Supply Bill 2014

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 5 June 2014.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (15:55): I rise to support the second reading of the Supply Bill. The Supply Bill is a relatively simple and straightforward bill that we see on a regular basis, usually once a year, occasionally twice a year. Essentially, this will provide just under $4 billion, if approved by the parliament, to allow the continued payment of public services from 1 July 2014 for a period of up to three months or whenever the money runs out, the theory being that the Appropriation Bill will be introduced on Thursday of this week and, in the normal course of events, will pass before the midyear parliamentary break, which is some time (I cannot remember exactly when) in late July or early August, and the Supply Bill will allow the continued operation of the Public Service and the delivery of public services all during that particular period. That will therefore ensure that, even if there were delays in the Appropriation Bill, the payment of doctors and nurses, transport services and the like can continue without any fear that there will be any break in those services during any parliamentary consideration of the Appropriation Bill.

In addressing the Supply Bill and the fact that we are looking at a very significant sum of money ($3.9 billion) in this Supply Bill, in the normal course of events, there is no detail given, and that is usual; there is no budget breakdown, there is no detail as to exactly where that money is going to be spent. One can assume only that, generally, it is for a continuation of the existing services that state governments deliver right across the board. We can be guided in that by where the money is being currently spent in 2013-14 and where the government has indicated by way of either election commitment or policy announcement that it intends to spend money in 2014-15 as a guide in terms of where this money might be spent. But certainly the money will be spent on every arm, area or sector of public service in government. The debate, as you would know, Mr President, on the Supply Bill has been broad ranging as long as it canvasses any of the areas where public expenditure of a state government nature is involved.

In looking at the reason we need a $3.9 billion Supply Bill, I want to look at the recent record and the projected record of the government in terms of its financial management. It will not surprise you, Mr President, to know that I and many members in the community have been fiercely critical of the financial mismanagement, negligence and incompetence of various Labor premiers, various Labor treasurers and, collectively, Labor governments since 2002. I think that it is useful, in doing that, to look at some specific figures and to compare the promise against the performance. In doing that, I will go back to a period from 2008-09, just before the global financial crisis, through to the next financial year, which will be 2014-15.

In the analysis, I want to describe the very first mention of that particular financial year in the budget documents. In relation to 2008-09, some four years prior to that, in the budget documents in the forward estimates, there would have been an estimate or a promise as to what the surplus was going to be for the financial year 2008-09. For that financial year, when it first appeared in the budget documents, the commitment was that there would be a $75 million surplus in 2008-09. In the end, when we got to 2008-09, instead of the $75 million surplus, there was a $233 million deficit.

For the 2009-10 year, the initial promise was for a $208 million surplus. That was on track, because what was actually delivered was a $187 million surplus—very close to the estimate. I note that the budget in that year was significantly assisted by very significant federal government grants as a result of the global financial crisis and the financial assistance package that the federal government provided to the states through Building the Education Revolution and other financial assistance packages that were provided to the states in their state budgets to assist the national economy to respond to the GFC.

Nevertheless, the actual delivery in that year was very close to the estimated surplus. For 2010-11, the very first promise was for a $278 million surplus. That turned into a $53 million deficit. For 2011-12, it starts to get progressively worse. The first promise was for a $424 million surplus and what happened was a $258 million deficit, so for 2011-12 we are talking in terms of a turnaround of almost $700 million from what was promised to what was delivered.

In 2012-13, it got worse. The promise was a $304 million surplus and what was delivered was a $948 million deficit—a turnaround of over $1.2 billion in terms of what was delivered against what was promised. Then for 2013-14, it was worse again: a promised surplus of $480 million and an actual deficit of $1,013 million, so a turnaround of approximately $1.5 billion for the 2013-14 financial year that we are just concluding. As we speak, if we look at the financial year 2014-15, the promised surplus was initially $840 million. On the most recent estimate provided in about January of this year for 2014-15, it was estimated that we would be having a $576 million deficit—again, a turnaround of about $1.4 billion.

The sad record we have seen over those seven financial years is that, in each of those seven years, the government promised a surplus. However, they delivered six budget deficits as opposed to seven surpluses. The only year that there was a surplus was the year when there was a bailout following the GFC, which was 2009-10. What is even more worrying is that, whilst in the early stages, the slippage or the turnaround might have been of the order of $200 million or $300 million, what we have seen in the last three years—2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15—is slippage or a turnaround or a decline in performance of nearing $1.5 billion per year. That is, the difference between the surplus promised and the deficit actually delivered has been between $1.2 billion and $1.5 billion a year. That is a damning indictment of the Weatherill Labor government and various other Labor governments under previous—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: The Labor government has no backbenchers at the moment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Certainly not much support for the leader, but we knew that to be the case.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: There is no support for the leader.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No support for the leader at the moment, but we knew minister Gago was—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It is disappointing there are no Labor members prepared to support their leader at all. The worrying thing for South Australians as we look at this Supply Bill—and as we are about to enter an Appropriation Bill debate for the next couple of months—is the financial mismanagement and incompetence of the Premier, the Treasurer, various ministers and the government. To have a situation with such consistency that the difference between what was initially predicted and what was actually delivered is nearing $1.5 billion a year is a damning indictment.

Let me look just at the year we are about to conclude, which is 2013-14, and you can do this for each of those years but time does not permit. As I indicated earlier, when the budget estimates were first brought down for that particular financial year (that is for 2013-14, this financial year) it was in the 2009-10 budget, so it was the last year of the forward estimates. In that, Labor boldly predicted that there was a pathway to surplus and 'we are going to deliver a $480 million surplus'.

Remember those words, Mr President, 'pathway to surplus', because I am sure we are going to hear them over the next couple of days. I am sure the caucus has been inculcated with a pathway to surplus, a return to surplus and that will be the phrase the caucus will be asked to parrot on behalf of—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: It is a potholed pathway.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It is a very potholed pathway, as the Hon. Mr Dawkins indicates. The pathway to surplus back in 2009-10 was for a $480 million surplus in the 2013-14 year. So as everyone looked at those budget papers, they said, 'Oh, yes, we're going to have this half a billion dollar surplus in 2013-14.' The next year it indicated, for 2013-14, that the surplus would be $370 million—I should say that was for the 2010-11 budget—and then the Mid-Year Budget Review was $382 million. Then when the 2011-12 budget came in it was reduced to an $80 million surplus that was projected.

Then when we came to the 2012-13 budget we were talking about a $348 million deficit; when we came to the Mid-Year Budget Review it was a $778 million deficit; when we came to the 2013-14 budget it was actually an $868 million deficit; and then when we came to the 2013-14 Mid-Year Budget Review it was a $911 million deficit. When we got the update in January this year it was over $1 billion—we cracked the billion dollars for the first time, a South Australian record performance for the Labor government. It managed to crack the billion dollar a year deficit mark for the first time for any government in the state's history.

From starting off with a pathway to surplus of a $480 million surplus for the 2013-14 financial year, we are ending up with—and we still do not know obviously the absolute final figures—at this stage a $1 billion deficit. What sometimes happens is that when the final figure comes in it drops a bit because of underspending but it will, nevertheless, be close to $1 billion instead of a half a billion dollar surplus, so we are talking about a $1.5 billion turnaround over that period of time. I think it is important to look at that because it is indicative of the problems this government has in terms of financial management and competence.

It progressively gets worse. The promise is made of a pathway to surplus and the promise is made of a return to surplus. Then progressively, as each Mid-Year Budget Review comes out, the surplus disappears and the true extent of the problems and the true extent of the financial atrocities are revealed, and the deficit is revealed. In recent years they have been cracking the billion dollar mark or knocking on the door of the billion dollar a year mark, in terms of their annual deficit or annual overspending.

As I said, time does not permit to go through each of those financial years, but each of them has a very similar tale to tell and I am sure that that will be the tale that we will see on Thursday and, subsequently, when we see the budget document. There will be a massive budget deficit for 2013-14. There will be a massive budget deficit hammering on the door of close to a billion dollars, one would imagine, but somewhere between half a billion and a billion dollars deficit for 2014-15.

We are promised a surplus for 2015-16—maybe, maybe not. Even if we are promised, no-one will believe it based on this government's performance, but maybe they will just stretch out the promise for a return to surplus to the following year—rather than 2015-16 to 2016-17. I am sure that the budget documents ultimately for the last year, 2017-18, will show a pathway to surplus, a return to surplus of a few hundred million dollars in financial year 2017-18. That should be treated with the scorn and laughter as each of the last seven promises of a return to surplus that have been made by this government.

Whilst I am sure the community did not have much confidence in treasurer Foley, they had less confidence in treasurer Snelling, and they had less confidence in treasurer Weatherill, but Mr President, even you would be forced to concede that no-one is going to have any confidence in Treasurer Koutsantonis in terms of being able to deliver a budget surplus or a financially competent set of books.

As I put on the record before, he is a man struggling mightily with his brief. He does not understand the merest essentials of financial and economic concepts. He struggles to understand how the GST is distributed, has no comprehension of payroll tax thresholds applying to small businesses in his own state, has an inability to read the federal budget papers in relation to how much GST is being applied and, with all those atrocities, he is also someone who does not pay his gambling debts to members in this particular house, and I am sure you are well aware of the circumstances of that atrocity committed by the member for West Torrens some years ago now.

With all of that, what we have backing Treasurer Koutsantonis are some appalling examples of denial by ministers and, in particular, key ministers. I want to make some reference to an area in which I have had some experience over the last 12 months or so, that is, the health portfolio, and the appalling performance of minister Snelling, formerly treasurer Snelling. His performance, as we have just highlighted, was appalling in terms of management of the state's finances and books but having come out of Treasury one would have hoped that he might have brought some financial rigour and expertise to the health portfolio but, sadly, that has been lacking as well in that particular area.

The critical issue that I want to raise during the Supply Bill debate is in relation to the significant financial challenges confronting the health portfolio, and the problems and some of the issues that relate to that, particularly as the health budget is 30 per cent or more of the total state expenditure. The impact of what occurs in health is critical to the state's financial results and the state's financial future.

It has been clear since September last year, prior to any federal budget, that the chief executive officer of SA Health and other senior officers fessed up and indicated that total state budget cuts for the health portfolio over the forward estimates period amounted to more than $1 billion. I will go through the detail of their evidence in a moment. I was talking earlier about the denial of ministers and how that adds to the problem for treasurers and for governments.

The Minister for Health was asked a question on 21 May about the health budget, total spending and savings targets and he was asked whether the minister could guarantee that no health services would be negatively impacted by the South Australian Labor government's proposed $1 billion cuts to the health budget across the forward estimates. Minister Snelling said:

I have checked the relevant Hansard from the Budget and Finance Committee, and the chief executive officer of the Department of Health says no such thing. The Hon. Mr Lucas has pulled the figures out of thin air. He has completely made it up—completely made it up—as is his wont. The Hon. Mr Lucas will peddle any nonsense to anyone who will listen. It is complete and utter nonsense, and I am happy to refer members opposite.

Later he goes on to say:

The member for Davenport should know better than to listen to and take the advice of the Hon. Mr Lucas, or believe any word—any word—that comes out of the mouth of the Hon. Mr Lucas.

Subsequently on 22 May, in a most unparliamentary way I might add, the minister interjected on a speech being given by the Leader of the Opposition and said:

Rob Lucas lied.

Intriguingly, when a point of order was taken in the House of Assembly, the minister was not required to withdraw what we would accept as unparliamentary language. Clearly the governance of that other house has some significant issues if one is allowed to make unparliamentary statements like that.

Putting aside the intemperate language, I want to return to the facts, because this is clearly the reason why we have problems in health: because the minister is unable to even read evidence given by his chief executive officer, Mr David Swan. I refer to the transcript of evidence, page 1958 from 30 September 2013, given by David Swan. He was asked, as they normally are, what the total savings tasks were. The question from the chairperson, which is myself, was:

Thank you very much. Can you clarify again the required savings tasks for the agency for 2013-14?

Mr Swan, that is, the chief executive, for the benefit of the minister, stated:

It is $160.8 million.

The chairperson:

And for each of the forward estimate years from 2014-15?

Mr Swan—and I again remind the minister that that is his chief executive officer:

Yes, for 2014-15 it is an additional $97.85 million, for 2015-16 it is $80.860 million, and for 2016-17 it is another $39.5 million, giving a total—

and this last bit is confusing, I must say, but I will put it on there for the sake of the record—

giving a total over the forward estimates of $425 million.

That is the evidence of Mr Swan, the CEO of SA Health, to the Budget and Finance Committee. To now go through his evidence: in the first year, that is, 2013-14, the year we are in currently, they had a $160.8 million savings task from the state Labor government. He then says:

For next year it is an additional $97.85 million.

If you add to $97.85 million to $160 million, that adds unto $258.6 million, the total savings task for the 2014-15 financial year. You have to achieve $160 million worth of savings in 2013-14, you have to keep those savings for the next year and you have to add another 97 which gives you $258.6 million.

For the benefit of members, I remind them that sometimes agencies, when they achieve let's say the first $160 million, do so in a number of fashions. Sometimes they do it with one-off savings, that is savings they can only achieve in one particular year—for example, not filling key executive positions for a year which they know they have to fill the following year. So you make a one-off saving for the 2013-14 financial year which can be attributed to your 2013-14 savings task when you acquit it to Treasury. So they are what we would call one-off savings.

There are also ongoing or recurrent savings. That is, you take out 20 staff in a unit from 2013-14, you achieve a saving of whatever it might happen to be, say a couple of million dollars, and that is an ongoing saving which you can acquit to Treasury forever and a day. So your savings that you achieve can be achieved in a number of different ways, some through recurrent and ongoing, some through one-off.

However, the reality is that in the following year 2014-15, Treasury will require of you the $160.8 million in savings plus the $97.8 million, a total of $258.6 million. If you have had one-off savings in 2013-14, you still have to find alternative savings in 2014-15 to make up for the one-off savings that you achieved in the previous year to make up for it in the current year which would be 2014-15. Similarly, the next year there is an additional $80.86 million which takes the annual saving in 2015-16 up to $339.5 million, and then Mr Swan said, 'In 2017-18 it is $39.5 million additional which, when you add it to the $339.5 million, gives you $379.0 million a year ongoing from 2017-18.' It is a simple matter for any junior level Treasury officer or indeed ministerial staffer to minister Snelling to add 160.8, 258.6, 339.5, 379.0 at that stage to give you $1,137.9 million in accumulated savings tasks over the period that we were talking about which was the forward estimates at that particular time.

The critical issue is that by the fourth year there still has to be a $379 million a year ongoing savings task forever and a day after that. If there was no further savings task for health, which will not be the case because there will be further savings tasks, that would be their required savings task to continue from 2016-17 onwards. Put simply, that is the way Treasury applies itself to the savings tasks that agencies have to confront. It is not just health but all agencies. It is not different under Labor because this was the way it was done under Liberal and it was the way it was done under the Bannon government prior to 1993 as well. It is a standard operating procedure for Treasury and for government departments and agencies.

Those numbers added to $1,137 million—the reason we used the figure less than that, which was $1,033 million, was that in the Mid-Year Budget Review what happened was the government took a political decision to defer some of the 2013-14 savings into the 2014-15 year. Now, why would they do that? Because they had an election coming up in March 2014 so they deferred $45 million or so worth of cuts so that minister Snelling would not have to go to those health agencies prior to the election and tell them that they have had their funding cut and he was then able to say, 'We are reviewing your funding over the next 12 months so we have not taken a decision to cut it. We will come back to you in July 2014.'

Of course, minister Snelling at that stage was anticipating that he would no longer be the minister in 2014 and that it would be some other sucker who would have to front up in July 2014 and say to all these people, 'Have we got news for you! We have done the review and you are losing your funding.' Senior health people know that is the case, ministerial staffers know that is the case, the opposition knows that is the case and media observers know that is the case. Not all, might I say, health agencies and non-government agencies were aware of it. They just thought the minister was being a good bloke and deferring the cuts until after the election and they were being genuinely reviewed.

As a result of the Mid-Year Budget Review, the savings tasks were slightly massaged, but the Mid-Year Budget Review makes it quite clear that, ultimately, the $379 million a year savings tasks for health for 2016-17 still had to be met. So, whilst there was some lag or deferral to get them over the election and some lag or deferral in the first year after the election which impacted, there was still $1 billion worth of SA Health cuts over the forward estimates period that had to be achieved. That is the reality.

My challenge to minister Snelling—it is easy for him to use intemperate and unparliamentary language in the House of Assembly which, clearly, the Speaker and Deputy Speaker evidently allow—

The Hon. S.G. Wade: It's the Wild West.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, it's the Wild West, as the Hon. Mr Wade indicates. Rafferty's rules are allowed, evidently, in the House of Assembly under the leadership of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker, one would think, but that is a debate for another time.

My challenge to the minister and his acolytes who would represent him here, as they stand up in this house this afternoon or tomorrow, is to provide the facts in relation to the evidence that the CEO of SA Health gave to the Budget and Finance Committee—not to provide the facts because the facts are there, but to indicate why the CEO of SA Health did not know what he was talking about when he gave answers to the Budget and Finance Committee in September last year. Minister Snelling, or his acolytes, could indicate why the Mid-Year Budget Review is wrong when it says that, ultimately, the savings tasks for SA Health in 2016-17 and 2017-18 will remain exactly the same as it was intended had there just been this deferral to get them over the difficulties of the election.

That is the challenge for them. There are a number of other issues that, if time had permitted, I would have addressed but I will have plenty of time in the Appropriation Bill debate to go through the massive wastage that is going on within health at the moment in terms of health IT. I have flagged the concerns over a long period of time about the incompetence of the minister, senior officers in the department and, in particular, the IT section of SA Health and the finance section in terms of managing the budgets.

In relation to the $40 million blowout in the Oracle project, I put on the record the confidential minutes of the EPAS program board from late last year flagging a $40 million blowout already—there is already a $14 million blowout and then another $40 million, so that is a $54 million blowout in the EPAS project—and highlighting the potential for a blowout of up to another $60 million, so a total blowout, potentially, of up to $100 million in terms of EPAS, and that is, frankly, just scratching the surface.

Believe it or not, the promise from the minister was that EPAS was to have been delivered in 12 hospitals in 13 days' time. On 30 June 2014, EPAS was going to be rolled out. It is a financial calamity; it is a financial disaster. It is a scandal in the making. Even the minister is now having to concede that the very earliest it will be rolled out is maybe mid or late next year. Whistleblowers within the department tell me that is the best possible set of circumstances. It may well not be until 2016 or maybe, even, the pessimists are saying, 2017.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: That, and the burn costs are $2 million to $3 million a month for every month of delay under the previous arrangements. The EPAS program board is trying to reduce the burn costs. There are over 200 staff working on this EPAS project—200 staff. I would hope that at some stage the Hon. Tung Ngo, with his intimate knowledge of the SA Health portfolio and the financial scandals brewing within SA Health, will speak fearlessly and put on the record and join with me in sharing his concerns about the mismanagement and the financial incompetence of various sections within health.

I cannot imagine the Hon. Tung Ngo—I cannot say that—I would hope the Hon. Tung Ngo was not walking around with his eyes closed whilst he was a ministerial adviser to the Minister for Health. I would hope that he would have recognised some of the issues that I have addressed. During the Appropriation Bill debate it is not just EPAS; EPLIS and ESMI are acronyms for two other health projects. There are major concerns about what the minister and the government are doing. The whole medical imaging area of government is going to come to a head in June and in the months afterwards in terms of what the government is seeking to do. The challenges that confront this government in terms of managing an out of control and rampant health budget and health portfolio are only too apparent to anyone who is prepared to have a close look at it.

During the Appropriation Bill I will spend more time on that particular issue and others. With those comments I indicate my support for the second reading.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (16:31): I rise to speak on the Supply Bill and to talk about this current year's appropriation, and I will put that in the context of where we find ourselves now and the recent economic history in this state. It is no wonder the good people of South Australia have entrusted the Labor team for a fourth term of government. It is a bold and visionary government that has transformed South Australia over the last 12 years and over the last 12 months has reinforced this with strong budget initiatives.

South Australians know that we are a government that delivers the services, infrastructures and policies that they expect. Over the last 12 years, we have invested in building our state. I am proud to say this has resulted in South Australia's economy nearly doubling in size from $52.4 billion in 2002 to $95.1 billion in 2013. We understand that for the state's economy to continue to grow we need to attract new industries and that is why we are focused on supporting the establishment of the industries that will drive economic growth and job creation into the future.

The support of the exploration for new mining and energy resources has been a significant priority for this government and continues to be so. We have promoted the state's premium food and wine products generated from our pristine, clean environment throughout international markets, boosting our international exports. This government has a clear plan that will see South Australia continue to build on this strong foundation over the next four years.

This government's record demonstrates that we are committed to the protection and creation of meaningful jobs for all South Australians. As we continue to build on the fundamentals of our economy, our state will continue to prosper. Over the last three terms of government we have been successful in improving not only the economy and employment opportunities, but improved community safety and we now lead the nation on policing, with more police per capita than any other state in Australia. We lead the nation on many other fronts: in recycling and in wind power. We generate more wind power than any other state. In terms of water security, we have the highest number of households with rainwater tanks and the highest proportion of wastewater reuse.

When it comes to education, I am proud that more students are more likely to remain in school until year 12 than in any other state. This government is committed to ensuring that every child has the best chance to access world-class education and, as recently as last month, we opened the state's 40^th Children's Centre in Lockleys, a total investment of $3.2 million. The centre will offer 57 preschool places, occasional care and community and parenting programs. This government understands that the early years are crucial when it comes to brain development, health and wellbeing of young people, and it is through investments like this that we can ensure services are always available to meet the needs of the community.

I am proud to be part of a government that has invested in a world-class new hospital, a much needed redevelopment of the Adelaide Oval, an expanded Convention Centre, and an expansion of the tram network. Coupled with the multibillion dollar investment in new expressways, super ways and upgrades to public transport, our city is being transformed.

We understand that good, meaningful employment is paramount to creating opportunities for all South Australians and ensuring good social cohesion in communities right across the state. We understand that the creation of meaningful jobs is the principal means by which we share the benefits of economic growth. That is why we have committed to a comprehensive job package that will ensure displaced workers are given the support they need to find new work through the jobs that will define our future.

Our jobs and skills package will see jobs created in local communities through the direct training of job seekers, helping workers to gain skills for new jobs as traditional jobs decrease, and support for retrenched workers. The government will work with and support local communities affected by the downscaling of traditional industries, and we are committed to assisting, in particular, the automotive industry to restructure and diversify into new sectors.

We must maintain our world class capacities as we transition into new opportunities and new markets. That is why we are committed to accelerating the advanced manufacturing sector in South Australia. The transition of South Australia's manufacturing industry to advanced manufacturing, where we compete on the basis of extra value, is an absolute priority. We are committed to building the new industries of South Australia, creating future industry clusters, funding of the business transformation vouchers to help businesses grow, and the expansion and acceleration of the manufacturing works program.

I commend the government's focus on defence, resources, energy, premium food and wine, health and biomedical industries, tourism, education services and creative industries to drive growth and new jobs into the future. The government is committed to an agenda that will ensure we continue to build South Australia.

In the transport area, I am proud of the decisions we have made to transform our state's transport network. Over one and three-quarter billion dollars has been invested to upgrade our rail infrastructure with modern electric rail cars as part of the first major purchase of new rolling stock in 20 years. The rail network now extends 5.7 kilometres beyond Noarlunga to Seaford, across a 1.2 kilometre bridge spanning the Onkaparinga River. This is a major boost to transport services for the southern suburbs.

The duplication of the Southern Expressway is nearly completed, the new Britannia roundabout has reduced accidents and traffic is flowing far more freely, we have embarked upon the electrification of rail services, and can now boast an award-winning world-class airport. This is a government that has prioritised transport funding, investing strongly to build the Northern Expressway, as I said to duplicate the Southern Expressway, to upgrade South Road and the Port Expressway, all while committed to no toll roads in our state now and into the future.

As part of the Integrated Transport and Land Use Plan, which sets out a 30-year vision for the regeneration of our urban and regional transport infrastructure, we have committed to continuing the upgrade of and investment in transport infrastructure. The government is committed to extending the O-Bahn network along Hackney Road, building and extending park and ride facilities, the electrification of rail lines, and better metropolitan and regional roads. It is a government that is committed to improving our city roads, our country roads, and our economy.

I support the commitment to contribute $21 million to the $106 million upgrade of the main access road into the APY lands. This will improve access to the lands and create development and job opportunities as well as making it easy to transport goods and services and improve road safety. We are also committed to upgrading the Strzelecki Track in the state's Far North. This project involves upgrading and sealing about 450 kilometres of unsealed outback road, providing a more secure freight route, improving safety for road users (including tourism operators), and opening up the area to greater exploration for mineral resources.

In the area of health there has been very significant investment. The government has been committed to continuing to build better hospitals, and the significant investment in new, world-class hospital infrastructure will continue when we build a new Women's and Children's Hospital, investing in new and advanced medical equipment, and keeping waiting times low with new elective surgery.

We have worked very hard to slash waiting times for elective surgery, increasing procedures by around 23 per cent since we have been in government. We are committed to giving people the best emergency care, expanding care in the home and in the community and continuing to improve the life of people with mental illnesses and improving health care for country South Australians. Ensuring that all South Australians have access to healthcare services is a priority for this government. We have had success in achieving this over the past 12 years, and the South Australian public have entrusted us to continue this task.

The government knows how important it is that all South Australians have access to their local doctor and the importance of catching healthcare problems early. When we came to government there was a state of disrepair in most of our hospitals and emergency departments and elective surgery waiting times were long. We have invested around $2 billion to transform our hospitals and health facilities.

One particular issue is that of the Hon. Jack Snelling, the member for Playford and Minister for Health, pledging to secure the future of the Women's and Children's Hospital palliative care services. The Women's and Children's Hospital palliative care services provide care and support to around 80 children each year, with around 80 per cent of the children cared for at home and 20 per cent in hospital. Staff at the Women's and Children 's Hospital in this area do a fantastic job in caring for South Australian children who have a life-limiting illness.

This is an incredibly valuable service, providing care for our state's sickest children and support for the families during a very difficult time. I understand that the state government contributes around $500,000 a year, with the commonwealth government providing approximately $250,000. The announcement by minister Snelling that the state will continue to provide this service came after the federal government's contribution was not renewed, putting the service at risk. This government felt that it was too important that the Women's and Children's Hospital palliative care unit service was kept going to risk that funding.

In the area of Indigenous affairs, there have been very important budget initiatives over the last 12 months and the last 12 years. The health care of Aboriginal Australians is of massive importance. The rate of diabetes is three times the national average, with the added problem that many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people live a long way from specialist dialysis machines. Investment in such things as a new dialysis truck has helped to meet this need.

Renal dialysis patients from the APY lands and other remote areas in South Australia often need to relocate indefinitely to places such as Adelaide, Port Augusta or Alice Springs for their dialysis treatment. In a land area bigger than that of the state of Victoria, this has meant that some of these patients have moved many hundreds of kilometres from their traditional home to receive such treatment. This new dialysis truck will enable a number of patients from the APY lands, Coober Pedy and Yalata to return home for short periods of time to see their friends and family, and to attend local events.

The previous federal Labor government provided $600,000 in funding to Country Health SA local health networks to build and fit out a renal dialysis truck for use in remote Aboriginal communities. This truck was completed late last year and was delivered to South Australia in January 2014. Following an official launch and successful trial of the truck in Adelaide, the first trip was undertaken to Ernabella in the APY lands in March 2014. It is these and other initiatives that will make a significant difference to the life and health of Indigenous South Australians.

This current budget, and certainly the last 12 years, have provided innovation in the areas of environment and research innovation. Our clean environment is certainly one of the most important determinants of our state's success. We need clean air, healthy water, fertile land and open space for our communities and for our economy. This government is committed to continuing to protect and embrace our pristine environment so that it can be utilised and enjoyed for generations to come. We are committed to taking action on climate change and promoting the sustainable use of resources. Investing in research and innovation is a great way to improve our economic performance and overall level of social, environmental and health wellbeing.

The knowledge and new ideas generated by South Australian research organisations, when translated to industry, can contribute enormously to raise our overall standard of living and economic performance. To encourage this process, the South Australian Labor government established the Premier's Science and Research Fund in 2004 which was renamed the Premier's Research and Industry Fund in 2012. This fund is focused on those areas where the state has an existing advantage and can make the biggest impact on a local, national and international level.

The Premier's Research and Industry Fund encourages outputs directly related to South Australia's seven strategic priorities, particularly, growing advanced manufacturing, realising the benefits of the mining boom for all, and premium wine from our clean environment. Over the past nine years, the Premier's Research and Industry Fund has provided nearly $32 million to researchers, leveraging around $74 million from industry and research organisations amounting to over $100 million invested in the South Australian economy.

Over the past 12 years, this government has strengthened the quality of life for people living in regional communities and we are committed to continuing to invest in these communities, which form the backbone of our state. We know that the agriculture industry is worth about $16 billion annually to South Australia and employs one in five South Australians, and that regional communities drive the sector. It is a major reason for making sure we focus on those living in regional areas.

This government has an agenda that will provide more support for people living in those communities through greater support to travel long distances for health care, relocating city health jobs to the country, grants for regional fishing infrastructure, protecting our food bowl from urban sprawl, branding our food and wine regions, a new task force to look at regional mining, and the acceleration of agribusiness.

The state government recently announced details of the expanded $15 million Regional Development Fund to stimulate economic growth and create jobs in the regions. The increase in the fund is part of a $39 million package that will be spent in the regions over the next 12 months, including $10 million for a one-off Jobs Accelerator Fund. The first of three country cabinet meetings outside Adelaide will be held in the Riverland later this month. Building on our already strong commitment to the regions, the $15 million annual funding will be allocated through five new programs.

Firstly, a major projects program ($8.55 million) will support major economic projects designed to strengthen regional industries and support local economies and opportunities through investment in strategic projects. Secondly, the community infrastructure program ($3 million) will support investment in regional communities to develop economic growth infrastructure and grow their capabilities as a foundation for future jobs and economic growth.

Thirdly, a small grants program worth $3 million will support new regional employment and investment opportunities linked with state government projects. Fourthly, a regional food initiatives program ($300,000) will support regionally-based food organisations to build a stronger regional food presence in South Australia. Finally, the country communities cabinet program will support projects in communities that host country cabinet meetings over the next four years.

The Regional Development Fund is aimed at driving economic growth and productivity by investing in regional infrastructure, creating jobs and creating new opportunities for regional South Australia. In addition, the government has recently announced four projects in the Murraylands and the Riverland that will receive a total of $227,000 in funding from the state government's Food and Wine Co-Innovation Cluster Program.

The $2.7 million five-year pilot program will help establish cluster groups in the Murraylands and Riverland and Limestone Coast regions. The funds will help regional food and wine related businesses to work together to explore new opportunities for growth and innovation. The Food and Wine Co-Innovation Cluster Program recognises that industry-led collaboration can lead to significant improvements in productivity and competitiveness.

Through these grants, businesses will be working together to create efficiencies and increase sustainability in agriculture, horticulture, food and dairy industries in the Murraylands and the Riverland region and identify other regional opportunities in the area. These projects show great initiative and innovation by bringing these elements together, benefiting South Australia's food and wine industries with a positive economic outcome for the whole region.

Finally, I need to make mention of an area that has been a very big focus over the last 12 months particularly, and I am proud to be a member of a team committed to continuing to transform our city as one of the great small cities in the world. The government has embarked on a historic $9.3 billion capital program that supports an annual average of more than 7,500 jobs. This investment in critical infrastructure is creating a vibrant city for all South Australians. The government's small bar legislation, coupled with our program to activate laneways such as Peel Street and Leigh Street, is complementing significant investment in our city.

I am proud to be a member of government that is committed to ensuring Adelaide continues to be a vibrant city. I have mentioned in this place a number of times before some of the great reviews we are getting such as a listing in Lonely Planet's top 10 cities to visit and international publications all over the world. I look forward to working with other members of the government, members of the cross bench and opposition in a constructive way to ensure this term of government builds on the programs of the last 12 months and is as effective as it can be and has been for the past three years, and we work together to continue to build South Australia to deliver the services the community rightfully expects. I support the second reading and commend the bill to the chamber.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (16:51): I also rise to speak in support of the Supply Bill 2014. The Supply Bill is an important piece of legislation. It allows for the funding of government services that are vital in helping to foster a fair, compassionate society.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Thank you, Mr Lucas.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Can't hear him.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: I can start again.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: I'm listening to him.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: The Supply Bill is an important piece of legislation. It allows for the funding of government services that are vital in helping to foster a fair, compassionate society. Paying the wages of our workers in fields like health and education are instrumental in improving the quality of life for all South Australians, and this is the purpose of passing this bill. However, it is beyond this that government has an even greater role to play by providing the infrastructure that South Australia needs for the future.

Those opposite are so closed minded that they are only able to see public spending as waste. They could not be more wrong. This government has embarked upon extremely successful public spending measures. This public expenditure was embarked upon in a period when private investment subsided but now we are starting to see private investment pick up off the back of public investment.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. T.T. NGO: There are a few hotels around. It is private spending and investment in our economy that will provide long-term solutions to lowering unemployment, increasing the tax base and continuing to make South Australia a great place to live. This will make it more sustainable to pass bills like these which pay the wages of our public servants. We know that many in the Liberal Party did not want football to come back into the city.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Can the honourable members be gentle with the Hon. Mr Ngo, please.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: I have not finished.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. T.T. NGO: They howled that the redevelopment of the Adelaide Oval was a waste of money. There were—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. T.T. NGO: There was one exception—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Point of order, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: Point of order.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The honourable member on his feet should know he is out of order responding to interjections and the honourable interjectors know that they are out of order as well.

The PRESIDENT: I think the opposition's behaviour is outrageous. The Hon. Mr Ngo, do not be distracted by interjections from the opposition.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: I apologise, Mr President. There were exceptions in their ranks. Some people saw sense. For example, the Hon. Martin Hamilton-Smith, one of the most clear thinking leaders the South Australian Liberal Party has ever had, can be credited with pioneering the idea of bringing football back to the city. It was fantastic—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: You rejected his ideas.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: No, it was a fantastic idea and the member for Waite must be congratulated for his determination to make the government take note of his idea and to bring it to fruition. It is not a coincidence that the member for Waite has decided to join the government where his skills will be utilised and acknowledged.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Ngo will continue with his speech.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: The redevelopment of Adelaide Oval provided a once in a lifetime opportunity to create a world-class stadium in the greatest possible location. The oval has now been constructed and I speak from firsthand experience when I say that it is fantastic. I am clearly not alone in thinking that either. On current projections, the AFL attendance at Adelaide Oval games will grow up to one million spectators throughout the home and away season, which is a massive increase when compared with Football Park attendances.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens interjecting:

The Hon. T.T. NGO: No, it's coming. The new stadium is a modern multisport inner-city stadium with seating for 50,000 and a minimum of 70 per cent of seats undercover. The new oval is best placed to deliver fans by trains, trams and buses and the designers intently focused on delivering a 'pavilion in the park' model stadium which optimises the benefits of the Parklands location and incorporates a pedestrian footbridge over the River Torrens to enable easy access to the stadium from the city.

Who would have thought that the much-maligned footbridge would be packed with thousands of people before and after the game? Foresight is something the Liberal Party completely lacks. The South Australian Centre for Economic Studies, a self-funding joint research unit of the three major South Australian universities, predicts that the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval will bring in every year an increase of $114 million in economic activity, with $74 million of spending occurring directly within the CBD. The redevelopment has created the equivalent of 405 full-time jobs. The increase in attendance figures as well as the increase in activity in the private sector can be put down largely to the public spending measures implemented by this state Labor government.

Construction projects at the Adelaide Casino are projected to create 500 jobs and a further 1,000 jobs upon the completion of the redevelopment. The redevelopment will include a six-star hotel, a rooftop pool, and cafes and restaurants. In much the same way that the Crown Casino in Melbourne has renewed the nightlife on the Yarra, so too the Riverbank Precinct will thrive on the River Torrens, attracting not only high rollers from interstate and overseas and injecting money into South Australia, but providing a great atmosphere for the residents of Adelaide.

It is this kind of public spending on infrastructure which will lead to three new city hotels with over 600 rooms on offer opening later this year. The general manager of Quest, Andrew Weisz, has cited the major new development of Adelaide Oval and the new Royal Adelaide Hospital as key factors in the uptake of new private expenditure within the CBD. In fact, there are at present 33 privately funded developments in various states of completion all around the city, funded by private investors to the tune of nearly $2.5 billion.

The oval is so successful that attendance figures are way up for both South Australian football teams. You could argue that Port Adelaide Power attendance would be higher this season, no matter at what oval they played. We are, I believe, on track to win the premiership this year.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens interjecting:

The Hon. T.T. NGO: But fans of Adelaide Crows must really like the oval as well if they are willing to turn up in droves just to watch their team lose. If I can make the Hon. Mr Stephens feel better, the Crows have very loyal fans. We must congratulate them and acknowledge that Crows fans are very loyal.

The AFL is not the only sporting code benefiting from the modification: cricket crowds are expected to grow by 65,000 attendees a year, and total attendances at a redeveloped Adelaide Oval will increase from the old level of 399,000 to 1.371 million—more than tripling attendance. The infrastructure Labor has put in place—investment in roads and public transport—has proven more than capable of handling the increase in traffic into the city, particularly on game day. Congestion and disruption has been minimal, with an estimated 70 per cent of the 50,397 attendees to the first football game arriving and leaving on public transport. Throngs of South Australians and South Australian-owned companies have been given work and thrive because of these investments.

The Adelaide Oval project employed over 800 local construction workers, and using established multipliers it also generated an estimated 300 additional jobs. Further, 60 of the 63 contractors employed were South Australian based. Additionally, connections from the footbridge and riverbank will encourage people to explore the vibrant bars and atmosphere of Bank, Leigh and Peel streets. This will revitalise our restaurants, bars and retail districts, all the way through to the Central Market.

Those in the Liberal Party claim to support small business, but how many untold hundreds of small businesses have benefited from the flow-on effects of these investments? How much worse would those South Australians be doing if the Liberals had their own way?

I am proud to support the Supply Bill, which in funding the Public Service nurtures and supports the wider South Australian economy. This Supply Bill, like previous supply bills passed by the Labor government, will nurture economic growth and ensure that South Australia is well equipped to continue passing supply bills and continue to fund vital services far into the future. I commend the bill.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (17:04): I rise today to support the second reading of this bill which provides, I understand, some $3.941 billion to ensure the payment of public servants and the continuation of state government services from 1 July until the Appropriation Bill for 2014-15 passes both houses. As we know, the Supply Bill gives parliamentary authority to the government of the day to continue delivering services via public expenditure, and the government is entitled to continue delivering these services in accordance with general approved priorities; that is, the priorities of the last 12 months until the Appropriation Bill is passed. Before making some comments on a couple of areas in particular, I note that the use of that money is for the work of public servants to service the constituents and residents of South Australia.

I wish firstly to direct some comments to the area of natural resources management and particularly the natural resources management boards that exist in South Australia. I have a particular interest currently and have had for the past four years as I have been a member of the Natural Resources Committee of the parliament, but I suppose much earlier than that in my early days in this house I was a member of a committee that recommended that soil boards and animal and plant control boards be amalgamated into one entity. At that stage that recommendation did not include water into those amalgamated entities but the current government rolled water into that scenario and what evolved was the natural resources management boards that we have today.

We are served by eight of those boards, including the Alinytjara Wilurara NRM Board, which is in the Aboriginal lands of South Australia taking up an enormous area of the state. We have the South Australian Arid Lands NRM Board, the Eyre Peninsula NRM Board, and a board also in the region of Yorke and Mid North. We have the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin NRM Board, and the Adelaide & Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board. The coverage of the state is completed by the NRM boards on Kangaroo Island and in the South-East.

As a member of the Natural Resources Committee I am privileged to have visited those boards, seeing the work they do on the ground and understanding the fact that there is in most instances very strong voluntary support and community backing for much of the work that they do. I think we understand that there are concerns about some of the activities of the boards and some of the staff, and I think sometimes that is overstated by some people. There are a number of people certainly in the upper Fleurieu area who make a lot of noise about NRM boards, but when they are asked to show you some examples of their claims they do not come through with taking you out and showing you what you are happy to go and look at. I always think that indicates that maybe they are exaggerating what they say.

There is no doubt that there are some concerns in a number of areas with some of the work that the boards have done in relation to water allocation plans, and something I will get to later on as well is the significant concern about the loss of a number of the local boards' autonomy since the government rolled them under the umbrella of the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources.

Having been a member of the Natural Resources Committee, I had a good chance to have a look at the management, particularly the financial management, of the boards, because they have to bring their levy increases each year to the board for our approval, particularly if they are above CPI. In the early stages of these boards as they made transition arrangements, the committee gave the benefit of the doubt to pretty well all the boards for a period of time in allowing some increases above CPI where it was based on good merit for local reasons. That certainly has been the case.

However, I think a couple of years ago we were alarmed when the Adelaide & Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board brought in an increase of something in the order of (I cannot remember exactly) 11 per cent. The committee objected to that, which threw the minister's office into a bit of a panic because, even though there is obviously a provision for that, they were not prepared for us to do that. I must remind the council that at that stage there were four members of the government on the committee that supported that action.

There was a delay, I think, within the government to react to us rejecting that application for a levy increase of that size but, as a result, that board and other boards have, I think, responded to that and, certainly in this last 12 months, there has been a significant improvement in the way they have not only adhered to that CPI increase but also the capacity of most boards to bring the levy application to us earlier rather than later in the time frame.

I would have to say that, from the experience of the visits that the committee has had to all of the boards, I think, in the main, the boards are served by excellent people who sit on the boards themselves and are also served extraordinarily well by the staff. There will always be some exceptions but that is our observation. Particularly those people who live locally and have a commitment to that local region are actually terrific people.

However, we have seen the decision in the last few years of the government to put the natural resource management boards under the control of the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, and I think that has been a mistake. Certainly, very soon after that happened I remember the committee had the chief executive of DEWNR in as a witness and I think he was asked to explain how the boards would operate or how the chief executives of each of the boards were supposed to operate having their responsibilities split between the members of the board themselves and the chief executive of DEWNR.

To say that he gave what I would call a 'Sir Humphrey' answer is an understatement, but I know that some of the senior management of the individual boards who were sitting in the room at the time were grimacing because they could see the extraordinary difficulty of trying to serve two masters, and I do not think that has been a good thing for natural resource management at all.

As I say, I think the great majority of the people who work in the area are in that sector for the right reasons. They are backed up by some terrific people who serve on the boards themselves and on the various regional committees within those areas and, of course, the volunteers who go out and do the work that I know the Hon. Michelle Lensink has witnessed recently and is going to witness again soon, the volunteers who go out and do planting in areas that need it or do the weeding in areas that are inaccessible to machinery and they do it with their own equipment in most cases.

So, I think that is something that I would like to indicate that I support: the continued funding support, obviously through the levies but also anything else the government can do to assist natural resource management in this state; but let us have a look at that DEWNR control over these boards. It was certainly the opposition's policy at the last election to have a significant review of the way in which natural resource management was rolled out in this state. A lot of the concern that resulted in that policy, I think, comes from the fact that DEWNR has this umbrella control over the individual boards that I mentioned earlier.

I emphasise that for the strength of the eight boards, and the people who are on them, in widely varying regions, we need to go back to an emphasis on local decisions from local people. I think it is extraordinarily relevant, as I say, when you look at the wide variety in those regions. You have the AW and SA Arid Lands NRM board regions that are vast in size but with very few people. I know that you, sir, in your past career, were a member of the committee and you have been on some of the trips into those areas and I once saved you from going down a hole at Coober Pedy. I hope you remember that well, sir.

We also, of course, have the varying regions of Eyre Peninsula, Yorke Peninsula and the Mid North, the Murray-Darling Basin, the South-East and, of course, two other regions that are quite different: you have a region just for Kangaroo Island, so an NRM board for 4,500 people completely surrounded by water, and then you have the Adelaide & Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board, which has the vast majority of the population of South Australia in a relatively small region, which basically goes from the southern banks of the River Light to Victor Harbor—extraordinarily different areas.

Mr President, I think you may have been on the committee when we visited areas as different as Port Gawler, One Tree Hill and Kersbrook in the one day; not that much distant from each other but significantly different in climate and environmental conditions. In concluding this aspect of my speech, I indicate that I think it is important, in supporting the natural resource management boards, that we emphasise that factor of local decisions by local people; if we do, we will not go far wrong.

The second issue I wish to mention today is that of the Upper Spencer Gulf Common Purpose Group. This group is an example of a group established with a common purpose—as is evident in their title—that is keen to work with all arms of government for the betterment of a community, or in this case three communities. The Upper Spencer Gulf Common Purpose Group is an alliance of local government, regional development and education representatives in the Upper Spencer Gulf. Its aim is to facilitate economic and social growth across the cities of Port Augusta, Whyalla and Port Pirie.

It was formed in 1998 as a forum for the three cities to share information, jointly implement initiatives, provide a united voice, and work with government, industry and other stakeholders in the interest of improving the long-term sustainability of the region. In 2012 a memorandum of understanding was signed by local, state and commonwealth governments to provide a strategic framework for coordinating the effort to support economic diversification, prosperity and sustainable communities. The MOU aims to align economic, environmental and social development planning and action to coordinate and sequence investment to maximise the benefit of improved infrastructure, liveability and economic resilience. I am of the understanding that the Upper Spencer Gulf cities remain committed to the MOU principles and continue to work hard at seeking re-engagement at both state and commonwealth levels; indeed, representatives of that organisation were in Adelaide last week doing just that.

The current activities of the Upper Spencer Gulf Common Purpose Group support the priorities identified in the MOU action plan, including a regional sustainability program, the Upper Spencer Gulf education, skills and training hub, and a focus on the area of energy generation and transmission. It also focuses strongly on strengthening administrative collaboration, efficiencies and resource-sharing opportunities across the three cities, including consistency in planning, joint procurement and its representation within the Local Government Association.

I am pleased that, for the first time, this group has appointed a full-time chief executive officer, and I think that is a boon to that organisation. Ms Anita Crisp has, for some time, been the CEO of the Central Local Government Association Region and she has now taken on that role with the common purpose group. I welcome her involvement and commitment in that role.

I was also very pleased that the representatives of that group, in their discussions with me, in particular in relation to their commitment to the social aspect of their work, were very supportive of my work in the area of suicide prevention. It is certainly something that has already seen groups acting in Port Augusta for a number of years, the Suicide Intervention Life Preservation Action Group (SILPAG), which I have spoken about in this place before.

I am pleased to note that, through the government's Office of the Chief Psychiatrist, there will be one of the suicide prevention networks established in the City of Whyalla, in cooperation with the city council, very soon, and I know that the mayor, Jim Pollock, is very supportive of that move. Also, the current chairman of the Upper Spencer Gulf Common Purpose Group, mayor Brenton Vanstone of Port Pirie, is also aware of suicide issues in his city and keen to do more in that area. Of course, as I have said, in Port Augusta, that work has been going on for a number of years, particularly with the Aboriginal community there, and it is supported very strongly by mayor Sam Johnson and the member for Stuart, Mr Dan van Holst Pellekaan.

With those remarks, I am very pleased to support this bill. I again indicate its importance as it does provide that $3.941 billion that enables the work of public servants, in their service to South Australians, to continue until the Appropriation Bill passes both houses. I am pleased to support the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.J. Stephens.