HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2023-06-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Appropriation Bill 2023

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 27 June 2023.)

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:59): I am pleased to be able to speak today on the Appropriation Bill. This is the budget. This is the bill that the government seeks approval to withdraw the money that will pay for our Public Service, for our schools, for our hospitals, for our police, for everything the government does over the coming year. It provides an enormous level of detail around some of those initiatives. It provides very scant detail in others, but such is the way of things. We have the budget papers to consider.

The opposition will of course support the Appropriation Bill. It would be madness for any opposition ever not to. It is necessary to enable services to continue for the people of South Australia. We take this opportunity to reflect on some of the matters contained within the budget, some of the information contained in the budget, and what it says about the government's stewardship of our tax dollars, of the public money, and the public's trust in the government as to how they are spending that money.

Today, I am going to make some general reflections and talk specifically about some of the things that people in my electorate of Morialta would have been very eager to see in this budget but were disappointed to miss out on. I am then going to spend the bulk of my time reflecting on one particular area within my portfolio, that of the government's response to the Royal Commission into Early Childhood Education and Care. For the Deputy Speaker's benefit, there are budget lines specifically relevant to that response that I can provide to the Deputy Speaker if needed.

This is the Labor Party's second budget since coming to government that I think belies the unrealistic optimism the first budget contained. I think its major measures are in many ways optimistic, to say the least, and they certainly present spin and a lack of substance to the South Australian people. Last year, the Labor Party came to government and immediately presented a budget where they said this year we will again have a surplus of more than $200 million.

They applied an efficiency dividend to every government department, with the exception of some frontline agencies, and they said that all those agencies would deliver on those efficiencies and that that was how Labor were going to pay for their significant spending promises, election promises—some of them worthy, some of them pet political projects built around electoral cycles in marginal seats.

The fact that almost every single department and government failed to meet its budget in the last 12 months is a sign of reckless mismanagement. It is a sign of negligence. It is a sign that there is no discipline in this government at all because, of course, when almost every other department—except the Electoral Commissioner, who saved $1 million, and except TAFE SA, which benefited in the last couple of budgets from a resetting of their expected revenue and the cuts imposed on them by Tom Koutsantonis, the member for West Torrens, when he was the Treasurer in 2017—blew its budget.

The challenge for a government when it has $1.3 billion worth of overspend within its departments is to say, 'Well, are we going to do better next year? Are we somehow going to reimpose some discipline on our departments? Is there some central guidance that can be given to agencies to assist them in meeting their savings target?' We are talking about taxpayers' hard-earned money, and every dollar that these governments fail to meet their budget by are dollars that have to be taken out of the pockets of hardworking South Australians, residents, small businesses, taxpayers. It is not a small thing.

But, no, this government's response to that overspend of $1.3 billion, that deficit of more than $200 million they have turned this budget into, was to provide that funding going forward, to bake those overspends into the forward estimates, as has been described by some. There are still some cuts to come as a result of the efficiency dividend applied last year. So even the surplus next year of another $200 million or so that the government now says is going to be delivered is predicated on their actually achieving those efficiency dividends that were put in the budget last year in future years.

But why would anyone believe that those departments will achieve those efficiencies when they failed to in their first year? Indeed, those failures to deliver on those efficiencies have been forgiven by this Treasurer. I think it is a sign of poor management. I think it is a sign of fiscal negligence, and I think it is a sign of a government that is unlikely ever to achieve a surplus for the people of South Australia. Bear in mind there are two major expenses for which the government has said there is provision in the Treasury. They are identified on page 6 of the Budget Statement, Budget Paper 3, as existing, but no sums are identified.

We are talking about the preschool reforms for three-year-old preschool, which I will come to later, and the skills agreement, both of which are waiting on detail to be provided by, in one case, a royal commission and, in the other case, a national agreement. When those agreements come, the government has had a guess at how much that will cost and put that into the budget. That is fine; that happens. There is a third major expense coming in terms of the university merger, where the government has said it will provide substantial funds but has not said how much. The Treasurer said today that they have not identified it in the budget. That is a further cost to come out.

Even the skills agreement and the preschool agreement are going to have significant and growing costs in the years to come. Commissioner Gillard said that by 2029 we are talking about $200 million a year extra going into our early childhood education budget, and that is not the money that is in the forward estimates: it is a much smaller amount in the next four years. So we do not have much faith in the budget papers presenting a true and accurate reflection of what our future budget condition is in South Australia. It is a typical Labor budget where they spend the money, and then when they are turfed out, they expect the Liberal Party to fix the economy.

Residents in Morialta would have been very disappointed in this budget were they looking for cost-of-living relief measures, particularly average South Australian mortgage-holding families. The average South Australian family with a mortgage is about $20,000 worse off now than it was 12 months ago at the election. Many such families are the sorts of families who live in Morialta. A family in Morialta with an average mortgage and two kids is $20,000 a year worse off due to particularly the increase in mortgages but also electricity bills, the increase in government fees in many cases, the increased price of shopping and the challenges that are imposed on that family budget.

Many of those families went into 2022 with a certain level of hope and optimism. They had a shiny new Premier with a penchant for JFK impersonations. They potentially had the power to get out of a pandemic, the hope that the economy would be going forward and record low interest rates. But if they were getting ahead in April or May last year, it has taken just 15 months of a Labor government and, all of a sudden, they are $20,000 a year behind. That is a significant concern, but the cost-of-living concessions and approaches that this government has taken are not geared to those people at all.

I have particularly supported some concession increases, and certainly we make no complaints about that. There is some relief for first-home buyers who are seeking to build a new property so long as that property is valued at under $650,000. There may be some Morialta residents, probably not a large number but there will be some, who will benefit from that, and that is welcomed. We are interested in that discussion about whether it should go further.

There are a substantial number of South Australians and a substantial number of Morialta residents who benefit from none of this, who may possibly get the $100 discount on their school fees, a measure proposed by Rob Lucas, for public school families who are not eligible for School Card. That is about the only cost-of-living relief that is going to support these families who are otherwise $20,000 worse off. Perhaps they are just $19,900 worse off. These residents in Morialta are disappointed by this budget. It does very little for them, if anything, and their costs are continuing to feel worse and worse. Their belts are being tightened and tightened. Small businesses and families in Morialta are disappointed.

I described before the Royal Commission into Early Childhood Education and Care. I will spend the remainder of my time in this speech talking about the government's response to the early childhood education and care royal commission interim report. I say of this royal commission that it was a government election commitment to have a royal commission, and in the Hon. Julia Gillard they have a person with a high level of experience in governance, a level of interest in early childhood education and an understanding of how the system works.

I disagreed with many, many of the things she did as Prime Minister, and I disagree with her fundamentally in relation to her politics, but she is a qualified individual to fulfil this role and I know that she has thrown herself into it with enthusiasm. She has been given a task by this government to deliver an election policy that there were too blasé or disinterested or lazy to write the detail of themselves ahead of the election.

Indeed, it is a significant task to describe how you would change the system to introduce three-year-old preschool from 2026. We are very clear, and we have it in black and white in the government's policy documents and in their posters, that this was expected to see universal three-year-old preschool from 2023. I think families voting expected that to mean that they would get a preschool-type program for their three year old, similar to their four year old, available at a public preschool or at a long day-care service with an agreement—and, of course, that is free of charge for those four years olds.

I think that families voting on this expected that would apply for their family if they had a three year old in 2026. It has been months and months since the government walked away from that, to the point where they did not ask the royal commissioner to design that. They provided terms of reference to which the commissioner has delivered an interim report which meets those terms of reference. Then the government, having walked away from their commitment to provide universal three-year-old preschool for every child from 2026, having decided the royal commissioner has to do all of the hard work, all of the detail work, then produced this document, which is on the royal commission's website, 'South Australian government response to the interim report'.

Having declined to do the hard work themselves, we then find over about five pages no less than 16 examples of passive-aggressive criticism of the royal commission in their work. I say to the minister and I say to the government: if you did not like what the royal commission proposed, it might have been more polite to do so in a polite and constructive way, to put forward some suggestions, maybe even rather than having a policy of having a royal commission to do the work to just design the program yourselves, rather than giving the royal commissioner a task and then having a go at the commission in so many ways. I found no less than 16 occasions where we see phrases like:

The Royal Commission is encouraged to undertake further research…The government encourages the Royal Commission to consider whether this method of capacity management may result in unintended consequences…The government would welcome further consideration…The Royal Commission is encouraged to consider…The Royal Commission is encouraged to look further…the government would welcome further clarity…

That is particularly pointed if you have heard Department for Education bureaucrats and officials write memos. That is pointed. I like this one:

The government is willing to participate in further discussions with the Royal Commission.

That was a very generous one in relation to workforce. The report continues:

The government would welcome further testing of this assumption…

I think the thesaurus ran out at some point because then there is a stream of the following:

…the government would welcome the Royal Commission identifying…the Royal Commission may wish to consider…

And then we are repeating:

…the Royal Commission may wish to consider…the government encourages the Royal Commission…

This sort of language is bureaucratic, but in terms of the 16 points that it raises it is very clear the government are unhappy with the interim report. I think they should be more respectful of the royal commission.

I will go through the issues. In relation to the interim report stating, and I quote from the government document:

The interim report states that there are many families who value government preschool over and above long day care, as demonstrated through 4-year-olds attending both a long day care and government preschool. However, the government is aware that session times in government preschools often do not meet the needs of working families, and that opportunities to provide before and after care at government preschools need to be further explored.

The Royal Commission is encouraged to undertake further research to test its assumptions about the likely pattern of demand and usage…

Potentially useful—the government could have provided such information in its original submission. The government goes on to talk about what is in fact this issue of progressive universalism. Indeed, in its introduction, the government says:

The Royal Commission's principle of progressive universalism is welcomed…the value of preschool as a means to redress disadvantage…

Yet, contradictorily, they also talk about the need to provide universal high-quality three-year-old preschool in South Australia. The question is: is the government seeking to provide universal service for all South Australians or are they providing a progressive universal service which is designed particularly to support some South Australians but not others? They cannot have it both ways. The government talks about how under current policy every child can have access to a preschool program in their local government preschool in the year before full-time school. They say:

This policy aims to ensure that preschool is accessible and low-cost.

The government points out:

Where 3-year-old preschool is delivered through long day care, a child's local preschool program may be delivered by a long day care service, with the family meeting the gap between childcare subsidy funding and the cost of the program. The government would welcome further consideration of how the model can meet the aspiration of every child to have access to their local preschool program.

It goes on to also talk about being critical of the royal commission. The government talks about preschool enrolments feeding into school enrolments. The point the government is seeking to make is that where the royal commission suggests a new need for three-year-old preschool, who are not currently being supported in long day care, it will be provided in new government preschools. This is a cohort of children who are vulnerable: children who are not accessing three-year-old long day care now tend to be vulnerable children.

The point the department makes here is that if all those children go into the new preschool places, and those children continue in the four-year-old preschool places, is that going to create pockets of particular disadvantage rather than having our preschools reflecting the whole of their local communities? If wealthier families with long day care have all their children's preschool services provided in long day-care sites, and all the children who are not in long day care now, particularly the vulnerable, are provided for in government preschools, that exacerbates disadvantage and inequity, and that is a concern that is being raised here. But it is the necessary corollary of the task that the government set the royal commissioner.

If this was their concern, that it be avoided, then it was something that the government could have turned its mind to before describing this policy, and that is one of the concerns that we have expressed with this policy as well.

It is interesting when we talk about this mixed model where the government is trying to have its cake and eat it too. As they said:

The government sees the value in a mixed model approach, in that it is likely to have the broadest reach, it makes greatest use of existing capacity, and is likely to be the quickest to roll out.

So the government is in favour of the mixed model, but we have 16 reasons and concerns with it. It is very clear that there is a disconnect between what the government is saying and what the government is writing to the royal commission. The government says it:

…would [welcome] further clarity on how the proposed model of 3-year-old preschool will interact with the existing 4-year-old programs…

I think that is particularly related to the point I was just making before, about whether those three year olds will continue in the same service. Of course, part of the benefit, if you are going to have a three-year-old preschool program, is that it is seen as one two-year program for the child. If you have some kids doing 12 months in their long day-care centre, with the expectation that they will continue to follow historical trends in the numbers at a local level and do their four-year-old preschool at the local public preschool, that is not a two-year preschool model. That is a disjointed 'set in here' transition, another 'set in here' transition and then a third transition to school before a child has turned five. That is a risk to that child.

The government talk about workforce and that they welcome further clarity from the royal commission on the proposed staffing configurations. That is a difficult challenge ahead. It is not an unreasonable question to ask, and the royal commissioner particularly attended to this in the media she did on the day she announced her interim report. We will be very interested to see how they do it. I think it particularly talks to the unachievable promise the government made when they said that people would have this in 2026. The government say:

The Royal Commission has found that, irrespective of the model chosen for 3-year-old preschool, it is likely that impending changes to the Child Care Subsidy will result in more families choosing long day care centres for their 4-year-old preschool program, despite it being more costly than government preschool. The government would welcome further testing of this assumption as part of considering family choice, particularly in light of rising cost of living pressures.

That is, of course, the nub of the challenge we have been describing. I think that, in terms of the breakup of responsibility between state and commonwealth, the government has welcomed that the royal commission has requested that the commonwealth do some extra heavy lifting. I do not mind that idea as well, but I do make the point that, when they talk, in relation to the national conversation, about infrastructure needs, the government says:

…in community-managed early education and care services in regional and remote areas. While the Royal Commission has recommended that state government consider taking on this role, it is arguable this may better align with a role in ensuring the accessibility of services.

That is, the commonwealth should be doing it. I am putting the government on notice that this is something that we are watching very closely. I expect the royal commission probably will recommend that the state government take on this responsibility. It is one that is of intense interest to many members on this side of the house. If the state government tries to shirk that responsibility of the commonwealth it will just be an example of them promising one thing and delivering another. I commend the bill to the house, but I have significant reservations about how the government proposes to proceed in these areas.

Mr ELLIS (Narungga) (16:19): I rise to make a quite brief contribution to the Appropriation Bill in acknowledging the government's latest budget and the effect that it will have on our wonderful constituents in the electorate of Narungga. In commencing that, I would like to open with some of the good things, some of the things that I thought might have a good impact on our electorate. I do commend the government. I think some of the initiatives with regard to housing might well have a positive impact, particularly in regional South Australia.

It was wonderful during the course of country cabinet, actually, where the government announced their new Office for Regional Housing. I think that will be a good initiative. It might be somewhat out of character to commend the establishment of more bureaucracy, but this potentially might have some flow-on benefits for our electorate, and I have already made a number of submissions to that office about land or property that might be of use to that department in establishing more regional housing. We have not had a significant increase in the public housing stock for quite some time, and having that office there and identifying suitable parcels of land and likewise for more regional housing will be a wonderful asset.

That will flow perfectly into the initiative that has started already, I believe; it is the building of housing for public employees—teachers, doctors, other people that work for the public system or the state. The housing provided for them should get them out of the private rental market. It should mean that those private rentals are now open to other people that need them, and it should hopefully attract more people to our regions.

If we have some more housing, some nicer housing, some more contemporary housing, then we should be able to attract those teachers, those people that we need so desperately to staff our schools and other public institutions, out to regional South Australia. Hopefully we continue to see a strong flow of well-qualified and talented people out doing those jobs.

Finally, the waiving of stamp duty for first-home buyers will be a wonderful thing and will hopefully stimulate home ownership and get people out of the rental market and ease the burden on that sector at the moment. That should be a wonderful addition too. I think the threshold amount that the government has settled upon might lend itself better to houses in the country as opposed to houses in the city. I cannot quite remember the number, but I think that there will be more houses available in regional South Australia than there are in metropolitan Adelaide at that number. Those three initiatives I think should or could have a positive benefit to our regional community, and I am hoping that that rings true.

The second thing that I would like to touch on—and I have put it in my 'good' category, but I think it could well fall into both—is jetties. It was wonderful to see an allocation made for the sustainment of our jetties, most of which sit in regional South Australia and quite a few of which sit in my electorate. The $20 million committed over four years will be a wonderful contribution toward that, but, by the same token there could have been a lot more. There is quite a large number of jetties, and a large number of them are in a state of serious disrepair, and 20 mil might well be a drop in the ocean (pardon the pun).

We certainly need to see that number ramped up, and we certainly need to see commitments made to specific jetties. Although there are quite a few in my electorate, I would like to touch on a few specifically. The first of those is Edithburgh. We know that there has been a business case done on Edithburgh to establish the cost that would be required to remediate that jetty and to bring it up to standard. I would like to know what that recommendation was.

It is probably fair to say that I have been banging on the minister's door quite a bit over the last few days to see if we cannot get Edithburgh brought forward and allocated a significant percentage of that $20 million, because currently—concurrently—there are works going on at Edithburgh to install a new diving platform. We know that it is one of the foremost diving locations in this state, with a significant amount to see underneath that jetty there and in that precinct, so there is work going on currently to install that dive platform, and if we can time those works to remediate the jetty at the same time I reckon that would be a smart way to go about it.

Edithburgh would be a good thing, and, as I said—I do not want to repeat myself—I have been banging down the minister's door now to see if we can secure a significant allocation out of that $20 million and here is hoping that in the fullness of time we see that come to fruition.

The other couple of issues I want to touch upon include, firstly, Ardrossan, which is a seriously popular jetty and is really falling apart. There are a number of piles there that are serving no purpose at all at the moment. Although the council is sort of plugging away, trying to replace as many as possible, it is a job beyond their means, and it would be a handy thing to see some of that money or some more money go toward helping fix up the Ardrossan jetty for all those people that use that on a regular basis.

Finally, I have been at the Port Victoria Progress Association meeting and they are trucking away on, I think, a 160th anniversary coming up in a couple of years' time. For the celebration of that occasion they would like to have the jetty brought up to a standard that would allow a historic boat to be sailed in and moored up to the jetty, as a homage to the work that port did in its heyday carrying grain and whatnot out of that port.

It would be wonderful if we could have the jetty brought up to a standard to enable that to happen. I know the progress association is assiduously working away to try to put that celebration together, and it is their fervent desire to have the jetty brought up to that standard. I am hoping we can get stuck into trying to fix that one up, as well, to enable that wonderful celebration of the long history of Port Victoria to go ahead. Again, I will be working with the government to try to see that happen.

Those are a couple of the good things I thought of but, just quickly, I was disappointed to see there was no more money for infrastructure spend on health facilities in my electorate. Wallaroo Hospital is only a 21-bed hospital for a catchment area of well over 15,000 people. That borders on being a comical-size hospital for a catchment of that magnitude. We really need to ramp that up and bring it into the same sphere as its contemporaries. Pirie is quite a bit larger—it might be a 50-bed hospital—and it serves a catchment area of a very similar size.

Wallaroo needs to be brought up to spec and renovated to be made a hospital befitting its status as a major regional hospital. It needs to be expanded and renovated and renewed so that it can serve that wonderful community. It is the only major hospital on the entire Copper Coast, and arguably the entire peninsula. We need to see some investment in the infrastructure to bring that up to spec.

It was disappointing not to see anything there, and likewise it was disappointing not to see any new spend at Maitland or Yorketown as well to bring their emergency departments up to spec. It was only in the last government that we got significant investment in the Yorketown surgery to bring that up to spec and into the 21st century. They are doing lists down there now for minor operations, so that has been a wonderful success. It now only needs the opening up of the ED to bring it completely up to spec and have a brand new hospital down there.

It would be wonderful to see some investment in infrastructure and health services, and it would be wonderful to see some investment into security services to keep our nurses safe. I know it has been the focus of their union, which has been working tirelessly for their members to make sure they are kept safe, those wonderful workers we cherish so much in regional South Australia, those health workers who are so difficult to attract.

It would be a dreadful shame if they were wanting to leave our community because of the concerns they felt about their safety, so it would be wonderful to see investment in security at Wallaroo, particularly, in the not too distant future in line with their union demands. It is wonderful to see them advocating for that, and I support them wholeheartedly in their exploits.

Another thing I was really hoping to see—and I look forward to getting stuck into it in estimates in the coming days—was more investment in our regional road network. We made quite a head start over the four years of the previous government in addressing some of the concerns, but that work is coming to an end now. Those roads are fixed, people are driving on them and enjoying them quite a bit, and we need to start that next tranche of work to ensure that backlog of roads is starting to be addressed and eaten away at, that we are not just stopping now and letting it build up again to what it was before.

I desperately hope to see works done at Arthurton and Kulpara, which Grain Producers SA have identified as the worst grain road in the state. I hope to see funding of the Port Broughton to Bute road, and it would be wonderful to see work done between Minlaton and Yorketown as well, to name just a few. There are a great deal more, but those are a few I would hope to see. As I dig into estimates we will see if there are any of those less explicit allocations of money that might be used to bring about the expenditure. I sincerely hope there is.

The other thing I look forward to digging into during estimates is the SABFAC funding, the better boating facilities funding. I have been working away for some years now trying to ensure that there is a new boat ramp at Marion Bay. It is an extremely popular tourism destination with a boat ramp that is basically just a concrete slab going into the ocean. It is very difficult for people who do not go there regularly to launch their boat when the tide is high or the winds are up, for inexperienced boaties or maybe those who are just a little bit out of luck, trying to come in and line their boat up with its trailer when the conditions are not quite there.

There has been significant local advocacy happening down at Marion Bay to try to get that boat ramp fixed. The council has been ticking all the boxes of the bureaucracy to try to make sure it happens, and we are finally at a point now where that funding submission is with SABFAC. We are hoping they will tick off on it and recommend funding to the minister, and then the government can fund that work and we can finally get that new boat ramp at Marion Bay which has been needed for so long. I am looking forward to that in the fullness of time, and I will dig into that in estimates.

I highlight those few things in summary and reassure the government that, as an Independent, I will continue to work with them collaboratively as best I can to ensure the best outcomes for our electorate. I will keep banging the door down for things like the jetty at Edithburgh to make sure that we get our fair share of the pie.

Mr COWDREY (Colton) (16:29): I rise to make my contribution to this year's Appropriation Bill before the house as the shadow treasurer for the opposition, and I begin my contribution in much the same way as the opposition leader. It is not my default position to be negative by any stretch of the imagination. There are a number of measures contained within the budget that clearly the opposition supports and that we think are valuable and will be of benefit to the state. The leader articulated a number of those in his contribution to this debate yesterday.

We welcome the support for Lot Fourteen and the startups, but again we are quite concerned in regard to the momentum that has been lost in that space and that was built up over the four years of the former government. We certainly agree with the stamp duty concession, and I will stress that it is certainly not an abolishment of stamp duty. The government has been quite cheeky in their advertising and their communication so far in regard to the stamp duty concession for first-home buyers, those who are purchasing newly built or who are going to build on particular plots of land, with the asterisk of a value of under $650,000 in regard to a newly built property.

Certainly, we welcome the energy bill relief but agree and have made the case that it should have gone further. You have to remember that the relief that has been provided comes in the face of the federal government's election commitment to lower household energy bills to the tune of hundreds of dollars. We know the reality is that it has been the complete opposite, particularly here in South Australia, where, as of 1 July, we will now be paying the highest prices for electricity in Australia.

I was also paying pretty astute attention to one of the answers provided by the Minister for Human Services yesterday, when she was discussing funding going to Foodbank. In particular, she outlined that nearly 50 per cent of those newly presenting clients to Foodbank are in employment and that 30 per cent of those have mortgages. The Minister for Human Services yesterday made the exact point the opposition has been making for the last two, three or four months: this government chose to actively not provide any form of energy rebate for those people, those families, those households in South Australia that are now nearly $20,000 a year worse off since this government came to power in March 2022—those families who are dealing with trying to find $400 a week additionally to cover their bills.

We are essentially seeing people rocking up at Foodbank who have never had to need those services before, and this government made an active decision not to provide relief to those households. That, we think, is a shame and that, we think, should have been extended further. Certainly, we believe we made the case for that to be extended further.

In regard to the budget itself, the leader has quite well described it from a high level: it is buy now, pay later budget, it is a budget filled with missed opportunities and, as just discussed, it is a budget that failed to deliver any form of new relief for the typical hardworking South Australian household. More broadly, we have pretty significant concerns in regard to where the high-level budget position sits and where this budget presents South Australia moving forward in regard to our fiscal position.

In the same vein, I also concur with the leader's comments that this budget fails to set any sort of real economic narrative or vision for the state beyond what has been articulated already in regard to the federal government's significant investment in shipbuilding. Certainly it is very clear that there is broad and bipartisan support for that work to be undertaken to support, to provide and to ensure that South Australia makes the most of every opportunity that comes from naval shipbuilding and the AUKUS agreement, but that cannot be our only vision.

To have the government come in last year and completely disregard the Growth State agenda that had been worked up with industry to provide a clear and defined focus for where government programs should be aligned, should be working towards and what departments should be seeking to achieve in regard to a broader economic vision for the state, we think was a mistake. I think it goes without saying that there needs to be more of a focus by this government on the broader economic vision of where we are heading outside AUKUS.

Some commentators have described this budget in many ways. One of those ways was a $500 million whoopsie. Certainly we agree that clearly the difference between the projected surplus and the deficit that is going to be returned to the state was a near $500 million difference between the two. It was a blown budget, but the underlying issue we have on top of the fact that the budget was clearly blown this year is that we squandered such a significant and historic uptick in state taxation and GST revenues to the state over that period.

The Treasurer has been very keen to use the Mid-Year Budget Review point, to use that as his baseline in regard to where things have shifted. The reality is that you set the budget in near June, his 2022-23 budget, you set your next budget in 2023-24 the following June, and your comparison is one to the next. What has not been communicated by the Treasurer in his commentary so far is the fact that he has had $324 million in additional GST come into his budget than was expected last year and the fact that he has had $326 million of additional state tax revenue come into his budget that he did not expect when he set down the budget just 12 months ago.

This is revenue that was driven by increased stamp duties due to the labour market here in South Australia. This is payroll tax revenue, this is gambling taxes and this is increases to the GST pool based on significant inflation, based on South Australians and Australians paying more for their everyday goods and services. So, yes, we did think that there was a case to return some of that additional GST windfall to South Australians.

Interestingly, when we look back six months ago, I distinctly remember the Treasurer on morning radio essentially putting the call out to South Australians asking how he should spend the additional GST windfall that was coming into our state coffers based on the increased inflation. What a stark contrast to the final budget position we see ourselves in just six months later. It is almost like the Treasurer was completely blindsided to what was happening within his own departments and what was happening in terms of the complete lack of fiscal discipline across nearly every government agency.

If you look at the projections in terms of the net operating balances, I think there are a couple of things to pull apart moving over the forwards. Again, this is a Treasurer who, in the very last press release put out prior to the election, confirmed that he would be keeping the budget in surplus. There was a small surplus that was forecast by the previous Liberal government in the last budget handed down by us for the 2022-23 year. You have to remember that was before the additional $650-odd million of GST and state tax revenue came into the state.

The Treasurer in his first budget projected a $233 million surplus; again, that is clearly lost. The more worrying thing is that, despite projecting modest surpluses in the out years, they are significantly down on last year's projections—the surpluses over the forward estimates, that is—across the 2023-24 year, the 2024-25 year and the 2026-27 year. That completely flies in the face of what is happening from a revenue perspective coming into the state over that time.

In the first Malinauskas budget compared with the second, if you look year on year over total revenue expected to come into the state, the total increase is upwards of $6 billion across forward estimates—as we mentioned, the $324 million in GST that was expected this year; next year, an additional $761 million in GST; the year after (2024-25), $742 million of additional GST; the year after that, $573 million of additional GST, plus the additional state taxes that are now projected to come in over that period of time. So, despite historic and significant increases on the revenue side, we are projecting smaller surpluses. The question that of course everyone then asks is: how in the world is that possible?

For starters, you look at the operating expenses budgets of every government agency this financial year. It was interesting to see the public commentary from the Treasurer leading into budget day, when he obviously foreshadowed the significant overspend in health and foreshadowed the significant overspend in child protection. But what he did not discuss was the significant overspend in just about every single government agency—every headline government agency, outside of the poor Electoral Commissioner, who saved South Australians a million dollars this current financial year. Every other government agency, outside of TAFE SA, overspent their allocated budgets.

These were not small overspends by any stretch of the imagination. The leader already pointed out yesterday the environment department, with a departmental budget of $300-odd million this financial year, overspent by $54 million. Frontline services like SAPOL only just overspent, but the more bureaucratic in nature those departments, the more it seemed they spent. The Department of Treasury and Finance—the Treasury department that sets the budgets for every other department—overspent their budget this year by $13 million; trade and investment, $24 million; tourism, $36 million; primary industries, $43 million. The list goes on, with blowouts of tens of millions of dollars across just about every agency to the point where the total overspend this financial year was $1.353 billion. That is what the Treasurer's own budget statements say—$1.3 billion of overspend.

What is even more worrying is that instead of asking for discipline from those public servants, those chief executives in charge of those budgets, and instead of asking them to explain why they had overspent, to hold them to account for that, those blowouts have effectively been baked into the forward estimates across every agency moving forward. Essentially, all the additional revenues coming into the state have now already been allocated across those departmental budgets moving forward.

Where that becomes an issue for us, particularly when we look to next financial year, is we know the savings task that was allocated across government last year was in the order of $200-odd million. We know the savings task allocated to departments next year—well, we know last year's is largely irrelevant, for a start, because everybody blew their budget. But next year we are actually asking Health to save $200 million, to spend $190 million dollars less than they did this financial year. I am not sure the last time that occurred. If our whole surplus is predicated on that, we have some pretty interesting structural issues within our budget.

The other thing I wanted to touch on quickly is this comparison that the Treasurer has made with Victoria. He has been on a crusade over the last little while to deflect and point the finger to say, 'Look how competitive we are in South Australia from a business perspective. If you're in Victoria, you should be moving here.' Well, yes, fundamentally the opposition agrees with that.

I am glad that the Treasurer was happy to acknowledge the work that the previous government did in lowering water bills for South Australian businesses and families. I am glad the Treasurer recognised the work that the former government did in reducing the payroll tax burden for South Australian businesses by lifting the threshold. I am glad the Treasurer recognised the work that the former government did in regard to the interconnector to New South Wales, which we know and has been confirmed will lower bills here in South Australia for business and households. It is not anything through this budget that has reduced the cost impost on South Australian business moving forward by any stretch of the imagination. It was work that was done previous to now.

To make the contrast, when you have a budget that now bakes in $1.3 billion of overspend but flies in the face of the advice that is coming from central banks around the world, and here in South Australia, to rein in spending; and when you have a budget that essentially sets us on a fast track to a situation like Victoria where they are in a position where they are having to increase taxes, where they are having to increase levies to ensure that they can support the spending decisions that are being made, that is not a solution. That is what we have in front of us at the moment. We have the Treasurer handing down an early years Andrews' government budget.

In regard to my particular local area, I just wanted to very quickly touch on one of the biggest issues in regard to sand replenishment and the issues at West Beach, Henley Beach South, Henley Beach, and now progressively moving closer to Grange with every day of inaction from this government. We did have an allocation of near $7 million for sand replenishment this year, which I obviously welcome because without that we have nothing. But I do ask the question: what happens next year and the year after that? Is this simply another bandaid solution where we do not even have money in the budget moving forward or know what the plan is to fix this longer term issue?

We had environment department officials down at the Charles Sturt Council on Tuesday night putting in a submission wanting the Charles Sturt Council, effectively, to invest in a rock wall to put out the front of a particular spot at Henley Beach where we now have infrastructure in jeopardy. So, instead of doing what the state government is responsible for, which is fixing our beaches and providing sand replenishment, we have the state government going to councils wanting to split the cost of putting in infrastructure that only potentially causes more problems further down the coast. That is where we are at under this environment minister in regard to our local area.

Finally, I want to take the opportunity to reiterate some of the comments that were made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition in regard to being open to a conversation around nuclear energy. It is clear that the technology, particularly around SMR reactors, has progressed a significant way since the last conversation that we had in this state. To see companies at the point of having these devices in a form that is close to commercial is something that in some ways should assure South Australians that the conversation is worth having.

This technology has obviously been around for many years in regard to submarines. It is something that we now are going to be embracing as a country in regard to having nuclear submarines, purchasing and building nuclear submarines, but also to be having those constructed here in South Australia. If we are serious about having South Australia as a low-cost jurisdiction for business, if we are serious about having low-cost energy for households, if we are serious about reducing those costs to South Australians, then we should be open to the conversation. It is our duty to be open to the conversation.

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (16:50): I also rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill. I think that this budget hit the target when it came to what the priorities are in our state. Clearly, health, housing and, at this juncture, cost-of-living relief are the three important areas.

For two budgets in a row now, we have significantly increased the funding going towards our health system, and it is a health system that is on the challenge. We did go to the last election making a number of commitments, especially around funding but, importantly, what that funding was going to be used for. It was going to be used in part to employ more doctors, employ more nurses and increase by some 550 beds the capacity in our public health system. That is an ongoing body of work that is going to take some time, but moves are already occurring. We have employed extra doctors, we have employed extra nurses and we have installed more beds.

Importantly, some of those beds are dedicated to mental health patients. It is only by fully rolling out and maybe even going further than we have committed to that we are going to ultimately diminish the ramping that is occurring. Of course, when it comes to our ambos, we have made a number of very tangible commitments. It is why the union is not out there attacking us—because they see what is going on in comparison to what was happening with the previous government.

I know in my electorate we have a new ambulance station going in at Port Augusta and more ambos employed in Port Augusta in the coming year. In Whyalla, we are going to have an extension to the ambulance station and an additional 24/7 crew. There are going to be two transfer crews in the Upper Spencer Gulf. In total, there are going to be 33 extra people employed in the Upper Spencer Gulf by next year once the recruitment process has run its course.

These are real, tangible commitments that are being delivered on, and people can see that. People will give us credit for doing that, which is not to say that there are not real challenges with health, as there are in all our public health systems throughout the nation and indeed in a number of Western countries. We are committed to addressing that particular set of issues, some of which are complex.

The other area is housing. As a local member, it is really hard when someone approaches your office who has been in private rental for an extended period of time. She works part time, she has five children and, despite my efforts and despite the efforts of the Housing Authority, we could not find her somewhere to live. She is actually with that family, with the five kids and her dad with an illness, living in a tent in somebody's backyard. I know the Housing Authority in Whyalla will address that as soon as they can.

There is an additional commitment to investment in housing, in fact the first significant investment in public housing in over 30 years, which reflects poorly on governments of the past, including Labor governments, that were more than willing to flog off properties. We have to reinvest in public housing. If you look at it nationally, there has been a collapse, depending on what timescale you look at.

Once upon a time, when it came to new builds, 14 per cent of the investment in Australia if you go back far enough was in public housing. I think it is under 2 per cent now, so it is something that has to be turned around. Public housing needs to be seen not just as welfare housing but we need to look at a 21st century version of the Housing Trust. For those people on low incomes who are working, it could be a starting point for them as well in order to assist them to eventually move into the private housing market, which is something I did in Whyalla and something that most of the people who worked at BHP did. We rented from the Housing Trust and now we are nearly all in private housing.

We need to have a bit of a rethink, but it is incredibly encouraging to see the moratorium on the sale of public housing in South Australia. Over 500-odd houses that were on the chopping block are no longer on the chopping block and it is also very encouraging to see the new builds, some of which will happen in Port Augusta and some of which will happen in Whyalla, so that is a start. It is also good to see within Renewal SA the Office for Regional Housing, which is a start to address some of those worker housing issues we face in many regional communities, which is really having a detrimental impact on the capacity for the private sector to invest in job creation in many regional communities, so there is a very good start in this budget.

Of course, there is the cost-of-living relief. Families—obviously not all families—and pensioners are going to significantly benefit. Some pensioners are taking, in total, with the energy relief and the other concessions, well over $1,000 in cost-of-living relief. I think it might be something like $1,700 in cost-of-living relief for some pensioners; and for families who get either tax benefit A or B it is about an additional $700 to help them, especially when it comes to relief for energy prices. For those families, that should take care of the increases that in fact go beyond the increases that are rolling out.

I think in those three areas they were an incredibly important set of very important initiatives. You can always argue we could do more, you could have a far more generalised cost-of-living relief, but then there are issues associated with that. In opposition, it is always the mantra: you should do more, you should do more, you should do more. I bet if the current opposition were in government they would not be doing more, more, more. We just have to have a look at the their federal colleagues when they were in power and their attacks on the most vulnerable people in our communities, starting with the Abbott government and schemes like Robodebt—an illegal scheme that was just an all-out attack on the most vulnerable in our communities. So I think the priorities were right in this budget.

I want to say a little bit about my electorate. It is good to see some additional funding for the northern water project. I am sure that is a project that has bipartisan support and, to me, it is an important project because it is one of those pieces of infrastructure that will underpin job growth in my electorate. Coming from an electorate like mine that has experienced over the years very significant job losses that drove Whyalla from having a population of over 33,000 to now just under 22,000, that all reflects the job losses that occurred in my community.

When I look at Port Augusta—and I have the western part of Port Augusta in my electorate—the loss of rail in Port Augusta and the loss of the power station in Port Augusta had a major impact on that community. They have some other advantages in terms of services and being on a transport hub and what have you, but these losses, when it comes to employment, have significant impacts. They have long-running social impacts upon communities, especially communities that have had a legacy of public housing, which means that we end up as regional communities disproportionately sharing the burden with regard to people who are disadvantaged. It is not to stigmatise those people, but it is just that this is something that is not shared on an equal basis throughout the state.

Usually as a result of the loss of jobs over generations, there are some parts of our state that have ended up in a position where they have a raft of social problems without the services to support that, especially in regional communities, so you end up with entrenched disadvantage. That is another reason why housing needs to be seriously looked at and longer term strategies put in place to diminish the impact on regional communities when it comes to social disadvantage.

I started with the Northern Water Supply Project, and that is an underpinning element of what might well happen in the north of our state. I am proud to have the biggest mines in the state in my electorate. With BHP now acquiring OZ Minerals, they clearly need a water source that is not the Great Artesian Basin. They eventually need to stop or reduce their draw on the aquifers within their region, and the Northern Water Supply Project will help to enable that.

We can see that BHP, with its acquisition of OZ Minerals, sees that whole area in the north of the state as a copper province, and I have absolutely no doubt that there are going to be other copper deposits found in that part of the state. We already know that there are significant resources that have not been developed as yet. There is all the work that is going on at Oak Dam, there is the Fremantle Doctor north of Carrapateena, and there are a number of other interests in the areas in that part of the state.

The Northern Water Supply Project is very important, if ultimately there is a commitment to building it. At this stage, the analysis is around about 260 megalitres a day, so it is a significant plant with the capacity to expand beyond that. Of course, if the big hydrogen proposals do deliver, they are also going to need large quantities of water. A number of things have been said about the state government's hydrogen power plant when it comes to water. I would suggest that some of the people opposite, and some of the people opposite federally, do a quick back-of-the-envelope assessment of how much water the power plant will take. It is well within our state's allocation of water.

If we are looking in isolation at the state's electrolysers and power plant, we do not need desalination for that. There are other ways around that to deal with it. Of course, if some of these very large gigawatt-scale projects with large electrolyser capacity come on board, there is no financial closure on any of these projects yet. I think that is something we all need to bear in mind. If one or two or maybe more of these projects come on board, there is going to be a very significant demand for water, and we do not want to draw from the River Murray to meet that demand, so desalination, in an area where it can be expanded, is sensible.

I would urge everybody involved in this not to revisit Point Lowly, for a whole range of reasons. Mullaquana, to the south of Whyalla, is a sensible location closer to the mines and some of the other proposals further south that have been suggested, and I think it is the direction to go in if we ultimately do commit funding.

To me, this is all about jobs in our part of the state—in the northern part of the state: jobs that will benefit Whyalla, Port Augusta, Port Pirie and Eyre Peninsula. Potentially, we are looking at a lot of jobs if copper production meets its full potential. That is important, and there is a little bit of money in the budget to also invest in that copper initiative. Of course, it was the Weatherill government with Minister Koutsantonis that came up with the copper strategy, the magnetite strategy and the hydrogen strategy. These are all things that we can very significantly build on.

Indeed, there are already desalination plants in the north of the state. There is obviously Sundrop Farms, with multiple effect distillation, but there is also a desalination plant at Whyalla, at the steelworks, that provides the water for the magnetite slurry that comes from the Middleback Range. They will have to expand that desal plant—and we are not talking about the huge scale desal plants here—if the whole magnetite strategy in the Middleback Range comes to fruition. I am told that it is looking fairly positive, with external parties interested in going into partnership with GFG to exploit the very significant magnetite resource in the Middleback Range.

There are a number of other initiatives in this budget. Some of the smaller stuff includes the significant investment in a new bus suite for the APY lands—four-wheel drive buses, smaller buses—and it is great to see that. I think that will serve those communities well over the coming years and built on the ambulances that we committed to for the APY lands when we were last in government.

It is good to see another police station going in at Indulkana in the APY lands. That is a positive. There is a $30 million build at Port Augusta Prison, and that helps generate jobs. It would be great if we had fewer prisons, but we do have prisons at the moment and, if we are going to have prisons, I do not mind seeing them in my community because they do provide jobs. Hopefully, there is some investment going into rehabilitation, as I think we need more in that particular area.

I was down in the member for Flinders' seat the other day, catching a whole heap of salmon at Salmon Hole. It was very good fishing indeed, and it was great to see the look on our teenager's face. She had never been fishing before, and there she was, pulling salmon out of Salmon Hole, these good-sized fish, so she is now hooked (no pun intended) on fishing. I was a bit surprised that the cafe now at Tumby Bay has gone all Greek, and I had lunch there before heading back to Whyalla. It was sad to see the Tumby Bay jetty all fenced off. Once again, we can say, 'Well, there's not enough money,' but at least there is a $20 million to start getting some of the work done.

There are a lot of jetties. I know in Whyalla the council built its own fishing jetty, the new fancy jetty, with public donations. They largely used their own funding and some steel from GFG, and the then the Weatherill government kicked in $1 million towards that jetty. You sometimes wonder about councils, and I wonder if I was the only one, though I was not on council, who read the prudential report. The cost blew out to I think close to $7 million to $8 million, when the initial costing had been $2.3 million, so that is an interesting set of circumstances up there in Whyalla. It is a fantastic looking jetty, and hopefully it will stand the test of time and be there for many years.

But I have some sympathy for regional councils because a lot of these jetties were under the Department of Marine and Harbors. It had these, they were offloaded and this and that happened over time. You can have a go at regional communities and say, 'Oh, you didn't maintain them,' but it is often the case that councils out in the regions and out in small communities are really strapped for cash. They do not have abundant sources of revenue.

It is not just the state government that offloaded jetties. If you look at the federal government, they must have been rubbing their hands with glee when they offloaded the airports in regional communities as well. I dread when the capital costs for some of the runway upgrades come up in those regional communities because the councils will not be able to afford them. There is no way they will be able to afford them.

As I said, I think some of the priorities in this budget were right, and there are a number of elements in the budget that I think are very good.

Mr PATTERSON (Morphett) (17:10): I take this opportunity to speak on this year's Appropriation Bill, which deals with the state budget handed down just a fortnight ago. After talking with many people, what is quite clear is the way it has been described by many of them, that is, it really is a buy now, pay later budget.

When we talk about putting things on credit, it comes at a time when the nation is experiencing high inflation, and South Australia, in particular, is experiencing ultra high inflation compared with other states. We have the highest inflation rate in the nation, at 7.9 per cent in South Australia, and that directly affects vulnerable people especially, because where that inflation bobs up is in food prices when you go shopping, in your groceries and in your petrol at the service station. The more we can get this down the better.

Unfortunately, the Reserve Bank, whose sole focus is to keep a lid on inflation, only have interest rates as their tool. We have seen interest rates go from record lows, with the Reserve Bank rate at 0.25 per cent, now increasing substantially in a very short time. These rate increases have not been seen for a decade. The whole idea behind that is a very blunt instrument, but it is designed to try to take spending out of the economy.

Of course, it hits mortgage holders very hard. Not everyone has a mortgage, but it hits businesses as well. A lot of businesses rely on access to capital, to debt, to service their business and keep the wheels of industry moving. This also has an impact there and means they do not have more money to spend on employees as well. The method of interest rate rises is hurting people and it is hurting people hard.

Despite the Reserve Bank trying to slow down spending, it needs help from governments as well. It also needs fiscal policy because, if it is just the Reserve Bank, then there is only one lever available to them. We need governments ensuring they are acting in the best interests of bringing down inflation as well, and not letting Philip Lowe, the Reserve Bank Governor, take all the blame. We need governments moving in this direction.

As I said, despite these interest rate rises, with the Reserve Bank trying to slow down spending in the economy, in the financials of this state budget we see a massive problem with overspending, putting money into the economy and continuing to fuel those flames. What was, when we sat here 12 months ago, a projected surplus for the 2022-23 financial year of $233 million has now been turned into an actual deficit of $249 million.

People say, 'Okay, that's inflation that made that effect.' Well, the budget, with that projected $233 million surplus, did take into account that we were going to have inflation—not the 7.9 per cent, but a fair amount of that, so it cannot just be passed off as that. That seems like an overspend of $500 million, rounded to the nearest amount if you do the rough calculation, but it is actually much worse than that. When you look through what was really going on, you see that from a revenue side the GST income the states receive had increased by $324 million. That is a massive surge in revenue coming in.

Additionally, at the same time you have had state tax revenue also increase by $326 million. Right there, you have nearly $650 million worth of additional revenue which you would have thought, 'That could have certainly ensured that we stayed in surplus.' In fact, what you have is not only $500 million in the actual numbers but it means that, because of this increase in revenue, what should have been a much bigger surplus shows that the overspending that actually forced us into deficit was $1,132 million, to keep in the same unit step—that is $1.1 billion there of overspending.

What this really confirms when you look through the papers—we have heard the shadow treasurer in his speech and the leader in his reply to the budget as well—is that just about every government agency had experienced cost blowouts, that major infrastructure projects had experienced cost blowouts. This comes at a time when you have hardworking South Australians having to try to find savings that probably do not exist and trying to cut back to deal with this inflation environment, with high interest rates as well, and having to go without. You hear horrible stories of having to choose whether to put the heater on or pay for dinner. They are having to go without. At the same time, you have bureaucrats with what you would have to say is ill-disciplined spending. They are not trying to save where they should to keep the budget in surplus, and keep too much money from going into the economy.

What is happening here is that it is going to have an impact. What is worse is that we sat here in the last budget and we saw efficiency dividends for just about every department. I remember in my estimates talking to the relevant ministers about how they were going to achieve those efficiency dividends, which really is trying to make the bureaucracy do more with less, trying to be innovative. What we have found is that those efficiency dividends clearly have not been met in just about every department but, rather than the Treasurer saying, 'I expect better next year. We want you to really work that back,' those overruns for departments have been baked in.

If we talk about some of those overruns, Health and Wellbeing overspent by over $750 million; we had overspending in Education of $387 million; the environment and water department, $54 million; and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, $66 million. So there we have the Premier and the Deputy Premier, who should be setting an example for their ministers, just having their bureaucrats overspend. When they say the fish rots from the head, if you see what the leaders are doing, and they are overspending, then you can understand now why you see other ministers just reflecting that poor behaviour.

As I said, by these expenses being baked in, not only do we have a variance in the budget in terms of expenses all-up of $1.35 billion—so $1,350 million for the 2022-23 year, but going forward to 2023-24 we have expenses going out by over $2 billion. So you can see that this poor behaviour has been rewarded. As has been said, the Electoral Commission at least underspent with their budget. Defence SA was $1 million over budget which, in the scheme of things, is one of the better ones. Their discipline has not been rewarded, whereas the ones that overspent have more money for next year.

I remember when I was a minister—and I was talking about trying to have that discipline—you would go through it and not just wait until the end of the financial year and see what pops out. You have to actively manage these things. That is what business owners have to do all the time. They can't just set a budget and then wait for the next 12 months and see what profit or loss pops out at the end. You have to be constantly managing it. I know that a minister will be given reports on a monthly basis as to what is going on with your expenses. You will sit down when it comes to the Mid-Year Budget Review and talk through what is going on.

I remember when I was Minister for Trade and Investment, it was a small budget, just over $50 million, but when that looked like having overspend I got the CE in and talked through what was going on and made it quite clear to the bureaucrats that going over budget was not acceptable. Clearly, that is out the door with this government. The effect is, of course, that that money flows into the economy in a high-inflation environment and fuels the fire in terms of inflation. It also has a big impact on the state's debt, which is racing towards $37 billion and that does not include $10 billion worth of the north-south corridor. That is still outside the forward estimates, and this has come in a high interest rate environment.

If I can bear back to the COVID pandemic, these ultra low interest rates came at a time of great economic peril, and the emphasis was that that was a time when government should be stepping into the economy and actually trying to help ensure jobs are kept and we do not have massive unemployment. To counterbalance that spending, there were very ultra low interest rates which could be locked in over the long term so it was not going to have a massive impact in terms of having to pay back interest rates on that debt.

Now we are in a totally different environment, where we have very good employment, thanks to the Liberal government handing over very good economic credentials, very good employment rates, 3.9 per cent unemployment rates that those opposite have tried to take credit for ever since but we are coming into an environment now where we are in a high interest rate environment and they are consciously taking on large debt. It is not just debt on infrastructure where there is a payback for the community in the long term, it is operational overspends as well. That is the money that is being put on to the credit card.

It has been shown that it is expected that the interest rate annual expense goes from $800 million to $1,600 million over the four years. That is a massive amount of money just spent paying off interest. It is the equivalent of the budget for the Department for Infrastructure and Transport. We could have two of those spending money on our regional road maintenance and spending money on maintaining roads in Morphett. Money could be spent on the Morphett Road tram crossing. While the tramline will be closed next year, it makes perfect sense to invest money on the tram crossing while it is closed and I have asked the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure about that. They are the sort of things that you miss out on, the opportunity costs, when you have this overspending.

As I said, households are experiencing high interest rates at the moment and I think they are now starting to understand what it means for debt and why it is important that governments do not have massive debt burdens they then have to pay interest on as well. As we said, if we cast our minds back 12 months, as we have been doing, things have certainly deteriorated massively since then.

Ramping was the big promise at the election, that those opposite were going to fix the ramping crisis, but what has happened is that South Australia has recorded 11 months of record ramping. The Premier promised to fix this but he did not explain that part of that fix was that he would actually double ramping while he was about it. As I said, record ramping with each month of those 11 months having 3,000 hours lost on the ramp, including March 2023, when 3,968 hours were lost. That is 161 per cent. So 100 per cent is double, 161 per cent of what the figures were back in February 2022, the last full month that we were in government.

Not only is there ramping but we have the EDs having to suffer code whites, where there are no beds in the emergency departments. In fact, just this month we have had code whites in all EDs in metropolitan hospitals. This has happened 11 times already. This is shocking. Despite record spending on health and Labor's repeated promises to fix ramping, it has now reached record levels.

As I said earlier in my remarks, we are currently in a cost-of-living crisis here in South Australia. Just looking through the impact of inflation for the typical South Australian family that has two children and an average mortgage, they are nearly $20,000 worse off than in March 2022, so since the Malinauskas Labor government has been in. Living costs—whether they are interest rate rises or rental increases, petrol prices, food or groceries—are all rising, and all South Australian households and businesses are feeling the pain. What is also very alarming is the fact that skyrocketing energy bills are being experienced here in South Australia, both for households and businesses.

In May this year (so just last month), the Australian Energy Regulator released its finalised default market offer, which included not only South Australia but also New South Wales and Queensland. This is for those electricity users on standing offers. What it meant for South Australian households is that on the default market offer they will be experiencing increases of nearly 24 per cent, which translates to up to $512 for the average South Australian household electricity bill. This is going to take effect in the very near future, on Saturday 1 July, and it is just going to heap even more pressure onto families and their household budgets. When I talked about that $20,000 additional spending that families are having to make under the Malinauskas Labor government, that was not including these massive electricity bill hikes.

Now, of course, the default market offer is a standing offer, so not all households are on that; about 60,000 are. The default market offer is an indicator. What we have found just in the last two weeks is that a lot of households are getting emails from their energy retailer, they are getting notices in the letterbox and they are finding also that their contracts for electricity are going up—some of them in line with the 24 per cent; others, it seems, even more because, yes, they were on a good contract, but now the energy market is getting more and more expensive, so they are having to deal with that while their retailer takes that into account. These energy bills are going to be crippling for households, especially the most vulnerable as we progress through winter.

Of course, it is not just households that will feel these electricity bill increases; it is also small businesses. Again, the default market offer for small businesses showed an increase of $1,310 for the average business. This is really hard. In Morphett, we have a lot of tourism-based businesses—hospitality, restaurants, cafes, especially around Jetty Road. They have to have their fridges and freezers on all the time, and air conditioning to make sure that it is amenable for people to come in, as you want to attract customers in there. They cannot just turn off their electricity for savings, so what they are finding is they have to bear that burden of those extra increases. I mention that figure; that is a 29 per cent increase on their bills. These increases are the highest in the nation. South Australia, again, is now starting to lead the nation in terms of having the highest electricity prices.

Out of this, what is the solution? The best solution is to actually make electricity prices go down, but in this state budget, in terms of a policy or programs in place to have overall electricity prices go down, there are none. We were looking for that and found none. The federal government went to the federal election saying they would promise to reduce people's bills by $275. Instead, they have gone in the total opposite direction. They have had to come up with an energy rebate, so at least some vulnerable people in South Australia, in the country, are able to pay for their electricity and put the lights on.

Because of the fact that there was record GST income and there was record state revenue, as I said before, there was a great opportunity to partner with the commonwealth government—not only for those who are eligible, because they receive commonwealth payments, but also for those who are not—to use that to also provide non-eligible households in South Australians with $250. Unfortunately, that was not forthcoming, so we what we now have, especially in Morphett, is hardworking South Australians for whom this budget does not deliver. There is no relief for them. They have to work through it themselves. They are coming in and saying, 'It is effectively like the working poor here.'

Really what we need is some effort and focus by this government to come up with a plan on how to make electricity affordable here in South Australia. As I come to the end of my remarks here, we have another opportunity to speak post estimates, so I look forward to speaking on more matters when that opportunity presents itself.

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) (17:30): I am really pleased to speak today in wholehearted support of this Appropriation Bill and, in doing so, commend the incredible work of the Treasurer, his ministerial staff and, of course, the Department of Treasury and Finance staff for their work toward this 2023-24 budget, a budget that delivers the biggest cost-of-living package in the state's history, major long-term investments in health and housing and significant investment in our child protection and family support system.

As shown through the significant investments made in this budget, our government has a strong commitment to ensuring government spending creates positive change with and for our community and for our economy. This budget is rightly focused on ensuring equality of opportunity, fairness and inclusion, whether that be through enhancing access to a place to call home, easing pressure to pay bills or ensuring paying the school materials and services fee is within everyone's means. This is a budget that prioritises the wellbeing of so many South Australians and, in doing so, demonstrates that we as a government have the right priorities.

In addition to investments in the child protection and family support system, which of course I will speak to in a moment, I also speak about a range of significant investments delivered through this important budget which are aimed at tackling the challenges our community confronts. Initiatives to address the housing crisis and unlock the possibility for thousands of South Australians to get into their own homes are a central plank of this budget, for young people and, indeed, for anyone who has young people in their lives or others who aspire to realise the dream of owning their own home—this is a budget for them

I have spoken with my own children and their partners, a number of their friends and other young people in my community about that crucial budget announcement and what it might mean for them. In some of their words, it means that they will not have to wait 10 years to save for a deposit, that they will be able to find a home that suits them and is affordable to them a whole lot sooner and that it is really good to see that their needs, their futures, were so deeply thought about.

This initiative includes the abolishment of stamp duty for eligible first-home buyers, assisting to make the prospect of owning their own home within reach for many South Australians. In addition, the First Home Owner Grant property value cap will also be raised, from $575,000 to $650,000, and our government has also announced in collaboration with HomeStart a new lending product to allow eligible borrowers to build a new home with as little as a 2 per cent deposit.

Alongside this, we are seeing the single largest residential land release, with approximately 25,000 new blocks across our northern and southern suburbs delivering more homes for more South Australians. In addition to these reforms aimed at supporting South Australians to get into their own homes, our government has also announced plans to support tenants through reforms to residential tenancies legislation to make rental bonds more affordable, ban the practice of rent bidding and protect tenant rights and information.

As many in my community have raised as a matter of importance to them, I was so proud to see reform recently announced to make it easier for tenants to have their pet in their home. Pets are so important to so many people. They are a much-loved part of the family, and they offer comfort to people. We do not ever want people to have to choose between a safe place to call home and their beloved pet, and we will help make sure that they do not ever have to.

This budget delivers the biggest cost-of-living package in the state's history. As we all do, I hear every day the pressures that the cost of living is having on households and families across our state and the choices families and individuals are making to get by. We are listening, and our government is responding through initiatives including the provision of energy rebates worth $500 for eligible households and $650 for eligible small businesses and by increasing existing concessions by 8.64 per cent in line with higher inflation, such as the Cost of Living Concession and energy concession.

To assist families and ensure South Australian children have the best start to their day, our government has invested an extra one million meals through the School Breakfast Program, equating to $6.5 million of further funds. We know kids start and continue their days happier and stronger when they have a full stomach, and we are making sure that they do. In addition, eligible school parents and caregivers will receive a $100 subsidy on the materials and services charge. I have spoken with many community members who speak with me about how difficult it is to pay that particular fee, which often comes at a time just after Christmas. This relief at this time of year is incredibly important.

Our government is continuing its record investment in our health system to provide better health care for our community. Aimed at easing pressure on the hospital system, this state budget sees more than $130 million invested into virtual care services alongside a package of investments aimed at reducing bed block, including the provision of additional doctors, physios, pharmacists and other staff working on weekends at major metropolitan hospitals, ensuring patients can be discharged seven days a week. It is illogical for patients who are well and ready to be discharged to stay in a hospital bed when they would likely rather be home and when that bed can be used by another person in need.

As indicated by the Treasurer in his budget speech and captured in the Budget Overview, and as I have spoken about many times in recent days, the state government is investing an additional $216.6 million into the child protection and family support system over five years. Total new investment into child protection and family support equates to $372 million since coming to government, an enormous commitment that absolutely speaks to our government prioritising the advancing of the reform that begins to tackle the difficult, complex and deeply interconnected issues that many children and their families confront.

It is not easy, but we are utterly committed to doing what we can to begin to make improvements in the child protection and family support system. This reform requires deep, ongoing, careful thought and a harnessing of the wisdom that comes through listening to children and young people themselves to families, carers, the sector and other experts, and that comes through aligning and mobilising whole-of-community, whole-of-government and whole-of-sector effort. We are determined that we genuinely bring to life that oft-repeated mantra that child protection is indeed everybody's business.

Our initiatives carefully focus on three areas: supporting children already in care, strengthening and supporting carers and effectively intervening to support and empower families. In recognition of the crucial role that foster and kinship carers play in the child protection and family support system, I am really pleased that our government has dedicated funding to increase carer payments from 1 July, assisting carers in meeting increasing cost-of-living pressures. This increase includes a 4.8 per cent increase to all carer payments and further increases for general foster and kinship carers through an additional $50 per fortnight for each child being cared for under the age of 16.

The aim of these increased payments, as I said, is to relieve stress and to better support carers in the incredibly important role that they undertake. Through this and through other commitments, we will continue to support carers and work to attract more people to this absolutely vital role. We will continue to deeply listen to carers through my ongoing forums, round tables, conversations with carers right across the state, and indeed through the establishment of our Carer Council.

Of the $216 million, $109.5 million is to provide additional resources to appropriately support the actual number of children and young people in residential care—an investment that finally responds to this need, an investment that builds on a similar and also significant investment in last year's budget. We are investing $107 million to help strengthen families and to keep them together when it is safe to do so. This dual investment speaks to our understanding as a government of the need to appropriately support the most vulnerable children already in care and to balance that with investment in programs that effectively intervene, when children and young people are at risk, in ways that give them the best opportunity to safely stay at home.

I am really proud that our government is continuing to deliver a range of other key initiatives, as well as committing to a series of new and improved supports which include investing an additional $35.7 million in intensive family support services, as announced in May, which will support an additional 250 vulnerable families. We are investing $13.4 million to expand resourcing for family group conferencing, particularly for Aboriginal families. This expansion of family group conferencing includes a focus on specifically supporting families during pregnancy, and once children are born, through an Aboriginal-specific program facilitated by Aboriginal Family Support Services.

We want to strengthen, include and empower extended families to come together to strengthen families and to enable individual family members to contribute in ways that help keep children safely at home. We need to recognise the strength and the love that exists in extended families and enable that strength and love to support children, young people, parts of the family when needed.

Family group conferences are led by families for families and provide an opportunity for family and community members to come together with the right support and resources to make decisions that enable children to be safe and to be strong at home. It includes opportunities for families to make decisions together, before children whom there are concerns about have been born.

The extended family plays a paramount, crucial role, particularly in Aboriginal families, and we intend for this expanded family group conferencing to recognise and harness these strengths. Family group conferences have been achieving really positive outcomes in keeping Aboriginal children with their families. We intend to build on this success, not just with family group conferences but with other family-focused services that are Aboriginal-led and that empower Aboriginal families to make the critical decisions about their children.

Within all these programs and all our work focused on the wellbeing of children, we must address the cycle of violence that can be within family units. I am really pleased to report that since the initiative commenced, 665 families have been referred and 338 conferences have been held to proactively manage child safety issues, with 60 per cent of these referrals and 57 per cent of conferences having been held with and for Aboriginal families.

Another crucial aspect of our investment includes $3.2 million to establish a peak body for Aboriginal children and young people, which is being established by SNAICC. The funding agreement for the peak body has been signed, and I expect the group to be formed later this year. This is such an important step in genuinely empowering Aboriginal people to make decisions about their children.

As I have spoken about before, we have provided $800,000 of new money to Grandcarers SA to enable them to advocate for grandcarers. We are increasing family reunification services to reunite families with children and young people who have been in care, with an additional $2.1 million over four years within this budget. Delivery of transitioning-from-care initiatives, including the Next Steps Pilot Service and Stability Post Care individual packages, have also received additional funding.

This state budget has also set aside $200 million over five years for a digital investment fund to drive strategic and targeted investment in digital initiatives across the South Australian public sector. This fund will, amongst several key initiatives, support the replacement of C3MS, which is the Department of Child Protection's Connected Client Case Management System. Our government knows that the current system is not meeting the needs of the department, as was recognised by the Nyland royal commission and, indeed, by Mal Hyde in his recent review, both of which recommended that issues with C3MS be addressed.

It was so incredibly disappointing on coming into government to see the utter lack of work undertaken on this by those opposite when in government. We have done the work, we have developed the business case and we have now made a clear commitment about funding. Each of these commitments made in our recent budget amplifies our desire to improve capacity in our systems, our workforce, to support families and carers.

At the core of each of these aims are, of course, the children we are supporting—helping to ensure they have the opportunity to grow up safe, loved, cared for and with the best opportunity to physically, mentally and emotionally thrive and succeed. Our additional capacity will assist in improving the support to children and young people and other necessary service responses. As allocated in the budget, $1.9 million over three years will also provide five additional FTE for the department's Redress Response Team.

Kinship carers also play a central role in the child protection and family support system to ensure children and young people in care grow up safe, happy, healthy and nurtured to reach their full potential. In recognition of the incredible efforts of kinship carers, I am really pleased to advise this house that the state budget also allocates $4 million over four years to build the capacity of DCP's Kinship Carer Assessment Team. This funding will support an additional seven FTEs, which will rightly accelerate kinship assessments and, as a result, increase the number of kinship carers available to provide care for children and young people in a family-based environment.

We are focused on recruitment to vacancies and will continue to explore innovative approaches to attract quality candidates for child protection and family support work. We are improving hiring outcomes and significantly improving the employee and candidate experience, and we have started significant work to develop our workforce plan for the future.

All of this additional funding and support is reflective of listening to carers, to workers, to our peak bodies and other stakeholders, to community expectations, to those with direct experience of the child protection and family support system, to other experts, and—so importantly—to children and to young people themselves.

It is right that these child protection and family support measures have children at their centre and a focus always on supporting and strengthening families and carers to provide the best chance for children to grow up safe and strong in family, community and culture. I again thank the Treasurer for his work in creating a budget that reflects our government's priorities and the priorities of our broader South Australian community.

Mr BATTY (Bragg) (17:49): I also rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill, and I do so for the first time in this house—speaking on an appropriation bill—since arriving here last year. I have to say as far as first experiences go this one has been pretty disappointing, although not all that surprising, because—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You shouldn't speak about your side like that, member for Bragg.

Mr BATTY: Well, in fact, Deputy Speaker, it is what we see from the other side that has disappointed me. We have seen very quickly a return to same old Labor. We have seen a government opposite that have blown their very own budget by more than $1 billion in this first full year of government.

It was only a couple of years ago that the now Treasurer was putting out media releases and going around saying and promising that he would keep the budget in surplus. It was only one year ago that the Treasurer was in this place pretending that he had kept that promise. He was promoting his apparent budget surplus that he was going to deliver for the last financial year. Well, how much has changed in a year? Very quickly the $233 million for this financial year that was projected by the Treasurer this time last year has suddenly turned into a $249 billion deficit. That is a half-a-billion-dollar turnaround in the course of the year, a half-a-billion-dollar budget blowout.

But, as we have heard from other members in this place, it is actually even worse than initially appears, because at the same time that we have seen that half-a-billion-dollar turnaround to the bottom line we have also seen a record intake in revenue, a record intake of state taxation and our GST intake. When you take that into account what we have in fact seen in the course of the year is a budget blowout of over $1 billion and, in doing so, the Malinauskas Labor government breaking their promise that they stood up before the election and gave, which was that they would keep budgets in surpluses.

Worse still, we have nearly nothing to show for these budget blowouts. There is no grand new vision or investment or projects. What we in fact see is this record revenue just squandered on run-of-the-mill budget overspends, run-of-the-mill financial mismanagement across nearly every single government department.

What I think we see is a government that are addicted to spending, that have no control over their own departments and that pay no regard to their very own budgets. I say this is particularly bad when it is happening in a context where there is then no consequence for this financial recklessness. Indeed to the extent that there has been a consequence, all these departments that have overspent have actually been rewarded by having their budgets increased for this year. The overspends have simply been baked in, so there has been no consequence and there is nothing to show for these budget blowouts.

I mentioned there have been no grand new projects or investments. The other thing there is not is any broad-based cost-of-living relief, which we could have seen this money spent on and, indeed, there is nothing, really, in this budget to deliver for hardworking South Australians who still face the highest rates of inflation in the entire nation and who still have to face electricity bills that are higher than anywhere else in the nation.

In fact, opposition analysis has shown that the typical family is $20,000 worse off under Labor, with higher rents, higher mortgages, higher energy bills and paying more for their groceries and everything else. There is nothing in this budget, this huge budget blowout, to help those hardworking South Australians.

It is bad for South Australia; unfortunately, this budget is also bad for my local electorate of Bragg. Once again there is really nothing in this budget for my constituents in the eastern suburbs, who are also doing it tough as they face cost-of-living pressures, and who also rely on government services and infrastructure that have been underinvested in in this budget—just as they were throughout the 16 years of previous Labor governments.

Looking very briefly at two agency portfolios, and seeing how there is not a lot in it for my constituents, the first is the infrastructure portfolio. My number one concern there is trying to get freight off our local roads in the eastern suburbs, including Portrush Road and Glen Osmond Road. Sadly, this budget will not do that. We know the problem very, very well: that there are 650,000 trucks that come down the South-Eastern Freeway every year, and most of them come out onto Portrush Road, over a thousand trucks a day on Portrush Road. It is a really big problem for congestion, it is a really big problem for health, and it is a really big problem for road safety—as we sadly see all too often.

What does this budget do? Pleasingly, in this budget we see some funding still set aside for the Truro freight route, which I see as an important first step of a Greater Adelaide Freight Bypass, although I am concerned, given the federal Labor government's 90-day infrastructure review, that projects like the Truro freight route might be in doubt as well. However, I must commend this budget for including that funding in there still.

However, that is about where the good news stops, because this budget mentions the Greater Adelaide Freight Bypass but only in the form of a planning study, a planning study that was meant to be released at the end of last year. We are now being told it will be delivered at the end of this year. We do not need to wait any longer for this planning study. What we need is funding, which this budget sadly does not deliver.

The other matter in the infrastructure portfolio that I want to touch on from a local perspective is road safety. For quite some time now I have been calling for improved road safety measures around Marryatville High School in my electorate following what was a really shocking accident that rocked my local community. Sadly, this budget does not deliver that: what it, in fact, does is delay the existing school crossing program that is working at improving infrastructure around schools to improve road safety. It delays it by a year, and that is very disappointing.

I was very pleased yesterday to hear, in this house, the Minister for Road Safety confirm that there will be some additional infrastructure going in at Marryatville in the form of early warning signs, advance warning signs. However, there is a lot more that needs to be done at Marryatville. Indeed, I want to see a safety audit at all schools in my electorate.

Finally, while we are on the topic of schools I want to make a comment about the education portfolio and, once again, the chronic underinvestment from Labor governments in schools in my electorate. I have some of the best schools in the entire state in Bragg, but they are victims of their own success because they are bursting at the seams. Linden Park, Burnside and Rose Park primary schools are all subject to capacity management plans, and they all face ever-increasing demands.

Meanwhile both high schools in my electorate, Glenunga International High and Marryatville High, are facing ever-increasing pressure and are going to be some 100 or so students over capacity by next year. There is nothing in this budget that might alleviate that pressure, ideas like a new school. Sadly, there is nothing that is even investing in those schools that are there and that are already struggling with insufficient infrastructure.

A school like Marryatville High, which is coming up on 2,000 students and 100 over capacity, still has one gymnasium with one court. It has only two change rooms, which require up to 275 students going through there before and after each lesson. Time and time again, we see the eastern suburbs schools overlooked, and this budget is no exception.

It is a budget that is same old Labor. It is a huge budget blowout, over $1 billion, which is bad for cost of living, bad for inflation and bad if you want to see responsible financial management here in South Australia. I am very disappointed that it does not deliver for South Australia, it does not deliver for the environment portfolio, and it does not deliver for my community.

Sitting suspended from 18:00 to 19:30.

Mr BELL (Mount Gambier) (19:31): I rise to make a brief contribution regarding the budget and Appropriation Bill. I would have to say that, over the journey of the last budget and this budget, Mount Gambier and particularly the Lower South-East have received considerable funding and considerable attention from the government. I really do acknowledge and appreciate that type of support because we are the state's second largest city and, quite honestly, one of the economic powerhouses of the state in terms of not only gross domestic product but also possibilities going forward.

With some support and attention, I am very confident that the entire Limestone Coast, but of course my patch, the seat of Mount Gambier, will contribute to this wonderful state and contribute to prosperity, to jobs and, of course, to a better future for all South Australians. That is a thing to keep in mind, that if everybody and every region does their part the state as a whole will grow and prosper. I certainly see our region batting above its weight, but with support it can certainly be doing a hell of a lot more.

There are a couple of topics that I will talk about tonight. If I break them down, they include hydrogen and the opportunities for hydrogen in the Lower South-East; midwifery and nursing, and attraction and retention of that vital industry and skill; tourism opportunities, particularly around the Gather Round; a Telstra proposal, which I think is very exciting and something for which a modest input from a state government will give complete coverage; medical cannabis, and people have heard me talk about this for a long time; palliative care, which I spoke about today, so I will not go into great detail about that; some initiatives around roads and infrastructure; and the Patient Assisted Transport Scheme. When I first got into government—actually, I was campaigning in 2013, which seems like a lifetime ago—we were able to negotiate with both sides of parliament, making a significant contribution to patient assisted transport.

If I start with hydrogen, some work has been done by Iris Engineering. This is in collaboration with my good friend and political neighbour of MacKillop Nick McBride. He has a copy of this report that shows that the seat of Mount Gambier and the seat of MacKillop are ideally located to further hydrogen production and also the research and development of that. I sometimes look with envy at some of the technical colleges being built in the CBD and regions here, because the defence industry is a natural employer.

I heard the Premier today talk about pathways for kids into that industry, and I am sure the technical college based in the education precinct located in Mount Gambier will play into that, and we need to make sure it does because the number of jobs that are being talked about are actually mind-boggling when you sit down and think about it. It is not in the tens, it is not in the hundreds—it is in the thousands.

I was a schoolteacher for a long time, probably over 20 years. I may not have taught that number of kids, but if you start adding up you think that this is a very significant development for our state and obviously brilliant for our kids coming through and also those who are going to repurpose and retool to enjoy that pathway going forward.

Iris have put together a document that both the member for MacKillop and I have and I will be talking to the Treasurer as soon as he gets through estimates and can focus on our region versus perhaps the tricky questions coming and the broader aspects.

What really struck me about this proposal were the competitive advantages that the South-East possesses, and I will read them out. I will not go into the business case per se, but water availability is number one. Limestone Coast water run-off has been identified as vast in quantity and outstanding in quality in terms of its purity, being fresh water pretty much running out to the sea and being collected. If you are in the South-East at this time of year, you will see more water than you think is possible.

The Wattle Range region has excellent wind resources, with existing wind farms already in establishment. Most of the sites are only about two-thirds to two-fifths capacity (i.e. it has been scoped already for additional wind turbines). While the need is not there yet, they have the approvals and the capability to increase the number of wind turbines considerably, particularly in the Wattle Range area. In terms of solar and wind opportunities, the potential, as I said, is great. Approvals have already been done and they have obviously been built.

In terms of offtake agreements, we have Kimberly-Clark. During the pandemic, who would have thought that the most prized possession in your pantry would have been a roll of toilet paper, but that is what we produce in the seat of MacKillop in the South-East. We also have our coal, which is an aluminium smelter that will take every bit of green energy that we will be able to produce. How good would it be to be producing green hydrogen and then exporting it over the border to Victoria for use.

What I am really impressed with is the establishment of a world-class educational hub and this comes back to the education precinct that I was talking about. The University of South Australia has an existing facility and programs in Mount Gambier, in addition to the considerable investment that the state government is making into our education precinct. This can be expanded to develop further research opportunities within the university to make sure that the hydrogen journey we are on continues to expand beyond the building of one site.

I do want to put on the record that I really wish Whyalla all the best. I hope that that project gets off the ground. I am talking about a subsequent project after Whyalla or at the same time—it does not really matter. I fully support the Whyalla proposal. It is a great region and certainly a part of the state I have spent a lot of time in.

Of course, its location in the South-East is strategically important, being located between Adelaide and Victoria, in becoming a hub for education, hydrogen development, distribution and power supplies. I think hydrogen has a very bright future. I would like to see it expanded into the South-East and I think we can play a part in exporting green hydrogen over the border into Alcoa.

In terms of midwifery and university courses, I need to put on the record that my daughter is doing the midwifery course so when I talk about subsidies for midwives and nurses having to do their placement in Adelaide it will not necessarily affect us, but I have firsthand experience on the difficulty. In fact, I will be honest: I think the course needs to be seriously looked at by the government because it almost seems to do everything it can to disincentivise regional nurses and regional midwives from doing their course in a regional area and this is of great concern to me.

I think one of the reasons that some students in regional areas are not completing their courses is not because of their skill level, it is because of the university making it so difficult that it borders on the absurd. That is something that we should take very seriously in here. When I talk about subsidies, it is not for my daughter or anything like that. We have a rental unit in Adelaide, so she would not be part of that. But the number of people in her course who have dropped out because of the onerous and restrictive conditions that are put on them is something that we seriously need to address.

I want to talk about a couple of people who are in her course and their experiences. They sent my daughter emails and texts because they knew that I was talking about this tonight, and it is quite unbelievable. I will talk about Sophie. Sophie has been required to travel to Adelaide three times already this year. She has six children in Kangaroo Island and cannot get suitable accommodation to do her midwifery placement here in Adelaide. She has also had to add an extra year to her studies, since Kangaroo Island would not take her placement, and she was only given three weeks' notice of needing to do that placement in Adelaide.

Here you have a person who has children and is given three weeks' notice: 'You need to be in Adelaide and you need to do your placement here; otherwise, you need to tack another year onto your course.' That type of stuff is ridiculous. Another student, Georgie, is also required to add an extra year onto her studies because she was going to be required to fly over to Adelaide—this student comes from Port Lincoln—and she needed to fly, get accommodation and do a 30-minute face-to-face assessment that the university claimed could not be done over Zoom. Obviously she could not do that, so she has added another year onto her course because of it.

That is four weeks of uni placement in Adelaide during the first year, over seven hours from home, with no subsidies and no help. Sometimes we think of students as being 19 or 20, but in actual fact many of the students in the same course that my daughter is doing—and my daughter is 20 but she lives at home—are in their 30s, or their late 20s, and have to drop everything at a minute's notice. It seems the assistance from the university is minimal—and I am trying to be kind—bordering on the fact of not caring that they are adding extra time.

Another student in my daughter's class has a six week old at home and is on placement next week. This placement is, of course, in Adelaide. Her shift ends at 9.30 at night and starts at 7 o'clock in the morning. Her partner now has to take care of the child—again, this person is in Port Lincoln—and my daughter says this is the situation that a lot of mums are facing doing the course.

We have some pretty vigorous debates in our house and I welcome them. I often lose, so I am obviously not the greatest politician going around. One of the debates that we do have, and my daughter did the research on this, was that for a lot of male-dominated degrees you are not required to attend this type of placement, or if you are, you get paid, it is part of your apprenticeship, or the course does not require that level of placement outside of where you are doing the course.

It really got me thinking about the divide between male and female-dominated courses, and I suppose midwifery is one of those, versus let's say a carpenter who is doing a four-year apprenticeship on site, where most of it is on site, and when they are required to travel to Adelaide they are paid, there are subsidies often applied and they can do that as part of their normal course.

The placements are really hurting these courses, particularly female-orientated courses, and no surprise, a lot of them are in Mount Gambier. I wish there were more males doing primary school teaching, but they are required to do placements unpaid; social work, placements unpaid; midwifery and nursing, placements unpaid. If you are not a 20 year old living at home with mum and dad picking up all the bills and you are trying to upskill yourself and better your life, as a female you are incredibly disadvantaged by the requirements of these courses and the unpaid placement.

It is bad enough if you have to do the unpaid placement in your home town but you put on top of that country students, and when I say students let's say 30 year olds, who have to travel to Adelaide, get accommodation, do unpaid placements for up to 10 weeks, particularly for teaching and social work, you can see how disadvantaged our young people are and it is something that I think needs to be addressed.

As a state that wants to attract more people to the health sector, there has to be support for regional students doing placements in Adelaide in particular. I give my daughter credit. She has raised a number of times the unfairness of female-dominated industries, if I can say that, versus male-dominated industries and the different criteria and the different supports that are available for them.

In terms of Telstra, we have an amazing opportunity. I have already spoken to the Treasurer briefly about this. Basically, for $5.5 million from the state government we could see complete mobile coverage in the Limestone Coast region. It is a proposal that has been put to us: $5.5 million from the state government, and around $11 million from the federal government, and Telstra will do that lobbying and that work. The rest, about $28 million in total cost, will be made up by Telstra and there will be a 5 per cent contribution from the local councils.

To be able to pull this off and say that in my time at parliament, and I am sure the member for MacKillop's time in parliament, we were able to get full coverage for the entire Limestone Coast would be an amazing achievement. Really, for $5.5 million from a state government point of view—which is not needed in 12 months' time, it is over a two-year period—it would be an amazing outcome for this state government as well.

Tourism I see as an amazing opportunity. We will not get an AFL game during Gather Round. We accept that, but how we attract the most Victorians to come through the Limestone Coast on their way to Adelaide for the Gather Round is really a tourism opportunity. I think we need to put on a major event like a Tasting Australia around that time of year, which gives people from Victoria a reason not to go the short way between Melbourne and Adelaide but to go the long way, through Mount Gambier, up through the Coonawarra or through Robe on the journey into Adelaide for the Gather Round. These are things I will be talking a lot more about.

Medical cannabis I have spoken a lot about. I spoke about palliative care today. In regard to roads and infrastructure, the minister already knows what my thoughts are around having a depot privately funded in Naracoorte versus locals looking after local roads. That is a theme they are going to hear a lot more about.

Mr TELFER (Flinders) (19:49): I rise to speak on this very important Appropriation Bill in reaction to the budget that was delivered a couple of weeks ago. Over the last couple of weeks we have been able to unpack some of the detail within those papers which perhaps may have been missed in the major announcements, but it certainly is important to the community of South Australia and especially to regional South Australia.

It is an interesting budget to start to unpack and to realise the deficit and debt that goes with it, and it is worrying. Speaking as someone who runs a business, who is aware of the challenges of running a business at the moment, to see government going into the level of deficit and debt at the moment which we see is concerning. We know that there are going to be challenging times ahead financially, not just here in South Australia but across the country.

Looking at last year's budget and the numbers that have flowed out of that, the numbers show an overrun of $700 million within the health budget, an overrun of $370 million within the education budget, an overrun of $54 million in the environment budget and an overrun of $66 million within DPC, which really is worrying for that year. Also worrying for me as someone who is dissecting those numbers is to see how those overruns have actually been baked into the operational budget for those departments going forward. It is something which we have seen across the vast majority of government departments.

Twelve months ago we were hearing that there were savings that were going to be made, there were going to be challenges put down to CEOs and departments for them to tighten their belts to make sure they are being responsive to the needs of South Australians, but actually what has happened is we have seen budgets blow out, we have seen spending go over and above what has been budgeted and, as I said, for the vast majority of departments, those blowouts have then been factored into the ongoing budget.

Worrying for me, and it is probably increasingly worrying for South Australians, is to see where the levels of debt are getting to for us as a state and to see within the forward estimates that it is going to surpass the $37 billion mark. We throw these numbers around in this place, but to actually get your head around the fact that we are likely to be looking at a daily interest payment of near on $2 million that is going out just on interest on the debt that has been incurred.

What can you do with that $2 million every single day? You could do some pretty incredible things. This is the level we are getting to as a state and, for me, alarm bells are ringing. As someone who knows that you have to be aware of your spending and live within your means, especially as a business, you look at government running in this way and you certainly have concerns about those deficit and debt levels. Only time will tell if those presumptions are accurate or it is going to be even more than that, which we have seen already in the comparisons with last year's budget and what was actually delivered.

As someone who is a representative of regional South Australia—a significant portion of regional South Australia—it is always of interest to me to delve into the budget papers to unpack what has been invested into the parts of the state which, as we have already heard in the other contributions, contribute somewhere between $20 billion and over $30 billion annually into our state's economy. Those numbers should never be underestimated. Especially when you have seasons on the land in agriculture and horticulture like last year, where production was incredibly high, the impact economically was really positive for our state. Our regions really are the economic powerhouse comparatively for the populations that are there. We need to be making sure as decision-makers that we are actually investing back into those regional areas which are putting that economic activity within the budget, within the state's economy.

As has already been mentioned, and the leader did it, it is certainly not my spot in opposition to be negative about every aspect of the budget. I have been going through and trying to pick out aspects I am optimistic, excited or even positive about, because there are aspects I think could be really positive for regional South Australia in particular if they are done well.

I will highlight the $10.2 million over four years to establish the Regional Skills Development Fund that will ensure that TAFE SA can offer more courses in rural and regional South Australia. I hope that that investment within regional skills development is actually conscious of the skills that are needed within our regions. It is no good putting those funds into areas that do not have the job opportunities.

We know there is already a massive skills gap in regional South Australia in areas like child care and aged care. I hope this is where that some $2½ million a year might be targeted—it might be targeted towards the areas where the need is now, where the jobs for now and for the future are within regional South Australia. As people who represent regional South Australia and live in regional South Australia, we know that if you train someone up from regional South Australia with the skills that are needed they are more likely than ever to actually be working within those regional areas.

I have noticed $10 million over four years within the budget to undertake additional regional road safety infrastructure upgrades, including audio tactile line marking, safety barriers, and Rural Junction Activated Warning System signage. At first glance, you may think that is a good thing—and I am sure it is—but $2½ million a year for all of regional South Australia? To undertake additional regional road safety infrastructure upgrades, $2½ million is not going to go too far.

It is going to be really interesting to see how these funds are spent, because we know the challenges that are being faced at the moment with the road toll here in South Australia. The numbers are higher than we should be accepting. They are scarily high, especially within regional areas. We need to be making sure we are investing in the areas that are going to be best bang for buck. Two and a half million dollars a year? I hope there will be some work done; I am pessimistic about how much.

I am curious to see the $3½ million over five years for a dedicated regional housing office within Renewal SA to work with local governments, economic development agencies and employers to address housing shortages in the region. I think that $700,000 a year for this regional housing office is a step in the right direction; I will give the government that, and I have had that conversation with the minister. I think it is a positive move, but it is only going to be positive if they actually develop policy and strategy and cut the bureaucratic red tape that is within the system, to actually deliver positive outcomes for regional South Australia with housing.

If all it is going to be is just another arm of Renewal SA that continues to toe the bureaucratic line, I think it is going to be unproductive and really miss the opportunity that we have to get housing right within regional South Australia. I will be watching closely, and hopefully the Renewal SA regional housing arm will be able to work with those local communities and local councils to actually target those policies and get that investment opportunity enabled within regional South Australia.

The $3 billion backlog in roads and infrastructure has already been mentioned. For me, in Flinders, I have been hopeful that the money that has been budgeted will actually make a difference within our regional road network but, like the vast majority of people within my electorate, I have been frustrated with how poorly managed the projects have been where there actually has been funding allocated. We have seen disruption, we have seen delay, we have seen poorly delivered projects, we have seen projects that have had to have a third/fourth/fifth time back over of repairs that should have been done right the first time. This is why regional South Australia gets so frustrated: there is not enough money invested, and the money that is invested does not actually hit the mark for the needs of the community.

In the electorate of Flinders, I have been hopeful that the federal government announcement around the junction upgrades within Port Lincoln of Porter Street and Liverpool Street will be able to be delivered. I am also hopeful that the government continues to look at really sound investment in the areas of our road network that really serve the most productive parts of our state. I will highlight the work that has been done previously on the Tod Highway and the Lincoln Highway as really smart investment into productive infrastructure.

I will also then highlight the Flinders Highway up the West Coast, the area south of Elliston and the area between Ceduna and Streaky Bay as major aerial state highways which, if you were to drive down as a visitor, you would think you are in some of the backblocks of our state because of the dangerous situations that you will face. The lack of a shoulder within that road, the drop-off, the interactions that have been had between heavy vehicles, caravans and visitors really do lead to some dangerous situations.

I cover many tens of thousands of kilometres on the road as the member for Flinders. I see these roads every single day and I continue to be amazed that there are not actually more accidents and incidents on our roads because we have some situations which could develop very easily and could have some terrible, tragic outcomes. The government needs to be looking at sound investment in productive infrastructure, because without that our state will be hamstrung. Our state will actually continue to be behind the eight ball. In supporting the existing industries that we have within our state that give so much economic activity also involves enabling infrastructure for new potential industries.

For my electorate in Flinders, the opportunities for economic activity are incredible. I look around every little corner of my electorate and see that there are infrastructure projects, energy projects, mining projects and primary industry projects, which if the accompanying infrastructure is invested in by state government the economic bonus for us as a state is going to be incredible.

Not a single day passes without someone within my electorate highlighting the challenges that we face with regional health. Regional health has so many different aspects. Front of mind for my communities is obviously the delivery of basic general practice health care for our communities; to have those basic surfaces, GP services, and ensuring that there are appropriate levels of nursing within our hospitals. For me, there are some 11 hospitals and health services within my electorate—there are not too many members of this place who can point to that level, and they are spread out.

I understand the challenges of delivering regional health, but I have not seen enough proactive smart investment and policy from the government within this budget. It is investment into infrastructure which needs to be continuing; that infrastructure which provides the highest level of service for people within my community and across regional South Australia so that they do not feel isolated, so they do not feel vulnerable as patients within these services.

This is one of the core basic foundations that we need to get right within our state. If we do not have health care right within our regional areas, that economic opportunity I talk about is going to be missed. People are not going to be living in our regional areas if there is uncertainty about their health care. I also encourage the government to be proactive in looking at the expansion of the Patient Assistance Transport Scheme (PATS) for those of us who live a long way from the city. We know we have vulnerable members of the community who rely on PATS to give them the funds to be able to travel to specialist care.

These are the sorts of things the government should be looking at—the structure, the expansion—because if the base services cannot be delivered within regional areas you at least have to support people appropriately to be able to get to those services within the metropolitan area. I would strongly urge the government to make sure that they are continuing to look at the PAT Scheme and its future opportunities for what the needs of our communities are going to be.

I was optimistic to see within the budget the $20 million over four years—the $5 million a year—of investment into regional jetties. It is something which I continue to talk about in this place, because for me the closest jetty is the Tumby Bay jetty, but it is only one of 18 jetties across my electorate. Once again, the number is astronomical and I cannot go to any one of those communities and say, 'Well, you know what, there's another jetty 70 kilometres up the road, so you don't need your jetty.'

These are the central pieces of infrastructure for our coastal communities that communities are built around, for not just tourism and visitors but also for the locals to experience a unique marine environment and to be able to know that you are close to that wild side of nature which we have on Eyre Peninsula. I am optimistic about the $5 million a year, but it is only—no pun intended—a drop in the ocean for the need of what is facing us as a state with over 60 jetties dotted around the coastline of our state. That need is ever expanding. I am disappointed when I hear the minister take political jabs at me when I am asking questions about it, saying that councils should be investing more.

Local communities and their councils have been putting hundreds of thousands of dollars into their jetties over decades. I compare it to someone who is renting a house: when you are renting a house, like the councils leasing the state-owned jetties, you do the upkeep. You keep things clean. You do well to make sure that it is presentable. But when there is something structural that needs to be done, when you need to replace a roof or fix up a wall, the owner of the property takes on that expense. It is exactly the same with the jetties of the state government.

The state government own these jetties. They lease them to councils for their ongoing upkeep, but when there is major investment that needs to happen into their capital renewal that is a responsibility of the state government. As I said, I am optimistic, hopeful, but not blind to the incredible burden that there might be on communities if there is an expectation that they are going to have to carry the load for our regional jetties.

Our cost of living is a challenge we are facing across the whole state, and regional South Australia is certainly at the pointy end of that. We know that the cost of fuel, the cost of getting products to remote regional communities, is even higher than for our metro cousins, meaning that there is an ongoing burden on some of the services that are being provided to people as they start to realise that financially they are struggling and they need some help.

I would like to highlight the plight of Community House. For over two decades, Community House have been providing services to those at risk, vulnerable people, within the community of Port Lincoln. They have been doing it for over two decades out of an SA Housing premises. Services that are provided are vast and incredible, really, for the amount of funding that they get. They are in a situation now. They are facing a more than doubling of their lease from SA Housing to try to continue to operate out of that premises.

They are also facing the chance that, if they do not pay that higher lease, SA Housing may move to move them out of that premises. They have been there more than two decades. They provide services in Port Lincoln to the most vulnerable within that community, and the need is growing. They are seeing more and more people every day. We are in a situation where they need a collaborative solution from DHS and from SA Housing to make sure that we do not lose that valuable service in Port Lincoln.

I have had conversations with the minister, who to her credit is trying to work through this process. We need to have a solution so that those people within my community who are most vulnerable have some certainty about the future. I hope there can be some negotiation to sell that premises to Community House, who are willing to pay a price that is fair for something that I hope will continue to serve my community for, once again, decades to come. I hope the government can show some compassion and some understanding so that such an important community service that is delivered by Community House continues to be able to be delivered to the people of Port Lincoln.

I only have a minute to go. I probably have another half an hour of words that I could speak about my community and about the investment the government needs to be continuing to make. I have not touched on education, I have not touched enough on housing and I have not touched on the challenges that we are facing with regional policing.

These are all things that I hope we will be able to unpack within the estimates process so we as decision-makers can have an understanding of where the government's direction is, challenge them on areas where we see the need is not being appropriately met and really get them thinking as a government, as decision-makers, as a bunch of ministers who are responsible for the budget and for their departments so that they are actually responsive to what the community needs are not just here in metropolitan Adelaide but all across regional South Australia.

Ms HOOD (Adelaide) (20:09): I rise to make a contribution to the Appropriation Bill. As a former journalist who covered state budgets, and also having worked for the former Treasurer in this place, Tom Koutsantonis, delivering around four or five budgets, budget day is always somewhat a bit like Christmas Day for me. I love seeing how we are putting money towards the priorities for South Australians and for people in my local community.

I think this budget was really defined by health, housing and cost of living. I want to talk about the housing policies and the impact that will have on, in particular, young people in my local area. We are abolishing stamp duty on brand-new homes for first-home buyers; we are delivering 1,140 more public homes; we are undertaking the single largest land release, with 25,000 new blocks in Adelaide's north and south; and we are also providing more affordable homes for sale and rent in the city at the old Franklin bus depot, which we are transforming into a 392-apartment community.

On stamp duty, I benefited from policies like this. I bought my very first home in the city when we had a policy for abolishing stamp duty on new apartments in the CBD, and combined with the First Home Owner Grant this was really the only way that I would ever have potentially got into the housing market. It got me a foot in the door and set me on a path to achieve something that perhaps growing up in a country town I never thought I would be able to achieve, which is owning a home in the middle of Adelaide, in the middle of our capital city, so I am forever grateful for that opportunity.

When this budget announced that we were abolishing stamp duty for eligible first-home buyers on brand-new homes, or if they would like to build a home, that is an absolute game changer for people in South Australia, particularly young people looking to get into the housing market. Specifically, it abolishes stamp duty for homes valued up to $650,000 and then the relief progressively phases out for properties valued up to $700,000.

Combined with the $15,000 First Home Owner Grant—I cannot help it, but sometimes I want to call it the FHOG, because that is what I used to call it when I worked in Treasury—eligible first-home buyers will be able to have relief of up to $44,580. That is massive and it means that so many more South Australians, in particular young South Australians, will be able to achieve their dream of home ownership.

We are also undertaking a massive investment in public housing. It is a generational investment, an extra 1,140 more public homes. We are doing that by stopping the sale of 580 homes that would have occurred under the former Liberal government. We are building an extra 564 new public homes. I understand that this is one of the most significant increases in public housing that we have seen in the last few decades. There may have only been perhaps one occasion when we saw a slight uptake in public housing, so this is an amazing opportunity to provide people with a stable and secure home, a roof over their head, which we know makes such a difference.

We are also undertaking a massive land release, as I was saying before, of 25,000 blocks in Adelaide's northern and southern suburbs. For those first-home buyers looking to build their first home this residential land release will give them an amazing opportunity to purchase a block and use the policies around abolishing stamp duty, along with the First Home Owner Grant, to build their very first home, to have a backyard, to have a lawn, to perhaps have a couple of kids—I highly recommend getting a trampoline early so that you get your money's worth—and again realise that amazing dream of home ownership.

There is one particular project I am really excited about in terms of affordable housing, which is in the CBD, and that is the old Franklin Street bus depot. I was able to go along with the Premier; the Minister for Planning, Nick Champion; the Lord Mayor of the City of Adelaide, Jane Lomax-Smith, who is really passionate about creating more affordable housing in the city; and the Property Council's CE, Bruce Djite, to announce this exciting new housing project right in the heart of the CBD. We will transform the old bus depot into a 392-dwelling apartment complex, which is part of our plan to make sure that we are delivering affordable homes for sale and for rent in the heart of our capital city.

It is an exciting announcement because it will provide much-needed affordable housing in the form of studios and one-bedroom and two-bedroom apartments, and they are right across the road from the Central Market. As I mentioned before, I was able to buy my first home in the CBD, and it was just a stone's throw from the Adelaide Central Market. It was like my living room. I had my two babies there, and that was their very first home. The first place we ventured out to after I gave birth, when each baby was about four or five days old, was the Adelaide Central Market—it is a site of many happy memories for people who live in the CBD. Having this major housing development right near the Central Market makes living in the city just so much more amazing when you get to be living right next door to an absolute icon.

In terms of the budget, we are looking at the biggest cost-of-living relief package in our state's history. We are providing rebates of up to $500 on electricity bills for eligible households, or up to $650 for eligible small businesses. We have $100 off the materials and services charge for public schools. For those who do not have kids in a public school, it is basically the fee that we pay, as parents, at the start of the year for things like books, stationery and pens and pencils and things like that. As a mum of two—my daughter goes to a public primary school—I know that this is a real help for so many families in my local community.

We are increasing the investment in concessions by $44 million to really help the most vulnerable in our community. We are also extending the School Breakfast Program to provide an extra one million breakfasts. That is huge because, when you think about it, if a little kid comes to school on an empty tummy it makes it so much more difficult for that little person to concentrate throughout the day. They need the fuel to learn, and that is what is so important about the School Breakfast Program. It is an investment that I am really proud that our government is delivering on.

This budget, as I said, is about housing and about cost of living and also about health. One of the biggest projects in my community, something that I was really proud to campaign on, is a bigger and better new Women's and Children's Hospital. We are going to be delivering a hospital that will provide an extra 56 overnight beds, a larger emergency department and clinical care services all on the one floor, which is absolutely crucial.

Good governments listen to feedback and make the tough decisions for the long-term interests of our state. Bad governments do not, they take the easy way out, and that is what was going to occur under the former Liberal government. We were going to have a hospital that just was not big enough, that we were basically going to outgrow before we even set foot in the new hospital that they were going to build.

I do not know if you have ever seen Zoolander, but you might remember a scene in which Zoolander says, 'Is this a centre for ants?' Basically, that was pretty much what was going to happen under the former government. They were going to build a hospital that just would not have fit everyone. We are a good government that makes the tough decisions for the long-term interests of our state, and we are building a bigger and better brand-new Women's and Children's Hospital.

We also have to think about the current hospital. During the election campaign, I would stand out the front of the current women's and kids' hospital with Professor John Svigos and Professor Warren Jones of the Women's and Children's Hospital Alliance. We would hold petitions and we would collect signatures, calling for more investment in the current hospital.

I know I became a mum at that very hospital just over seven years ago. I have spent many hours in the crowded emergency department, and I can see just how incredibly hard our healthcare workers do work. I am very proud that our government is making a $20.1 million investment to upgrade the Paediatric Intensive Care Unit at the Women's and Children's Hospital which will go a long way to looking after our most vulnerable and sick kids at the women's and kids'.

The best preventative health policy when we talk about health is making sure we can keep people fit, active, healthy and also connected. There is something about physical health and also mental health that also needs to be kept healthy. One of the best ways we can do that is by making sure people feel part of the community, that they get up every day and have a place to go where people know their name and where they have social connections, as well as a place where they can stay active. That is why I am incredibly proud to be delivering a brand-new Adelaide Aquatic Centre. You will see that this year's state budget makes allowances for the brand-new centre.

The difference between this side and the other side is that we did have a funded plan. We went to the election knowing that we were able to deliver a fully funded, brand-new Adelaide Aquatic Centre. There was a really important point around that, around the state government taking on this project. It had become somewhat of a political football over years and years between the city councillors of the time, and we realised that this is actually a centre that does not just service the Adelaide City Council ratepayers; it is a real regional facility for the inner north, west and east of Adelaide.

It was actually quite unfair, when you looked at the participation rates of the centre, the demographic, because only 11 per cent of Adelaide City Council ratepayers used the Adelaide Aquatic Centre, yet they were being asked to shoulder the burden of the operational costs, the ongoing maintenance and any future capital costs of building a new centre. We really took that on board in developing our policy for the Adelaide Aquatic Centre.

Those on the opposite side, the former Liberal government, did not listen. They did not understand that challenge and presented a plan that was not actually even funded. They thought they could throw a few million at the problem and say that Adelaide City Council ratepayers could pick up the tab. In fact, the former Treasurer at the time said, 'Well, if the federal Coalition government isn't going to stump up the cash, then Adelaide City Council ratepayers can.'

I listened to our local community. I looked at the numbers and I looked at the fact that only 11 per cent of users actually came from the Adelaide City Council area, and I acknowledged that this was very much an inner metropolitan regional facility. So we delivered a policy to deliver a brand-new centre that was going to be owned by South Australians for all South Australians, and we have undertaken significant consultation on developing this brand-new facility.

On the weekend, last Thursday night and on Saturday afternoon, with the department I held a couple of consultation sessions with the community. It was great to see people come along and view the new designs because what we are delivering is more facilities, more Parklands back to the local community, and indoor and outdoor pools, and I think that is really going to be a game changer for the area. I grew up on a farm; I am not much of a beach person and I do not know how to surf. I very much prefer a nice clean pool and no sand, so I know that in the summer we are just going to have our area completely changed. You are going to have families there, you will be able to bring picnic rugs and you will be able to play in the outdoor swimming pools. It is just going to be absolutely fantastic.

The difference between us and the former Liberal government is that we actually listened. Good governments listen and then they deliver for the long term. We could make the easy political decisions for the two or three years that are left but, no, we make decisions that are in the best long-term interests of the community—and that is what we are delivering with this new centre. We are getting back more facilities, we are getting back more Parklands, indoor and outdoor pools, a dedicated swim school and a dedicated warm water rehabilitation pool, and we are expanding the number of lanes in the indoor lane lap swimming pool as well, catering for Water Polo SA and for deep water aquarobics. There really is something for everyone at this new centre.

Like I said, it is really important, as well, that we are actually delivering an extra 1,000 square metres of Parklands as part of this project, which is something that I am really passionate about in my community. I know that we have received some really positive feedback about that particular element of this project.

I come back to the fact that this is a centre that is very unique, in that you do not get many community hubs where you literally have people from little tiny babies through to seniors all coming together in one facility. People from all ages, all walks life are coming together to stay fit, to stay healthy, to stay active, to stay connected to their communities and, importantly as well, to learn to swim.

Growing up in Naracoorte, I was lucky enough to have the Naracoorte Swimming Lake, where I learnt to be a swimming instructor and also was a lifeguard. I like to joke that I was probably the palest lifeguard in the history of all lifeguards, but I grew up knowing how important it was to be safe around the water. It is amazing that this facility is going to teach a whole new generation of kids not only how to be safe around the water but also to have that love of swimming and the water and recreation and doing that in an amazing parkland setting. So we are really excited to be delivering this project.

We will continue consulting with the community, and I am looking forward to next week, I believe—heading along to one of the deep water aqua aerobics classes to check out the participants in action. Of course, we will also be there, as I am every week, with my kids for their swimming lesson. It is important that we have this significant lead-in time ahead of closing the pool in August 2024 so that we can work with all the participants, go out there, talk to the users and work out alternative solutions so that we can make sure that we are keeping people fit, active and connected during that transition phase. We are really excited to be delivering that project.

To circle back, this budget is a budget about housing, it is a budget about cost of living and it is a budget about health. We are delivering on all those outcomes, and I am very proud to be part of the Malinauskas Labor government.

Mr McBRIDE (MacKillop) (20:27): This is obviously my opportunity to speak to the Appropriation Bill and the budget that just was. It is a really perhaps interesting mixed bag for MacKillop, in the sense that there are some really good initiatives, which I am going to touch on first of all.

We were very, very fortunate to be looked after and represented in the education field in MacKillop, with the Meningie Area School receiving $9.7 million to finish the upgrade that was started probably way back in the Labor days but certainly rolled out during the Marshall years, between 2018 and 2022. It will consist of an administration-library build at the school. I think there is another building there as well, and two or three buildings to finish off that school build.

It is an important little area school. Meningie finds itself quite isolated but also belongs to the very important Indigenous and Aboriginal community of Narrung and obviously supports that community with education. Although there is a primary school out there, it is certainly the area high school for those students from Narrung.

We also were lucky enough to see another six or seven other schools receive further funding. These are upgrades and builds and maintenance works that have been long overdue, and it is really a pleasure to be able to recognise these schools. We have the Coomandook Area School, which I think is receiving at least $1.5 million or $1.6 million for a new science lab. The Coomandook Area School is obviously on the Dukes Highway, south of Tailem Bend and north of Coonalpyn and Tintinara.

Again, it finds itself perhaps in the middle of no-man's-land. There is not a real town there of any sort of substantial development. They used to have a store at Coomandook, but that has now closed. I do not know why the member for Hammond did not look after that store well enough to maintain its vibrancy. He certainly did not help or participate. I know the Mayor of Coorong District Council was also a regular attender of Coomandook store and was not able to keep it open either. Anyway, the area school is still going. It does have a valuable cohort of students and they do need a new science lab, so that is wonderful news for that school.

We also have the Newbery Park Primary School, which is having a roof replacement. This is a primary school in Millicent. There are two primary schools in Millicent. This is the south primary school. It is a big complex, obviously at the southern end of Millicent. I think there are about 300 students there. Obviously, there is a north primary school as well, with another 300. Millicent is a vibrant town of MacKillop, second biggest town, if not equal first with Naracoorte, with about 5,000 to 6,000 people, and it is good to see the Newbery Park Primary School recognised as well.

Another one that we looked at is Naracoorte High School. We have a music room. I know the music room they were using was an old wooden-cladded building stuck on stumps that started to rot away. The walls started subsiding, it became unsafe and they had to move out of this music room. There has been no real alternative room found for music, and it has been stuck in amongst other rooms, and it does not help students in other classrooms concentrate when you have a music room making all the noise and sounds that they can. Sometimes it is wonderful; sometimes it would be obviously in the learning infancy.

Naracoorte South Primary School is another one. We also have two primary schools in Naracoorte, north and south. The south one has already had bathrooms done up during the Marshall years. There is further bathroom refurbishment there for the Naracoorte South Primary School, which is wonderful to see. So bad were the toilets in the south primary school that the students were reluctant to go and use the toilet, so this is a wonderful addition and upgrade to that school.

The Tintinara Area School has a restumping, ceiling and cabinetry replacement. Tintinara is also an area school. Coonalpyn does not have a school at all. The next school south of Tintinara is Keith, so it finds itself again sort of in the middle of nowhere. There is a bit more of a town in Tintinara. They do have a supermarket and a great sporting club. It is sometimes a good highway stop for the Dukes Highway. It is a really sound area school, and I am sure that they will appreciate this. Not only that, but they are also getting a second round of funding, when the pool remediation is happening, to keep that school and the pool going as well.

Then there is Lameroo. It has a district kindergarten receiving upgrading to toilet facilities. We have been really recognised in the education area, and we are very much appreciative of these upgrades. I thank the minister for that and for thinking of us in MacKillop.

In the way of health, we were very fortunate in the last budget that the Labor government rolled out $8 million to the Naracoorte hospital. On top of that, in this budget they have added another $1 million to look at a review of the hospital and what the hospital actually requires over the long term. This will obviously consider the fact that this hospital had $3.6 million spent on it during the Marshall years, which upgraded a disinfectant room plus an emergency operation or recovery room to a sterilisation room. That was the $3.6 million.

The Malinauskas government has rolled out another $8 million. I know that the Naracoorte HAC (health advisory committee) has given an undertaking and a plan to the Minister for Health, or SA Health, and their wishes for the hospital, so it will be very interesting to see where this $8 million is going to be spent. I have yet to see and hear from them, but I know it is not far away. Then there is $1 million for this review.

I hope this review finds what it should. I hope it can look at everything about the hospital, for aged care, emergency operations, day surgery, overnight stays, beds and so forth, and whatever that upgrade should look like right across the whole piece of infrastructure, recognising that I believe at least 20 years ago that hospital was up for a major upgrade. It has been put back and back, until we have now recently seen some funds, and good funds, being spent on that hospital. I am sure the Naracoorte and surrounding communities will be looking forward to that.

Moving on, they now have an electronic medical records system and regional expansion of $31 million. It will be interesting to see how that works around the local health networks. I believe it will be mainly run out through the Mount Gambier system. Mount Gambier is a major medical hub for MacKillop. When Naracoorte and other small hospitals around the region cannot handle any small operations, they generally end up towards Mount Gambier, and if it is of a serious nature then everyone heads north towards Murray Bridge and Adelaide for their health requirements. I am hoping that the electronic medical records system actually does cover off the regions with this expansion, and that the medical records work better than they have in the past to look after patient confidentiality but also so that the records actually follow the patients.

It is interesting to see the Regional Skills Development Fund of $10 million across TAFE and the expansion, I imagine, mostly through Mount Gambier and the TAFE development down there. I know they have also seen funds go towards forestry, funds go towards skills. We know with the area of the Limestone Coast—working with the member for Mount Gambier in this area about TAFE, university, skills, and all that happens around and in Mount Gambier and up into MacKillop—that any sort of spending in skills will be welcomed by business, industry and investment.

One of the interesting ones—and, as we know, it is widespread across regional South Australia—is the SA jetties renewal program. It is $20 million over four years, which is obviously around $5 million per year. At least there are funds there, and it will be interesting to see where these funds end up. I know Kingston is one of, I think, four or five towns or jetties that are earmarked to be first out of the ranks for an upgrade. The Kingston jetty has been closed because of its state of disrepair, and it is certainly missed by tourists and locals who are not able to walk down that jetty. It is a real tourist drawcard, as has already been talked about by the member for Flinders when he spoke about the local towns on Eyre Peninsula, their jetties, and how they are pieces of iconic infrastructure for tourists and locals.

Further down we also see money—$26 million—towards additional aircraft for the state's firefighting capabilities. I am not sure where that will line up. I am led to believe that Mount Gambier and Naracoorte are going to benefit from this process. I think at least another two aeroplanes are to be stationed on the Limestone Coast for those horrific types of days. We do have those horrific types of fire events and the aircraft are part of the firefighting armour we have to protect life, assets and everything else that can be wiped out in one of those terrible fires. We welcome that expenditure on the CFS towards that aircraft, and it will be interesting to see those planes put to good use.

Something I will cover off further down, but that I want to also note here is the abolishing of stamp duty for first-home buyers. We welcome this process and the whole new idea in the sense of trying to get first-home buyers into new homes with the removal of that stamp duty, and obviously making it as easy as possible for first-home buyers. Most importantly, I would like to see those first-home buyers with those builds in regional South Australia. That is most imperative.

The Office for Regional Housing is a new office in the sense of a regional key worker scheme, and spending by the government to look at health workers, teachers, police officers and regional workers. It is an announcement by the Labor government that has been out for at least a few months. They rolled out their social housing and, in parallel, they rolled out their government housing policy at the same time.

We welcome this policy. We think it is a great policy for regions to have this government employee housing starting to be built out in the regions because I believe, through the minister responsible for regional growth and housing, Nick Champion, that it has not been done since the eighties. There have been a number of governments over that period that have shied away from it or thought it was not needed for the government to be in this housing area for their employees like teachers, nurses and police officers.

It is now more important than ever, and we welcome the integration from government being in this area of building this housing again. Obviously the government has been, let's say, given responsibility in taking the initiative of getting these houses built in regions, and I am all for getting as many houses as possible into the regions.

Slightly on the negative side—although at least there is some money there; we will always be wanting more, but this probably was not the budget to address this—we saw $10 million being rolled out for regional roads. We are not sure how that works and what it will fund, knowing that there is a $3 billion road backlog regionally. That is not just this government's fault; a number of governments obviously have not met this area to let it get to where it has. We will always want better roads, safer roads for regions, and particularly in the Limestone Coast and MacKillop.

The other one that is a little bit interesting is seeing that there is $3.2 million that is going to be rolled out over two years to support the sheep eID, the electronic identification scheme. I am not sure where this is going to land. I was very much in favour, and still will be, that the money goes towards infrastructure to monitor and manage the tag readers, but I am not sure whether it is a great use of government funds to spend money on tags for one or two years, perhaps putting a false sense of value on those tags when they are really going to cost producers $2 and they might be saving a dollar by having a 50 per cent reduction over one or two years.

Anyway, all I will say in regard to that sheep electronic identification scheme is that we really do want exemptions in this system for farmers who breed their lambs and sheep but never sell them and only go straight to slaughter. We wonder whether they really do need an electronic tag in their ear, and the old system may, should and could work for them.

As to the change in the Patient Assistance Transport Scheme, we have seen the Malinauskas government come out and double it from 16¢ to 32¢ a kilometre, which is one of the Marshall policies. It is great to see them pick up on this scheme. Now we also would like to see a little bit of an increase in the overnight stays from $40 to a more commensurate type of rate that would represent what it really does cost to be in Adelaide seeking health outcomes that the regions cannot provide.

I heard from the other speakers where they talked about this budget being for the cost of living. I am not sure how you get that sort of analogy in that area because it is a really, really tough one. We have massive inflation. We are going to find it hard to find employees. We have energy prices moving upwards. We have the cost of housing going up. We know that rentals are going up, and to change all that in any one budget, I think, would very much be a big ask of one budget ever to be able to do that. But what I will say is that this budget does recognise housing.

I do know that this Labor government is considering finding, and will find, a model for affordable housing, and that is the number one thing I would like to see rolled out in the regions. There has never been a bigger opportunity to capture population and growth and employment in the regions as it is today, and obviously we need to house these people.

One of the things that I really do think has been a failure—and we know that a little town like Bordertown has had a shortage of affordable housing since 2002—is that it is now across the board. There is a shortage of affordable housing right across regional South Australia, and then we even hear the member for Adelaide talk about the shortage of housing. She is getting a number of affordable housing builds in the City of Adelaide, and it is being addressed. All I can say is I am envious. I am envious because they are getting the 200 or 300 houses in Adelaide, and I want those houses also to be built out in the regions because I know we can use them, and I know we could get the population out there, and I know that jobs are out there.

In the sense of energy, we talked about the energy bill just yesterday. I just want this government to do all they can to address energy and electricity prices and getting them down as fast as they possibly can—yes, recognising carbon free; yes, recognising clean, green energy will be the way of the future—but please do not make it at the peril of a high costing system or a high cost of energy where people cannot afford to use it. I say 'people', be it households, and I am talking about businesses, and I am talking about families. We just need affordable energy as much as we need affordable housing.

We have already touched on the roads, but MacKillop is not foreign to the massive backlog. We have a number of roads that we would like to address. We do need a massive amount of expenditure. We need roads to be safe. We need roads to be actually able to get the trucks and the heavy freight out of MacKillop, out of the Limestone Coast to the markets, and we obviously want all road users to be able to use them in a safe fashion to get from A to B. That should be something that we always aspire to.

We have had a good rollout in the way of health, whether it is this Naracoorte hospital, but there is a lot more to do. We do like the fact that we want infrastructure, be it the Naracoorte hospital, but we know that the Kingston hospital needs money, we know that the Bordertown hospital needs money and funds, as do Millicent hospital and Penola hospital. They all need that little bit of upgrade all the time just keeping them apace with modern expectations. Services: we need more nurses, we need more doctors. We would like more palliative care, as we have already talked about.

As to education, yes, I talked about a magnificent rollout of education, and this government here again, the Minister for Education, rolled out a good amount of money toward the Kingston school and the early learning centre. Hopefully, we are going to build an early learning centre childcare facility right alongside the school, which was part of what the Marshall government was trying to achieve and the Malinauskas government has come along. Working with the local government as well, with the Kingston council, hopefully we get a really good build there. We would obviously like to see a lot more child care probably in regional South Australia.

I know there is child care in Bordertown, where I think there are 40 or 50 children there being looked after. I know that they could double that facility and just meet the expectations of the town, as we know that there are children who cannot get in to child care. That would not be foreign to many towns; they would all be wanting greater childcare access and early learning. We all know, too, that early learning is a great way of capturing students at a young age, stimulating the learning process, recognising schools are important. The end of school results by children who have been through early learning are marked way up in terms of outcomes for students when there are those options and opportunities for early learning.

In terms of regional growth, we want greater population, great employment, and cheaper and affordable energy. If we can do that and grow the regions, who is complaining? We just want to see MacKillop prosper. With regard to infrastructure in terms of SA Water, we know that Bordertown is getting very close to being at its maximum water use. We know that a pipeline between Keith and Bordertown could cost up to $43 million. We know that the aquifer that they are sucking water out of for Bordertown is becoming stressed and we may need to look at future options there.

Wellington East, a little development on the eastern side of the River Murray at Wellington, also is looking for better infrastructure for potable water. I heard the member from Mount Gambier talk about Telstra. Telstra is trying to address I think it is either 27 or 29 (but it is at least 20-odd) blackspots for the Limestone Coast with towers, working with the state government, federal government and local government. It would be good if we can make that model work, if we can capture local government. I know that it is a bit of a stretch asking local government to be part of a tower spend, because it is not part of what they call the three Rs—roads, rates and rubbish—and it is an extension of their responsibilities.

As the member for Mount Gambier highlighted, this might be the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to address this, get these towers out there, fill in the blackspots and recoup those funds. I have said this, and I am not sure if it is a bit mischievous, but there may be an opportunity that the rental of these towers goes back to local government until they have paid back the investment they made, but we have not got far in those conversations yet.

There is more to do and more money is required. I appreciate the spend that the Labor government have spent in MacKillop; we have some good infrastructure there. I accept the Appropriation Bill as it is and I support it.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA (Hartley) (20:47): This government had an opportunity to address the cost-of-living crisis, to address the inflation crisis, to address the cost-of-living increases that people are seeing each and every week. Some people out there in the community are struggling even just to pay their power bills. There was a golden opportunity from this government to do something about these issues that affect South Australians, but instead what they have done is squandered that opportunity in this state budget.

What we are seeing is an increase in debt towards the highest on record here in South Australia. We know that future generations here in South Australia are going to be burdened by this debt and we are all going to be paying for this debt for many, many decades to come. Again, we are seeing deficits into the hundreds of millions. They will continue for some time and that is very disappointing because, at the end of the day, this has to be repaid at some point.

We have seen the warped priorities of this government, despite coming in on an election promise to do things like fix ramping. What have we seen? We have seen ramping double. We have seen that this government has priorities in things like putting in water slides in North Adelaide, for example. You are seeing this exposed far and wide.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: And they can cackle and carry on as much as possible—

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Savvas): Order!

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: —but the truth hurts.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Savvas): Member for Elder!

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I will not respond to interjections because that would be disorderly, Acting Speaker.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Savvas): That is correct.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: You are doing an excellent job and I thank you for your protection at this late hour. Labor's budget delivers next to nothing for hardworking South Australians. This is a golden opportunity for this Labor government to actually do something to help the people of South Australia, people who are struggling with the cost of living, people who are struggling with the cost of power going up and with groceries going up—everything is going up at the moment, but this government has squandered the opportunity to do something about it.

We know that energy prices are the highest in the nation, inflation is running rampant and ramping remains at record levels. Cost blowouts are adding to that inflation and, of course, there is interest rate pain as well. We know that typical families are some $20,000 worse off since the election in 2022. We know that people in our state are facing this cost-of-living crisis, but unfortunately this budget does not do anything to help South Australians struggling with soaring rents, mortgages, groceries and also fuel, and we know that it is more expensive to keep your lights on at the moment.

Despite promising to deliver a budget surplus, and the need to get inflation under control, what have they delivered? I do not know why people are laughing; I do not think it is funny. Labor has blown their own budget by a shocking $1.1 billion. We have seen that most of the agencies have blown their own budgets, and I know from having been a minister that you have to hold these agencies to account and you have to have these hard discussions with them.

Instead, what do we see? We see zero fiscal discipline from this Labor government. This Labor government has reverted to form—more debt, more deficit, no way to control inflation, no way to get power prices down, and you are going to continue to see future generations paying for the fiscal mismanagement of this Labor government. South Australians already, of course, have the highest inflation in the country and Labor's massive budget blowouts will continue to fuel inflation.

If I can just talk on a local level and about my part of the world, Hartley, it is a great electorate and I would say the best electorate by far. There was a real opportunity for this government to do something about the increase in density that their friend, John Rau, put on the people, especially in Campbelltown, many years ago. We are seeing increased density in our electorate because it is a great place to be. People want to live there. It is close to the city. It has fantastic coffee and an array of wonderful amenities, and who could argue with that? But, of course, there is more density and more density means more traffic.

What we have not seen from this government is a direction or a policy format to actually address rising traffic in our area. There are intersections like St Bernards Road and Reid Avenue, and Moules Road/St Bernards Road/Arthur Street. These intersections actually require an upgraded road traffic management plan, yet we have seen nothing from this government in terms of addressing this increase in density and that is very disappointing. I will continue to lobby on behalf of my residents for an updated road traffic management plan and also traffic treatments that address these key intersections.

It is great to see that the Morialta Secondary College has been put online, and we look forward to seeing that continue to roll out to other year levels as well. However, it is disappointing that there really has not been much at all by way of cost-of-living relief, relief for growing the economy, delivering more jobs and doing more to attract local talent here to South Australia especially in what is a very tight job market.

There was the key election promise, the one that we are all too familiar with. What did Labor promise? They promised to fix the ramping crisis. Instead, alas, what have they done? We have seen the ramping crisis nearly double. Funny that, isn't it? Unfortunately it is not funny. Let's face it, people shifted their vote on the basis that they thought that this Labor government had this magic potion, this silver bullet, to fix the ramping crisis, but of course they did not, and they have taken the people of South Australia for a ride. But people will not forget. I have been around for long enough to know that people will not forget the broken promise from this government and they will punish this government when the time comes.

To talk a little bit about portfolio-related matters, there is road safety. We have seen, unfortunately, the worst road toll. We are heading for the worst road toll in 20 years here in South Australia. We also have a road maintenance backlog of around $3 billion, so of course we would welcome every iota, every cent of investment into this area to address this issue. We have seen $40 million for a Mount Barker roundabout upgrade. That is fantastic but what about the rest of the state? That was the disappointing thing to see. We have not seen enough invested around the rest of South Australia to address this issue.

There is $31 million for new speed cameras. Of course, speed cameras are there to deter bad driver behaviour, not to raise revenue, and we look forward to seeing them rolled out. If it saves lives, it will be worth it.

There is $10 million for regional road safety measures, including tactile lines and barriers. We know that empirical evidence tells us that these give a positive result, so we need to see them rolled out quick smart. For road safety campaigns, there is $6 million to improve Kangaroo Island roads, but what about the other roads? The Advertiser recently covered the $3 billion road maintenance backlog. When we came into government, obviously we chipped away and were getting that down, but, alas, what do we see? We have seen it skyrocket under this government.

The north-south corridor is the single largest infrastructure project of our generation. Unfortunately, what do we see? There is more delay from this government. There is more indecision, more delay, more acquisitions and changes in design. When you stop something and you start something and you change something, do you know what happens? It takes you longer to do. Not only that, but the price goes up as well. Of course, when we finished our time in government, we had it priced at $9.9 billion. It has gone up to $15.4 billion and guess what? That price will continue to rise.

Where is the tender? Where is the expression of interest? We know that Labor is kicking the can down the road, and it is not only with the north-south corridor that they are doing that. They are also doing it on projects like the Truro bypass. They want to talk about the Greater Adelaide Freight Bypass, but do you know what a key part of that bypass is? The Truro section of that road and under the federal Labor government's 90-day review if that project gets scrapped or gets kicked down the road, do you know what that means? It means that the Greater Adelaide Freight Bypass could be dead or it could be buried or it could be kicked down the road for many years to come.

We know we have to get trucks off our suburban roads if they do not have to be there on roads like Portrush Road, Glen Osmond Road and Cross Road, but instead what we see is crickets from this government.

What can I say about the Aquatic Centre? We support a redeveloped aquatic centre; however, the plan that the opposition—the government at the time—had was to engage with other levels of government and prudently seek a contribution from those levels of government because you do you know why? Because, as the minister has pointed out, this is not a FINA-qualified swimming pool that we are getting here.

What we are getting here, by his own admission, is a recreational facility, so why should only South Australian taxpayers pay for this? This is a community swimming pool, effectively, therefore the community, the council and other private sector people should also be paying and contributing to this centre just as they have with other recreational facilities.

Instead, what have we got from this socialist, utopian government over here? They are all about statewide control and controlling what we do in our daily lives and that is why they are paying for the whole lot. On the whole, South Australians are having to pay for something that probably only residents of Adelaide, let's face it, are actually going to use. That is truly disappointing.

There is $1.2 billion over four years to start the Women's and Children's Hospital. Again, it is another project, as my friend the member for Schubert has continually pointed out, that continues to spiral and blow out. Will we ever see it built under this government? Unbelievable.

Mrs Hurn: Toddlers will be teenagers.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Toddlers will be teenagers by the time that that thing is built.

There is $30 million for upgrading Port Augusta Prison. We know we have an obligation to look after and do what we can to rehabilitate our most vulnerable and those who end up in jail. We know the incarceration rates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are far too high in this state, so we welcome investment in our correctional services area.

There is $20 million to upgrade regional jetties—again, it only scratches the surface. We know we have been prosecuting this argument for some time that we need more investment in our regions and in our regional jetties as well.

Regarding regional bus services, we would like to see the outcome of the review that the government has undertaken; we still have not seen it. The taxi industry is another industry where we would like to see the outcome of that review. There is much uncertainty, especially when it comes to access taxis. People who use these are some of the most vulnerable in our community, yet we have not seen a great deal or heard a great deal from this government.

We welcome investment in education and skills. We know that we have a very tight job market at the moment, and so we welcome investment in these areas to ensure that we can get the best and brightest minds into our state.

When it comes to money invested for a new licensing scheme to be implemented for ultra high-powered vehicles, we would certainly support that. We have seen that in response to a direct tragedy and we know that we have to do better in that area.

The AUKUS investment and the implementation of the Office for AUKUS is of course a very important generational initiative and we will certainly deliver our bipartisanship support every possible step of the way.

In terms of first-home owners, we welcome the support that has been given to first-home owners, but it does not go far enough. When you look at the threshold, when you look at that level, whilst there are some suburbs where you can purchase a brand-new build under that threshold, there are still many that you cannot. I think that does not go far enough and I think there should be more support to giving people that confidence, that peace of mind, that equity, that ownership in their own home.

What was really worrying to see, however, was the failure to deliver in terms of fiscal discipline at a time when there are economic challenges. There are significant economic challenges—we would be in denial if we did not accept that—and not just here in South Australia but in Australia and across the world. There are many forecasts for recession in certain states and in certain countries right across the world. This was an opportunity for not only fiscal discipline but also an opportunity to grow the economy. Instead, what we see is a lazy budget. We see a lazy budget from this state government, heading towards record debt, deficit and no real plan to grow our economy in South Australia.

Hydrogen, what can we say about hydrogen? The Hydrogen Jobs Plan is a project that will certainly not deliver lower energy bills for South Australians. Do you know what the residents in my electorate want? They want their power prices to come down. They want to be able to afford to pay their power bills. They are not interested in some experimental, maybe it is a silver bullet, aspirational item down the track that might do something. They are not interested in that. What they want to see is real relief. They want to see their energy prices come down, and this hydrogen plan from this government will not achieve that at all. That is very disappointing. That is extremely disappointing.

I move on to the cost of living. A rebate of $500 on power bills for some eligible households—obviously there have been a whole range of issues in terms of getting that out the door, and what about everyone else? What about actually reducing power overall for all South Australians? It was a real golden opportunity to do that but instead what we are getting is this experimental hydrogen plan that will not actually achieve that for some time.

The rebate for small businesses—$650 for power bills, I mean really. Every small business that I talk to at the moment tells me that their power bill has increased dramatically, in the thousands and thousands of dollars every single quarter. I do not think that goes far enough.

Money for food charities such as Foodbank, we welcome that relief. We know, and I know as a former police minister, that unfortunately there is a link between homelessness and the economy, there is a link between homelessness and the economic situation. With that also comes crime rates.

Believe it or not, during COVID, when people were inside more often and there were quite generous stimulus and government handouts, I think what you saw was that crime rates actually went down. I certainly cannot claim credit as the police minister. There were generous economic handouts at the time and that certainly, I think, assisted in reducing the level of crime.

What we are seeing at the moment is that some people, unfortunately, just cannot afford to pay their bills. They cannot afford their groceries. They cannot afford their transport or their kids' school fees. What we are seeing is that crime is up. It is one of a varying range of issues, but it is certainly economically linked.

We welcome investment in child protection. We have to do more to provide additional resources for kids in care. We have seen in recent days and weeks and months that unfortunately in South Australia some of our most vulnerable continue to slip through the cracks and that is not good enough.

In terms of housing, abolishing stamp duty for eligible first-home buyers buying or building their first home, whilst that relief is welcome I think it does not go far enough. At the moment, we know that it applies to properties valued up to $650,000, phasing out at $700,000, and to land valued at $400,000 to build a new home, phasing out at $450,000. There is also a cap on the $15,000 First Home Owners Grant lifted to $650 from $575 and 1,140 new homes for public housing.

Again, the government wants to try to claim credit for opening up new blocks released for housing in Adelaide's north and south. I have got news for you, Acting Speaker: this did not just happen overnight but it is happening. The former government actually did a fair bit. It does not just happen overnight. We well and truly set the foundation. We got the maps out and we met with the industry. This government wants to claim that it has the answers. You know what? This government helped to create the crisis in the first place.

Do not forget, this government has now been in power for 17 out of the last 21 years and unfortunately 1,140 new homes for public housing just does not go far enough. We have all seen them in our electorates. They come to our doors, to our offices, and they are on these waiting lists and we know that some of them wait for years and years. I have met and personally lobbied the minister and she always gives me the time of day. I want to claim some credit for this change. We have to do more to help people get into their homes, to give them that equity, to give them that ownership, to give them that head start so they can then build their own little castle.

There have been 25,000 new blocks released north and south of Adelaide, but there is a long way to go. We know that migration is going to increase in the coming months and years. Where are these people going to go? This is a golden opportunity for our state to embrace these new migrants and provide housing for them. But again, this government is not moving fast enough on this front. With those few remarks, I commend the Appropriation Bill to the house.

Mrs HURN (Schubert) (21:07): It is a great pleasure to be able to rise and make a contribution on behalf of my local community in the Barossa and the northern Adelaide Hills about the 2023-24 state budget.

I thought I would take a leaf out of the Leader of the Opposition's book by making some positive remarks at the get-go because, of course, in a budget that is so enormous and worth many billions of dollars there are some things that I genuinely think are really positive, and I thought I would start in the health space particularly.

Whilst we are seeing increased spending in the health budget, it is disappointing that we have not yet seen that translate into better health outcomes for the people of South Australia. One thing that I am really genuinely pleased to see is the investment in terms of the virtual care emergency departments. This was the brainchild of the former Liberal government and it was the first ever virtual emergency department that was set up in the entire nation. That was done throughout really uncertain times, when the government and the people of South Australia were battling a global pandemic. If we look at the results, I believe they do speak for themselves.

Over 42,000 patients have been seen since the former government opened up both these services in 2021. It has saved 36,000 South Australians from an unnecessary trip to a really busy emergency department. It has saved regional South Australians one million kilometres in travel or over 19,100 hours in the car travelling to an emergency department. This is just one of the really practical measures that the former government was taking to help alleviate some of that pressure on our emergency departments.

I was really proud to see that this government saw the value in that and has extended it further, because these are the types of things that we really need to be looking at. It has a central part, I believe, in future health care here in South Australia. I do want to take this opportunity to particularly commend Stephen Wade, when he was the health minister, for showing this initiative and also for the fact that it was driven mainly by clinicians. That is something that I believe shows what can be achieved when governments work hand in glove with people in the healthcare sector.

It is interesting because now the government are saying that this is a key anti-ramping measure. Again I say that this was a practical solution that the former government were implementing because we knew that it would really deliver results for people and that it would help divert some of that traffic away from our busy emergency departments.

There were challenges over the course of the last government, and there is no doubt about that, particularly in the health space. Over the four years of the former Marshall Liberal government, we spent half of that time battling a global pandemic. I think the government was always up-front and honest about those challenges, that the pressures on our system just continued to rise. It was not just difficult for South Australians who were trying to access health care in this state but it was so extraordinary and difficult for our frontline healthcare workers.

When we left office, I think we were really clear and honest that there was so much work to be done. I do believe that this is in contrast, very much so, to the approach by this government, which is all about having flashy slogans, all about having corflutes that say, 'We will fix ramping,' but when you delve a little bit deeper what we actually see is that, despite record spending in health, despite expanding initiatives like ones I have just mentioned and investing in more, the results for people in our healthcare system are going backwards. That is something that I believe as a state, and potentially across both sides of this chamber, we need to look at in a collaborative way.

When it comes to ramping, there is no denying that Labor had a very clear promise to fix ramping. In fact, it is true to say that you are more likely to be ramped under Labor than you were at any time throughout the former Liberal government. That is true: you are more likely to be ramped under Labor than you were at any time throughout the former Liberal government. I think that, because this was such a central theme of the recent election campaign, you would expect that we would start to be seeing some green shoots, that we would expect to start seeing some of that progress, but unfortunately we are not, and I think the results are going backwards for the people of South Australia.

If we look at some of the ramping statistics, in February 2022, which was the former Liberal government's last full month in office, those ramping statistics or the transfer-of-care data for the last full months of the Liberal government, which was February 2022, show that 1,522 hours were lost on the ramp. This was of course in the context and at the time when those opposite and the Premier, the member for Croydon, were saying, 'Vote Labor like your life depends on it.' There was this real sense of urgency that South Australians would expect, but fast-forward to the latest statistics and they are actually punching near 3,000 hours. That is something that is really concerning for us on this side of the house. What it shows is that our state has endured the worst 12 months of ramping this state has ever seen—the worst 12 months of ramping the state has ever seen since the Labor Party introduced ramping to South Australia in 2010.

In fact, over the last 13 months under Labor, 44,000 hours have been lost. That means that 44,000 hours of paramedics' and patients' time have been spent stuck outside our hospital departments, outside our emergency departments on the ramp. That is the equivalent of five entire years—five entire years that South Australians and our paramedics have spent stuck outside our emergency departments waiting for our care.

I made this point earlier in the house, but I believe that our paramedics want to be fighting to save lives. They do not want to be fighting to get patients into our hospitals; they do not want to be fighting against record ramping. They voted—in fact, so many South Australians voted—for a fix for ramping, and we are just not seeing it.

One thing I did find interesting is that in a budget of over $8 billion just 1 per cent is deliberately allocated towards anti-ramping measures—just 1 per cent, 1 per cent for ramping-specific measures in a health budget of $8 billion. I find that particularly extraordinary for something that those opposite went to the election promising very much to fix. Perhaps this is emblematic of a government that are trying desperately to shift the goalposts, and of course we know that they are. This has been canvassed on so many occasions.

What the budget papers show us is that we are seeing ramping not just outside our emergency departments; we are actually seeing a new phenomenon that is emerging, and that is internal ramping. When you look at the key performance indicators, what you see is that South Australians are worse off under this government than at any point under the former Liberal government. It does not matter if you are in the north or if you are in the south, under this government four out of five South Australians accessing emergency care in the north or the south are failing to be seen in the clinically appropriate time. That is 80 per cent of South Australians from the north or the south.

When we are talking about the north or the south, of course we are talking about Noarlunga Hospital, Flinders hospital and in the north we are talking about Modbury and Lyell McEwin Hospital. This is something that is just not acceptable. In fact, South Australians deserve so much better when it comes to their healthcare system. This result is by no means reflective of the hard work that all our frontline healthcare workers do. I know that they work around the clock to help keep us safe. I know that they put in so much time and effort and compassion working in a hospital system that is just under so much extraordinary pressure, but they are being let down by this government.

It is an indictment of this government that, despite all this spending, our healthcare results and outcomes for South Australians are going backwards on nearly every single measure. It does not matter which way you look at it, when you look into the budget papers on nearly every single performance indicator they have gone backwards from the last budget of the Liberal government up until now.

In such a pressing time for our healthcare system, I do believe that we need a government that is willing and able to really put together a comprehensive and competitive package to help attract and retain frontline health workers to our state. In fact, attracting and retaining doctors and nurses has really become a worldwide competition. We are seeing states like Western Australia, Queensland, Victoria and Tasmania come to the party and put on the agenda some very competitive incentives to further bolster their health workforce. We are just not seeing this in South Australia. It does not matter in which direction you look, we are being outflanked.

What that means is that we risk the next generation of doctors and nurses just packing their bags and heading across the border. That is the risk if we do not put on the table some really competitive incentives to help keep people here. I believe that as we head towards the election—but hopefully the government can do something about this beforehand—we should be looking at things like contributions towards HECS and sign-on bonuses to encourage our next generation of doctors and nurses to sign up to our public system, which I believe should be, and in many ways is, a really fantastic health system. But it can be better.

These are just some of the things that we as an opposition will continue to work with so many stakeholders on and really put forward some of these alternative policies as we head towards the state election. It is not good enough for the government to sit idle. As I mentioned, I believe that this was perhaps one of the biggest missed opportunities in this state budget, the fact that the government failed to step up and put forward a competitive package of workforce incentives. Comparing it to the approaches of other states, it just shows that we are so far behind the eight ball.

In May of this year, we had the Victorian government put on the table well over $200 million worth of incentives—$200 million worth of incentives right on our doorstep in Victoria. That is a great risk to our state. We do not want our next generation to be packing their bags and heading across the border. That is the risk. That really is the risk and we have spoken about this in this place previously. Something that I know that many people in this house really do understand is when you strip away all the infrastructure, our healthcare system is not just about the patients; it is about the health workforce. If we do not have a strong and stable workforce in South Australia, then that is a very real risk to our future here in this state.

In a budget of $8 billion and a health blowout of well over $700 million, the best that this government could come up with is a second-rate reimbursement scheme which, just on back-of-the-envelope type mathematics, actually shows that people who are coming to South Australia are going to be $23,000 out of pocket. That is what we are expecting and asking of people. It is not an incentive scheme. It is a reimbursement scheme, and a family of four who are packing up and leaving their life in a place like England are going to be thousands of dollars out of pocket.

I think it speaks volumes to the priorities of this government. As I said, this is something that we will very much be looking at as we are heading into the election. We also need to build health infrastructure to provide our health workforce and our patients with the best possible facilities, but it does not matter which part of the state that you are in, health infrastructure is in the slow lane. From the Lyell McEwin Hospital to The Queen Elizabeth Hospital to the new Women's and Children's Hospital, these were delays that we saw in last year's state budget and they are very much now entrenched here in this new budget.

I would like to reflect just quickly on the Mount Barker hospital, which I believe is a great piece of infrastructure. At the election, it was costing $220 million, and now the budget papers show that there has been a $100 million cost blowout with seemingly no new services, no new doctors, no new nurses, no new equipment. It is a $100 million blowout with no reason. We believe that it does not matter which part of the state you are in, health infrastructure is in the slow lane.

When it comes to the Barossa hospital, it is very pleasing to note that the money the former Liberal government fought for and in fact put in the budget for the very first time is still in the budget. That is very pleasing and it is a great result for our community who, frankly, have been waiting far too long to see this delivered.

There is no reason that this government cannot fast-track the purchase of that land. When the former government put money in the budget for the very first time it was for the purchase of the land, for the start of early works, and for the finalisation of the plans. You put that money in the budget because you have an ironclad commitment to build a Barossa hospital and we will keep fighting to keep that momentum going for our community.

I would like to touch on cost of living just in the short time that I have left. I believe that this is another one of those missed opportunities that the state government had. There are so many people who are really hurting. They are hurting with increased fuel prices. They are hurting with the highest energy prices in the nation. They are feeling the squeeze on nearly every single element of their life. They are trying so desperately to get ahead, but there is no more blood to get from that stone.

Whilst I acknowledge that the government cannot actually directly influence every single element that I have just mentioned, there are levers that the government can pull to help provide some support, and that is exactly what we had hoped to see in the budget. It was particularly disappointing that we did not, because on opposition analysis we know that under the Labor government the average South Australian family is around $20,000 worse off than they were under the former Liberal government.

That is something that we must change because there are so many people, hardworking people, in my electorate of Schubert who are aspirational people who are working around the clock, creating their businesses, running their businesses, and they are really struggling to make ends meet. We must stick up for them. We must do more to protect middle Australia, and I believe that was a missed opportunity.

For regional communities more broadly, I believe that this was a budget that did actually miss the mark. There was an opportunity to really step up and tell the people of regional South Australia that they matter under this Labor government, but alas, disappointingly but perhaps not surprisingly, we saw a return of the same old city-centric budgets that people in my electorate and those right across the state have become very much accustomed to.

Something that lots of people come to my electorate office about is regional roads. We know that there is a $3 billion road maintenance backlog here in our state, and that is right across the regions and right across the city. In a short-sighted move, there was just not enough money to be able to address that, to be able to eat through some of that backlog. It is not just about making sure that we have a safe road network—we know, of course, that we are battling with one of the most tragic road tolls we have seen in recent times—but it is also about really enhancing the productivity of our state, making sure that our farmers have the best roads possible to be able to get our excellent goods to market. That is something that, on this side of the house, we really value.

I was disappointed that there was no specific line funding for the Amy Gillett bike path. This is something that people in the northern part of the Adelaide Hills are really passionate about. It is something that I am really passionate about. We have $2.6 million of funding on the table from the federal government. That was a commitment that was made under the former federal Liberal government. Now that is at risk. That is very much at risk unless the state Labor government come to the party, step up and make a contribution. I am looking forward to exploring those avenues over the coming days and weeks ahead.

In summary, I think that this is a budget that shows departmental spending is unchecked, and it shows a budget blowout overall. It has hidden crevices with cash stuffed right in them for pet little projects, and unfortunately it has financial mismanagement that is really baked into the budget, and that sets a very bad example for economic management of the state. It means that South Australians are going to be all the worse off because of it, but I will keep fighting for people in my community to ensure that they get the projects delivered that they need and deserve.

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