is to switch at least one dollar in every $20 of consumer spending away from interstate and overseas purchases. This is being run by Brand SA, again something that has been brought back by our government. It is a program to support local South Aussie businesses and put millions of dollars into our economy.

South Australia's food and beverage sector accounts for approximately 30 per cent of jobs in the manufacturing industry, and exports of SA foods totalled about $1.86 billion in 2020-21, which was about 12 per cent of the state's total export value. The Buy SA. For SA. campaign makes it easier to identify South Australian products. There is a little red tag underneath South Australian products within participating supermarkets. Drakes have a large number of those signs, and they are also at all seven Tony & Mark's stores.

I think it is really important here to call out a South Australian business like Tony & Mark's, a really important business in South Australia. I would like to call out their ability to support not only South Australian brands and South Australian produce but also South Australian jobs by expanding quickly in South Australia and having a large number of stores and young employees, particularly, at their stores across the state.

We have a Tony & Mark's in the north-eastern suburbs at the Golden Grove village. I went along there on the weekend to have a look at the Buy SA. For SA. tags and buy some South Australian products. To see the number of tags throughout the store I think as well really highlights the role that Tony & Mark's are playing in supporting South Australian brands. Almost everything as I went along the store had these little signs underneath, whether it be the fruit and veg or whether it be any of the other products that they stock at that site.

I purchased a few of my favourites. I think this is a good opportunity to call out some of my favourite South Australian brands that I continue to support. I bought some Beerenberg Bavarian mustard, which very much reminds me of trips in the school holidays to go strawberry picking at Beerenberg Farm, which we discussed during question time, and which also very much has a taste of my Austrian grandparents' cooking from when I was much younger.

I also purchased Lucia's pasta sauce and lemon twist yoghurt from The Yoghurt Shop. Again, that tastes to me like visits to my cousin and aunty's place in the CBD when I was younger. My cousin worked at the mushroom shop right next door to The Yoghurt Shop. We would go to visit my cousin Isabelle, pick up some Yoghurt Shop yoghurt and go over to Lucia's for dinner. I picked up some Bickford's cordial. Again, that is what we used to have when I used to go to nanna's. When I was sick, she would make me a hot blackcurrant juice from Bickford's. I could definitely do with some at the moment; you might be able to tell I have a bit of a croaky voice.

I think that all those South Australian products—those that I have mentioned and many others—really do paint the story for so many South Australians, that they taste like our childhood. I know for me South Australian brands really do remind me of key moments in my life, places that I have been, places that I visited with school, products that we have purchased as a family, and I think that creating that narrative and continuing that narrative here in South Australia is just so important.

I will always be proud to back South Australian bands. I also picked up some lollies that I have in my office that are manufactured in Pooraka, in the north-east and northern suburbs. Supporting South Australian brands is one thing, but making sure that we have a government that invests in them, that makes it easier to support them and that calls out the brilliant South Australian brands we have here is not just important but also essential for our economy to continue to thrive and for South Australia to be a major player in comparison with the other states.

It was particularly enjoyable to join Minister Champion in his estimates session and hear questions about Brand SA and our Buy SA campaign, and I will always be proud to be supportive of any campaign that puts South Australia first. I am very grateful for the opportunity to chat about that today. I would also like to thank the other ministers I joined—that is, Minister Scriven in her estimates and, of course, the Premier in the Premier's estimates, which was the moment when I had three minutes in the chair and which of course put into perspective the hard work the chairs of estimates committees do as well.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (16:01): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I recognise the work that you do in that role. I rise to contribute to the debate in relation to the outcome of the estimates process. Perhaps at the outset I will refer to my contribution to the second reading debate prior to the estimates process, because we know that the budget outcome that we have seen overall was a really glaring and substantial variance from what South Australians were given to understand would be the trajectory of the budget just a matter of short months prior to the budget being handed down by the Treasurer.

What we saw was an overall $500 million blowout against what had been foreshadowed in the order of a $250 million surplus, a result in around the same volume of deficit. That is a matter that South Australians will have very much at the forefront of their minds as we see the trajectory of this next year ahead and then each of the remaining years of this term of government.

The estimates process afforded the opportunity, as it does, to identify agency by agency the relative performance. If there was one glaring and overriding indicator in relation to agency performance this year, it was that inability for individual ministers more or less without exception to manage departments' performance against budget. In not quite all—and I will come to it in a moment—agencies had operating efficiencies and tasks to meet, and in many cases there were budgeted reductions that were set out for agencies to perform against.

I can say to the house that it was a rare event indeed to find anything remotely resembling performance against budget criteria, so the budget estimates process afforded an opportunity to identify that and to step through that, if not to obtain the kind of clarity of response that one might desire in the interest of South Australians in looking to interrogate the reasons why.

If there is another overall observation that I would make about the estimates process it is that, and I have seen this now for two years from opposition, there seems to be—and I am not witness to all ministers' performance in this respect but several—what appears to be the adoption of some kind of virtue around the sort of absorbing of time and the avoidance of what in many cases throughout the estimates process are attempts to grapple with what are straightforward budgetary matters, matters of detail, often matters of statistical and other relative performance measures, information readily available to the minister and their departmental staff present to assist and to provide information for the benefit of the committee.

I see just far too often what appears to be some kind of objective of the minister to say, 'I am not here to give straight to the point and straightforward answers to the questions about these matters,' but rather the sort of entering into of long dialogues, avoiding what are in very large measure not gotcha questions, not traps, not in any other way directed than towards elucidating what might well be common challenges that we all face when considering the important matter of the prioritisation of resources in the various relevant areas. I will step through a number of them perhaps for the benefit of the house in this short time that I have to reflect on the process.

I address first the circumstances facing our courts. Those agencies within the responsibility of the Attorney-General were no exception when it came to budget blowout, a relatively modest overspend, I might say, from the 2022-23 budget provision of $277 million to an estimated result of $285 million—an $8 million blowout. I might say that the concerning thing above the overspend was what we heard to be delays in the completion of capital works in two respects that have been underway now for a significant period of time: firstly, the Court of Appeal office accommodation, where we saw a two-year time line blowout. We see an estimated completion date now being described as June 2024. That is as compared with a June 2022 estimate at last year's budget.

Secondly, there are the Sir Samuel Way facade repairs. The building that houses the state's busiest and largest trial workload for serious matters in the District Court is enduring a one-year time line blowout in relation to the important works being done to keep that building operational. The estimated completion of works to the facade is also now June 2024—again compared with June 2023 in the last budget. It is a concern to see the combination of costs blowing out, but it is of particular concern to see that projects are not being completed, particularly for these important public buildings serving South Australians in the justice system.

In terms of the courts more broadly, a matter I will single out for particular reflection is the discontinuation of the third Coroner in the State of South Australia. That is a point of particular concern because it is a function very much at the heart of the capacity of the Coroners Court to deal with what has been a significantly expanding and increasing workload over the last five years, at least those five years that are the subject of the most recent annual report by the Coroners Court.

Clearly enough, on the face of the budget papers the decrease in expenses in the 2023-24 budget compared with the 2022-23 estimated result was due to the ending of that Deputy Coroner role and the associated support staff in the 2022-23 budget. In addressing those matters to the Attorney, my concern on the government prioritising where the work needs to be done and needs to be supported by appropriate funding, there is really not more from the Attorney in that regard than, 'Well, this is the end of time-limited funding, so the Coroner is going to have to go back to those old settings and just struggle on.'

It is a matter that will be keenly felt by the Coroners Court, it is a matter that is well documented in terms of the ongoing and increasing workload and it is a matter of particular concern that the government has seen fit not to find funds to prioritise the continuation, if not the expansion, of coronial capacity.

It is not just because it is so well known but because it is so apparent on the face of the record. We have seen in recent years coronial reports that are not only important for those immediately affected but important for the public response that is provided many years after the relevant events. Meanwhile, as I have indicated, the workload continues to grow. Those matters were made clear to that extent in the course of the estimates inquiry but not the solution to make things workable at the Coroners Court in the future.

I welcome, by the way, while addressing courts and the Attorney-General's Department, the capital funds that have been made available for the renewal for the development of the new Forensic Science SA facility. I again emphasise the importance of getting on with that work. I have seen firsthand just how horrendous the conditions are that those world-leading scientists are forced to work in. There was a plan by the previous government to get on with this work. It is very important now that we see the government bring this to fruition. The money is there in the budget and that must happen as a matter of priority.

I turn to matters of child protection, with reference to my remarks at the outset. There are a couple of things that I report to the house. I found in the course of inquiring into the application of funds in this space that where I found it necessary to inquire into two keys matters, I would submit—the number of children in care and the trajectory of numbers of children in care and, secondly, the amount of and the way in which scarce resources are being spent in the interests of children in care—I was almost admonished for addressing those topics. I found myself repeatedly given some kind of lecture about the fact that we are talking about more than numbers and dollars.

Well, that is of course true, but the estimates process is a matter of an opportunity to interrogate how we are working towards better human outcomes for those most vulnerable in our community by the appropriate management of the resources that are applied for that purpose. We saw, regrettably, that the Department for Child Protection, which was one of the few departments in the previous budget not having to find operating efficiencies but, rather, receiving significantly additional funds not only for this year's budget but for the forward estimates, unfortunately not being able to manage those resources, with the result that we saw a budget blowout from $717 million to an estimated result for 2022-23 of $769 million.

We have all seen the extension of the budget of the Department for Child Protection over many years now and year on year, and no-one objects to the provision of those necessary resources, but I say two things: the application of those resources in a budgeted and accountable way becomes the more significant the more resources are applied. It is not good enough, in fact it is taking away from the best interests of those vulnerable South Australians, to somehow say that, well, it does not matter really what the extent of a budget blowout is, that it is the wrong question to ask, and give some sort of admonishment for raising those matters.

I say secondly that a further consequence of a budgetary blowout of the nature that we have seen in Child Protection from $717 million out to $769 million is that the budget for the forward estimates, although it continues to grow, as a consequence grows at a much reduced rate, grows at a much reduced provision. So we see that there is less room for extension of the budget year on year. It means that, to the extent that the mismanagement of one year flows onto the baked-in starting point for the following year, the problem stays with us.

I certainly urge the government and individual ministers to apply those budgetary limits in the interest of not only the current year but future years so that we can ensure that resources are actually available to be best applied in the interests of those most vulnerable South Australians. Those numbers are, of course, there for all to see.

There are matters as well that ought to be focused on in relation to youth justice and the number of Aboriginal young people who have found themselves in contact with the admission to secure youth training. The way that that number has continued to defy estimates is concerning.

In the short time still available to me, I just note as well that in relation to Aboriginal affairs and the budget for Aboriginal affairs, the government's announcement of the deferral of the election process for the State Voice happened to coincide with the very same day as the estimates process for Aboriginal affairs. It is a concern to hear that that vote has been put off. There were opportunities to ask about budget consequences for that. That will be a matter of some significant focus as we move towards what we understand to be a March schedule now for those elections to be conducted by the Electoral Commission of South Australia.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD (Reynell—Minister for Child Protection, Minister for Women and the Prevention of Domestic and Family Violence, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (16:21): I rise to speak to these reports of the estimates committees. Firstly, I do thank all members who participated in the committees that considered my portfolio areas. They were committees that traversed a range of topics, and I was really proud to speak throughout the processes about the really strong investment our government is rightly making in the areas of child protection; recreation, sport and racing; and women and the prevention of domestic and family violence.

Estimates hearings are, of course, a really important part of our budget process—indeed, of our parliament. I thank all who worked toward the process this year. I also want to place on record my thanks to each of the department officials across the portfolios who contributed to the briefings and preparation work as well as appearing with me at those committees.

As I said during the recreation and sport estimates committee, which I started with, I really want to thank again the Chief Executive of the Office for Recreation, Sport and Racing, Kylie Taylor, who this year celebrated a remarkable 30 years at the Office for Recreation, Sport and Racing across various roles. Kylie's dedication to the sport and recreation sector, to her role, and to the role that the state government plays in supporting and empowering our community to be active and included through involvement in sport and recreation activities, is absolutely exemplary. This achievement should be recognised and congratulated.

As I have said before in this place, I am a very strong believer in the power of sport to bring people and communities together to create dialogue about issues that our community confronts, and also to improve people's physical, mental and emotional health and wellbeing. I was therefore really pleased to speak to a number of initiatives that our government is progressing to harness that power.

Our Women in Sport Taskforce's focus is to achieve gender equality in sport and, in doing so, enable women and girls to get involved in the way that they choose to. Whether that be as an administrator, a coach, an athlete, an official, a commentator, we want girls and women to be welcome, included and empowered to pursue their sporting dreams. The task force is focusing on a range of ways to raise the profile of women's sport, given the positive impact for both young girls and young boys to see girls and women celebrated for being strong, skilful and physical.

We have, of course, absolutely seen this power through the recent FIFA Women's World Cup. Through task force meetings, themes that task force members wished to focus on to help drive change have emerged: the trend of girls and young women stepping away from organised sport as they reach their teenage years, the role schools have in engaging young people in sport and education and awareness of the impact that menstruation may have on those engaged in sport at any level.

Through the estimates hearing, a new South Australian Sports Institute development was explored. I am so proud of our government's commitment to the development of a modern, much more accessible SASI, with newer technologies, improved facilities, with an innovative education partnership with UniSA. The investment of $68 million from the state government and a further $20 million from UniSA brings together key pieces of sporting infrastructure and will create a hub that will support athletes to perform at their best and attract national and international teams to Adelaide in their preparations for the Olympics, Paralympics and Commonwealth Games. The new SASI will also inspire young South Australians to chase their sporting dreams or to just get active.

I mentioned in the estimates committee that the South Australian Aquatic and Leisure Centre will receive a $23.5 million upgrade. Our facilities must keep up with demand from the community and elite use. As we have seen, since the centre opened in 2011, we are receiving significantly greater visitation than originally anticipated. This investment will ensure our facility continues to cater to our community and that we can play host to national and international events on the swimming calendar.

A key area of interest of the committee was our government's policy to drive women's representation on state sporting organisation boards. We know that there are roughly equal numbers of women and men of merit with experience that are ready and able to serve on boards. Women do, however, face barriers to those opportunities through structural inequality. To address this, we are proudly taking a proactive position to turn around the lower rate of women's representation on governing bodies.

As I have spoken about many times, and spoke at length about in the estimates committee, this policy is not new to our state's sporting organisations, having been introduced in 2017. With this policy linked to state funding, we are seeing incredible growth in the number of state sporting organisations meeting their target for diversity. Just before estimates, I was really proud to announce the increased scope of the sports voucher to include Scouts and Guides groups as provided. I know that this is an area of interest for many members, and I particularly thank the member for Gibson, and others, for her strong advocacy on this. As many as 3,000 scouts, girl guides and their families are expected to now benefit from the program in 2024, with funding allocated to accommodate this expanded rollout.

Lastly, in the sport and recreation area, I highlight the expenditure that our government proudly made to advance the legacy of the FIFA Women's World Cup. On 8 August, part of that legacy funding was directed towards the convening of the Power of Her, an incredible women in leadership symposium that saw 1,000 women attend, with hundreds of others on a waitlist to attend.

The event heard from an incredible range of speakers and was absolutely designed to harness the momentum of the FIFA Women's World Cup ahead of the Hindmarsh Stadium's final game, the round 16 match, and to encourage women there to drive change in their sphere of influence and beyond. It was an extraordinary day, and I am still feeling the emotion and energy of that day, and I will have much more to say about what follows from the Power of Her. In the meantime, I wholeheartedly thank those who made this incredible event possible.

On the women and prevention of domestic violence portfolio in estimates, I spoke about our state government's ambition for our state to be a place in which your gender has no bearing on opportunities available to you. Many of the commitments to drive this ambition are outlined in the Women's Budget Statement and further expanded upon in our Women's Equality Blueprint, which focuses on initiatives in four priority focus areas: women's safety and security; women's leadership and participation; and women's economic wellbeing, and health.

Driving change in each of these areas requires collective effort across government and our community, and we are determined to drive a number of actions to bring that vision to life. At the forefront of our women's safety and security agenda is our comprehensive legislative program, with our intention to criminalise coercive control to prevent and end this insidious form of domestic violence at the centre of that legislative reform.

Today, our government has proudly released a draft bill for broad public consultation. This follows really targeted conversations that were held with Aboriginal community-controlled organisations, Aboriginal women leaders, multicultural community leaders, women with lived experience of domestic violence, young people, LGBTQIA+ community representatives and women with disability about the legislation and implementation considerations for criminalising coercive control.

Those targeted conversations were also held alongside our highly successful See The Signs public forum, where we had the deep honour of hosting the incredibly courageous Sue and Lloyd Clarke, parents of Hannah Clarke, who was senselessly tragically murdered by her ex-partner after experiencing years of coercive control.

During the forum I—and around 400 others—heard harrowing personal insight into the devastating impact of coercive control and heard directly from the courageous Sue and Lloyd about the importance of raising awareness of this utterly devastating form of family and domestic violence. Their words certainly reaffirmed my strong determination to see coercive control criminalised.

The public forum also launched our See The Signs campaign to strengthen our community discourse and understanding about coercive control and to help progress this really important change in our thinking and in our law. Alongside critical crisis supports for women experiencing domestic violence, we must of course also always focus on prevention, recovery and healing. This is a key tenet of the National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children 2022-2033 and continues to be a strong focus for our government.

After undertaking significant work with the commonwealth government on the new national plan, we are also developing and progressing South Australia's first family domestic and sexual violence strategy, which will inform for the coming years our state's response to violence against women and children in all its forms. In the women's portfolio, we are also committed to introducing an equality bill, which forms part of our commitment to improving women's safety, wellbeing and equality. This equality bill will continue to progress our place as a leader in gender equality across Australia.

An important matter raised within estimates was our government's commitment to addressing the gender pay gap. As I spoke about during the committee hearing, I am really pleased to confirm that the gender pay gap task force has been established and will be providing a preliminary report during October this year. This task force brings together a remarkable and diverse group of business, government, community, union, women's organisation leaders with particular experience in gender equality and industrial relations. They are providing us with incredibly sound expert advice that will help to inform our decision-making about how we can reduce the gender pay gap.

Additionally, as I spoke about in the estimates committee, we have delivered on our commitment to re-establish the Premier's Women's Directory, which helps to support our government's commitment to help ensure that all government boards comprise at least 50 per cent women. I am also really proud of our Women in Business program. As noted in the Women's Budget Statement, since its launch in November 2022 around 500 women have enrolled in the program, which provides one-on-one mentoring, small group workshops, governance and strategic planning advice and support.

I want to take the remainder of the time that I have to speak about our government's strong and really important investment into the child protection and family support system. As I did during the estimates process, I first of all take the opportunity again to thank the incredibly dedicated hardworking staff of the child protection and family support system.

I often say that these workers, alongside carers and families, are both the frontline and the backbone of the child protection and family support sector. I wholeheartedly thank them for their vital work and deep commitment to helping children and young people be in a space where they are safe, secure, loved and nurtured. I also again take the opportunity to thank the hardworking team in the department who assisted me with preparation for the estimates process.

I note that the shadow minister just spoke at length about our very strong investment in the child protection and family support system. It is disappointing the way that he characterised it. I am really proud—incredibly proud—of this investment into child protection and family support. I say again, as I did during the estimates process, that since coming to government an additional $372 million has been rightly and proudly invested into the child protection and family support system.

This budget, which was the focus of the estimates committees, committed an additional $216.6 million in child protection and family support. As outlined throughout the estimates committee, the additional $216 million is made up roughly of $107 million for a range of supports, services and engagement initiatives, and $109 million is provided to support the number of children and young people already in care.

Throughout the many questions in relation to the child protection and family support portfolio, I spoke repeatedly about the need for recognition that child protection and family support require a whole-of-government, whole-of-community and whole-of-sector effort, and I am determined to bring that effort together. I am really pleased to run through some of the initiatives that we are bringing to life through that strong $216 million investment.

I am very pleased that, as part of our work to make sure children and young people are able to experience safety, security, love and nurture, we are increasing carer payments and that this budget provided for a 4.8 per cent increase in carer rates and an additional $50 per fortnight for each child being cared for who is under the age of 16. As I said, there are a range of other initiatives to make sure that we focus on strengthening families and communities, keeping families safely together.

Through the budget, we have invested an additional $35.7 million in intensive family services and $13.4 million to expand family group conferencing, particularly for Aboriginal families. Amongst that additional commitment is an intention to make sure we are convening family group conferences also for the families where a child is identified as being at risk before they are born. Another investment is our $3.2 million to establish a peak body for Aboriginal children and young people, and funding for Grandcarers SA of $800,000 to support grandparents in their advocacy around the need to help children and young people to be safe and supported in their care.

There is funding for family reunification supports and funding for post-care support so that, at the earliest opportunity, we are providing effective support for young people as they leave care to set themselves up for success through education, employment and housing pathways. As I mentioned, we are investing additional money in family reunification. Importantly also—finally, after years of waiting through those four years of the previous Liberal government—we have set aside $200 million over five years for a Digital Investment Fund. It has been made really clear that there will be a replacement of the C3MS child protection and family support system.

There are a range of other initiatives that I will run out of time to go through, but I did want to mention that the budget also allocates $1.9 million for DCP's Redress Response Team and that we are also investing additional funds in the kinship care assessment. Alongside those family group conferences, where we identify broader family members who may be able to assist in the care of a child, we can rapidly assess them and accredit them as kinship carers so that they can take on those roles and, again, keep that family strongly and safely together.

A key area of interest in the estimates committee was our child protection and family support workforce. As I said before, the shadow minister described this investment in a particular way. I describe it as absolutely the right investment to make sure that we are recruiting and retaining staff to continue to work with and for some of the most vulnerable children in our state. We are also progressing a range of initiatives from our reviews. I do not have time to go into those, but there are a lot. Again, I am really proud of the investment that we are making in the child protection and family support space.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:42): I am very pleased to reflect on some of the contributions that were made during the estimates process. Given that I covered a number of ministers, I am grateful to the shadow treasurer for enabling me to take the administrative position. It gives me a bit more time to do so in this speech. During the estimates process, I had the privilege of spending time on behalf of the opposition and the people of South Australia putting to a range of ministers detailed questions in their portfolio areas on matters that were in the budget.

In particular, I spoke to the Deputy Premier, the minister for higher education in relation to the universities review, and the Minister for Tourism and Multicultural Affairs about those portfolio issues, which are not my portfolios but the Hon. Jing Lee, as she sits in another house, entrusted me with looking after those matters for the opposition. I spent some time on the Tuesday of estimates with the honourable Minister for Arts, then the honourable Minister for Education, Training and Skills and I had the pleasure of each other's company for about 6½ hours on Wednesday.

I thank the Deputy Speaker for his chairmanship of those committees, which I thought was done to a high quality this year, and I thank the ministers, who were at almost all times courteous and took very few Dixers this year by comparison with previous years. On this front, at least, I think there has been some positive use of the process, and there were some answers found. I would like to start on that happy and pleasant note.

Unfortunately, some of the issues that were identified were more concerning, particularly in relation to the use of South Australian taxpayer funds by this government and the poor priorities and poor decisions that they have been making. I propose to go through a number of those portfolio issues that particularly came up in the estimates to highlight a summary of the reflection on the documents as we seek to note them today.

In relation to the Deputy Premier, the majority of the questions, although not all the questions that I had for her, were in relation to the government's handling of the university merger process. The government came to office with an election promise to set up a university commission which would explore the benefits and potential opportunities of the university merger, what sort of merger would be appropriate for South Australia, what that would look like and how it might be achieved for the best interests of the people of South Australia.

The day before the estimates process questions happened, the Deputy Premier, the Premier and the vice-chancellors of the universities of Adelaide and South Australia outlined an entirely different process from the election commitment: a proposal for a university merger between those two universities, negotiated behind closed doors with the government, with the investment of $440 million of South Australian taxpayer funds. Obviously, the following day was the first opportunity to probe the Deputy Premier as much as possible about the detail of how that was being rolled out.

I was really disappointed by some of the answers we got. I do not want to go through every issue that was raised, but I will highlight a couple of issues. One of the principles of good government is that the government, acting on behalf of the people of South Australia, will take into consideration their interests and the costs and risks that would go alongside the benefits and opportunities of any project prior to making a decision. What became very clear through the Deputy Premier's evidence, and has become more clear in the weeks subsequent, was that that work was not done by the government in relation to this decision.

I am not pre-empting whether or not it is a good decision. There is a committee investigating that and the Liberal Party will go through its own process. We are open-minded about whether it was a good decision, but what was clear was that the government process was deeply flawed. I highlight one thing: the business case—indeed, it has been described also as the feasibility study—effectively the universities described it as a business case, a risk register.

All that work considered by the university councils in helping them make their decision on whether this was a good idea for their institutions was not read by the Premier or the Deputy Premier, as became very clear during this estimates process prior to the government making the decision to proceed with this plan, this investment of nearly half a billion dollars of South Australian taxpayers' money.

We will get to talking about the money, but perhaps even more important than the money is the consequence of the decision for the future of South Australia. If the opportunities are realised in full and we can have confidence that they will be fully realised to the extent that has been claimed, then that is a potentially good thing. If indeed the financial and economic benefits to South Australians and the new university are more than the sum of its parts, then that is potentially a good thing.

If, critically, the student experience and the vocational outcomes of students who have undertaken study at the new potential future university—Adelaide University, as it is to be called—if their student experience and learning are of a higher quality than can be delivered at either of the existing institutions were they to continue, then that would be a good outcome. It has been put to us by the Premier and the Deputy Premier that this is a foregone conclusion, but good governance would require somebody to at least explore whether the assumptions they are making are accurate.

It is not as if this was an election promise that there will be a merger come hell or high water that the people of South Australia have voted on and that is the scrutiny process. No, because that was not the election promise. The election promise was for there to be a universities commission to do that very work, to explore those opportunities and, critically alongside those opportunities, the risks, the risks that have been in the public domain for some time now, the risks that the general experience, the student experience and vocational outcomes at larger institutions are less good than those at smaller institutions.

That is not in every case and certainly Vice-Chancellor Peter Hoj—and I commend him for his work at the University of Queensland—cites that as an example of where the opposite is true, but it is certainly being put as a risk, one worth considering. It has been put as a risk that, while ultimately scale may well, and not everyone agrees—certainly let's accept that scale would lead to improved opportunities for research funding and potentially improved rankings in the international rankings in the long term.

Under any scenario, it is suggested that there are going to be transition pains and a transition cost. The question is whether that transition cost, over five, 10 or 15 years before you get to that optimal outcome in the 2030s for the university, is worth more than the benefits. The universities say no, and that is certainly their point of view, but it is the responsibility of good government to make the decision on behalf of South Australia's point of view.

We do not just take the word of third parties when the request comes in to support them financially with $440 million without doing due diligence. The due diligence in this case that we are asked to accept is that the Premier's and the Deputy Premier's word is enough. During estimates, I asked the Deputy Premier:

Has the minister read the business case that was prepared by the universities in relation to informing their decision to proceed with the merger?

The Deputy Premier said:

There are a number of items of documentation that I think could be referred to. There is a feasibility study, as I understand it—whether it is the business case, feasibility study, whatever the title is—that went to the two councils that contains all of the case and a significant amount of commercial-in-confidence material. I have not received that full document.

Later on, we explored this further. I asked:

Has anyone in government been provided with that business case?

The minister said:

It was a document that was provided to the councils because they have a fiduciary duty to make a decision about what is in the interests of their institution. So it is quite likely that it would have material that was shaped for the purpose of considering each individual university's future, and they may not have been the same document.

The answer is no, if anyone was unclear. Later, I put it to the minister:

To put it more clearly, the business cases the universities provided to their councils were to work out whether they considered it as being in their interests to proceed. The government's job is to work out whether it is in the interests of South Australia to proceed. It is a different question.

The Deputy Premier a little later said:

Exactly, and I think you have made the point I was seeking to make earlier…

So the Deputy Premier and I were on the same page to an extent, but the page is really worth questioning. The point that was being made was that the university councils, I have absolute confidence, in good faith, with lots of information that has not been released to the public, have made a decision that it is in their interest to merge on the basis of the $440 million in government funding, but what impact does that government decision—not the universities' decision but the government decision—have on Flinders University, if one institution is to get funded and the other is not?

What impact does that have on local communities in the eastern and north-eastern suburbs of South Australia, who are going to be dramatically impacted if the land currently used as the Magill campus is to be sold? What is it to be sold for? The government has not even said, but it will certainly be for development, having impacts on amenity, on traffic, on infrastructure and on lifestyle in those areas—areas that have been subjected to the most significant urban infill of potentially any part of Adelaide that is not a greenfield site over the last 10 years, particularly as a result of the John Rau planning era.

Those impacts are dramatic, but then we get back to the significant issue, the issue, thankfully, the parliament in its wisdom has seen fit to establish an inquiry on with wise parliamentarians such as yourself, sir, to explore all of that work that should have been done by the government prior to the commitment of $440 million and whether it is in the state's best interests, whether the risks have been considered and, if necessary, mitigation strategies put in place to avert the outcomes of those risks—not just for the government's investment but for the thing itself, the very question, that is: is this merger in the best interests of South Australia?

When you take away existing institutions that are training, giving university qualifications to more of our professionals, our teachers, our medical professionals, our scientists, our engineers than any other institutions, that is also the output of the university. It is not just the profit they make or how many international students they can bring in to cross-subsidise research, as has been put. There is actually also an extraordinary piece of human capital that comes out of these institutions.

Professor Lloyd and Professor Hoj are highly regarded, well-respected and deeply intelligent deep thinkers in Australia's university scene. That is not in question. They have made a decision that it is in their university's interests to proceed down this path with this government, but this estimates procedure, this estimates hearing made it very, very clear that the responsibility that is on all of us as legislators, as we consider a bill that will apparently be coming any day now from the government, is to decide whether it is in the state's best interests. We should all take an open mind to that and seek out the evidence. The evidence thus far has not been provided, but I thank the universities for their acknowledgement that there will be more information to come, and I look forward to seeing it.

During the estimates session with higher education the Deputy Premier and I also discussed issues relating to government commitments on scholarships, and on those scholarships which were promised by the government at the last election which are now starting to be rolled out. We have high hopes that they will attract more people to the teaching profession, for one.

There is a significant level of need for more teachers in our system and that challenge will be exacerbated, that opportunity will potentially be exacerbated, by the decision of the government to proceed with the royal commission's recommendations in relation to three-year-old preschool. That model, and the modelling done by the royal commission, suggests that our shortfall at the moment is about 140 teachers in early childhood alone. There are also many, many teachers required in country areas and schools across South Australia, and hundreds more.

In addition to that current shortfall and the current shortfall of hundreds more non-teaching qualified staff to meet the needs of three-year-old preschool, there is also a requirement of 880 more diploma and certificate qualified staff, 120 directors and other staff, and another 660 teachers. We are talking about the need for more than 2,000 extra teachers over the next three years to meet the government's election commitment in an area, the early childhood education space, where we currently have 2,000 early childhood teachers in South Australia. The government has set itself a task, and I think the several dozen scholarships in question may help. I wish them well.

In relation to the arts portfolio we had an interesting hour, and I again thank Minister Michaels for taking very few Dorothy Dixers and for being engaged in the questions being asked. There were several issues of importance. The first I want to raise in relation to the arts estimates is that of the APY Art Centre Collective and the review the Minister for Arts has over them at the moment in conjunction with her colleagues in the Northern Territory and the commonwealth.

The APY arts collective represents a number of local arts centres in the APY lands and artists from the community. This includes some extraordinary artists, people who have lived their life on the APY lands, who have grown up there and who are telling their stories with extraordinary quality that is sought after around the world. Artists from the APY arts collective include the most recent winner of the Ramsay Art Prize.

That is something to be celebrated but, unfortunately, many of these artists, despite their significant achievements, have told me and have told the member for Heysen, have told other people, that they feel a stigma over their work because of the review that is continuing on and on. In question time today we learnt there is no end date. It is potentially the end of the year, and that is really concerning to them.

It is concerning for their livelihoods, while this stigma is over their heads, because exhibitions have been cancelled both in Australia and abroad. Not to put too fine a point on it, it is their livelihoods, their wellbeing, their way of earning money, money that is reinvested in those APY communities. While their exhibitions are cancelled and while people are not looking at their works in exhibitions, not buying their works, that source of funding to the community, that non-welfare funding that has been making its way in recent years to those communities, has dried up.

As the Minister for Arts said in question time today, these issues are important and it is important that if there is a review it be correctly done. However, it is worth noting that the National Gallery undertook a review into the works they had in their exhibition and that review was able to have terms of reference drawn up, reviewers appointed, the review conducted and reported on all in about the same time it took this government to figure out who was going to be on the review committee for its review.

The National Gallery finished its review in the time it took this government to get its review started. That is extraordinary when there are livelihoods at risk, particularly livelihoods that support vulnerable communities. The strong message I give the government is to get on with it. Have a look at the National Gallery review and consider whether there are opportunities to reduce the scope of the current review in accordance with the fact that the National Gallery has already done a lot of the work, certainly in relation to some of that background.

I think that the wellbeing of artists is a strong consideration, and in the estimates process we discussed this with the minister. At that point, the minister had not yet even concluded the appointment process for the review panel. I made the point, 'Obviously I suspect our most significant concern is for the artists?' The minister said, 'Absolutely,' and I continued:

And their wellbeing. Can I ask the minister what role the government plans to play in supporting those APY artists through what is at the moment a difficult time to fulfill their commercial potential moving forward?

The minister said:

Once the panel is stood up, I'll be guided by and work with them as to what departmental support we can provide particularly to those artists. What you have touched on is absolutely key: being able to support them to tell their story and to be able to support them going forward. A lot of these art centres will continue with or without the APY Art Centre Collective; some incredible work is done at those art centres. They are members of the APY Art Centre Collective, but they are individual art centres, largely on their own, so they will continue. We just need to make sure we have the right support for these people to help them through it.

Those are worthy statements. The minister says, 'We want to support the artists,' who, as I pointed out, are significantly affected, emotionally affected and financially affected, as are their communities.

The minister said they want to support them. The minister said that once the review is stood up she will engage with the review and her department to see how they can be supported. Do you know what has happened since then? The department has sent a letter to the APY arts collective cancelling its funding.

We found out today in question time that it is a legal mechanism designed to enable the funding to be cancelled straightaway rather than having to wait six months if the review finds wrongdoing. If the review does not find wrongdoing, as the NGA review found no wrongdoing, then presumably the department will send back a letter saying, 'We're okay with reinstating funding now.' They may do that. We did not get confirmation of that today, but they may do that. I certainly encourage them to.

The key thing that has been lost in here is the wellbeing of the artists, because the minister said in estimates that the wellbeing of the artists was a primary concern and that the government would be looking at ways of supporting them. In talking to some of the artists about this question a couple of weeks ago, a good start might be a telephone call—listening to the artists, talking to the artists about what they need and how they can be supported.

It is all very well to say that you are listening to the voices of Aboriginal South Australians, but when you have a significant issue like this, which is having a practical and dramatic impact on the welfare of vulnerable people, as well as younger First Nations artists, listening to those artists, I would encourage the government, would be a really good start.

Also in the arts portfolio I drew to the attention of the house some issues in relation to a topic called supplementation. In relation particularly to the support for non-government organisations that are supported by government with regular grants, those grants are indexed to a point, but in last year's Mid-Year Budget Review it was highlighted that inflation has been dramatic, so the government increased the indexation with supplementation for a range of organisations delivering frontline services in recognition of their increased costs.

However, as came out during this session of estimates, there are a number of environmental organisations and a number of arts organisations that are being considered by this government as unworthy of attracting that supplementation. We recognise that in the social services sector there are a great number of organisations that are experiencing those dramatically increased costs, so certainly we are supportive of the supplementation that has gone to certain organisations, but for the government to pick and choose then which organisations get it and which do not in a way that is not consistent, as I understand it, with the application of the original Treasury Instruction, that ratification of the original funding, is most unusual.

In relation to arts organisations, it is particularly keenly sought by a number of those organisations, so I asked the minister about this. I certainly think from the minister's answers that she was in regular dialogue and discussion with the Treasurer and Treasury officials about getting this decision overturned, including those arts organisations.

There are about 40 arts organisations in question that deliver a service for the South Australian people supported by government funding, successive governments having determined that it is in our wellbeing, our education and our cultural wellbeing, supporting our young people and a whole range of other reasons why we support these arts organisations and the government funds them.

They have increased costs, like everyone else, and the service that they deliver is reduced at a time of cost-of-living crisis when they do not get support from the government equivalent to what it is meant to be. Effectively, what you are seeing if the supplementation is not given to these groups is a cut to their funding. As I understand it, about six organisations have been given that supplementation funding and 30-odd that have not.

The minister said that she is seeking some flexibility and working through with Treasury on expanding that across those very worthy arts organisations. I asked, 'Can the minister advise when she expects to have an outcome from her negotiations with the Treasurer on that matter?' The minister said, 'I cannot answer that, of course. It is a decision for the Treasurer. I am hoping quickly, but I cannot answer that definitively.'

I put on the record that I continued to wish the minister good luck in those negotiations, but I regret to advise that a freedom of information application to the office of the Treasurer found an application seeking access to all briefings, advice, memos and/or correspondence relating to the inclusion of arts organisations in the list of NGOs supported with funding for indexation supplementation, in particular any information relating to which organisations were included in the program or not and any related advice, and any correspondence or memos or minutes of meetings between Minister Michaels and the Treasurer in relation to indexation supplementation for NGOs returned, and I quote from the FOI officer:

Pursuant to section23(1)(b) of the Act, I advise that, following an extensive search conducted within this office, no documents relevant to your request were located.

No documents, no meetings, no minutes of meetings, no diary entries presumably, no correspondence. It does not seem that this government takes these arts organisations seriously at all. For all the honeyed words of the arts minister in seeking to reassure the arts sector that she is on their side and seeking the Treasurer's forbearance and the Treasurer to overturn his decision, I think in this case the Treasurer is carrying the can, being given the can to carry, for a whole government that has no interest in supporting these arts organisations.

I think those arts organisations and their spokespeople see through that hypocrisy. I think they will continue to lobby and advocate their cause articulately and passionately. Frankly, they deserve better than just being taken for granted. Their costs have gone up. With what they offer to our community—in terms of helping our young people in their creativity, in terms of helping our community stay in touch with culture and to experience art and what it can offer us through performing arts, visual arts, music, dance and everything else—these organisations are really, really struggling at the moment and the government is doing nothing to help.

One of the particular election promises the government took to the last election was that there be a $10 million live music fund. During the estimates process this year, we did some exploration of how much of that $10 million live music program had been spent and how much was still going to be spent. What became very clear during the estimates was that the government thinks that its work here is done. Musicians in South Australia, music, advocacy groups, live musicians, everybody who thought, 'Yes, the new government is coming in with a $10 million live music package,' well, they have been sold a pup too.

Simple questions in relation to the package included asking the minister how it had been spent. We had 85 event grants, supporting activity at $1.5 million. There was half a million dollars to the Royal Show to get live music back to the show. There was $250,000 for mental health support, and about a million dollars was redeemed in e-vouchers given to local venues to support live music. That is a total of about $4 million, which some might say is less than the $10 million live music program promised by the government, so $4 million expended of the $10 million live music package.

Given that the live music industry had some confidence that there would be a $10 million package one way or the other, I asked the minister if the government would consider repurposing any of the $6 million unspent towards other measures that would support the live music industry in South Australia. The minister said, 'I think we were quite clear going into the election as to what that commitment was and particularly what that $5 million was for,' that $5 million obviously being kept in the Treasury fund in case there were any more COVID lockdowns. So, absent any COVID lockdowns, the live music industry cannot expect to see any of that funding.

If there are further grants available, if the money has been rolled over for that million that was unspent in e-vouchers, then maybe—maybe—it will be more than $4 million. But a $4 million expenditure, when the government spent a year trying to claim credit for their $10 million package for live music in South Australia, again this has been seen through by the industry. People are not taken for fools lightly. They do not like it, they do not like being taken for granted and they are not going to be taken for granted in this area without having their voices heard too.

Finally, in relation to the arts portfolio, I asked a question about the Adelaide Festival Centre. It is the 50th anniversary of the Adelaide Festival Centre. This was an initiative that crossed a number of governments. It was the Dunstan government that got to open it; it was in fact under Playford and Hall that the project started. For 50 years, South Australia, through our Festival Centre, has had the world presenting on our stage to people in South Australia. It has been a launching pad for many careers. It is a wonderful thing to celebrate.

What has become clear in this 50th anniversary year is this government has supported the Adelaide Festival Centre with about $1 million worth of cuts to their programming and the loss of staff. Indeed, in terms of celebrations for the 50th anniversary, the minister has previously talked about funding being provided to support that celebration. I asked about that again: 'Is there going to be any funding to support the Festival Centre in its 50th year celebrations, and to what purpose has that funding been put or will it be put?' We are now at 29 August, about two-thirds of the way through the year but, as yet, no extra funding. The minister at estimates took it on notice. It was disappointing to say the least.

All these criticisms of the government, with the possible exception of the delays to the APY arts collective review, are not reflections on the minister personally but, rather, reflections on the low priority this government puts on the arts and culture sector in South Australia. Its low prioritisation is highlighted by the fact that, inasmuch as there have been commitments in the election to support the arts sector through extra funding to the Fringe and extra funding to the Film Festival to annualise it—and I am certainly not making any criticism of those two initiatives—the $10 million live music package, as we have discovered, has turned out to be just $4 million.

Those promises did not come with an asterisk on the mail that was being sent out to all the arts organisations ahead of the election saying, 'By the way, this is going to be paid for out of defunding or cutting funding to other arts organisations,' but that is, in effect, what has happened. We have seen dramatic budget savings with significant impacts on a range of statutory companies and other small to medium companies and larger companies.

They are feeling the effects, whether it is through significant cuts to their funding—as we have seen, the Festival Centre, the Museum, a range of the institutions—or even through just the fact that their modest funding has not been supplemented to remotely keep in track with inflation. They are feeling it, and they do not feel like the arts cultural sector is a priority for this government. It is important when it comes to the future of young people of South Australia, for whom the arts and cultural sectors—in South Australia I think more than any other state over the last 50 years—have felt that South Australia is a place that nurtures their opportunities. But, under this government, no more.

In relation to the education portfolio, I might make some remarks, and in particular I would like to comment on the reflections we had through the estimates process of how the Gonski funding process works. It has been identified that in the budget papers there is an increase of $381.7 million in how much the education department had to spend this year compared with what it was identified as in last year's budget papers. That increase continues, I think up to nearly half a billion dollars by the end of the forward estimates.

Over the forward estimates, that chart shows about $2 billion extra in the education department's budget than it had in last year's budget papers over the same period. That is a dramatic increase. The reason is, and I am quoting here from the budget papers:

…due to the higher indexation applied to the Schooling Resource Standard base amount and loadings under the National School Reform Agreement.

This is because in 2019, when I signed, along with Minister Dan Tehan from the commonwealth, the Gonski agreement setting into place that federal education act, that unlocked extra funding, and it was going to be increased every year according to certain criteria and indexed.

That has been applied in this case, so the government has $2 billion more than it thought it was going to have. That was because we wanted to have a consistent understanding in education of growth funding so that it can be applied towards getting the right outcomes for our students so that we can obviously maximise our opportunities in their lives and for our economy and for our nation.

The government is currently dealing with an EB with teachers, who are asking for quite a lot extra, as we understand it, that is, a 20 per cent to 25 per cent pay rise and an SSO in every classroom. This would be a fairly large financial commitment. I understand from media reports that the education minister has suggested it is in the order of $1 billion a year extra. The budget papers show Gonski provides an extra $380-odd million a year, so there is a gap.

Under the national agreement, currently we fund 95 per cent of public schools' Schooling Resource Standard. The minister, when he was shadow minister, argued that that the government needed to renegotiate Gonski with the commonwealth so that it got up to 100 per cent. He also criticised me as the minister for having in there 4 per cent of the state contribution that was able to be applied to things that were not necessarily directly responsibility under Gonski.

There is 9 per cent short of what public schools should be getting, according to the education minister when he was in opposition and, certainly now, the education union. Were that 9 per cent to be restored—5 per cent extra from the commonwealth and 4 per cent extra from the state—I think we established during the estimates process that it was in the order potentially of an extra $190 million per year, the minister said, if we got that extra 5 per cent.

If the minister was to offer up an extra 4 per cent of things that are going towards depreciation and SACE, if that was not counted towards our Gonski, for example, then presumably that would be an extra $150 million or so from the state government. It is up to the minister to negotiate within cabinet whether his rhetoric in opposition is going to be met by investment in government, but what we are talking about would then be an extra $340 million or so a year on top of the additional indexation.

We would still be well short of what the teachers union is apparently arguing for but, if the minister and the government are going to put their money where their mouth has been for the last four years, then that $340 million extra over and above what is in the budget might well assist the Minister for Industrial Relations in his negotiations with the union. I will leave that for them to explore and see whether they want to come up with the cash.

We understand from the estimates hearings that the negotiations on the next round of the National School Reform Agreement and how that funding is going to be going forward is imminent. It has not been announced yet, so presumably that negotiation is happening at the same time as the negotiation of the EB. I have some sympathy with the education minister, given that complication; nevertheless, he had certainly high expectations when he was in opposition, and those expectations can now be reasonably applied to him in government.

The application of Gonski funding was a topic that attracted some discussion during the estimates proceedings and since. The application of that funding should be towards public school students and their teaching and learning. What we discovered during the estimates process was that $1.2 million of that funding has been applied not to the teaching and learning of public schools, not indeed even to the particular decisions the government have taken into their priorities for public schooling, but instead towards advertisements, including TV advertisements, for enrolments and applications at Findon's new technical college, TV advertisements for a high school to get enrolments. Enrolments the government is seeking to achieve at Findon High School's technical college are 120—16 year 10 and 16 year 11—and that will be a supplementation to the several hundred students who are already at Findon High School. The $1.2 million is a substantial campaign.

The Deputy Premier, when she was education minister, decided to spend about $3 million on TV ads and cinema ads for public education in about 2016-17. She was roundly pilloried and criticised for the use of money in relation to that purpose, but $1.2 million for effectively enrolments at one school is pretty significant.

The government have defended this decision on two bases. One is that they want to tell people about the technical colleges—two more of which will be open in 2025 and two more of which will be open in 2026—and they say that having a focus on these critical industries that are going to be supported by these technical colleges is worth it and that it is important we tell people about this. The second basis on which they defend it is: 'But you guys did it too.' They say that $300,000 was applied towards the Building What Matters materials during the previous government and $45,000 was applied to a campaign called ThankED. Those were the two examples cited.

I am going to take the minister's word for it. It was in a question on notice that he replied to today in the parliament, and it is in materials that the government was backgrounding and providing directly to journalists a few weeks ago, that there was $300,000 from Gonski money in relation to the Building What Matters campaign. I am uncertain that is entirely accurate, but I will take them at their word. I am sure that must be accurate because they said so. It is a much smaller number for a start.

Secondly, and here is the thing, the Building What Matters material was hoarding and bunting around schools. They were materials that had to be bought anyway because there were big buildings going up. Indeed, when you have an active worksite you will note there is always bunting and hoarding around it. We were upgrading in the order of 100 public schools and building five new schools. That is a lot of real estate to cover across the whole state as part of a $1.5 billion education building program in our public schools.

Instead of those materials bearing the name of the builder, they had a picture of the school that was being built so that a community could have confidence in their local public school at a price tag of about $1 million less than what is proposed in this circumstance. Let's assume that it was Gonski funding—the minister says so, so it must be true. It is still an order of magnitude less, and it was money that had to be spent anyway. It was money that was actually doing a purpose other than grandstanding over a government election commitment.

The second campaign that the minister and the government cling to, as an example in defence of their Findon program, is this $45,000 that went to a ThankED program. The context for that ThankED program was an encouragement for the people of South Australia to thank their teachers in the middle of a pandemic when the pressures on those educators as leaders in our community were second to none in living memory.

I do not know about members on the government side, but I have pretty acute memories of the extraordinary anxiety being felt by so many in our community during the pandemic. As we were encouraging people to work from home for their safety and the safety of their community, we had the advice that said that schools should stay open for our kids' health and because, with some mitigation in health circumstances, it was still safe to do so. As we were telling everyone else to stay home, we were asking teachers to trust that advice in extraordinary times and go to work.

Many people felt anxiety at that time, but our teachers did an amazing job. Our principals, our preschool directors, our leaders did an amazing job. We did not think it was inappropriate to spend $45,000 expressing gratitude. It was actually going to have an impact on morale and connect communities in a very positive way with teachers.

Again, I do not know if members on the government side remember, but it was a febrile time, it was a difficult time, and people were sometimes behaving not at their best. Encouraging positivity in the community—something that was directly going to the benefit of our teachers, our school communities, morale in our school communities and culture in our school communities—we felt was money well spent, and the government is complaining about that $45,000? My goodness, how badly must they feel about the $1.3 million they have spent on the Findon Technical College campaign?

Go to the second part of the government's defence on why this money needed to be spent, and it is the defence that I think the chief executive repeated in Budget and Finance. I have heard the minister reflect on similar things. It is critically this: that if the government felt it was so important to talk about the opportunities through VET and skills and technical qualifications, I agree with them.

Eight out of 10 of the fastest growing jobs that we need extra workers for in this state over the next 20 years are going to be jobs that require skilled and technical qualifications. These are jobs where a robot is unlikely to take your job. These are jobs where often the young people can do a traineeship or an apprenticeship, get paid while they are learning, have a fantastic career and go on to amazing things.

They may go on to do a university degree as well, but there is a perception problem around skilled and technical qualifications, and it is a challenge that particularly the research we did when we were in government identified. We need to convince students that there are opportunities there. We need to give them good career counselling. We need to get them on those positive tracks, and we also need to convince their parents that it is indeed a worthy use of their time.

It is a focus for them. It is going to be something that will give their child every opportunity. As it turns out, the research shows that parents are often one of the main groups encouraging kids to go to university even if that university degree is not necessarily the most appropriate or the best path for that student. Parents understanding the benefits of skilled and technical qualifications is a worthy goal.

If the $1.3 million advertising campaign that the government put in was to convince parents and encourage people to think about skilled and technical qualifications, was to let people know that every public school in South Australia now offers Flexible Industry Pathways to help young people connect with jobs, connect with learning opportunities and connect with the skills that industry and business have told us they want from their school leavers and their graduates, that would have been a worthy campaign. That would have been Gonski money well spent.

That would have met the purpose of the Gonski expenditure as intended by letter and by motivation. Instead, we have a campaign that freedom of information documents show was designed around encouraging and stimulating enrolments at Findon Technical College, enrolments that, as of the date that enrolments were supposed to close, were at about 50 of the 120 spots available, despite the fact the Premier and the minister have been there about 13 times doing media and telling us the phones were ringing off the hook with parents who were desperate to be there. Fifty enrolments after a $1.3 million advertising campaign is really disappointing.

The Hon. J.K. Szakacs: How many times did you go there in four years, John?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I have been to Findon High School a couple of times, yes.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Brown): Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: What we did when we were in government was introduce Flexible Industry Pathways at more than 100 public schools. We did a significant body of work listening to families and communities, businesses and industries about what they needed from their technical qualifications. What we did not need was hundreds and hundreds of students, including from the most elite schools in Adelaide, doing Cert III in Fitness qualifications during the winter break to boost up their ATAR paid for with the government's training budget, as was happening every year during the former Weatherill years.

Instead, we thought what would be good was if we spent training money on areas where people could get job outcomes, encouraging school-based apprentices to do jobs, to do roles that would help them into a job. Indeed, at more than 100 schools, we introduced these new Flexible Industry Pathways that have been doing just that and still are. This is something the government should be celebrating. I commend the minister and I commend the government. They have kept them. They have kept these reforms. They have not reinstituted the old way of doing things: they have kept the new way that we put in at the beginning of 2022 in all schools after piloting it for the two years before.

Despite the fact that every school is now a technical college in terms of the quality of the technical pathways that they offer, the government did not advertise that and is not advertising that to its young people. Instead, it is spending its Gonski money advertising these places, unfortunately not very successfully. We hope every single one of these 120 places is full at the beginning of next year. We want this project to succeed. We are an opposition that wants South Australia to do well, and we want Findon Technical College to do well, but that does not require $1.3 million to be spent on this one advertising campaign.

FOI documents show that the decision to go to TV came with public servants expressing an interest in what the Premier thought, whether it met his expectations. The decision was made after a meeting of the minister and the chief executive. The chief executive has clarified in Budget and Finance that it was entirely on his recommendation, and I take him at his word, of course. He is, I think, wrong to do so, and I think the government should really reconsider and not do this again, because what else could that $1.3 million have been spent on?

It was not new money to the budget. It was money that was in the budget because of the national school funding agreement that we signed in 2019. It is existing resources. That money could have gone to course counselling, the very issue that we are talking about.

Those course counsellors could have been encouraging people at Findon High School, but instead the aspect of professional course counselling that was in the department's work plan when the new government came into office was cancelled in order to redirect funding to government election priorities.

That money could have gone to supporting work to stop little kids being excluded and suspended from school. Little kids with disability, including reception, years 1 and 2, were found by Professor Linda Graham to be at the highest risk, with hundreds and hundreds having suspensions and exclusions every year, whether it is their classroom teacher or the structures around them not being set up in a way to support them. Our government put $15 million towards a set of reforms to support those students better. That money was to be spent over four years.

This government kept the reforms, kept the money but spread it over an extra two years—so over six years—so those extra supports will not be in place until later. Those are the sorts of programs this government has cut or reduced or delayed in order to pay for TV ads for the technical college. That is why I get aggravated about it, and I think that the government's defence for it has not been very good. I am going to jump to another topic at this point, so I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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