HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-05-05 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SUPPLY BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (15:23): I rise as a matter of convention to support the second reading of the Supply Bill. In noting that, I will make some general comments about the nature of Supply Bill debates. I noted this morning the Hon. Mr Wortley's contribution. He spent a good part of his earlier contribution attacking the current Liberal Party of opposition, accusing them (in his words) of division and disunity, lack of leadership, etc. as part of his Supply Bill contribution. He then proceeded to attack former Liberal governments, going back through the period 1993 to 2002 for what he claimed to be maladministration, poor economic performance and poor fiscal management.

That has certainly been the nature and thrust of the current debate that we have got. I note, as I looked back in preparation for this Supply Bill debate, the contributions of Labor members over the years to the Supply Bill debate. I look at a contribution from the Hon. Mr Hunter to the Supply Bill debate in 2006, where he spent most of his time attacking the federal Liberal government and Peter Costello's budget and lauding the virtues of Kim Beazley and federal Labor, in his 2006 contribution.

Then, the most recent leader of the government in the Legislative Council, the Hon. Bernard Finnigan, in 2006, spent a good part of his time attacking prime minister Howard—who, he said, wasn't a hero of his—attacking industrial reforms and various policies of the federal Liberal government, and also, of course, attacking the policies of the former Liberal government during the period from 1993 to 2002. Then, to round it off, he started attacking state members of the Liberal Party in the House of Assembly and defending the preselection processes in the Labor Party, as part of the Supply Bill debate in 2006.

When one goes back to other contributions, the Hon. Carmel Zollo, in 2002, gave a lovely whimsical account of the joys of rural South Australia and Lisa and John Rowntree and their olive grove plantation at Coonalpyn.

The Hon. Carmel Zollo: What's wrong with that?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Nothing. I am just acknowledging the nature of the Supply Bill debates over the years. She talked about the industries of the West Coast and kingfish. She had her first kingfish meal 'late last year', in 2002. She talked about the tuna industry and her travels. The HIH industry collapsed nationally in 2002. She then concluded with discussion about how the Rann government was going to get tough on law and order, with a wonderful whisk through all the things that the Rann government was going to do in terms of introducing tough new legislation—

The PRESIDENT: All with the support of the Public Service.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —in relation to knives and all those sorts of things in nightspots, zero tolerance and lethal cocktails. She spoke about all those sorts of things in her, as I said, lovely whimsical contribution in 2002 to the Supply Bill debate.

The PRESIDENT: There is no relevance to supply in your contribution so far.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, they were all part of the Supply Bill debates, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: No; you're on your feet. The Hon. Mr Lucas.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Indeed, with you in the chair this morning, Mr President, the Hon. Mr Wortley, spent, as I said, a good amount—

The PRESIDENT: No, I wasn't in the chair.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, you were.

The PRESIDENT: No.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes you were. You were sitting in a chair when the Hon. Mr Wortley was there.

The PRESIDENT: It wasn't me.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: You were talking to another government member, but you were in the chair and the Hon. Mr Wortley was waxing lyrical, attacking the Liberal Party about division and disunity—

The PRESIDENT: No, he wouldn't have done that.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —and supposedly, a lack of leadership.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Wortley wouldn't have done that.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Hon. Terry Roberts used to always give us a lovely contribution to Supply Bill debates about global and international issues as they related to the South Australian and national economies. This is all part of the Supply Bill contributions. He loved to talk about the problems of the manufacturing industry, of course, which was a great passion of his. He talked on many occasions about rural industries, as the Hon. Carmel Zollo did in 2002.

One can go back over the history of the Supply Bill debates of the last 30 years. In 1980, Chris Sumner, as the leader of the opposition, spoke about McLeay Bros, because he had some concerns about some of their practices in terms of consumer affairs and related it to the Corporate Affairs Commission. The then president of the day ruled: 'There is no reason why the Leader'—that is, the Hon. Mr Sumner—'cannot discuss the Corporate Affairs Commission' and, by inference, the problems that he saw, with McLeay Bros. That was on 27 August 1981.

Again, in 1986, the Hon. Terry Roberts was talking, as I said, at that time again about the manufacturing industry and the problems of global issues as they related to manufacturing in South Australia. The Hon. Terry Roberts was asked what the connection was and the president was going to rule as to whether it was part of the Supply Bill debate. This was president Levy, a Labor president, Mr President, from your particular faction, or your ex-faction, as well. The Hon. Mr Roberts said:

What I am projecting is that if the manufacturing sector does not have increased capital investment in the next financial year, the receipts and revenue to be distributed in forms of a revenue base will decline unless immediate action is taken.

The Labor president Levy ruled:

I accept that relevance to the Supply Bill debate.

There are many others who I have on the record in relation to the Supply Bill debate. I think it is to be encouraged, rather than trying to unduly restrict the Supply Bill debate, as acknowledged this morning by the Hon. Mr Wortley when you were in the chair, Mr President, when you allowed him to viciously attack the current Liberal opposition with his claims of lack of leadership, division and disunity. You were quite happy to allow that to be a contribution to the Supply Bill debate, Mr President.

He then proceeded to, again, viciously attack the former Liberal government's record, as he saw it, from 1993 to 2002, as part of the Supply Bill debate. Well, come on board. We welcome debate in this chamber. We do not resile from good, honest conflict of opinion, and I think it would be a travesty if the conventions of decades, under Labor and Liberal presidents, were to be inhibited in any way in terms of the Supply Bill debate.

That is why I was a little bit concerned that when my colleague the Hon. Jing Lee was giving, I think, a very good contribution in relation to issues which have relevance to the Supply Bill debate, you, Mr President, directed her back to matters that relate to the Supply Bill debate, but, as I said, no such direction was given to the Hon. Mr Wortley when he was viciously attacking the Liberal Party, its leadership and his perception that there was division and disunity.

I place that on the record because this debate is an important debate and I think it would be disappointing to see it (a) disappear, or (b) be inhibited or restricted in any way. The contribution from my colleague the Hon. Mr Dawkins, I think, was a very good example of where one can talk about, for example, branched broomrape, which is of particular interest to him and many in our rural constituency.

There is a contribution in the Supply Bill that goes towards the branched broomrape programs, but he does not have to talk about the actual provisions as they relate to the financing of them, he can talk about the issue generally, the importance, the priority, or lack of priority, that governments have to it, the reasons why you need to spend money on branched broomrape, or why you do not, and those sorts of issues. That has always been the way with the Supply Bill debate. You allowed his contribution to continue, and I congratulate you on that, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: He said a public servant was driving the tractor, I think, or something.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Did he? I am not sure. You allowed that to continue and I think that is a healthy part of the Supply Bill debate. If I can now turn to matters strictly financial, in the first instance anyway, and note that the major change that we have seen in South Australia's financial management since the 2010 budget is that the former treasurer has been dumped from the position as treasurer.

I think it is important that, as we note his dumping from that position by his own colleagues, we look at the record of the former treasurer and the government as it relates to financial management. As I noted in my contribution yesterday afternoon, many commentators are referring to this government as the most secretive and most incompetent government in this state's history, and I added to that, the most scandal-prone government in this state's history as well.

I want to look at the issue of competence, or incompetence, as it relates to financial management. What we see is that after nine golden years, with the rivers of gold from the GST flowing into the coffers, from a GST deal that was negotiated by the former Liberal government, which the now Premier and the former treasurer, Mr Foley, derided as a lemon of a deal for the state of South Australia, we are now getting over $4.5 billion a year in GST revenues.

As noted by one of the earlier speakers, I think the Hon. Mr Brokenshire, the size of the state budget back when this government was first elected was about $7 billion to $8 billion; it is now almost double that: $16 billion. What we have seen is a doubling of the revenue—the income, the taxes, the receipts. I think the question to put to the people of South Australia—and I think we know the answer—is: can you see what this government has done with almost an extra $8 billion a year in terms of additional revenue and income?

I think, without a doubt, everyone you put that question to will say, 'No, we can't see an $8 billion improvement in the level and quality of services being provided by our state government.' In fact, for many of them, as my colleagues have highlighted, they are continually seeing a reduction in the level and quality of services being provided to them, in particular, our constituency in rural and regional South Australia, as my colleague the Hon. Mr Dawkins and others very accurately portrayed, and I will not go over the detail.

I seek leave to have incorporated into Hansard without my reading it a purely statistical table, Table 1.7 from Budget Paper 3.

Leave granted.

2008-09 Actual 2009-10 Estimated Result 2010-11 Budget 2011-12 Estimate 2012-13 Estimate 2013-14 Estimate
Budget balances
Net operating balance $m -233 167 -389 55 216 370
Net lending $m -872 -1,124 -1,791 -841 -194 126
Cash surplus $m -721 -1,121 -1,773 -793 -139 163
Revenue and expenses
Revenue real growth % 1.8 12.3 -5.4 0.2 0.5 -0.7
Expenses real growth % 7.4 9.2 -1.9 -2.7 -0.5 -1.6
Interest ratios
Net interest to revenue(a)(b) % 0.2 0.1 0.8 1.2 1.3 1.5
Net interest plus nominal superannuation interest to revenue(b) % 3.1 3.1 3.6 4.0 4.0 4.0
Balance sheet indicators
Net debt $m 475 1,587 3,335 3,633 3,864 3,847
Net debt to revenue % 3.5 10.2 22.1 23.4 24.1 23.6
Unfunded superannuation $m 8,939 9,476 9,442 9,445 9,428 9,389
Net financial liabilities $m 11,562 13,271 15,096 15,558 15,967 16,105
Net financial liabilities to revenue % 85.5 85.4 100.1 100.2 99.8 98.8
Net worth $m 24,146 25,192 25,392 26,162 27,245 28,379


Note: Real-terms calculations use the Adelaide Consumer Price Index.

(a) Net interest does not include nominal superannuation interest cost.

(b) Revenue does not include interest income.


The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: This table, together with two others that I will have incorporated as well, is the damning indictment on this government and the former failed, dumped treasurer Foley. The first part of this table shows three separate measures of the health of the budget. Everyone will understand the health of their individual budgets—

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. I.K. Hunter): Hon. Mr Lucas, were you seeking leave to have the other two tables incorporated as well?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, not yet. Thank you for your assistance, Mr Acting President. This table shows the health of the budget. As I said, everyone will understand the importance of balancing your budget. There are three separate measures that this government uses. One is called the cash measure, the second one is called net operating balance and the third one is the net lending balance.

The sad reality is that, after nine years of the rivers of gold, the former dumped, failed treasurer has left this 2010-11 budget with massive deficits on all three measures of the budget deficit or surplus. If you look at the cash-in/cash-out measure of the budget, this year's budget is estimated to be in deficit by $1.7 billion just for this financial year. That is actually the measure that the federal government uses to measure the health of its budget. Believe it or not, all of the state jurisdictions have moved to what is known as accrual budgeting in terms of its headline budget figure, but for its own reasons the federal government continues to use the cash-in/cash-out measure of the budget.

If this was a federal budget being reported, the headline figure in The Advertiser would be $1.7 billion deficit this year on the cash measure. When the former failed, dumped treasurer Foley was first elected back in 2002, he said, 'Look, there is only one real measure of the health of the budget, and that's the accrual measure called net lending.' I will not go into the techo description of that, but in layperson's terms it includes everything—accounting for, for example, long service leave, but also accounting for the payment of your capital works program.

He said that is the only real measure and that is what he was going to use to measure the health of the budget from 2002 onwards. He soon changed his mind. After about three years, when he could not get it into surplus, he then quietly jettisoned that measure, even though, as I said, he had said this was the only real measure of a budget. 'The Libs weren't prepared to do it; I am going to do it and we are going to do it.' On that measure, that is, the net lending measure, this year's budget is in deficit by $1.79 billion, so the same as the cash measure. So, if we are reporting on the measure the former, failed, dumped treasurer Foley had proclaimed to be the only real measure, then the headline in the 'tiser would be: 'This year's budget $1.79 billion in deficit'—just for this year. That is one year's in and out, the measure of all your expenditures—a $1.79 billion deficit.

The one measure the former, failed, dumped treasurer, Mr Foley, used finally was the third measure, another accrual measure, called the net operating balance. That is the headline figure used now, and that is a deficit of $389 million, so still very considerable but obviously much smaller than the other two measures, which are a $1.7 to $1.8 billion annual deficit. This one is a mere—if I can use that word advisedly—$389 million deficit for this financial year.

We continue to get attacks by people like the Hon. Mr Russell Wortley, attacking the former Liberal Government in relation to its fiscal management as it sought to fix the problems of the State Bank debacle, but here we see, after eight or nine years of the rivers of gold from the GST deal, through the debt being paid down through the ETSA privatisation, the former, failed, dumped treasurer Foley and the Labor government here in South Australia delivering massive deficits in 2010-11 because they have not been able to balance their budgets right across the board.

The rest of that table, 1.7, is a damning indictment as well of the government, but time today will not permit me to go through it in any greater detail. I now seek leave to have incorporated into Hansard without my reading it table B.2 from Appendix B of Budget Paper 3, a purely statistical table.

Leave granted.

Table B.2: General government key balance sheet aggregates ($million)(a)

As at 30 June Net debt(b) Unfunded superannuation(c) Net financial liabilities Net financial worth Net worth
1988 859
1989 694
1990 854
1991 1,817
1992 4,610
1993 7,884
1994 7,113
1995 5,815
1996 5,512
1997 4,983
1998 4,762
1999 4,779 3,909 9,733 1,894 10,624
2000 1,920 3,543 6,911 2,986 12,445
2001 1,246 3,249 6,093 4,091 14,816
2002 1,303 3,998 6,907 3,559 14,721
2003 666 4,445 6,974 3,500 15,288
2004 224 5,668 7,858 3,842 15,760
2005 144 7,227 9,393 3,853 16,359
2006 -119 6,146 8,171 5,846 19,703
2007(d) -24 5,075 254 8,110 22,128
2008(e)(f)(g) -276 6,468 8,078 7,580 23,741
2009 475 8,939 11,562 5,551 24,146
2010 1,587 9,476 13,271 5,155 25,192
2011 3,335 9,442 15,096 3,898 25,392
2012 3,633 9,445 15,558 3,717 26,162
2013 3,864 9,428 15,967 4,301 27,245
2014 3,847 9,389 16,105 5,099 28,379


(a) During the implementation of the 2008 revised uniform presentation framework (UPF) minor variances in some aggregates compared with earlier budget publications were discovered. This table reflects minor revisions resulting from the back-casting of budget aggregates associated with implementing the revised UPF.

(b) Net debt data for the years before 1999 are sourced from Australian Bureau of Statistics, Government Financial Estimates 2003-04 (Catalogue no. 5501). (c) There is a structural break in the methodology used to calculate superannuation liabilities between June 2003 and June 2004. This accounting change, which involved the adoption of Commonwealth Government bond rate for valuation purposes in line with AASB 119, Employee Benefits, resulted in a significant increase in superannuation liabilities.

(d) There is a structural break in 2007 reflecting the amalgamation of SAFA and SAICORP on 1 July 2006. The transfer of SAICORP's assets and liabilities from the general government sector to the public financial corporations sector resulted in an increase in general government net debt of $99 million at 1 July 2006 and an increase in net financial liabilities of $90 million at 1 July 2006.

(e) There is a structural break in 2008 reflecting the transfer of rail assets from TransAdelaide to the general government sector. This results in an increase in net debt and net financial liabilities of $66 million in 2007-08 and a reduction in net financial worth of $591 million, with no impact on net worth.

(f) There is a structural break in 2008 reflecting the transfer of assets from the Adelaide Festival Centre Trust to the general government sector. This results in an increase in net debt and net financial liabilities of $28 million in 2007-08, and a reduction in net financial worth of $76 million, with no impact on net worth.

(g) There is a structural break in 2008 reflecting the first time recognition on the general government balance sheet of South Australia's share of the net assets of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. This has no impact on net debt, however results in a reduction in net financial liabilities of $615 million in 2007-08, and increases in net financial worth and net worth of $615 million.


The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: No-one here to grant it.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It is very disappointing, Mr Acting President: there is not only not a minister but no government member on the government benches. It is obviously too embarrassing for government members to take their thrashings in terms of fiscal management. This table B.2 is headed 'General government key balance sheet aggregates'. The particular section of that to which I want to draw the attention of members and those 27 readers of Hansard who will see this table is the net debt column.

First, general government is not the total public sector and does not include, for example, areas like the housing trust and what are called non-financial public corporations. It is a narrower section of the budget. That table shows, when one goes back over the years, that net debt in South Australia peaked at $7.8 billion in 1993 at the time of the State Bank debacle, and then through the period of 2001-02, the change of government, it had been reduced significantly through the long-term lease of electricity assets from $7.8 billion down to just over $1 billion. Through the early part of the government administration, with all the rivers of gold flowing into the coffers and surpluses in the early days, it become almost a zero net debt—slightly above zero and slightly below on certain occasions.

What we now see on that measure of debt, increasing from the levels just post the ETSA privatisation, is it now climbing again by 2014 to $3.8 billion. I will address some comments also to another table. I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard without my reading it. It is purely statistical, table B.9, 'Non-financial public sector key balance sheet aggregates' in Budget Paper 3.

Leave granted.

Table B.9: Non-financial public sector key balance sheet aggregates ($million)

As at 30 June Net debt(a) Unfunded superannuation(b) Net financial liabilities Net financial worth Net worth
1988 4,397
1989 4,197
1990 4,457
1991 5,418
1992 8,142
1993 11,610
1994 10,550
1995 8,844
1996 8,432
1997 8,170
1998 7,927
1999 7,657 3,909 13,099 -12,256 10,624
2000 4,355 3,543 9,914 -8,986 12,445
2001 3,223 3,249 8,151 -7,109 14,816
2002 3,317 3,998 8,973 -7,902 14,721
2003 2,696 4,445 9,096 -8,811 15,288
2004 2,285 5,668 10,031 -9,550 15,760
2005 2,126 7,227 11,511 -11,004 16,359
2006 1,786 6,146 10,451 -9,889 19,703
2007(c) 1,989 5,075 9,518 -8,795 22,128
2008(d)(e) 1,611 6,468 10,208 -10,487 23,741
2009 2,872 8,939 14,302 -14,921 24,146
2010 4,864 9,476 16,901 -17,168 25,192
2011 7,101 9,442 19,253 -19,499 25,392
2012 7,209 9,445 19,513 -19,623 26,162
2013 7,360 9,428 19,835 -19,745 27,245
2014 7,545 9,389 20,191 -19,939 28,379


(a) Net debt data for the years before 1999 are sourced from Australian Bureau of Statistics, Government Financial Estimates 2003-04 (Catalogue no. 5501).

(b) There is a structural break in the methodology used to calculate superannuation liabilities between June 2003 and June 2004. This accounting change, which involved the adoption of Commonwealth Government bond rate for valuation purposes in line with AASB119, Employee Benefits, resulted in a significant increase in superannuation liabilities.

(c) There is a structural break in 2007 reflecting the amalgamation of SAFA and SAICORP on 1 July 2006. The transfer of SAICORP assets and liabilities from the general government sector to the public financial corporations sector resulted in an increase in non-financial public sector net debt of $99 million at 1 July 2006 and an increase in net financial liabilities of $90 million at 1 July 2006.

(d) There is a structural break in 2008 reflecting the amalgamation of the South Australian Community Housing Authority (public financial corporation) with the South Australian Housing Trust (public non-financial corporation). This results in an increase in net debt and net financial liabilities and a decrease in net financial worth of $98 million in 2007-08, with no impact on net worth.

(e) There is a structural break in 2008 reflecting the first time recognition on the general government balance sheet of South Australia's share of the net assets of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. This has no impact on net debt, however results in a reduction in net financial liabilities of $615 million in 2007-08, and increases in net financial worth and net worth of$615 million.


The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: This is the most damning table, because it shows the total net debt, taking into account all of the statutory authorities, etc., in South Australia. Total net debt at the time of the State Bank debacle was $11.6 billion in South Australia and, by the time of the change of government in 2001-02, that $11.6 billion had dropped to just over $3 billion, so it was a decline of $8.5 billion dollars in terms of the total non-financial public sector net debt.

From that low it is now being predicted by this government and the policies of the former, failed, dumped treasurer, Mr Foley, to reach $7.5 billion by the end of the forward estimates, that is, 2013-14. Just to repeat: from $11.6 billion down to just over $3 billion; now that number is climbing steeply to $7.5 billion in terms of net debt. That, of course, does not include the particular issues as they relate to the Royal Adelaide Hospital and others—and I will address some comments to those issues in a moment—but this is the actual measure of net debt without those particular issues being incorporated.

So we are seeing more than a doubling of the net debt in South Australia being predicted by the policies of the former, failed, dumped, Labor treasurer, Mr Foley. That is the structure of this Supply Bill. Table B9 shows the total net financial liabilities, and you add in the unfunded superannuation, which is around about $9 billion. It was down to just over $3 billion at the change of government, and again it has increased by over $6.3 billion under this Labor government.

What we see with the net financial liabilities is that at the change of government they were at a low of $8.1 billion, and in 2014 they are predicted to be $20.2 billion. So you are talking about your financial liabilities as a state having jumped from $8.1 billion to $20.2 billion under the policies of the former, failed, dumped Labor treasurer, Mr Foley.

So, Mr Acting President, I am not surprised that you and others within the caucus took the view that you did, that enough was enough and that something had to be done, that the former, failed, dumped treasurer, Mr Foley, needed to be gotten rid of, preferably out of the parliament altogether, but at the very least the first step was to get him out of the treasury chair and to at least try somebody else. I must admit I have no confidence in the person who has been placed there, but—

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. I.K. Hunter): The member might like to try to go back to some semblance of relevance.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, Mrs Acting President, you will be delighted to know that, in terms of precedents in the Supply Bill debate, I was very pleased to quote your contribution of 2006, where you spent the entire speech attacking Peter Costello, John Howard and the federal budget. I am sure you will find that my contribution is much closer to the Supply Bill debate than your contribution, which attacked John Howard, Peter Costello and the federal budget in 2006.

The ACTING PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Lucas will try to apply some semblance of relevance to his closing remarks.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: They are not closing remarks, Mr Acting President—

The ACTING PRESIDENT: It's a shame.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —they are my opening remarks; I'm just starting. I now want to turn to what we were told prior to the election in terms of financial management and commitments. Mr Acting President, I am sure you will note that your acting leader for an interim period during debate this afternoon in my view quite erroneously accused me of telling lies on a frequent basis in this chamber.

If that is the language that we are allowed to use, my criticism goes back to the statements that have been made by your representatives, Mr Acting President—your Premier and your Treasurer—prior to the election, I think, in the words of the acting leader, on an interim basis in this chamber of the government, that the Premier and the then treasurer told lies to the people of South Australia prior to the state election and knowingly told lies to the people South Australia in the period leading up to the election about a number of key issues, some of which I am now going to outline.

The key lie, we know, was the lie in relation to Adelaide Oval, and that was in relation to what the former, failed, dumped treasurer, Mr Foley, said prior to the election, even when challenged during the election, by me as it turned out, that I had been provided with information that there had been a $100 million blowout in the cost of the Adelaide Oval project and that the government had been advised. The lie that was told by Mr Foley, Mr Rann and others was, first, that there was no blowout; and, secondly, that they had received no advice at all about a blowout in the cost of the Adelaide Oval project.

That was a lie and, in the end, the former, failed, dumped treasurer Foley had to admit to that when football and cricket representatives were about to meet with the opposition post the election in terms of what they had advised the former treasurer, and that was that there was an estimated blowout of $100 million in the cost of the project—that it could not be done for 'not a penny more than $450 million', as we heard prior to the election.

So, the former treasurer then fessed up and said that he had forgotten about the meeting; he had forgotten about being told; he had forgotten about being advised of the $100 million blowout; he had forgotten about everything in a most convenient way. Well, no-one in his own caucus believes that, no-one in this parliament believes that, and no-one in the South Australian community believes that. One of the problems this government has is when it thinks it can get away with such bald-faced lies like that to the people of South Australia, both before the election and since the election.

The same thing with the Royal Adelaide Hospital, which, of course, has had much prominence in the last few weeks, I guess. Prior to the election, we were told that it was definitely $1.7 billion. The first lie was that, late in the year before the election, cabinet had approved an increase in the budget from $1.7 billion to $1.8 billion—an increase of a lazy $100 million in the cost of the project. Yet all through the election campaign, the bald-faced lie that was being told by the Premier, the former treasurer and the current Minister for Health was that their advice was that it was $1.7 billion and it would be built for $1.7 billion, when each of them separately and all of them collectively as a cabinet had approved an increase in the budget from $1.7 billion to $1.8 billion.

How do we know that? Because the Auditor-General, subsequent to the election, reported on that. So, as I said, a lazy $100 million blowout at that stage being acknowledged. Of course, what we have seen subsequently is now the revelations from the Macquarie Bank prospectus, and that is being debated at great length now. Again, that reveals the starkness of the bald-faced lies that we were all told prior to the state election and subsequent to the election as well. The media reported today that the total up-front cost is $2.7 billion. The cost of the total payments over the 30 years of the concession are approximately $11 billion over the period of the PPP deal that is being conducted.

When one looks at the information that has been leaked to the media, evidently, it indicates, for example, that the service payment in 2016 (the first year) is $257 billion. In 2021, it will be $367 billion; in 2027, it will be $377 billion. It peaks in 2031 at $391 million, and then in 2036 it is $370 million. There are another 10 years after that, but for some reason the document does not include further estimates of the service payments. That is an issue that will need to be pursued but, on any sort of rough estimate of the average payments, it is close to $11 billion in total payments for the hospital.

I guess this is one of the problems this government has, because in the areas I have highlighted it has told so many bald-faced lies to the people of South Australia that, frankly, people just do not believe this government or its ministers on virtually anything. I assume it will occasionally be the case that the government tells the truth, but it is almost impossible to know, because it has told so many bald-faced lies to the people of South Australia that people just will not know when what they are being told is truthful and factual or when it is just another big, bald-faced lie like the ones they were told prior to the state election.

When one goes through that document it is obviously going to be an issue, although I suspect it might be closed down. Other committees of the parliament might look at it but, knowing the Budget and Finance Committee, I would imagine that when Health and Treasury bureaucrats come, at the very least—it may well be even more intensive than this—there will be some close questioning done.

I know that we have always been told—the parliament and the public have been told by the ministers, and the Budget and Finance Committee has been told by bureaucrats—that, on the issue of contamination, other than some initial site works, the total cost of the contamination would be the costs of the project and the consortium. That was always what we have been told. Look at what is now being leaked; on the issue of contamination; these are the key terms of the project agreement:

Subject: Contamination

The consortium [that is, SAHP] must conduct detailed due diligence on the site to ascertain the suitability and adequacy of the site. SAHP is responsible for remediating any contamination on the site. There is a compensation regime whereby the state will be responsible for 80 per cent of the cost of remediation of unknown, pre-existing contamination and 100 per cent of contamination caused by the state.

Let us be clear about that: the compensation regime is that the state will have to pay the consortium for any clean-up of 100 per cent of the contamination caused by the state and 80 per cent of the cost of remediation of any unknown, pre-existing contamination.

That is completely contrary to the commitments that the Premier, the former failed, dumped treasurer and the current health minister have been giving for some period of time. It is certainly contrary to the evidence given by senior bureaucrats to parliamentary committees such as the Budget and Finance Committee. That is the problem; that is just another problem that we have with this administration, with this government, in terms of how it manages major projects. The information now in the public arena will lead to extraordinarily close scrutiny of the statements made by the Premier, the former failed, dumped treasurer, the current Treasurer and the current health minister in relation to this particular project.

It is huge project. The issue that is not widely understood is the reason, or one of the major reasons, it is being done as a PPP. If it was done in the traditional public sector procurement method—that is, the normal way that we build schools and hospitals—then over this next five years or so, from 2011 to 2015-16, when it is built, the total cost (whether it is $1.7 billion or $2.7 billion, which appears likely now with the Macquarie Bank) of that $2.7 billion has to be included in the budget measures in the budget documents. As you build a school for $50 million it goes on the budget documents and it is part of your capital works expenditure and it is part of your net debt. So that $50 million for your local high school or primary school, or whatever it is, goes on your budget aggregates. It has to be included and, therefore, has to be budgeted for.

So, if it was done in the traditional way, the former, failed, dumped treasurer (Mr Foley) and the current Treasurer would have had to have included in their forward estimates portions of the $2.7 billion for each of those financial years up until the end of the current forward estimates, which is 2013-14, and then in the next lot of forward estimates for 2014-15 and 2015-16. The amount of $2.7 billion is a huge chunk of any budget. The total budget is around about, as I said, $16 billion, and $2.7 billion is a huge chunk to absorb.

The PPP allows that, for the next five years, you do not have to include anything in your operating accounts. You do not have to include anything in your capital payments because the private sector has, through the investors, through Macquarie and others, pulled together the capital, borrowed the money, and financed the $2.7 billion. So, nothing has to appear in that period in terms of your annual operating expenses or your annual capital works expenses in your budget aggregates.

However, what happens in 2016 when this hospital gets turned over—albeit, at the moment, it looks like it does not have a lot of the equipment and stuff in there and that will have to be paid for by the taxpayers over and above the financing arrangements with the hospital? From 2016 onwards you have to then start budgeting somewhere between $260 million and $390 million a year for the next 30 years to pay for it. That will be an annual operating expenditure, part of your net operating balance costs and, therefore, an impact on your net operating balance but will not happen until 2016.

Of course, this government is working on the basis that it is not going to be in government after 2014. It is in there for its last hurrah. It is not interested in the long-term measurement in terms of the impact of this budget on the state's finances. Essentially, what it is saying is, 'We are going to have a ride for four years until 2014.' The Premier is going to retire or be ushered off into the horizon if the left has its way next year or late this year. The former, failed, dumped treasurer will leave the parliament and this government assumes (this is its judgement) it is not going to be around from 2014 onwards. Therefore, it does not worry about what the impact on the budget is going to be from 2016-17 onwards.

All the government was worried about was winning the 2010 election and having a couple of monuments. The former, failed, dumped treasurer wants to have a statue erected of him outside the new Royal Adelaide Hospital because he believed in the magnificence of his own work, and that it should be recognised by a statue outside the new Royal Adelaide Hospital. All they are interested in is monuments to their time in office. They could not give a continental about who is going to have to pay for it after the 2014 election. Whether it is $250 million a year or $400 million a year, or whatever it is, for how many years it has to be, that will be a cost for our children and for our grandchildren in terms of the payment for that project.

Now, in the past, the primary guideline for doing a PPP was only when it could be demonstrated by Treasury and to the auditor-general that it was cheaper than doing it through the public method. This government breached that guideline when they went down the super schools path. Up until then, they had said they would never do a PPP unless it was shown to be cheaper than what is called the public sector comparator; that is a model which is done by Treasury and the public service to indicate, 'This is what it would cost to deliver it if we did it the traditional way. This is how much it will cost if you do it through a PPP. We will only do it if it is value for money and if the PPP is cheaper than the public sector comparator.'

As I said, that was their guideline up until the super schools PPP. When they found that it was actually going to be $9 million or $10 million more expensive than the public sector comparator to do the PPP for the super schools, they threw that guideline out the window. They said, 'We are not going to worry about that. We want to go down the super schools path.' Again, the financial advantage to them was they did not have to find the money up-front. The future generations would have to pay the cost of that over the period of whatever it is—20 or 30 years—for the super schools project as well.

So, that guideline, which is an essential guideline for proceeding down the path of PPPs, is a guideline which has to be (or should be) followed for this PPP but also future PPPs as well, if they are to be contemplated. We should only be moving down these particular paths if we can demonstrate that they are value for money and they are cheaper than the public sector comparator.

I did have a further significant contribution in relation to the many examples of government waste that have been demonstrated through the work of the Budget and Finance Committee and through my colleagues in another place. Given the time this afternoon, I now do not propose to go through all of the details of those. I am sure there will be other occasions when we will be able to highlight those particular examples of waste.

I indicate, in general response, that we constantly get the interjection from government members, 'Well, what would you do instead?' It is quite clear what we would do, that is, cut the significant examples of waste we have seen right across the board. We issued a document prior to the 2010 election with many of those examples of cutbacks: the Public Sector Performance Commission, the Centre for Social Innovation, the Social Inclusion Board, Thinkers in Residence, government spin doctors, etc.

Many of those we listed then are still applicable today in terms of the massive areas of government waste that we see through departments and agencies. That is where we should be cutting the budgets at the moment, rather than the weight disorder units at Flinders, rather than the Keith hospital, in terms of the health system, rather than the quality of some of our outback roads.

These are not the priorities for expenditure cutbacks. Have a look at some of the other pet projects that the Premier and this government have indulged themselves in over the last eight or nine years. There is plenty of fat in the system that can be cut before the sorts of cuts that they have been implementing over the last couple of budgets.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (16:08): I rise to speak relatively briefly on the Supply Bill. The Attorney-General brags that he has commissioned 14 reviews in his time as Attorney-General, yet there have been very few outcomes from these consultations. The Attorney-General might enjoy consultation, but consultation is not an end in itself: it is only a means to an end—an outcome. Those outcomes we do see are so often flawed in many respects. Much of the increased legislative activity of this council since the last election is as a result of the flawed work of the Attorney-General.

When amendments are made by this place, we often find that the bills are returned to us without any accommodation. The arrogance of this government is staggering. They have an almost religious conviction that their proposals are perfect and have no scope for improvement. Often, they maintain that view in the face of those proposals being rejected by a full two-thirds of this council.

Getting an outcome from a consultation with the government is almost as hard as getting copies of submissions from the Attorney-General. Despite using all the trappings of the department to run the consultations, the Attorney-General fails to be open and transparent. The government is afraid of criticism, it is afraid of anything that challenges its point of view.

On some matters the Attorney-General is having narrowly focused consultations, including only a small number of stakeholders in decisions that impact on whole industries and, at times, all South Australians. I would like to focus my comments today on the broad public consultations, particularly consultations on bills.

The Liberal Party is committed to openness and transparency. We consider that openness and transparency in government are vital for a healthy liberal democracy. The development over recent decades of freedom of information and whistleblower legislation is testimony to the commitment of this parliament to that fact.

Consultation with the community on issues affecting them is also vital for quality decision-making. On this point I would recognise the well developed process for consultations on parliamentary bills which have developed in the Attorney-General's Department over a number of years.

Of course, the team of Attorney-General's Department advisers who manage the development of policy and bills and consultations on them is resourced through the Appropriation Bill and the Supply Bill, which is before us this afternoon. I am concerned that the government is winding back the openness and transparency of these processes and in that sense it is going against the flow of more freedom of information.

I have taken the position, as shadow attorney-general, that community input into bills through formal consultation is some of the most relevant information that this parliament could have available to it, and it should be available to the parliament. It is relevant because it reflects community views. It is relevant because it is the material which the government implicitly claims it is taking into account in finalising bills that are considered by this place.

I have established the practice of asking for copies of all submissions to consultations in relation to draft bills when the government briefs me on the bills when they are subsequently tabled in parliament. The problem here is that the requests are not being acceded to. In some cases, even though the notes of the meeting record such a request, the government is denying that a request has been made.

I have also developed the practice of lodging freedom of information requests on consultations on bills. There are a range of problems with this approach. First, the information may not be provided by the time the parliament considers the matter. It is not just that bills may be considered within 12 days of being tabled and FOI requests take three times longer, but the processes for parliamentary groups is such that papers for party meetings need to be prepared in advance; in other words, less than 12 days.

It is not realistic to say, 'Just FOI it', which is what we are being told by the government. The information may involve cost. One recent FOI application in relation to a bill before this place, I was told, would cost almost $1,500. To be charged $1,500 for information from the public, from my constituents, on a bill that the government wants me to support without being fully informed, I find offensive.

There is also a growing trend for the Attorney-General's Department to claim exemptions under FOI. One of the early FOI requests I made on a bill was in relation to the weapons bill and, I must admit, I was delighted with the range of material that arrived and it was instrumental in informing much of the opposition's contributions to that debate. In fact, I am sure that honourable members would have recognised opposition amendments in submissions from community organisations.

There has been a growing trend for the Attorney-General's Department, in particular, to be more vigorous in claiming exemptions under the FOI Act. On one application an officer was suggesting to me that they were going to contact all submitters on an application in terms of documents affecting personal affairs. There was no suggestion that an assessment had been made as to whether the documents had any elements of personal affairs in them, it was just assumed that would be a good thing to do. I reminded the officer to consult section 6 of the act, and I understand that did not occur.

I had a range of other exemptions claimed, exemptions such as: the material is confidential and it might be reasonably expected to prejudice the future supply of information. I find it incredible that you could suggest that the community will stop communicating with its government because it might dare to tell the opposition. After all, the opposition may well be the government. I find that stakeholders, overwhelmingly, are keen to engage both sides, yet the government wants to twist the Freedom of Information Act to deny access and information.

The fourth problem I find in terms of using the FOI Act for collecting material on consultations on bills is that an FOI application by its definition is an application from one person. As this government so often forgets, this parliament consists of 69 members. There are five parliamentary groups—the Liberal Party, the Labor Party, the Greens, Family First and d4d. There are a further five or six Independents, depending on how you want to count them. That means there are 10 or 11 political entities in this parliament.

If there is an FOI application from myself as shadow attorney-general, that is one set of information going to one member of 69. I would suggest to the government that it is bizarre to suggest that freedom of information is an appropriate mechanism to distribute information in relation to consultation on public bills because, after all, we would otherwise have a huge waste of public resources as 69 members—or at least 11 political entities—are each making their own application to the government for an FOI. It is not in the spirit of FOI. FOI is not to provide people access to appropriate information in the public domain. It is not meant to be a locked door to information: it is meant to be a facilitator where that door is not otherwise open.

The Liberal Party (for its part) is committed to transparency and accountability. We support disclosure of submissions made by organisations and members of the public in relation to public consultation on draft public bills and issues papers leading to bills. Doing so we believe would have three particular outcomes. First of all, it would promote openness in government and accountability of ministers of the Crown and other government agencies, enhance respect for the law and further the good government of the state. Those of us who are good students of the Freedom of Information Act would recognise those as key phrases from that act.

Secondly, we believe that openness would enhance the quality of the legislative process. Thirdly, we believe that it would reassert the parliament in the legislative process vis-a-vis the executive. We understand that the Premier has been forced to back down on his latest attempt to undermine this council—I understand a second minister will be appointed. However, having two ministers in this place can just mean one more person to say no.

The executive needs to remember that it does not own the people and their views. The executive are the servants of the community, accountable through the parliament. When the executive receives the community views on a bill through consultation, I think it is arrogant for the government to micromanage the conversation and deny access to those documents to the wider parliament. After all, the consultations I am focusing on are not consultations on government policy. The government from time to time will want to consult about how it manages this issue and that, and much of that will involve the way the government organises itself and develops and implements its policies. However, here I am focusing on proposed parliamentary bills.

Bills are the key business of the parliament, not the executive. The parliament is the arbiter of the bills. The executive may have the resources to develop bills that other members lack, and for that matter a head start in any vote in this parliament, but, in the end, it is the parliament that makes the laws. Members of the executive need to remember that they are first and foremost members of this parliament. While they can be a member of parliament without being a member of the executive, they cannot be a member of the executive without being a member of parliament.

The Liberal Party has decided that, as a matter of principle, all submissions on public bills or issue papers on public bills issued by the Attorney-General or the Attorney-General's Department should be made available to parliamentarians at the time the bill is tabled. We hope that the government will see the value of this openness and transparency but, if not, we will be seeking the support of members of this council to support us in establishing this principle as the standard practice in South Australian public law development and the practices of the Parliament of South Australia.

Given the lack of cooperation of the government in response to direct requests and freedom of information requests, the opposition has decided that we will seek the support of the parliament to force the government to embrace transparency. This is a principle of good practice that we are seeking to establish. There will be exceptions, but the default position should be disclosure. The presumption should be that, if submissions are not available, the bill should not progress. I suggest that it would facilitate this process for the government to make a clear statement when it calls for submissions that all submissions will be made public.

Depending on the subject matter of the consultation, it may be more appropriate in some instances to give people the opportunity to indicate whether they consider the material they are providing is confidential. However, on the whole, considering we are talking about public consultation on public bills, people who make submissions to public consultations expect their submissions will be broadly distributed.

In any event, just as the FOI Act does not give people a veto over the release of documents relating to them, the opposition does not think that it is appropriate that people, corporations and organisations should be able to cart blanche insist that their submissions to government are kept confidential. The opposition will be vigilant to resist any attempt by government to try to manipulate the consultation processes by encouraging assertions of confidentiality.

In terms of the parliament insisting on access to submissions, on behalf of the opposition I commit to working with the government and with the crossbench MPs to develop sensible, practical principles for the disclosure of information and appropriate transitional arrangements, and we do expect an evolving process. As an opposition we believe that the parliament and the government of South Australia are at the point where we are mature enough to expect full disclosure of consultation on public bills before they enter this parliament.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Public Sector Management, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister for Gambling) (16:21): I thank honourable members. Given that there are no further second reading contributions, I will make a few closing remarks. This bill provides for government service delivery until the budget has been passed through the parliamentary stages and the Appropriation Bill 2011 receives assent. In the absence of special arrangements in the form of the Supply Acts, there would be no parliamentary authority for expenditure between the commencement of the new financial year and the date on which assent is given the main Appropriation Bill.

In closing debate on this bill I reiterate the achievements of this government in fiscal management. Careful management of the state's operating position has put the state in a position to embark upon record investment in critical infrastructure that will provide benefits to South Australians for many years to come. The last budget provided more than $10 billion of infrastructure spending over the next four years. The government has also delivered tax cuts in recent years to help both businesses and individuals and to secure future growth.

In total, it is estimated that, once all measures have been brought in the government will have reduced taxes on a cumulative basis by around $4.6 billion by 2013-14. This is not a trivial sum and will help boost private enterprise, which is still feeling the after effects of a global recession. The last state budget provided extra investment over the next four years in areas that affect the lives of South Australians every day: $883.5 million more investment in health; $156 million more investment in education; and $525.4 million more investment in transport.

Also, over the next four years the government has provided for an extra $137.7 million in alternative care funding for vulnerable children (this was on top of an extra $25.2 million in 2009-10); an extra $70.9 million for Disability SA on top of the extra $13.8 million specifically for disability equipment; and an extra $4.2 million for children with autism.

I again remind the house that this government has increased energy, water and sewerage and fixed property emergency services levy concessions for pensioners. We also extended the energy and emergency services levy concession to low income earners. Prudent management of operating spending has enabled these investments to be delivered, while keeping borrowings at a manageable level.

Through prudent financial management this government has maintained the state's AAA credit rating against a backdrop of global recession, a global recession which saw other advanced economies suffer. This government took the difficult decision to reduce jobs in the Public Service. This government does not hide from cutting back on administrative aspects in the Public Service by reducing the number of executives. What the opposition will not tell you, though, is that this government has also invested in new front-line public sector jobs, with nearly 2,000 new, full-time equivalent employees, who will fully carry out the promises the government took to last year's election.

Despite the criticism from across the chamber, I remind members that the government's fiscal record speaks for itself: AAA credit rating, better hospitals and more doctors, nurses, police and teachers, and more than $10 billion invested in infrastructure over the next four years. At this point I wish to thank all honourable members who contributed to the second reading debate for their support.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Bill taken through committee without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Public Sector Management, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister for Gambling) (16:27): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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