HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-10-26 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

APPROPRIATION BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 14 October 2010.)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (16:19): I rise to speak on this bill. This is a bad, mad, mean, miserable budget from a bad, mad, miserable government. It is a budget that attacks working men and women, families, the young, the less educated and the weak, the powerless, the helpless and the poor. Every budget line signifies Labor's contempt for South Australians. A budget is not just about money but about people: in this case, the very people Labor purportedly represents but whom it attacks. It is about a government which admits it cannot control its own expenses, a government which has failed to deliver prosperity while the rest of the nation is enjoying some of the best economic times Australia has ever seen.

The Premier is defending the bluntest tool in the box. Well, when the only tool you have in the box is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail and the Treasurer is driving a nail into South Australia's coffin. We are slipping further and further behind the rest of the country. South Australians are leaving to get jobs in other states—3,000 a year. Every day more than eight young South Australians—the ones whom we have put through kindy, preschool, primary school, high school and sometimes even university or TAFE—are packing their car and driving down the Duke's Highway to Bordertown where they go on to Melbourne, never to come back.

They are going, these youngsters, because other state governments run their patch much better than Mike Rann does his. When Mike Rann became premier, 7 per cent of Australia's business investment was right here in South Australia; now it is not even 5½ per cent. There are fewer mining jobs in South Australia today than there were back in 1985. Fewer South Australians are now employed in mining than at any time in the past six years. All South Australians are paying the price of Labor's incompetence.

Yesterday, Adelaide newspapers reported on page 1 the Premier boasting about giving undisclosed millions to an American cyclist. On page 7 of the same newspaper was a story about state schools that cannot pay for the basic needs for classrooms, for staff and for equipment. This Treasurer and Cabinet boast about giving undisclosed millions to an American university while it takes its scalpel to the hospitals in Keith, Ardrossan and Moonta.

This is a budget which does not care about the sick or the elderly. This is the budget which pays Mike Rann's Chief of Staff $80,000 more than the amount reported in the GovernmentGazette, while Anglicare puts out a report showing many South Australians continue to do it tough. The government has pushed people to the edges of society. Anglicare says that at the edges of society we have the elderly, migrants, Aboriginal people, young people, and people living in poorer communities who are becoming further and further disconnected. You might ask why.

It is because this government is disconnected, because it is a callous, uncaring government, a government without heart or soul. The government's budget cuts will cut millions from public libraries while the Premier promotes his so-called reading challenge. The only thing the Premier should be reading is the writing on the wall. This budget is also about a government which cannot be trusted, which gives a cast-iron guarantee that there would not be public sector sackings before election and then breaks that promise straight after.

The Premier thinks it is okay to break his promises, and his commitments to his friends and his supporters. Right at the moment we are looking at a potentially catastrophic fire season, so what is Labor's response? Park rangers could lose their jobs as part of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources staffing cuts.

A responsible government knows how to manage money. It does not outsource its budget decisions to a commission that manage to blow its own budget by $2.5 million. Under this Labor government, the Public Service has increased by 18,105 people in eight years. It budgeted for 2,554. That is 15,551 public servants who were hired consequential to this government's incompetence. Most of those 15,551 public servants thought they had important work to do and that their employer—the government—values their contribution and their effort.

Well, not so. On 16 September, the Premier and Treasurer made it clear that these employees are not valued and that a number of them might get the sack. The Premier and Treasurer have paid to employ them for the past eight years; now they are going to pay to get rid of them. This government is going to pay them the highest voluntary separation packages in Australia. For those who remain, Labor has other plans. After campaigning so hard against the federal changes to entitlements, Labor will cut the 17.5 per cent holiday leave loading and also take a solid chunk of their long service leave entitlements.

I would like to look at my own portfolio. Let us take police. Police have one of the most important jobs in the state. They are not ordinary public servants and are specifically excluded from the Public Sector Act for that reason. Police work is unpredictable and dangerous. So what does Labor do? It treats police like any other public sector employees, as a resource to be squeezed and as a revenue raiser. While police are excluded from most provisions of the Public Sector Act, their long service leave is specifically included in the act by regulation. This means that police are now caught up in the long service leave cuts which apply to ordinary public servants.

The measure is aimed at recouping over $90 million of mismanaged cash and reduces the annual leave entitlement by six days. The opposition is already concerned about the attrition rate within SAPOL, and in particular the number of UK recruits who have come all the way over here to Australia, only to turn their back on us and go home again. The government should be looking after our police force and encouraging new applicants, not cutting entitlements.

At the Police Association conference last Tuesday, I saw the Premier's obvious discomfort as Liberal leader Isobel Redmond expressed her dismay at the cuts to the police long service leave. He looked decidedly uncomfortable as she took him to task about the high level of crime in and around his own electorate of Ramsay. Over nine years as Premier, and 25 years as the local member (although he does not live in the electorate; he lives in the much safer eastern suburbs), Mr Rann has not reduced the level of crime in and around Ramsay. His electorate, and his constituents, and those close to his seat have borne the major percentage in the increase of horrific and violent crimes, such as assaults, robberies, knife attacks and shootings.

We believe in a properly equipped, properly resourced, properly respected police service. Under a Liberal government, Adelaide's night patrol cars will have two officers. We think that for the safety of the public, and especially for police safety, night patrols should always be a two-person crew. On 27 September last, in the middle of the night, a police officer was investigating suspicious activity at a petrol station. He was threatened with what was probably a loaded gun, and then he was almost run over by the getaway car. He was on his own.

In Victoria, Coroner Kim Parkinson's inquest into the death of Senior Constable Tony Clarke in that state recommended two-person crews. In Western Australia, all operational officers are required to work in no less than pairs, even in some of the remote outstations. It is no wonder that South Australian Police Association Assistant Secretary Tom Scheffler wants two-person crews as well.

Shamelessly, Mike Rann used his speech at the police conference to claim that the government is winning the war on crime. The figures he used were not publicly available at the time. They had been drawn from a yet to be released SAPOL annual report. Meanwhile, the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics Victims of Crime Report, an independent report, is telling a different story: that there has been an alarming increase in crime since Rann came to office. It shows attempted murder up by 50 per cent, total homicide and related offences up by 20 per cent, kidnappings and abductions up by almost the same amount, and armed robbery up by 7.5 per cent.

Labor is not in tune with the reality of crime in South Australia. Let us look at the decision to cut the number of police motorcycles. When the traffic plan came to light, it was heavily criticised, no more so than by the Police Association itself. In response, Premier Rann was quick to run his default line, that it was a matter for the commissioner. He even added that a premier who intervened would not be fit for office. Fast forward just two months to the leak of the Sustainable Budget Commission Report, and what should appear: a recommendation to sell 32 motorcycles. Clearly this was not an operational issue, but an economic one. So, by his own admission, the Premier is not fit for office.

The government has admitted during parliamentary estimates that it has a financial target for speeding expiations. The budget shows that cabinet wants to raise $44.8 million over the next three years in speeding fines. It actually needs motorists to break the law to meet its budget targets. The Sustainable Budget Commission, which has no role in road safety, recommended that the government make still more money from speeding expiation notices. In other words, there is a financial disincentive for the Labor government to make road safety a priority. Labor is addicted to the revenue from speeding fines. Road safety should be about making roads safe and therefore keeping people safe.

The government wants people to speed so it can collect money from fines. The opposition wants people to stop speeding so they will not be fined. We would actually like to see less money raised through speeding fines by reducing the number of people who break the law. The recent Auditor-General's Report refers to expiation fees as a matter of significance. It shows a steady increase in expiation revenue jumping by a massive $20 million in 2008. Since then, it has been around $76 million a year.

Underneath the Auditor-General's graph, SAPOL lists some factors that contribute to variations in revenue collected each year. Two such factors are the number and type of speed detection devices and driver behaviour in response to road safety strategies. There is an obvious conclusion: either this government's road safety strategies are not getting through to drivers or the strategies are effective and the drivers are being slugged in new and more expensive ways. Either way, road safety is not a government priority. This government and this budget abnegate responsibility for safer roads and a safer community.

My other portfolio, urban development and planning, shows just as clearly Labor's disconnection from the community. In terms of budget lines, it seems an area of little consequence—only $14.8 million—yet when you look at government policies on urban development and planning, they have made South Australians quite rightly deeply suspicious and distrustful of Labor. South Australia has one of the most opaque planning systems in the country.

The minister commissioned the Growth Areas Investigation report to inform the 30-year plan. The author was also working for property developers seeking to rezone and develop the same land. Of course, now the developers are taking Supreme Court action to keep the documents secret despite the Ombudsman ruling that they should be released. People now have a perception that development approvals can be bought, influence can be bought and positions can be bought. Why do people think that?

The Makris Corporation donated significantly to the Labor Party in the lead-up to the major development status being granted for the old Le Cornu site, and the CEO at the time said that developer donations is how the system works. Consultants were paid by the government to identify parcels of land for future urban growth and simultaneously worked for the private developers aiming to have those parcels developed. Buckland Park landowner, Lang Walker, supplied generous hospitality to government ministers in the lead-up to the decision to grant approval for Buckland Park. Nick Bolkus lobbied on the Gawler racecourse DPA and was also involved in Buckland Park, raising concerns about both the local economy and the lack of infrastructure to support development.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Ridgway will get back to the Appropriation Bill. He is wandering.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Thank you for your guidance, Mr President; I will be back there very shortly.

The PRESIDENT: I have been very tolerant.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Mount Barker DPA was instituted by the Mount Barker consortia, not the local community or government planners or parliamentarians, but companies making up the consortia have together given more than $2 million to the Labor Party over the last 10 years. It is no wonder that South Australians want an independent commission against crime and corruption. Here is what a Liberal budget would do: we will put money aside to set up such a body.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: We will put money aside to set up such a body. It will expose corruption and guard against it, but it is 3½ years away. What we have before parliament in this budget sets out Labor's financial and social plans for the next 12 months. It is a plan without vision and without purpose. It is vindictive, self-serving, shortsighted and mean-spirited. It is without imagination, hope or compassion. This is a budget that Don Dunstan would have been ashamed to bring in. How much is this budget really worth? Don Dunstan might have thought, 'Not even the paper it is written on.' I have a number of questions which I want to have inserted in Hansard, and which require an answer before this debate is completed—I think the Leader of the Government wants it on Friday. There are some seven questions on urban development and planning, 14 for the police portfolio—

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: —two for the southern suburbs and three for the northern suburbs. I would like to have them inserted in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT: You might want to hand them to the minister or something.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: You want them read? I am happy to read them. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 4.13, and the northern suburbs. I note that the supplies and services budget has dropped by $48,000. The minister stated last year that the supplies and services budget is inclusive of the lease cost. Last year that was $59,000. My questions are: is the lease cost still $59,000 and will it remain at that over the ten-year duration of the agreement; and what supplies and services have been cut to achieve the $48,000 saving?

The PRESIDENT: The honourable member should have been asking these questions instead of asking about doorknocking perhaps.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I don't recall asking about doorknocking, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: Don't you?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Page 4.14, Performance Commentary. I refer to the office's involvement with the 30-year plan and note significant development proposal for Buckland Park. Last year the minister stated that she imagined that the office would be involved in the development. My questions are: what are the views about that development of the councils in the minister's area of responsibility (Light, Gawler, Playford, Salisbury and Tea Tree Gully); will the minister have any involvement in the development of the Gawler Racecourse; and what economic impact does he believe it will have on the traditional township of Gawler? The third question for the northern suburbs—

The PRESIDENT: It's out of order. You asked the minister for an opinion.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Page 4.13. I note the actual spend on supplies and services was $78,000 in 2008-09, despite there being no budget allocation. This is such for the employee benefits and costs and the depreciation lines. Can the minister explain this spending in the absence of initial budget figures? I note there is $42,000 depreciation for the budget this year. Can the minister detail the items for depreciation?

I move to the southern suburbs, Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 4.11, Summary income statement. I note that the budget and estimated result for supplies and services in 2008-09 was $117,000—last year's budget paper. This year's budget shows that only $78,000 of it was spent. In last year's estimates the minister stated that supplies and services is the on-cost of having staff and there were two full-time equivalents. Why was there an underspend of $39,000 on the on-costs? In the 2011 supplies and services budget it has been cut from $129,000 to $114,000. Which supplies and services will be cut to support that budget measure?

Page 4.7, Targets—and I refer to the target of facilitating the southern suburbs job creation business investment. Will the minister advise what the current employment rate is for the southern area under his portfolio and what was it at this time last year? How many new businesses were established in the area throughout the past financial year? How many businesses closed or relocated? In the past financial year, how many small businesses did the minister personally visit? Can the minister confirm if funding through the Small Business Development Grant for the southern suburbs of Adelaide which, in previous years has been $5 million—

The PRESIDENT: What has it got to do with the budget—how many small businesses the minister visited?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: This is the Office for the Southern Suburbs. I thought you had a particular interest in job creation and businesses in South Australia but, clearly, you do not.

The PRESIDENT: What has it got to do with the budget, whether the minister has visited small businesses and how many he has visited? Nothing whatsoever.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: When there is a target in the budget—

The PRESIDENT: Get on with it. You are wasting—

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: If you want to interrupt me, I can justify my questions.

The PRESIDENT: No, I don't think so. You've got no idea.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Can the minister confirm whether funding for the small business development grant for the southern suburbs of Adelaide, which in previous years has been $5 million, will be available in 2010-11 for future years?

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Like his speech, shocking!

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I move to police, Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 5.101—Statement of comprehensive income, relating to fees, fines and penalties, with a budgeted amount for 2010-11 of $95.272 million. What proportion of that budgeted amount is speeding fine revenue? What is the estimate for speeding fine revenue for the 2009-10 year? How much of the budgeted amount and the estimated 2009-10 result is attributable to revenue generated from Operation Rural Focus?

I note that offences allegedly expiated through that operation included a farmer being fined $370 for having mud on his numberplate, people fined for having bags of groceries on the back seat, and a farmer fined for having an unsecured shovel on his ute. Will the minister list the top 10 offences for rural focus by expiation revenue earned and the revenue per item? I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 5.95: Road Use Regulation—Performance Indicators, two of which indicators relate to the number of drink driving related offences detected by police and recorded on expiation notices, and the static RDST (alcohol) detection rate as a percentage of the number of drivers tested.

The first indicator sets a benchmark suggesting the higher the figure, the better the performance. The second sets a maximum benchmark and seeks a lower figure. Effectively, the government seems to be aiming for higher detection and expiation levels, but then suggests that a lower percentage of positive tests is a better outcome. Can the minister explain the seeming incongruity in these targets and what method is used to record the drug and alcohol tests?

I next refer to the Capital Investment Statement, page 15: Existing Projects—Clamping, Impounding and Forfeiture of Vehicles Initiative. On 1 August this year, it was reported that the commissioner was deciding whether to use the anti-hoon legislation for the first time to crush a seized car. Under this legislation, cars can all be sold by auction or public tender, or sold as scrap metal.

Since the legislation came into play, how many circumstances have arisen, other than the two the other day, where a vehicle was crushed? How many vehicles have been sold under this legislation? What is the total market value and proceeds of those vehicles? What will happen in the circumstances where it is deemed appropriate to crush a car which still has a financial encumbrance on it in terms of somebody possibly owing a finance company some money on that car?

I refer to Capital Investment Statement, page 14: New Projects—Hi-tech Crime-Fighting Equipment. I note that the estimated total cost is $4.7 million. Can the minister explain the difference between the election commitment of $7.89 million for this new state-of-the-art police equipment and now only the $4.7 million figure in the budget? The Capital Investment Statement, on page 15, refers to 'Existing Projects—Police Records Management System', with a total budget of $9.4 million. Despite appearing under 'Existing Projects', the project did not appear in the previous year's Capital Investment Statement. Will the minister explain the discrepancy, and in the event that this project is, say, an amalgamation of existing works or a renamed project, what is the budget for its equivalent project?

Again, on page 15: Existing Projects—Police Academy Redevelopment. I note that $35.5 million of the total $59 million estimated project cost is to be spent this year. Will the minister provide a breakdown of what developments are to occur under that $35.5 million allocation and what is to be achieved in the next financial year with the $11.1 million unspent budget allocation?

I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 5.83: Public Safety—summary income statement. I note that there are some variations on the figures for this program. For example, in last year's papers the 2009-10 budget for employee benefits and costs was listed as $206.7 million, whereas in this year's paper that 2009-10 figure is $233.9 million. This applies to the 2009-10 budget figures for each expense item listed in the summary. Why are there substantial variations in these figures, as between the previous and current budget papers, for what we would assume would be the same program?

The objective of the public safety program is to support a strategic plan of 'improving wellbeing'. Table 6A.31 of the 2010 Productivity Commission Report estimates South Australia's total victims of reported and unreported crime in 2002 and 2005. Assaults have gone from 4,200 incidents in 1998 to 4,500 in 2002, and 4,700 in 2005. Total personal crimes have increased from 4,500 to 5,000. Does the minister think that the wellbeing of the community has improved under a Labor government?

With reference to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 5.82, I note the existing project relating to the police band bus. I note that the disbanding of the police band was a recommendation from the leaked Sustainable Budget Commission report. How much is estimated to have been spent on the police band in 2009-10, and what is the budget for the current financial year?

I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 5.85: Event Management. I note that in the performance indicators it is estimated that in 2009-10 police were involved in 351 fewer events than in 2008-09. Will the minister explain the contributing factors to that drop?

I refer to Budget Paper 6, page 57. I note that the police cadet course will be reconstructed. Will SAPOL be continuing to recruit UK officers and, if so, what is the recruitment target for this year and across the forward estimates?

I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 5.98: Employee long service leave liability. I note that this liability is $9.1 million. Has the government considered or had any discussions with SAPOL over the option of police officers cashing in their long service leave as an incentive to keep highly trained officers on the job?

I note on page 5.86, under the 'emergency management and coordination' subprogram, that it is estimated that in 2009-10 the government fell short of its target of patrols arriving at emergency incidents within 15 minutes of a task in the metropolitan area. Why has the government fallen short of that particular target and what are the explanations for that shortfall?

I refer to the Capital Investment Statement, page 15: Existing Projects—STAR Group vessel replacement project. I note that the estimated total cost of the project has gone from $2.27 million (last year's statement) to $2.51 million. The expected completion time has also been extended by a year. Will the minister please explain the change in time and the cost projections?

I have some questions with respect to urban development and planning, and I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 4.9. I note that the objective of Urban Development and Planning Program is 'leading and presenting South Australia's land use development planning'. Development plan amendments are, indeed, integral to the land use and development planning. I note in particular the Mount Barker DPA, and particularly something that the council said in relation to this rezoning.

The Mount Barker township is currently categorised as a 'medium' bushfire risk, with the surrounding area (which is to be rezoned) nominated as 'high risk'. According to the DPA, the township and rezoned area will all be assigned to the lower 'general risk', which means that homes can be built to lower hazard standards under the Building Code of Australia. What is the rationale for the rezoned area being reassigned as a lower general fire risk?

I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 4.10: Performance Commentary for Urban Development and Planning Program. I note the third point from the bottom line consists of statistics on DPAs initiated, considered or completed. In February 2010 the Gawler Racecourse DPA was approved by the minister. The town of Gawler is now making a claim against the minister in the Supreme Court regarding the DPA. How much has been spent on the legal fees relevant to that claim, and what are the budgeted amounts for future legal costs?

Lobbyist Nick Bolkus had some involvement with the minister relative to the DPA. He was also engaged in the lead-up to the major development approval for the Buckland Park development. These decisions to approve the Buckland Park development were roundly criticised by several planning experts, including the Planning Institute of Australia. Given the recent record of controversy attached to the development decision involving Mr Bolkus, is the minister confident in the advice he received from Mr Bolkus, and will he continue to engage him in the lead-up to further significant development decisions?

How many times has the minister or staff from his office met with Mr Bolkus regarding these developments? In such cases where the interests of the development ministry have been pushed by influential lobbyists, has the minister granted community groups the same level of direct communication in order to argue their case? In the case of the Gawler Racecourse and Buckland Park, has the minister been swayed by the interests of developers over those of the community? If the DPA proceeds as approved, what economic effect does the minister predict the new retail complex will have on the traditional Gawler main street?

Again on the topic of DPAs, I refer to the Gawler East DPA approved by the minister. What funding and policy commitments have been given to road infrastructure to support the development of Gawler East? (I am aware of an agreement but this minister in this house has yet to table that.) What funding commitment has the government given to that particular agreement?

I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 4.9. I note in the summary income statement that $6.64 million is estimated to have been spent on supplies and services. As the minister stated in this place on 3 June 2009, Connor Holmes was engaged by the Department of Planning and Local Government to undertake different work to identify land that has potential for urban development over the next 30 years. What was the total cost of that service, and has that work now been completed?

I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 4.10, Performance commentary on the urban development planning program. I note the third point from the bottom lists some of the DPAs initiated that are considered to be completed. My question is: what is the average time taken in South Australia for ministerial consideration in the decision phase of a council-initiated DPA?

I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 4.7, Highlights 2009-10. I note the continued implementation of the planning and development review recommendations. One was the establishment of a residential code. Has the residential code been formally reviewed, and what is the level of community satisfaction with the residential code? In putting those questions on the record, I indicate I support the Appropriation Bill.

The PRESIDENT: We have just finished estimates. I thought that those questions would have been asked of the minister during estimates.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I asked the minister whether I could participate but he wouldn't let me.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Parnell.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (16:52): The state budget has elicited a great deal of anger in the community. There have been some shocking decisions in this budget which, in total, show how out of touch this government is with the people of this state and their reasonable aspirations for government services and government behaviour. We have already seen community pressure force the government to backflip over the closure of the Parks Community Centre and we need to remind ourselves that the amounts involved in that decision were very modest, but this government simply does not understand the community and what is important to the community.

Today at lunch time on the steps we saw thousands of trade unionists outraged at cuts to public sector working conditions. A few Labor members were hiding behind the granite pillars but most of them were not prepared to show their faces to the people they used to call comrades. I will have more to say about this later in the week in my contribution to the budget measures legislation that is also before us. That is the bill that has so angered public sector workers in the way that it legislates for reduced working conditions rather than negotiating collectively with workers and their representatives.

The budget is as much about what is not included as what is. I was reflecting earlier that it is the first time in the four years that I have been in this parliament that we have not had on budget day a flurry of press releases on the environment and on climate change. In fact, there was a complete void of announcements, and that is because there was nothing to announce other than cuts, and we will not see a government spin office put out media releases highlighting the cuts. We see in the budget, for example, no new serious investment in stormwater. Why? Because the desalination plant has sucked both the money and the incentive out of the public sector.

In relation to this Appropriation Bill, there are some very big ticket items. It is, after all, a $12.5 billion state budget. We see big items such as roads. The South Road super way (that very short length of two-storey Chicago-style motorway) will cost $843 million. The Southern Expressway will cost $445 million. In fact, those two items alone represent about one-tenth of annual state spending.

We also see $3.4 billion spent on health, and that amount is growing. We know that the health budget will consume the entire state budget within just a few years unless we deal with the determinants of health, including housing, poverty, social equality and transport. All those determinants of health need to be dealt with, unless we are prepared for the health budget to overwhelm the entire state budget.

We have $2.4 billion spent on education, which sounds a lot of money but it is not enough, apparently, to fund adult re-entry programs that give people a second chance at getting an education. We know that education is the key to breaking cycles of poverty and welfare dependence, and it makes no sense to cut programs that help people to help themselves. My colleague Tammy Franks has spoken about this, but I want to continue the theme by talking about another program that has been cut which also helps people to help themselves.

I want to focus on an issue which is relatively small in monetary value but which is a very good case study for how this government has lost its way in setting priorities and how this government is sacrificing job creation on the altar of the state's AAA credit rating. I want to talk today about the issue of funding for business enterprise centres—funding that has been axed in the state budget. I acknowledge the many people who have written to me about their concerns as to this program and the cut to state funding, and also thank the Northern Adelaide Business Enterprise Centre Incorporated for agreeing to provide me with a briefing on its work. I thank the General Manager, Larry Cavallaro, in particular.

I have long been a critic of corporate welfare, particularly when the government showers big business with concessions and handouts, but ignores small business, which is the engine room of our economy and one of the biggest employer sectors in the state. In fact, the most recent figures available to me show that around 48 per cent of private sector employment is in small businesses. Big businesses, on the other hand, get the tax breaks. They have community facilities put at their disposal. The commons is privatised for their benefit. All we hear about is defence and mining, yet those two sectors together employ around only 3 per cent of South Australians. I note from the budget that Defence SA is receiving the tidy sum of $32 million for its programs.

The budget item in which I am interested in terms of these business enterprise centres is the budget for the Department of Trade and Economic Development, and that stands at around $61 million. In this budget the government has cut all state funding to these centres and the amounts involved are modest, and I will go through some of them shortly. They are modest, just like the funding of The Parks Community Centre was a very modest impost on the public purse, but the consequences of defunding programs such as this are significant. Cutting the funding puts the services at risk, but as a consequence puts the community at risk as well.

For many people getting a job as a wage and salary earner will be their objective. That is what a large number of people—probably most people—in the community aspire to. Some people do have the ambition and drive to be their own boss and they want to set up a small business. This is not something to be entered into lightly. We know that a large proportion of small business fail in their first year, and with that failure comes a cost. There is certainly a cost to the proprietors, a cost to their families, a cost to their creditors and a cost to the community generally. We want small businesses to succeed.

Most of these businesses are very modest in size. Many of them are home-based and yet they provide important goods and services for the community and they provide South Australians with employment and with income. What do these business enterprise centres do? There are nine such centres across South Australia, and they fulfil a range of functions. One of their most important roles is the role of mentoring for new businesses: having someone who understands the business environment and being able to talk to aspirants to help them in making decisions about their business.

They undertake business planning advice. They talk to would-be small business operators about networking opportunities, helping them write business plans, assessing and improving their supply chain management, helping them with e-commerce, information technology, broadband, succession planning and creating security for businesses over their premises and also over their intellectual property.

The centres also give advice in relation to loans and banking products. It is one of the most difficult aspects for anyone entering the market for financial products to know whom they can trust and what the pitfalls are, especially when you know that the person you are talking to is likely to be receiving some sort of commission and you just do not know whether you are getting good advice. This is a role that the business enterprise centres fulfil.

The centres also help businesses with marketing plans. They help put them in touch with appropriate legal and accounting services. They give assistance in relation to leasing and to accommodation. There are plenty of pitfalls there for those who do not understand the system and who lock themselves into commitments that they cannot meet. The centres provide help to small business people—whether existing or aspiring—to negotiate their way through government regulation as well, which, as we all know here, is becoming more complex, not less.

They assist with staff training and they also give assistance with helping people in small business to operate on the national stage. It does mean they will necessarily be bigger, but sometimes businesses are so specialised that they need to work across multiple jurisdictions. That is a snapshot of the services provided by business enterprise centres, services that have now been defunded it as a consequence of this budget.

In terms of the number of people that they help, using just the figures from one of these business enterprise centres, the Northern Adelaide Centre, their last published annual report shows that they assisted some 2,492 businesses. And what was the cost of this to the state? It was a very modest $125,000. It is a very small amount of money for the amount of help that it provides.

How does that state contribution fit into the overall scheme of things? It represents close to a third of the funding. The federal government is putting in $250,000, and there are some small local council contributions in cash and in kind. Effectively, we are talking about a one-third cut in the budget of these centres. But it is not just that; it is not just a question of having to tighten your belt, because this cut prejudices the ability of these centres to actually meet not just the demand for their services but also their obligations to the federal government as a funding partner.

In terms of the Northern Adelaide centre, the reason that I am focusing on that one is because that is probably the one part of South Australia where the need is most evident and has been clearly documented. If we look, for example, at the recent statistics from the June quarter of this year as published in the Northern and Western Adelaide Priority Employment Area Regional Profile Report, we can see that areas around Elizabeth, where this centre is based—and also up in the Playford council area—we can see unemployment levels over 10 per cent in many of these local area statistical divisions. So this is an area of social disadvantage. It is an area that needs all the help that it can get.

In terms of the Appropriation Bill, what are the Greens calling on the government to do? There are a number of things. The first thing is, we would urge the government not just to rely on Business SA for its advice on business, but to look wider, and in particular to talk to people who work with and represent small business. I know that these centres have been required to move from offering free services to offering subsidised but still paying services, and no doubt some of their competitors in the business training market saw that that requirement was included in their funding agreements.

In terms of other things that the state government should be doing, first of all I think that it is possible, within this budget, given the modest amounts involved, to revisit the decision, but not just as a permanent measure. Even if it was just for another 12 months, that would bring the state funding into line with the commonwealth funding. At present, the commonwealth funding expires in 2012, and the state funding expires in 2011, therefore it may well be that these centres are in breach of their federal obligations. They will not be able to provide the level of services that they are contracted to because of the removal of state funding. Bring the two funding bodies into line and then new arrangements can be negotiated.

In terms of the value that we receive as a community, it is not just the social value in terms of preventing businesses from going bankrupt unnecessarily for want of good advice. There is also a leveraging of money that is spent on these types of services, and they are estimated by the business enterprise centres at about 10:1. In fact it does not take a lot of mathematics to work out that if a few thousand dollars are spent on getting a small business over an information hurdle, and getting it properly planned and set up, that if it then goes on to success and to employ other people, the community as well has benefited.

A number of people are already offering their services pro bono. As I understand it, there are local business representatives on the management board of these business enterprise centres, and that is expertise that will be lost if these centres are eventually forced to close.

In conclusion, I have used this fairly small, but I think important, example, of how this government has lost its way. It is focusing on what it sees as the glittering prizes of defence and mining, but it is ignoring the sector of the economy that is actually providing a great deal of employment and a great deal of wealth for ordinary South Australians. I think this is the budget of a government that is on the way out. I think it is a budget that does not just disappoint—whilst it certainly does that in droves—it is also a budget that causes real harm to our community and the price will be paid by all of us in years to come.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (17:08): I appreciate the opportunity to speak briefly about the portfolios for which I am responsible, starting with the portfolio of sport, recreation and racing. I wish to touch on two Liberal initiatives supported in the budget, and cynics amongst us might suggest that this is to appease many in the sporting sector who are still ropeable about the funding this government is putting towards the Adelaide Oval redevelopment. We are all very aware what a disaster this plan has turned out to be in terms of blowouts, balls-ups and broken promises, and I again say, why did this government not concede that a plan for a brand-new covered city stadium controlled by football was the way to go?

As I mentioned, there are two positive Liberal initiatives in this budget, and I say this because Port Augusta and Campbelltown should both benefit from terrific new sporting hubs which the Liberal Party championed during the state election campaign, and of course supports today. That being said, the Campbelltown Leisure Centre redevelopment concerns me greatly.

The opposition was fortunate enough to receive a briefing from the Campbelltown City Council on the latest with this project. Regrettably, it is not all good news—far from it. The sports minister made the positive pre-budget announcement about state government funding of $3 million for the $17 million redevelopment. However, under questioning in budget estimates, he made the mistake of saying that this was not dependent on federal funding and was then corrected by his advisers.

One might have assumed that the sports minister would be right across the details of this incredibly important project. The opposition on the other hand was fully aware that state government funding was dependent on federal funding and this is why we scheduled our meeting with the council recently. We were keen to see how things were progressing.

Sadly, our meeting at Campbelltown confirmed that federal Labor is not coming to the party any time soon. In fact, we were advised that the former federal minister for sport (the federal member for Adelaide, Kate Ellis) will not even return calls from Campbelltown City Council about this project. The minister evidently handballed this one on as quickly as she could after taking on new ministries, even though she promised the council they would discuss the issue after this year's federal election.

It seems to me that she has not even had the decency to brief the new sports minister on the plan and ask him to take over the issue. Clearly, when the Labor Party realised that it had no chance of knocking off Christopher Pyne in Sturt, it completely lost interest in this important community project for the north-eastern suburbs. This is very sad. The member for Adelaide reportedly showed a lot of enthusiasm for the project prior to the election, as did the Labor candidate for Sturt, but the federal Labor government has now gone stone cold on the idea

As members are aware, the federal Liberal Party had of course locked into backing this project during the federal election campaign with an election promise of $7.5 million, which was again championed by the member for Sturt. The state Liberals pledged $4 million towards the project in February. We desperately want this project to go ahead.

I am sure that members opposite are interested also, but they are going to have to start working harder on their federal colleagues. I say to members opposite: please do whatever you can to lobby your Labor mates in Canberra as Campbelltown needs this project The Norwood Basketball Club needs this project, as do a whole lot of other community groups. This is a positive project and really the Campbelltown City Council has been left high and dry.

The council has State Swim, Squash SA and other groups ready to contribute funding so we really must see this project go ahead. The council is desperately trying to meet with Mr Crean, given that he is now federal minister for regional development and local government. We can only hope that he shows more interest than that shown by the federal member for Adelaide.

That being said, I note in this budget the contribution to the Port Augusta sports hub redevelopment. I am sure that this will be a huge bonus for the community in that region, and we look forward to this project being completed. The member for Stuart in the other place has lobbied incredibly hard for this project as a candidate and I know that he looks forward to what it will do for the community he represents. It is an outstanding effort for a new member of parliament: in fact, he is already an outstanding member of parliament.

Just to conclude on sport, I do have concerns that the Office for Recreation and Sport will now come under the Building Communities Division with a number of other bodies, resulting in savings of $9.9 million over four years. I hope that the office will still be appropriately resourced. It is important for sport in this state that it continues to be strongly supported by this government.

Aboriginal Affairs is an important area that has not avoided the Treasurer's axe, either. Cuts of $3.4 million have been flagged starting in 2012-13 and 2013-14 in restructuring and reallocation of staff and services. Additionally one of the new budget saving measures was the cancellation of the petroleum subsidy scheme for a saving of $7.2 million this financial year. The cancellation of this scheme will have a direct impact on the cost of services and in particular the cost of basic necessities for remote Aboriginal communities.

The cost of food is already high in the APY lands and will no doubt go even higher as a result of the cancellation of the petroleum subsidy. In fact, it will make already isolated communities even more isolated as the cost of travel between communities and to regional centres will rise with the increased cost of petrol. This budget has failed to assist the most disadvantaged and marginalised people in our state. Mr President, I am sure that you would be ashamed about what the Premier and the Treasurer are doing to these people.

Moving on to the tourism portfolio, it is not a pretty picture here, either. There will be a total of $12.5 million in cuts over the next four years, starting with a cut of $1 million in 2010-11. This has the capacity to seriously damage our tourism industry, and it concerns me greatly.

The Rann government has also demonstrated, once again, that it is all about the big announcements but it fails to do its homework. Under questioning during budget estimates the Minister for Tourism (John Rau) confirmed that the new Convention Centre plans are already changing. On 14 March, during the state election campaign, Premier Rann put out a media release describing the building as having a 3,500 seat meeting venue.

Just months later, an announcement was made about the Convention Centre containing a 2,500 to 3,000 seat meeting facility. At least 500 seats have seemingly vanished into thin air and, according to this release, it could be as many as 1,000 seats disappearing. We could potentially see close to a 30 per cent reduction in seats after Mr Rann initially announced 3,500 seats.

When questioned about this change during budget estimates last week, Mr Rau advised the committee that it was because the meeting venue capacity is still being decided. Why then did Mr Rann make the initial announcement on seat numbers? Just like the Adelaide Oval and other infrastructure projects, we continually see errors, changes and blowouts from this government.

The Hon. Kevin Foley has handed down nine budgets as Treasurer, and I would like to add comments from the shadow treasurer, the Hon. Iain Evans, on a report that Access Economics put out today. I will read from the release, which states:

Another gloomy forecast for South Australia. The release of the Access Economics Business Outlook publication for the September quarter paints a gloomy economic future for South Australia. The report has clearly outlined that our local economy will continue to fall behind the rest of the nation. South Australia's economic growth was below the national average in 2009-10 and will continue to be below the national average for each of the next five years.

South Australia's population growth was below the national average in 2009-10 and will continue to be below the national average for each of the next five years. South Australia's export growth will be below the national average in five out of the next six years. South Australia's employment growth rate was below the national average in 2009-10 and will continue to be below the national average for each of the next five years. South Australia's unemployment rate will also remain above the national rate up until 2014-15.

The report even plays down Premier Rann's mining boom saying that, although resource development will be a long-term positive for South Australia, it is not likely to reverse...the relative loss of national market share and population output.

Shadow treasurer, Iain Evans has slammed the Rann Labor government for allowing South Australia to fall behind the rest of the nation. 'The Rann Labor government has completely failed South Australians at a time when the state has seen rivers of gold from the GST and record revenue we are languishing behind the rest of the nation. There are less mining jobs in South Australia today than there were in 1985, the state's exports continue to plummet and people continue to leave South Australia for better employment opportunities interstate. If SA had kept pace with national jobs growth under the Rann government there would be 35,000 more jobs in SA with the report indicating this number will keep rising. We are the highest taxed state in the nation but what do we have to show for it? You cannot trust Labor to manage our economy. Eight years of poor economic management by Treasurer Foley is coming home to roost', Mr Evans said.

Sir, I have a statistical table that I seek leave to add.

Leave granted.

Table 1: Access' real growth estimates/forecasts (revised quarterly)

Economic Indicator 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
Gross State/Domestic product SA 1.9% 2.6% 2.8% 2.3% 1.9% 1.9%
Aus 2.3% 3.7% 3.6% 3.3% 2.9% 3.0%
International exports SA -7.8% 1.2% 9.7% 9.4% 6.1% 1.3%
Aus 1.8% 1.5% 7.9% 9.8% 7.4% 5.5%
Total population SA 1.3% 1.0% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7%
Aus 1.9% 1.7% 1.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4%
Employment SA 0.7% 2.9% 1.9% 0.7% 0.4% 0.0%
Aus 1.2% 3.1% 2.2% 1.3% 1.0% 0.7%
Unemployment rate* SA 5.3% 5.1% 5.0% 5.4% 5.8% 6.0%
Aus 5.5% 4.9% 4.8% 5.2% 5.5% 5.6%


*average annual rate

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: With those few words I share my frustration with a budget that really leaves South Australia in limbo. We have had nine years of the Hon. Kevin Foley telling us what a wonderful job he is doing when, quite frankly, we are absolutely in the wilderness.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (17:19): I rise today to speak on the Appropriation Bill. The budget handed down by the Treasurer has obviously been framed having regard to the difficult economic circumstances that the state is currently experiencing. Bearing in mind that approximately 70¢ in every dollar of government expenditure is on salaries and wages, I can understand that the most efficient means of achieving the required savings in the budget is through job cuts to the Public Service.

However, any cuts to the Public Service need to be carried out as a result of ongoing reviews of services provided to ensure that the government is only providing services that are necessary and relevant whilst, at the same time, ensuring that essential front-line services are maintained. This obviously requires a sensible balancing act between the two. The need for continual reviews of services has not arisen just because of the global financial crisis, but has always been necessary.

The reduction of 3,750 Public Service positions is not overly draconian when consideration is given to the turnover of staff as a result of natural attrition and the fact that there is always a need to terminate some jobs in line with the rationalisation of redundant services. Similarly, there will always be a need for new positions to be created to meet emerging service requirements. In my experience, people who are at or near retirement age and who occupy surplus positions are usually more than happy to accept a redundancy package.

The important lesson to be learned from this budget is that there is a continuing need to review each and every activity within government agencies to ensure the need for the activity still exists rather than indiscriminately reducing staff numbers across the board. Some of the 3,750 people displaced from unnecessary activities will be redeployed into other positions, but for this to work satisfactorily there really needs to be a centralised register of displaced staff accessible to departments wishing to fill vacant positions. The previous practice of departments and agencies keeping individual records of surplus staff does not work and has never worked in practice.

I fully support the reduction of 20 per cent of executive level positions by 2013-14. However, I believe the information contained in the budget is rather misleading, as it indicates a reduction of only 10 per cent of executive level positions with the remaining 10 per cent reduction to be achieved through the specific savings initiatives in this budget. I believe reductions of greater than 20 per cent in executive positions are achievable and would be beneficial, particularly where at least some of those savings are redirected to provide additional front-line staff. Essential front-line staff should be immune from any cost-cutting measures.

I note that the position of Commissioner for Public Employment will be abolished from about October 2011 and the duties transferred to the chief executive officer of Premier and Cabinet. This action is long overdue. I applaud the government for taking this action, albeit overdue. The salary paid to the current Commissioner for Public Employment equates to approximately eight or nine ASO2 positions which would normally be found in front-line services.

The loss of annual leave loading for public servants is a particularly contentious aspect of the budget, which has received a hostile response from public servants and the unions. I understand that leave loading was initially provided to compensate shiftworkers who would have experienced a drop in pay when on leave and that leave loading was only confined to these officers. I further understand that leave loading was extended to all public servants following negotiations through enterprise bargaining.

Current provisions for leave loading equate to 3½ days for most public servants and approximately two days for staff on higher salaries. Whilst this does not result in a total loss, it does not seem as if the government is acting in good faith with its proposal. My understanding is that most businesses in South Australia, other than the very large ones, no longer provide leave loading. Although the federal government, through the Fair Work Act, does allow for leave loading provisions as part of modern awards, it is not mandatory.

The unions have expressed their concerns to me over the way this matter has been dealt with, especially as it has not formed part of any enterprise bargaining agreements. I am sure this is an issue which will be further addressed. In any event, the manner in which the issue has been handled indicates that the government must be desperate for savings, otherwise it would have considered the option of phasing out the system of leave loading, as is occurring in the private sector, rather than immediately eliminating the entitlements in their entirety. Again, I am sure this is an issue which will be the subject of further debate.

Similarly, the reduction of long service leave provisions from 15 days long service leave after 15 years of service to nine days has also been raised as particularly contentious by public servants. I think that this issue needs to be considered in the context of what is occurring in the private sector in terms of salary relativity and in terms of the commonwealth Public Service.

Turning to the matter of taxation, the increase in land tax threshold from $110,000 to $300,000 announced in the Mid-Year Review, and the intention to index this threshold, based on advice from the Valuer-General, on the increase in land values from 30 June 2011 is a step in the right direction. However, the government still needs to address the fact that South Australia has the highest land tax rates in the country, and attention must be given to reducing the top rate of $3.70 per $100 of site value in the near future.

Another emerging concern is the emergency services levy. I understand that revenue from this levy is not capped and therefore responds directly to the variation in capital values as determined by the Valuer-General. I would not like to see this being turned into another land tax, which similarly spiralled out of control due to the reluctance of the government to adjust the tax rates in line with increasing values. A cap on revenue from the emergency services levy would facilitate in controlling this and ensure that agencies work within a budget.

Another budget measure involves the discontinuation of funding for business enterprise centres. I understand that the government has withdrawn funding for business enterprise centres as it believes that the establishment of a small business commissioner will result in duplication of services. This justification seems illogical as business enterprise centres serve a different function to that of a small business commissioner.

The role of business enterprise centres is to prevent problems from occurring in the first instance, whereas a small business commissioner would investigate complaints and mediate disputes between businesses. Let me be clear that I support the establishment of a commissioner for small business to deal with problems that occur in this sector. This will greatly assist many small businesses that currently have no affordable or practical redress to deal with issues—newsagents in South Australia come to mind as an example.

I understand that, although the commonwealth and local government continue to provide funding to the business enterprise centres, due to the withdrawal of state funding some business enterprise centres may close in July 2011 with no consideration for particular circumstances, such as existing leases for premises they occupy. It is an issue on which I am currently working and which I look forward to discussing further with the government.

It is also disappointing to see that the government has not accepted the Sustainable Budget Commission's recommendations concerning Zero Waste SA. Whilst I agree with the basic principles of Zero Waste policy, these need to be tempered with a lot of sanity. The objectives of Zero Waste have not been modified to reflect the changes and improvements to the waste industry, and Zero Waste appears to be moving away from best practice in order to fulfil outdated objectives.

For example, at present, recycling of kerbside waste works relatively well, but it is widely known that this does not result in the most sustainable outcome. We should not disregard the fact that there will always be waste to landfill and that there may be more economic and efficient methods that result in more sustainable outcomes.

Today's modern landfill sites are a far cry from the traditional dump. These sophisticated sites are now being utilised to generate renewable energy, with approximately 90 per cent of methane gas generated from landfill being captured and used to drive generators which produce renewable energy in the form of electricity. This is fed directly into the electricity grid, as most landfill sites in Australia are in close proximity to capital cities. The government needs to recognise methane gas capture as a resource recovery rather than waste, as some interstate counterparts have already done.

This must be done at a policy level. I also notice that part of the budget refers to measures for revenue generation by implementing cost recovery mechanisms for services provided. I support this approach as long as the cost recovery is based on sound economic principles; in other words, providing a commercially acceptable price for a commercially acceptable product and not just charging the aggregation of existing salaries and on-costs.

To demonstrate what I am saying, I use the example of the police escort section, which comprises about 15 police officers. As a result of the most recent fee-for-service increases, the actual cost of providing police escorts to heavy haulage loads often exceeds the cost of transporting these loads, whether it is transportable homes or wind farm towers and blades. I am currently working with a number of industry representatives who have expressed frustration over the current practices and policy regarding police escort services.

Police resources should be directed towards law and order, and the over-dimensional escorting business left to appropriately authorised officers of the Department of Transport, Energy and Infrastructure, as is the case in Victoria and as is now under consideration by some other states. I look forward to the outcome of the review which is currently being undertaken into this issue and hope this matter will be appropriately addressed.

Finally, on examining the budget, I was reminded of a quote from Mr Micawber in Charles Dickens' David Copperfield, who said, 'Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six. Result: happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six. Result: misery'. All governments would be wise to be mindful of this in the future.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (17:30): I am standing here today to—

Members interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order! The Hon. Mr Wortley has the call.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I am standing here today to discuss the 2010 Appropriation Bill. In doing so, I note that a lot of the debate to now has concentrated on a couple of very hard and, we would say, brutal provisions within the budget. You can understand the logic of that because, from the point of view of the opposition, they overshadow the many great provisions of this budget. I will go through, bit by bit, every one of the very positive aspects of this budget.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Among the unpopular provisions of this bill, for instance, was the closure of the Parks Community Centre. The government made that very tough decision but, after an outcry—quite a significant outcry—by the electorate, the government, in its wisdom, decided to withdraw that provision and continue to provide the services and enter into discussions with the Port Adelaide Enfield council. Instead of attacking the government for making that decision—

The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Wade will get an opportunity to make a contribution.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: —I look at it from the viewpoint that the government has actually listened and taken the appropriate action to withdraw that provision. I think it should be a tick in the government's favour for listening to the people—unlike when the Liberals were in power. No matter how much the public screamed at some of the provisions they embarked upon, they just totally ignored it and continued with some of their quite barbaric motions in their budgets.

In regard to the Public Service, they were very hard decisions that the government made. As we all know, there were protests on the streets in front of Parliament House, and the unions have every right to protest at these provisions: they are hard and brutal. The big difference between us and the opposition is that we respect their right to protest. One of the first things you did when you came into power back in 1993—

The ACTING PRESIDENT: Order! The honourable member will direct his remarks—

Members interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT: Order, on my left!

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: One of the first things these people did—

The ACTING PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Wortley will desist from pointing, and he will also direct his remarks through the chair.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: We respect the right and acknowledge the unions' anger at these provisions. The big difference, Mr Acting President, is that, when the Liberals came into power in 1993, one of the first things they did was cease payroll deductions for the trade unions in the Public Service. They had no respect for the trade unions and the very purpose of that was to bring the trade unions to their knees. That was the purpose of it: to bring trade unions to their knees, to almost prohibit or prevent them from taking the sort of industrial action they took today. The Labor Party respects their right and encourages union membership. I hope, arising from this campaign, that the membership of unions will increase.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: That is exactly right. There is a big difference between us and the opposition: we respect the unions' right to protest.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Wortley has the call.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I will now go through many of the positive aspects of the budget and then I will go through the achievements of the Labor government from 2002 to 2010. It will take a while. During the last election the Liberals had this misleading campaign, trying to convince the public that nothing was done in this state, that this was a do-nothing state from 2002 to the last election. It took me a little bit of time to find many achievements of this government, which I will outline so that in future elections you will be lying. It will not be through ignorance but through lying, because I will have enlightened you with my speech.

I reflect on the remarks I made this time last year about the government's plan for our state. I reiterate those remarks today because, as I have said consistently, they are and always will be the hallmark of Labor's commitment to the electorate. I noted then, and it remains the case today, that it is Labor's constant intention to foster an inclusive society, one I have defined as a society that allows people to achieve their best while protecting its vulnerable members, a society that recognises both the opportunities and challenges that lie ahead of us.

This budget reflects the government's intention in that regard, coupled with its diligence, prudence and vision. It is a budget that reflects a plan for the present, but which has been formulated in the context of our future as a community, a state and a growing resource powerhouse. It is a budget that has once again seen our state retain its Standard and Poor's AAA rating. In preparing my remarks and noting that the focus of this budget is investment in infrastructure, which by its very nature brings jobs, I pondered on the term to which we refer constantly, namely, infrastructure. What is the real meaning of the term we use so frequently to describe all sorts of components of our built and related environment?

For the benefit of those opposite, infrastructure is the basic, most permanent framework of interdependent networks and systems that underlies and facilitates social, government and economic activity. It includes telecommunications, transportation and utilities and their administrative arms. Some definitions also include education and health services and the like. Interestingly, the word comes from France and is a combination of the Latin word 'infra', meaning sub or below, and 'structure'.

It is the underpinning of a working community. Keynes uses the word exclusively to define publicly owned assets that facilitate production, but excluded privately held assets used for the same ends. These days the term is used much more generally to suggest a foundational framework evident in any networks and systems that support the flow of goods and services for the benefit and smooth functioning of our society.

There ends the lesson. The opposition should understand a bit about infrastructure because they let it rot in the decade they were in government from the 1990s to the early 2000s. It took a Labor government up to eight years—and probably a lot longer—to rebuild and help develop much more of the infrastructure that makes our society a much more pleasant society.

A total of $10.7 billion will be invested over the next four years in our state's infrastructure. I will discuss our investments in housing, health, education and water infrastructure in some detail shortly. Transport is a priority also. This budget delivers the South Road superway at a cost of almost $843 million. It delivers duplication of the Southern Expressway at a cost of $445.5 million. It provides for upgrades to and extensions of our railway lines, costing $1.5 billion over four years. The riverbank precinct, with all its improvements and new works, will go ahead at the cost of $394 million. Improvements to Adelaide Oval will cost around $530 million.

Since taking office, the Rann government has delivered more than $5 billion to our state's previously neglected infrastructure and there is much more to come.

One of our major priorities is the health and wellbeing of all South Australians. This year's budget earmarks a record $4.5 billion for health expenditure. That is more than twice the amount allocated to health in the last year of the former Liberal government so it is the opposition who should be ashamed of itself, not us.

Over the next four years the government aims to put mechanisms in place to achieve a maximum waiting time in casualty of four hours for 95 per cent of patients. This will cost $111 million. More than a quarter of a million elective procedures will be carried out in both metro and country hospitals. This will cost $89 million. The Women's and Children's Hospital will be upgraded at a cost of $64.4 million, and additional funds will be allocated for related costs from 2010-11.

The sum of $12 million has already been allocated for remodelling of the emergency department at Modbury Hospital will be augmented—that word 'augmented' again; only a Labor government, not a Liberal government, can talk about augmentation—by a proportion of total funds of $46 million, with the balance to be expended on a rehabilitation unit. Further, a new emergency department, operating theatres and outpatient facilities at the QEH are to be funded by way of $36 million over two years as part of that hospital's $125 million redevelopment.

There will be additional subacute beds and support care services at the Repatriation Hospital and more equipment for elective procedures and the casualty department. Rates of pay for rural GPs for on-call and ancillary services will be increased in recognition of their crucial role carried out in often difficult circumstances. Importantly, savings required to carry out these reforms and improvements will not impact on the provision of essential health services.

Education is also, of course, a top priority for our government and this year's budget includes $720 million in capital expenditure. In fact, the total budget for the current financial year will amount to more than $2.5 billion, an increase of more than $200 million on last year's financial year, an increase which equates to almost 50 per cent more per student than was expended in the last year of the former Liberal government—a government, I might add, that achieved consistently only in delivering its deficits, a government that during its tenure chipped and chipped away again at health, education, transport and police services, leaving them depleted and our people in real trouble as a result. That took a long time to rebuild, both physically and in terms of community confidence.

An additional 700 teachers and support staff will be employed across preschools and schools from the beginning of 2011. Moreover, this budget gives solid attention to students with disabilities. Special schools will be renewed and six disability units will be located on school grounds. Staff levels will be augmented—again, that word that can be used only in connection with a budget promoted by a Labor person—and there will be extra funding for students with disabilities enrolled at non-government schools. We are committed to genuine support for students with disabilities, not just to paying lip service.

In addition, four of our specialist high schools—Adelaide, Marryatville, Glenunga International and Brighton Secondary—will be expanded to accommodate a total of 800 students at a cost of $60 million. In a move designed to bring South Australia into line with other states, provide equity for enrolees and produce significance savings, commencement at preschools and primary schools will be at the beginning of the year only, not staggered according to birth dates as has previously been the case. These are but a selection of the projects that will continue to build and rebuild our education sector into one of which we can all be rightly proud.

I now turn to the government's commitment to water security. Almost $900 million will be allocated to water security and diversification this financial year. Good rains have helped immeasurably and our reservoirs are at, or close to, capacity, but we cannot be complacent about our future water needs in terms of economic and population growth. The desalination plant is heading towards completion, and work on the north-south interconnection system project continues.

Our significant investment in wastewater treatment plants, stormwater harvesting and re-use, and non-potable wastewater projects recognises our acknowledgement in real terms that every drop of water should be conserved and re-used. The health of the Murray and the communities she supports continue to be a primary focus for the government. We will continue to work with our federal and relevant state counterparts to ensure that South Australia's water supply is guaranteed both now and in the future.

I cannot emphasise enough that the security of our water is of paramount concern for our government. The security of our citizens is also paramount. As was the case in the previous year, this year the Rann government is extending its commitment to maintaining law and order in our community, and this year's budget provides that proof. More than 300 additional officers will be sworn in over the next four years. These men and women will supplement the 400 extra officers recruited over the past four years. The government is also investing in the latest technology for SAPOL and is increasing security on our public transport services. Now that is real action for the protection of our community.

The operational budget for South Australian police has increased to more than $693 million this financial year, and this 2010-11 budget will in fact invest over $186 million in new police initiatives targeting domestic violence and street crime.

The Hon. J.M. Gazzola: How much?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I was asked how much by my colleague; he is staggered at the sort of money we are talking about. It is actually $186 million in new police initiatives targeting domestic violence and street crime.

On the latter, which includes antisocial behaviours such as hooning, disorderly conduct, vandalism and graffiti, and drug offences, $15.5 million has been allocated over four years. This provision includes the establishment of a southern community justice court, a first for our state and a model that has worked well in other jurisdictions.

Domestic violence is entirely unacceptable in our community. Assessment and intervention programs are to be established, and support for, or management of, intervention will be implemented through amendment to the relevant legislation at a cost of $7.8 million. The government's spending on community safety and security represents an increase of more than 4.5 per cent on last year's allocation.

How does the total stack up against the expenditure in the last Liberal budget? I will tell you: it is 88 per cent more. I know it sounds a bit high, and I had better say it again for my friend here. Those opposite might not want to acknowledge that, but the hard yards have been put in here by this government. It is 88 per cent more.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Eighty-eight per cent more. That is all you have to know about. Eighty-eight per cent more, and that figure includes, over the next four years, $12.9 million for the continuation of the bushfire awareness program, and $5.4 million for new infrastructure, equipment and technology for those unsung heroes, the emergency services people, who do so much for each and every member of our community.

Regional Australia has been receiving some additional and long-awaited attention recently from our federal counterparts, both in government and in opposition. The budget we are discussing today looks towards really significant investments in the regions, particularly in infrastructure and services. We are all aware of the exceptional circumstances interest rate subsidies for drought-affected areas. The commonwealth's recent and anticipated extension to that program will be met with a $38.8 million commitment over the next two years by the Rann Labor government.

Meanwhile, infrastructure improvements in health, housing, schools and roads for our regions have been provided for. These include hospital funding of $23.5 million for Ceduna, $14.7 million for Whyalla and $12.7 million for Berri. Maintenance and equipment in country hospitals will garner $8.4 million, and there are increased allocations for ambulance services and aged care in areas of particular need.

Remote Indigenous housing will receive $46.2 million, and affordable rental units will be established in Port Augusta at a cost of $5.6 million. Road and ferry improvements and improvements to our rural freight network will couple with improved roadside rest areas. Work on high risk roads and road safety initiatives to decrease road accident related death and injury will continue, and rural and regional education infrastructure will be augmented at a cost of $30.6 million.

Port Bonython jetty will be refurbished, a desalination plant in Hawker will be established and a variety of plans promoting sustainable futures, exploration and mining, plague control, drought support and rural cancer services among other initiatives will be implemented.

The Rann Labor government is investing $20 million in re-establishing and renewing the Riverland by promoting diversity in industry and additional investment in businesses that are already up and running. This is because while our world-class Riverland food and wine support both the region's and our state's economy, the region requires diversified avenues of financial input to remain healthy and to grow long term.

The prospectus launched prior to the budget looks towards four areas of endeavour: retirement and aged care, and alternative agricultural production coupled with food processing, tourism and education, and these will focus on jobs, economic diversity, productivity and emerging industries. I congratulate the Minister for Regional Development, the local government authorities for Berri-Barmera, Loxton-Waikerie and Renmark-Paringa, the Riverland Development Corporation and the South Australian Murray-Darling Natural Resources Management Board on this excellent initiative.

I turn now to disadvantaged members of our community. We in the Labor Party will never neglect or turn away from people in trouble. We do not want and we will not countenance a society of haves and have-nots.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: Rubbish! Get rid of your poverty group.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Major new investments over the next four years include more funds for the care of children under the guardianship of the minister at a cost of $137.7 million, increased assistance for Disability SA for support, access and respite services at a cost of $70.9 million, increased and indexed concessions and extended eligibility for energy and emergency services levy at a cost of $70 million. There is also new investment in disability equipment, home visiting for seniors, services for children with autism and a rebate scheme for seniors' personal alert systems. As well, a new connected service centre will be established in the western suburbs for the Department for Families and Communities.

In other initiatives aimed at fostering our environment, social amenity and healthy lifestyles, the government is investing more than $28 million over the next four years in local sports facilities and grounds. In fact, funding for facility development and upgrades will increase fourfold and clubs, local government authorities and school councils can now apply for grants of up to $500,000.

Still on the topic of the environment, the sustainable industries education centre to be erected at Tonsley Park will train more than 8,000 people per year in green building and construction technologies. The project is being managed by TAFE SA in partnership with industry and our universities at a cost of $125 million. I just need to take a drink of water, Mr President. As I said there are so many good things in this, my throat is getting a little bit dry so I will just wet my palate before I get on with it.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Good clean Murray water. The Department of Trade and Economic Development will welcome this initiative. The redevelopment of Tonsley Park, an eco-innovation program and a cleantech partnering program will be key areas of departmental focus. These and related initiatives and programs will ensure that our state has new and sustainable industries enabling us to move competently into the future.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: Who wrote this rubbish?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: It was all done in my office, mate. It's not rubbish; it's all fact. I know you don't like hearing it, John, because it is the good news. I know that, but you are going to have to bear with it because there is so much good news that we all need to share in it.

Further, in a move that will save money and reduce carbon emissions, the government will replace over a thousand six-cylinder fleet vehicles with smaller four-cylinder cars. South Australia's own Holden Cruze will feature prominently, promoting employment, lowering our carbon output and saving taxpayers' money.

A new system of minerals royalties, meanwhile, will provide a fairer return for South Australia while encouraging not only mining but also the refining of mining products in our state. Value adding is essential to a healthy, growing mining and mineral sector. There are many more features to this budget including new arrangements for first home owners which will not only target those most in need but will promote building and construction jobs and deliver savings including additional funding for the festivals and exhibitions that are so much a part of South Australia's vibrancy and cultural leadership.

However, others will wish to contribute, too. In any case, if any of those opposite think I am trying to gild the lily I am not going to pretend that there is no pain, because there is pain. There will be adjustments to jobs and entitlements, and other workplace reforms in the Public Service. These were very hard decisions that we had to make. No-one likes it but it is only a Labor government that has the responsibility to embark upon it.

People in our community will be impacted upon by these necessary revenue and cost-recovery measures: we understand that. There will be a strain between the industrial and the political wing of the Labor Party, and we understand that, too. However, in bad times we all have to share the pain. In the good times, when these budget measures take effect, there will be a lot more to give out to everyone in our society, not just to those people at the big end of town who benefit more from Liberal budgets. This government is doing its best to ensure that savings are garnered from those areas of government that have the least adverse impact on families and citizens.

I draw attention to a number of stakeholder comments about the budget. While particularly critical of some areas of the budget, The Advertiser congratulated the government for being sufficiently responsible in retaining the cherished AAA rating, and for sparing cuts to schools, hospitals and police stations. 'Their value to the community cannot be measured in dollars alone,' it editorialised. People should not lose sight of the very extensive and expensive infrastructure program under way: roads, rail, the desalination plant and the riverbank precinct are the types of investment that will multiply in value.

The SA division of the Property Council of Australia, meanwhile, has applauded the budget saying that it has embodied bold decisions to match austerity and investment. This is a long-term budget that maintains the government's commitment to structural reform in the state's economy, and the long-term benefits will eventually outweigh the short-term pain. Business SA says that it understands the importance of driving efficiencies and savings within the existing economic environment. SACOSS has welcomed the range and extension of concessions for our seniors and low-income workers.

There is work still to be done, though, to address the consequences of our last exposure to the stewardship of those opposite—the years of decline in our rural and regional areas, the neglect of health, education, transport and many other vital areas, and the stultifying parochialism used in those days to characterise our state. During the last election campaign the Liberals shamelessly embarked upon a misinformation campaign about the achievements of the Labor government. It did not take much time for me to look up, with a little bit of help, all the achievements this government has had since 2002. I am going to read them to you just so that, in future, you cannot plead ignorance when you try to mislead because, in fact, you would be lying. I seek leave to conclude my remarks after dinner.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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