Bills

Appropriation Bill 2014

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 5 August 2014.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (11:03): I rise on behalf of my Liberal colleagues to support the second reading of the Appropriation Bill. In doing so, however, as the member for Dunstan has done very comprehensively in the House of Assembly, I will endeavour to outline some of the significant economic and budget problems confronting the state of South Australia after 12 years of financial mismanagement by the Jay Weatherill Labor government and the other Labor governments that precede this particular one, and some of the alternatives that did exist for the Weatherill Labor government but which it clearly has chosen not to include as part of its economic and budget policy as summarised by the budget documents before us.

In looking at the context for the budget debate, I want to look at the state's economic position and the various perspectives that we can place on it in terms of independent commentary, not just commentary from the government and the alternative government and those of us elected to parliament. One only has to look at the critical issue for South Australians in terms of jobs performance to see the significant problems that now confront our once great state, in terms of job performance anyway. The most recent unemployment figures show that our unemployment rate was at 7.4 per cent, and that particular figure was the highest rate of unemployment for any state in Australia, indeed even higher than Tasmania.

I am the first to acknowledge that the monthly figures go up and down. That particular figure is as bad as it can be and as it has been for some period of time, but even with the inevitable ups and downs of the monthly unemployment figures, the brutal reality is that we are generally the worst or second worst of all the jurisdictions in Australia when one looks at the monthly figures.

The critical issue for us in terms of looking at jobs, and the reason for looking at jobs, is that at the 2010 election the Labor government in South Australia boldly promised 100,000 additional jobs in the six years leading up to February 2016. We are more than two-thirds of the way towards that particular target date of February 2016 and, whilst the figures go up and down on a monthly basis, as I referred to earlier, we have virtually no new jobs created in the four years between 2010 and now, the middle of 2014. As I said, the monthly figures sometimes show in fact a net loss. In one month it was of 800 jobs, in some months it shows we might have created as a state 2,000, 3,000 or 4,000 jobs towards that 100,000 target.

Putting aside the vagaries of the monthly figures, the brutal reality is that, instead of being a good way down the path of creating these 100,000 jobs that were promised in 2010 by 2016, we have virtually stood still on the 2010 figures. The reason why the jobs figures are important is that this government has as a budget policy goal and an economic policy goal clearly stated that it chose, for example, to sacrifice the AAA credit rating for the state. The explanation for, in essence, borrowing billions, spending billions, not worrying about the deficits that were being accumulated, not worrying about the debts that were being accumulated, not worrying about whether or not we lost the AAA credit rating, was that the Jay Weatherill Labor government and ministers said, 'We chose to go down the path of not worrying about that because we were going to concentrate on creating jobs for South Australians.'

Their mantra was that this was a deliberate budget and economic policy. Their mantra was that we had the option; we could have gone down two forks in the road. One fork in the road was fiscal responsibility, managing your annual spending, managing your deficits, managing your debt and doing the best you can to preserve the best possible credit rating for the state of South Australia. That was one fork in the road. Supposedly the other fork in the road, according to the Jay Weatherill Labor government, was the nirvana of creating 100,000 jobs over a six-year period.

Sadly for South Australia, sadly for South Australians and, in particular, sadly for young South Australians, we have ended up with neither of the options, and that is, we have a massive debt, we have a massive deficit, we have lost the AAA credit rating, we have the worst credit rating of all the states in Australia, and we have not created the jobs that had been promised by the Jay Weatherill Labor government. We now have the highest unemployment rate in the nation, on the most recent figures.

My challenge to Labor members who are game enough to stand up in this debate to defend their own budget—I suspect that there will be very little of that if any of them do speak—is to tell us what happened to their commitment for the 100,000 new jobs, what happened to their commitment to say, 'We chose to create jobs in South Australia rather than being responsible financial managers, rather than managing debt deficit and credit rating issues.' I would be very surprised if any Labor member in the chamber takes up that challenge, and I would be even more surprised if any of them who are prepared to take up the challenge can provide a cogent, rational explanation as to what has happened in terms of their economic and budget policy.

The other independent economic commentator, in terms of looking at the parlous state of our state's economy as the backdrop to the budget, Deloitte Access Economics, in their most recent business outlook report for the June quarter, sadly painted a very grim picture of the South Australian economy. They noted that Tasmania's economic growth is forecast to outperform South Australia's in each of the next five years. The ignominy of it all that respected economic commentators are now forecasting that Tasmania is going to outperform, in terms of economic growth, South Australia's performance over the next five years.

Deloittes also said that South Australia had the worst jobs performance of all the states in the whole of the financial year 2013-14. Deloittes also said that South Australia's unemployment rate is expected to be above the national unemployment rate in each of the next five years. We are the worst in the nation at the moment, and Deloittes is saying that our economic growth is going to be terrible over each of the next five years and that our unemployment rate is expected to be above the national unemployment rate in each of the next five years.

South Australia's economic growth is forecast to be the worst of all the states in 2015-16. Why I select that year is that that is the year Labor is again promising that the state budget is going to return to surplus. Deloittes has also included economic growth forecasts. If you compare those to the economic growth forecasts that the Jay Weatherill Labor government has included in its state budget, the state budget economic growth forecasts are, as one would have expected, much more optimistic than the independent forecasts of Deloitte Access Economics in every year of the forward estimates; that is, the state government and the Treasury forecasts are much more bullish than Deloittes' for each year in the forward estimates.

At the same time as Deloitte's business outlook report was released, the CommSec State of the States July 2014 report was released and, again, without going into all the detail, all the states were ranked and, generally, South Australia was ranked between six to eight of all of the states and territories on all of the key indicators. CommSec also noted that South Australia had a weak job market and the weakest result on retail spending and now South Australia had a jobless rate up almost 29 per cent on the decade average level in terms of its job performance.

The South Australian Centre for Economic Studies in their June 2014 report noted that our economic conditions had deteriorated since late 2013. The state final demand fell by 0.2 per cent in the December quarter and 0.4 per cent in the March quarter—the technical definition of a recession, as state final demand, on a quarterly basis anyway, is the best estimate we have of economic growth in the states, given that GSP figures are only released on an annual basis. The South Australian Centre for Economic Studies noted that business investment had fallen in three consecutive quarters. The South Australian Centre for Economic Studies' economic growth forecasts were also more pessimistic than those in the state budget over each of the three years from 2013-14 to 2015-16.

There are many other independent economic forecasters from whom we could draw facts to put on the record. What are others saying about us? The government say they are the best thing since sliced bread and everything is fine. They criticise the alternative government for always being negative and being in the political environment, but it would be illustrative for some members of the Labor Party caucus who are prepared to look rationally or attempt to look rationally at the state's budget and economic performance, if there are any, to actually look at what the independent commentators are saying.

As I have sought to outline, when one looks at Deloittes, when one looks at the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies and the CommSec reports, and when one looks at the Australian Bureau of Statistics reports, they are there as independent either analysis or statement of fact. My challenge to the Labor members who might speak in this debate is: put on the record the independent assessments like those from Deloittes, CommSec and South Australian Centre for Economic Studies in terms of a justification of this state's economic performance over recent years, as we look at this particular budget year and the forward estimates budget years as well.

I have followed with considerable interest over the years the KPMG Competitive Alternatives report, and this report has been released on a regular basis every two years since 2004. In June 2006, the predecessor to the Jay Weatherill Labor government at the time released on 15 June a headline:

World top 3 for business cost-competitiveness. Adelaide is now rated as one of the three most cost-competitive cities in the world according to a survey of 95 overseas and four Australian cities. Only Singapore and the Canadian city of Sherbrooke had marginally better results. Premier Mike Rann—

of blessed memory—

says the results, conducted by Canadian consulting firm MMK for the highly-respected financial firm KPMG, reaffirm Adelaide's number one position as Australia's, and one of the world's, most cost-competitive capital cities for business.

It is useful to go back to that particular press release of 2006 based on this KPMG study of 2006. Again, without going through all the details, this year, interestingly, there was no press release from the Jay Weatherill Labor government in relation to the KPMG cost-competitiveness study, and I wondered why.

The reality is that instead of now being the third lowest-cost city as per that 2006 release, the 2014 study shows that we are now the 110^th lowest-cost city on that particular measure. We have plummeted in the space of eight relatively short years from supposedly being the third lowest or third best in terms of the KPMG cost competitiveness study to the 110^th lowest. If you look at the history, in 2008 we became the 33^rd lowest, in 2010 the 45^th lowest, in 2012 the 104^th lowest, and in 2014 the 110^th lowest in terms of that cost competitive study.

We are no longer the cheapest city in Australia—Melbourne at least is evidently cheaper for doing business than is Adelaide. Evidently Adelaide was ranked as the eighth most expensive city in the world for manufacturing cost competitiveness. Without going through all the details, it is a long history of very unpleasant reading for an independent commentary on the Jay Weatherill Labor government.

There is another independent measure. I am not surprised that, having boldly released press statements in 2006, based on the 2006 study, in 2014, when clearly the results have worsened in terms of a commentary on the Labor government's performance, there are no press releases from the Labor government at the time the report was released. This is the point the Liberal Party and many other commentators have been making and have been endeavouring to make, that this Jay Weatherill government has its whole budget and economic policy wrong. Its whole budget policy is structured on increasing taxes and increasing costs for doing business.

In this budget we see increases in the car park tax, increases in the emergency services levy, increases in what is colloquially referred to as the fun tax or the transport development levy. Right across the board, mining royalty increases; right across the board this government, rather than concentrating on reducing financial mismanagement and cutting waste in expenditure, just goes for the levers which say, 'Stuff business, stuff the community; we'll just ratchet up a few extra taxes right across the board.'

We have the Treasurer boldly saying, 'This emergency services levy increase is a terrific increase because it is a progressive tax increase.' It is one of the few levers that he has where he can increase the progressive nature of the tax base in South Australia right across the board. Mark my words, in November-ish, when the ESL (emergency services levy) notices go out, a lot of elderly South Australians and others, who may well be asset rich and cash poor, who have bought or inherited homes at a relatively cheap price in suburbs that have now become more expensive over the decades, the ones who are endeavouring to live off their superannuation savings, or whatever it is, will be smashed by the Jay Weatherill Labor government and its members as the impact of those increases are felt by hardworking South Australians and South Australian families.

That is the approach that this Labor government has taken, and is quite unashamedly happy to do so. From the Treasurer down they are delighted to see massive increases in taxes and charges on South Australians. They take a perverse pleasure in leveraging pain out of South Australian workers and their families. They would much rather do that than make the hard decisions involved in managing a budget, managing the number of staff within their departments and cutting out the waste within their departments in a professional and businesslike capacity.

That is the problem that confronts South Australia at the moment: a government, a Premier, a Treasurer, ministers and, sadly, sycophantic backbenchers, wholly-owned subsidiaries of the factions, unable or unwilling to think for themselves, unwilling to question premiers or ministers on anything other than asking, 'What's in it for me? Will I get to be the President? Will I get to be a minister? Will I get to be a parliamentary secretary? Will I get to be on a parliamentary committee? What's in it for me?' Sadly, that is all that seems to interest members of the Labor Party caucus. No wonder the majority of South Australians feel unrepresented by the Jay Weatherill Labor government and the members who supposedly represent them.

I now turn to some of the structural issues in relation to the budget, the budget assumptions and the budget predictions. It is interesting to see that there has been a lot of criticism of the accuracy of the Labor government. The point the member for Dunstan, the Leader of the Opposition, has made often is that this government is always predicting that a financial or budget Nirvana is just around the corner; that is, we will always turn a surplus in two years' time or three years' time.

We have had seven predicted surpluses in the recent past and in the forward estimates period, and we are going to see six deficits in those seven years. So, rather than the seven surpluses that have been predicted, only in one year—the year when we received the largesse from the federal government after the GFC, unexpectedly—was there a budget surplus as had been predicted.

What is the reason for that? When you trace back the accuracy and the history of some of the assumptions that underpin the budget forecasts, in the last financial year, 2013-14 it is interesting to look at the jobs growth forecast, for example, which obviously impacts on payroll tax, collections and others. For 2013-14, the most recent budget document shows that jobs growth was actually a reduction of minus 1.25 per cent.

When you go back to when the jobs growth estimate for 2013-14 first appeared in the budget papers (which was back in the 2012-13 budget), they were predicting a 1.75 per cent jobs growth increase. However, as you go along each year, in the 2012-13 budget there was a 1.75 per cent increase predicted for the 2013-14 financial year; the next year, 2013-14, they predicted a 1 per cent jobs growth increase for that year; and when the 2013-14 Mid-Year Budget Review came out halfway through the year, in December, it had dropped down to 0.25 per cent.

When the update came out in January 2014, it declined to minus 0.75 per cent and, as I said, this budget document now says that it was actually minus 1.25 per cent. It has gone from being a prediction, just two years ago, of 1.75 per cent jobs growth positive, to what was actually delivered, that is, negative 1.25 per cent.

In all the assumptions that are made that underpin these budget documents in recent years, you see similar figures right across the board in relation to the performance—for example, what you see in relation to the budget deficits and surpluses. If you look at the initial promise that was first in the budget papers for this financial year 2014-15, the government was predicting that we would have an $840 million surplus this year. This budget document is now predicting a $479 million deficit.

What I am saying is that this budget is predicting that in two years' time we are going to return to surplus, but we have been hearing this for seven years. As I said, if you just look at this year's (2014-15) estimate of a $479 million deficit, originally we were told that was going to be an $840 million surplus. So, you are talking about a $1.3 billion discrepancy in terms of the predictions. Let us have a look at last year's performance (2013-14). Originally, we were told there would be a surplus of $480 million in 2013-14; we ended up with the biggest deficit in the state's history, $1.2 billion. Their error factor there was $1.7 billion, in terms of their financial performance, going from a surplus of $480 million to a deficit of $1.2 billion.

Whilst I cannot incorporate into Hansard a graph, if you track the history of the 2014-15 surplus, which as I said is now a $479 million deficit, you can see that each year, or budget update in the Mid-Year Budget Review, produces a new figure and the surplus gradually declines to the most recent estimate of a $479 million deficit. What is the reason for that? If you track back over the 12 sorry years of financial performance of this government to the 2002-03 budget, there has actually been $3.9 billion of unbudgeted spending. By that, all you need to do is compare each year what the total spending was predicted in the budget document and then the next year have a look and see what was actually spent—just have a comparison as to what was actually spent.

If you add that up over the 12 years, there has been $3.9 billion of unbudgeted spending, if you use that particular comparison. Last year, for example, what was budgeted and then what was spent, if you compare that there is a $311 million difference. That is the issue, Mr President. As a former treasurer, I acknowledge that new spending problems are raised through a particular financial year, but as with any business if new spending issues arise through a year a business would have to cut its costs somewhere else to try to still come in on budget. This state government is unwilling to do that, all it does is continue to rack up deficit after deficit and then, each year, go to the levers of further tax and charge increases right across the board as its partial solution to try to solve the budget problem that it confronts.

The other issue which I am sure will be required reading out for all of the wholly owned subsidiaries on the Labor backbench for their contribution to the Appropriation Bill debate will be to, in essence, say, 'Look, none of the problems that we face at the moment are our fault. It's all the fault of that terrible Tony Abbott and that terrible Mr Hockey and the federal Liberal government.' The first point to make, of course, is that the federal budget was only introduced this year. So, let us look at where we actually are now. Even the Labor members would have to concede, one would hope, that the current financial performance of a $1.2 billion deficit (the biggest deficit in this state's history), and heading towards a $14 billion debt (the biggest debt in the state's history)—so it is a pretty good daily double that the Jay Weatherill Labor government has pulled off, the biggest debt and the biggest deficit in the state's history—has all been achieved prior to any federal government budget impact on this year or the forward estimates years.

No-one can honestly attribute any responsibility for the current budget problem or budget performance that we have until this particular year to any impact of a federal budget decision. There has been, and there will be, no response from the Labor members to that because that is unarguable. The biggest deficit is as a result of their own incompetence, their financial mismanagement, their negligence in terms of managing the state's finances.

In relation to the impacts of the federal budget, the member for Dunstan, indeed all other state Liberals, and I have been indicating publicly and privately that we do not support the federal cuts to education, we do not support the federal cuts to health, and we do not support the federal cuts to supplementary road funding with the impact on local government. It gives, evidently, a particularly perverse pleasure to some Labor members and ministers to claim otherwise and what pleases them is up to them, what they do in the privacy of their own homes or offices is a matter for them to decide for themselves, but the reality is that the Leader of the Opposition, others and I are clearly on the record in relation to our position on the budget impact.

It is important to place it in perspective because what the Jay Weatherill Labor government is seeking to do is to say that all of the state's financial problems are as a result of the federal budget. The first point to make is that it is now on the public record after the estimates committees and after the recent Budget and Finance Committee meeting that the government has claimed the impact of federal budget cuts on the forward estimates for the next four years is approximately $900 million; that is $900 million over a four-year period. What is now on the public record is that the state budget cuts are actually $3.2 billion, so the state budget cuts over the same period are over $3 billion and the federal budget cuts are $900 million.

The total cuts that have to be absorbed by the budget for the forward estimates period are estimated to be just over $4 billion, so about three-quarters of the budget cuts that our agencies face are as a result of the Jay Weatherill Labor government's financial mismanagement and about one-quarter are the responsibility of the federal government. As I have put on the record on a number of occasions, three-quarters of the cuts are the state's responsibility—that is the major part of the cuts that confront our budget agencies—and the minor part of the cuts, the one-quarter, are the federal budget cuts.

That is unarguable and, again, I challenge any Labor member to stand up and to disagree with the figures that the Treasurer, the Under Treasurer, the budget papers and others have placed on the public record which indicate that, in broad terms over this forward estimates period, three-quarters of the cuts are actually their responsibility and approximately one-quarter of the cuts are the responsibility of the federal government.

I seek leave to have incorporated into Hansard without my reading it budget table 3.13.

Leave granted.

Table 3.13: Grant revenue ($million)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Budget table 3.13 clearly indicates that even after the commonwealth cuts—and these are the Jay Weatherill Labor government's own figures; these are not figures constructed by the alternative government—in the 2013-14 year the estimated result is that the total funds from the commonwealth government to the state of South Australia, the total grant revenue, is $7.8 billion. What the Jay Weatherill Labor government says in its budget papers is that, if you look to the 2017-18 financial year, the total grant revenue, or the total federal funding, is $9.8 billion.

The Jay Weatherill Labor government in its own budget papers has indicated that the commonwealth government will be giving in the financial year 2017-18 an extra $2 billion to the state of South Australia. There has been no indication or recognition of that, of course, from the Jay Weatherill Labor government. As I said, what I have incorporated is their own budget table, which indicates that even after you take into account the claimed cuts, there is still $2 billion.

The government's position will be, 'Well, look instead of being an extra $2 billion, we were expecting to get an extra $2.3 billion or $2.4 billion.' That is what we had in our forward estimates and that is the reason why they have indicated or claimed that there have been budget cuts over the four years. One can understand that particular argument. It is not the argument, of course, that the Minister for Health, Jack Snelling, and others used during the period leading up to the election, because when we indicated that the state Labor government was going to cut health spending by $1 billion over the next four years, he said that was untrue because if we look at the number of dollars being spent in 2017-18 compared to 2013-14 it will actually be higher.

That is again an example of the Jay Weatherill Labor government trying to have its cake and eat it too. In the state case they say, 'Look, the actual dollars going to the state health agency in 2017-18 will be higher than 2013-14.' Even though they are less than had originally been promised and they have to make budget cuts, minister Snelling argued publicly on ABC radio and elsewhere that it was untrue to say that there had been any cuts because the actual dollars going to health were going to increase.

The Minister for Health and the Jay Weatherill Labor government cannot have its cake and eat it too. They cannot argue that there are no state health cuts because actually the state health budget goes up even though it might be less than it was promised to have gone up previously. They cannot argue the same way, 'Well, the federal government is cutting us. Even though there is an extra $2 billion, they promised us an extra $2.4 billion in 2017-18,' if that is their argument.

In the same way, the health agency can argue in terms of state cuts that state funding might be going up a couple of hundred million, or whatever it happens to be, but originally Mr Weatherill and Mr Koutsantonis promised that the budget would go up by $500 million or $600 million. Instead of an increase of $500 million or $600 million, in 2017-18, we are only going to get $200 million from the state because they are cutting the funds that they have provided to state health.

The reality is that the Jay Weatherill Labor government is arguing against itself. It argues one case in relation to state health cuts or state budget cuts. As some of my colleagues have highlighted, the Jay Weatherill Labor government's position is clearly that if there are any federal cuts they are bad, but if there are state cuts they are good. If they are federal reductions in spending, they are cuts; if they are state reductions in spending, they are not cuts, they are reprioritisation of spending priorities, in terms of the sophistry and the spin that this government seeks to use.

The challenge for state Labor members when they address this is to respond to some of these issues. We know that we will continue to get the mantra of 'None of this is our problem, it is all the federal government's problem.' That, as I have demonstrated, is clearly a nonsense. My challenge to the members is that, if they believe that is incorrect, they demonstrate by fact rather than just claim some defence of their position.

There are many other issues in the budget documents that, either during the committee stage of this debate or when we debate the associated Budget Measures Bill some time later, we will be able to prosecute some issues—issues, for example, such as this government's having no idea, in terms of the evidence we took in the Budget and Finance Committee last week, about how the new forced redundancy arrangements will operate from 1 July this year, in terms of how workers in the public sector are to be treated, what will their payout be, when can the Jay Weatherill Labor government sack them. None of those questions has been answered yet in terms of the detail.

In terms of examples of the massive waste that exist in our system, I am sure that my colleague the Hon. Mr Wade will highlight some of the waste that occurs in the health system and, in particular, the financial scandal and disaster of the EPAS IT project, a project which has blown out significantly. The last official estimate was $422 million, but we know from internal documents the latest estimate was well over $500 million and that it is now being canned or semi-canned in terms of its rollout to the 12 hospitals. There are many examples of the waste and financial mismanagement within this system that any responsible government would tackle.

My invitation to Labor members is to accept some responsibility for the mess they have created, rather than endeavouring to point the figure of blame elsewhere, and set about the task of, hopefully, trying to fix some of the economic problems that, sadly, the state of South Australia now confronts.

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (11:47): I rise to make a second reading contribution to the Appropriation Bill for the 2014-15 fiscal year and, in doing so, I want to concentrate my remarks on the Labor government's commitment to health and education. Framing the 2014-15 budget provided the government with significant challenges, given the recent Abbott federal government budget, which sees a significant reduction in federal government funds available to the state government over the forward estimates, in the order of $898 million. That is a massive hit, which, unfortunately, will have significant impacts on services provided by the state government, particularly in the area of health and, in the longer term, education for ordinary South Australians, unless reversed.

Public health and education are two major expenditure items in the state, with health accounting for over 30 per cent of expenditure and education accounting for over 25 per cent. Across Australia, $50 billion of federal funding has been cut from hospitals over the next decade and a further $30 billion from schools. This will have an impact on two of the most vital services the government provides to the community. This is of critical relevance to the state budget, as it sets a very difficult framework in which the Treasurer has had to work. In the 2014-15 budget, $5.084 billion will be spent by the state government on health services and functions, which is an increase of around 114 per cent since 2002.

So, what has the state government being doing in respect of public health? Across South Australia's metropolitan acute hospitals, there was an average of 2,758 overnight beds in 2012-13. This is 157 more beds than in 2001-02. South Australia has the highest number of public hospital beds per capita in the country in 2011-12 at 3.2 beds per 1,000 of population—23.1 per cent above the national average.

In terms of capital, since 2002, the state government has spent over $3 billion on capital expenditure in major healthcare facilities. This is in addition to the $1.85.billion committed to the new Royal Adelaide Hospital. Over $286 million has been committed to improving major regional health facilities, including $36 million at both Berri and Ceduna hospitals, $26.7 million at Mount Gambier hospital, $39.2 million at Port Pirie hospital and $68.3 million at Whyalla hospital. Over $753 million has been committed to medical equipment, biomedical equipment and minor works programs since 2002.

In terms of doctors and nurses, since 2002, there has been a 52 per cent increase in the number of full-time equivalent doctors, nurses, midwives and allied health services and scientific professionals employed in SA Health. In terms of emergency departments, the median wait time to be seen by a doctor or nurse in South Australia was 16 minutes in 2012-13, an improvement of 41 per cent compared to the result of 27 minutes in 2004-05, the first year of reliable reporting.

This year's federal budget has a significant implication for South Australia's budget and SA Health. Again, these cruel cuts framed the environment in which the Treasurer has had to craft the state budget. The federal budget announced significant reductions in commonwealth funding contributions for the health sector in South Australia over the forward estimates of over a massive $655 million. According to the budget papers, South Australia will receive $440 million less funding for public hospital services across the forward estimates.

The Abbott government has reneged on several funding commitments under the current National Health Reform Agreement with the states. Federal budget papers detail that the commonwealth will:

…achieve savings of $1.8 billion over four years from 2014-15 by ceasing the funding guarantees under the National Health Reform Agreement 2011 and revising Commonwealth public health funding arrangements from 1 January 2017.

The federal budget has also announced that the commonwealth will achieve savings by reducing commonwealth funding across a range of COAG national partnership agreements.

The discontinuation of the National Partnership Agreement on Improving Public Hospital Services will result in funding reductions of around $120 million over four years which will particularly impact on subacute care services established with this funding. No further funding will be provided by the National Partnership Agreement on Financial Assistance for Long Stay Older Patients.

This agreement provided for $42 million to South Australia over four years and recognised the commonwealth's responsibility for aged-care services and the delay experienced by patients in waiting for commonwealth aged-care beds. Some $50 million worth of other reductions to health services including early termination of the National Partnership Agreement on Preventative Health, will have a significant impact on important programs such as the highly successful Obesity Prevention and Lifestyle program in South Australia.

The federal budget also contains significant changes to Medicare, such as the introduction of the $7 co-payment for standard general practice consultations, and out-of-pocket hospital pathology and diagnostic imagining services. There are also changes in the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, including increases to co-payments of $5 and, for concessional patients, of 80¢. The changes to Medicare co-payments will put further pressure on the South Australian public hospitals.

South Australian health modelling shows that average emergency department wait times in South Australia are likely to increase to at least 66 minutes—up from the current average of 20 minutes waiting time. Such an increase in the volume of patients in emergency departments is likely to compromise the ability to treat more acute patients. Let us look at elective surgery. Since 2002 the state government has provided significant additional elective surgery funding to facilitate the continual reduction in waiting times, enabling patients to be treated within their assigned clinical urgency category recommended time frames.

Unfortunately, elective surgery wait times are forecast to double due to the cuts in funding by the Abbott government. It is estimated that the Abbott government cuts in general hospitals in South Australia total $217 million over the next four years. Unfortunately, the only real option is to apply the cuts to elective surgery, as the health department must continue to provide and meet the needs of emergency care patients.

Under this assumption it is forecast that waiting times for elective surgery will approximately double in four years' time. For example, the median waiting time for ear, nose and throat surgery is estimated to increase from 54 days in 2013-14 to 116 days in 2017-18, total hip replacements from 99 days to 213 days, total knee replacements from 152 days to 327 days, lens extraction 75 days to 161 days, gall bladder removal 33 days to 71 days, and hysterectomies from 44 days to 95 days. A total of 46,925 procedures were performed in public metropolitan hospitals in 2012-13, an increase of 23 per cent compared with 2001-02.

Let us look at public dental health services. Changes in federal funding and the dental health services will result in the loss of $14.6 million in funding for South Australia in 2014-15, losing the opportunity to build on the improvements gained through the national partnership agreement for treating more public health dental patients. The funding, which has been deferred 12 months, would have enabled the provision of additional care to many thousands of South Australians who have the most difficulty in accessing services and who have the greatest dental needs. This will reverse the significant waiting list improvements gained through the existing national partnership agreement in treating more public dental patients and, as a result, most public dental waiting lists deteriorating by six to 12 months, during 2014-15, at a time when demand for care is more than 50 per cent greater per month compared with the pre-national partnership agreement demand.

The dental Flexible Grants Program, designed to provide $18 million to South Australia for dental infrastructure projects in outer metropolitan, rural and regional areas, has been totally cut. The state government's continued and significant investment in improving our health services over the past 12 years has seen national recognition through South Australia's high-ranking results in key service and time line indicators.

The government wishes to continue to provide quality public health care to South Australians—care which people in South Australia expect but which has been made so much more difficult given the recent decisions of the federal government. The federal budget has immediately wiped out more than $650 million from the South Australian health budget over the next four years. In the first year, we are faced with $55.6 million of cuts, or the equivalent of 123 beds, which is almost the equivalent of closing the entire Hampstead Rehabilitation Centre.

In the second year, we are faced with $112.6 million of cuts, or the equivalent of 250 beds, which is almost the equivalent of closing the entire Repatriation Hospital or the Women's and Children's Hospital. In the third year, we are faced with $168.4 million of cuts, or the equivalent of 374 beds, which is the equivalent of closing The Queen Elizabeth Hospital or the Noarlunga Hospital. In the fourth year alone (2017-18) the state will be $296 million worse off. That is the equivalent of closing a nearly 600-bed hospital, the size of the Flinders Medical Centre or nearly half of all beds in regional hospitals. As the health minister, Jack Snelling, said:

Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey have ripped the heart out of our health system. They have reneged on the National Health Reform Agreement and reduced their fair share of funding to state hospitals. They have ceased national partnership agreements and expect us to pick up their slack.

This is an absolute disgrace. The people of South Australia have the right to expect those opposite to stand up for South Australia against their federal counterparts who appear to want to savage the services available to regional South Australia.

The Abbott government's GP tax will also lead to a negative impact in preventative health care. A likelihood is that some people will be reluctant to see their GP because of the cost and only present to EDs when their chronic conditions are out of control. Failures in preventive health will lead to even greater pressures on our health system in the future. We have a strong public health system here in South Australia and that will be put under enormous strain as a result of the Abbott government federal budget.

I will now move on to education. In terms of education, this budget delivers on our government's election commitments. It delivers for South Australian children and families a new high school in the Adelaide CBD, more support for parents and their families, and a new specialisation that will cater for emerging industries.

Of course, no discussion on education can overlook what is happening with the Gonski Better Schools reform package. This package was modelled on ensuring that funding for education was determined on needs criteria. South Australian students stand to lose, thanks to Prime Minister Tony Abbott and the federal Minister for Education, Christopher Pyne—$335 million of cuts from the agreement in 2018-19. This is $335 million of cuts, which equates to $1,280 per student or nearly 3,000 teachers. This is despite Tony Abbott saying before the federal election that, 'As far as school funding is concerned, Kevin Rudd and I are on a unity ticket.'

The federal Treasurer, Joe Hockey, has described the Gonski funding as a 'bonus'. Let us be very clear, there is nothing bonus about a well-funded education system—nothing. The state government is honouring its commitment to the Gonski school funding agreement, despite the Prime Minister and federal education minister withdrawing that $335 million in funding from South Australian government, Catholic and independent schools. The budget delivers the state government's commitment under the Gonski agreement of $72.3 million over the forward estimates for all South Australian schools. This increases to $229.9 million over the full six years of the agreement. The South Australian government is committed to continue to campaign for the federal government to honour the Gonski agreement in full.

We want South Australian children to have every chance to be their best, starting from birth and continuing throughout their education. This budget continues that investment in our future, in our kids, not only through the state government's commitment to the Gonski reforms, but also through a number of other important election commitments. As I said earlier, the state government will build a new $85 million city high school for 1,000 students. A further $2.5 million will help establish a centre for advanced manufacturing at Seaview High School, more than $600,000 will support The Heights high school become a specialist school for defence studies and $200,000 will support the Hamilton high school develop its specialist STEM program.

We are also supporting schools to develop new specialisations that reflect the aspirations and needs of their community by providing a $50,000 grant to local partnerships. Every public school student will have access to a school counsellor. There is also $1.8 million for a new parent portal to allow parents to easily communicate with their child's school throughout their education. We are investing $13.7 million to provide additional allied health services through our children's centres network. We are expanding the fantastic Strong Start program, which supports expecting first-time mums to learn how to best cope and protect their babies.

This budget recognises that investment in children and families is the best investment that we can make in the future of our state. Not only does this budget continue our support for families and children, it also shows that the Labor government takes its election commitments seriously. During the recent state election, Jay Weatherill, the Premier, committed to stand up to the Abbott federal government and to fight for a better deal for all South Australians. He was attacked for doing so, attacked by Tony Abbott and attacked by the Leader of the Opposition in the other place.

This government is committed to ensuring that South Australia's health and education systems lead the nation. We are also working hard to achieve this and have been investing substantial sums of money to do so. However, rather than fighting for South Australians, those opposite would appear to be silent—their silence is deafening. At least their interstate colleagues, the premiers of Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria, have stood up for their respective states and have had the sense to criticise Tony Abbott's federal budget cuts, but what have we seen here? Not much, not much at all. As usual those opposite have been fairly silent.

We on this side will continue to fight for South Australians; there has never been anything more certain. Those opposite should be standing up with the state government and with the people of South Australia to reject Prime Minister Tony Abbott's cuts that will reduce services not only in metropolitan areas but regional areas. Those opposite should stand up with us to insist the commonwealth contributes its fair share to fund this state's public hospitals and education and other services, and especially to ensure that the federal Abbott government does not tear up national partnership agreements already entered into. Any criticism of the budget by those opposite should be replaced with criticism of their federal colleagues and the cruel and callous cuts. I commend the Appropriation Bill to the council.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (12:11): I rise to speak to the Appropriation Bill 2014. As we know, this recently arrived in this place from the House of Assembly and it was some weeks ago that the Treasurer introduced the Appropriation Bill along with all the other budget measures. While it is always our duty to support the Appropriation Bill, as it is imperative that oppositions allow governments to do the job, this does not mean that the Liberal Party supports much of what is contained within the budget. It is unfortunate that after so long the state of South Australia finds itself in this position of debt, debt and more debt. While other states around Australia recover from the financial ineptitude of previous Labor governments, South Australia is once again saddled with the lamest horse carrying the most baggage.

It is no surprise that in practically every fiscal outlook around the nation, South Australia sits dead last, even now behind Tasmania, whether it be unemployment, annual GDP growth, business activity or business confidence. Unfortunately we are falling further and further behind and our national share of GDP has been steadily shrinking under the leadership, or lack thereof, of this Labor government.

We have to also remember that we went through some of the very best economic times this nation has seen in the postwar period. I note the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars is hell-bent on not talking so much about this budget but attacking the federal Liberal government budget. I do not ever remember them congratulating John Howard and Peter Costello on the great work they did when they spent the rivers of gold and squandered the opportunities. Of course, the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars was not in this place at that time but, nonetheless, it is his team, his party, that had the very best of economic times, had revenue way above what we budgeted on, yet it was all squandered, gone and lost. We find that this Labor government has now accrued a staggering $14.3 billion of debt come the 2015-16 budget year and we will have a deficit of $1.2 billion, yet if this government is to be believed, we will see it returned to a surplus in just a few short years.

When I mentioned the rivers of gold from years gone by, I am very sceptical about this budget returning to surplus when they predict because never in the 12½ years that I have been here, and this is the 13^th budget that I have seen come and go, has this government ever been able to hold itself to its budget expenditure. Of course, in those days they got more revenue than they expected, but they have never ever been able to deliver in those 13 budgets on the promises they made, and I do not expect them to do it this year. In fact, in South Australia no-one expects Labor to keep any of their promises—12 years of broken promises has put rest to that—but I do not think there is anyone who is delusional enough to believe the Labor government's promise of 100,000 new jobs or their projected surplus will ever come to fruition. It will not happen. We know it, they know it, the public knows it, and saying otherwise is just insulting people's intelligence.

The government has also promised no privatisation, then it went and privatised the Motor Accident Commission, the sale of which it expects to raise almost $500 million which will go straight into paying off the enormous debt this government has accrued. We saw in the last term of this government the sale of the forests and the sale of the Lotteries Commission. The sale of the forests was born some years prior. There was a lot of speculation in the end that it was to keep the AAA credit rating. Of course, we lost the AAA credit rating. It was to pay off debt, and the debt ballooned out of control and I think the figure that we have for the forests is pretty much what the government spent on Adelaide Oval.

People say, 'Adelaide Oval is a great new addition to the city skyline.' It certainly is, but if you look back to the rivers of gold that the government had in previous years, we could easily have built a new Adelaide Oval every year if they had stuck to their budget and invested that surplus and the rivers of gold that we had in productive infrastructure. We would all argue, probably, that bringing footy to the city is productive infrastructure; it is one of the things that the Liberal opposition spoke strongly about.

All the fiscal problems that this government faces cannot be of its own making, and it continues to point the finger at the federal government at every turn instead of taking responsibility for its own actions. Gerry Kandelaars spent most of his contribution attacking the federal government rather than looking at their own problems.

I think it emphasises how delusional this government is, when they have embarked on a shameful smear campaign against the federal government which is hypocritical to say the least. The cost of that campaign was well over $1 million, with no constructive purpose for South Australia other than wasting money. At a time when we are in such a perilous and precarious financial situation, it is embarrassing for our government to be throwing money away on political scare campaigns when the money is so desperately needed to fund health, education and welfare programs.

That is all about priorities. I think about $1.2 million was spent there, and a couple of million dollars was spent to equip the office for the member for Waite when he decided to become an Independent and join the Labor government. Again, there is three and a bit million dollars that was not budgeted on and was not on the forward estimates, it was just plucked out of fresh air. That is probably an amount close to $10 million, with the $1.2 and the $8 million for the member for Waite's office. I think it just emphasises that it is all about priorities. This government has long had its priorities in the wrong place, and I do not see that, sadly, changing any time soon.

Here in South Australia we enjoy the wonderful perks of the highest electricity prices, the highest gas prices, the highest business taxes and the highest water prices. A recent report into water pricing structure in South Australia found that the majority of the price hike in water bills is entirely down to state government policy, but they tend to ignore that fact and continue to reap enormous dividends from SA Water.

Then again, why should we worry about utility charges and business confidence when we have other things to look at? I mentioned Adelaide Oval. We have a new oval there, but never mind, it was minted out of the livelihoods of the South-East forestry workers. After all, they do not need jobs, a stable income or a growing economy. As long as they have a new oval some 400 kilometres away, everything else in their lives seems chipper. The constituents in Troy Bell's electorate in Mount Gambier would think otherwise.

We heard the government say that there would be no job losses. Premier Weatherill said that measures were being put in place to secure all the jobs. I think treasurer Snelling at the time said the same. I think a number of government ministers have reiterated that, but in the end, of course, we have seen a number of job cuts. minister Bignell now says these are not forced, these are voluntary packages. At the end of the day, a job loss, whether it is a voluntary or a forced redundancy, is a job loss for that community and so I think minister Bignell is playing with words when he says, 'We're not breaking our commitment.' Their commitment was that there would be no job losses, full stop. There were no qualifying statements around whether it was voluntary or not, so I think the government has been playing with its words there.

Under this government we are told the people of South Australia will enjoy a period of sustained prosperity, job growth, city vibrancy, regional boom times and only run into debt and deficit for a few short years. We have been waiting for more than a decade for that promise to be delivered upon, and I have a suspicion that we might be waiting for another four years at least. Call me a pessimist, but when you are constantly being let down you cannot help but feel that any promise, no matter how grand, is going to fall spectacularly short.

I would like to talk a little about some of my portfolios now. Minister Gago says the opposition always talks this place down, and she did it again yesterday. She is always claiming that we are being negative and talking the state down, whether it is in question time or in the public debate, but after it has been driven into the ground for 12 long years under Labor and we are now at the bottom of the stats nationally, whether it is employment, economic growth or any of these key economic indicators, there is only one person to blame. They talk it down themselves. The facts themselves prove that they have failed as a government and that our economy is the worst in the nation.

In a pretty cheap and almost lazy way the minister will say, 'Oh, it's just the opposition,' and it is a trend that you hear from a lot of other ministers, that the opposition just talks the state down. We are just telling the truth: the state is down on its knees because of this government's mismanagement.

I want to make a few comments about some of my portfolios. PIRSA has had to bear the brunt of many budget cuts over past years, and this budget is no different. PIRSA's budget for 2014-15 stands at an abysmal $59.8 million, down $26.5 million alone in one year, and this is the food and wine component of the budget. It is the lowest budget for PIRSA in over a decade. Funding has fallen spectacularly to only 35 per cent of the level it was in 2010-11. With one hand, this government is spruiking the potential of our primary industries and, with the other hand, it is ripping away funding at drastic levels, where vital staff will need to be shed just to keep the department afloat.

I think that the minister will be speaking at the Royal Show, at the rural media breakfast, and he will be talking about his first 170 days as minister, and the title of his talk will be, 'A strategy to build rural South Australia'. You would think that, after 12 years of this government, with all of their promises and all of their rhetoric and this current passion for premium food and wine from a clean environment, that it would be built and that we would not be talking about a strategy to build it, but that the discussion he would be having would be talking about the great achievements of the Labor government and not talking about a strategy to build South Australia. I think that is a recognition that the Labor government has failed the rural community.

Of course, SARDI, despite my protests year after year, has again been in the budget firing line. The South Australian Research and Development Institute is one of the integral centres underpinning the great work undertaken at the Waite Institute, which, if members are interested, I may speak about later this evening. SARDI cannot afford to lose any more funding or staff but, unfortunately, with the formidable mismanagement of the state's finances under this government, vital programs have been cut, and SARDI is one of the many which have had to face the chop.

The Waite Institute is doing its very best to remain one of the greatest research centres around the globe, but it is very hard to do so when its own government continues to withdraw support from the industry. As a world leader, Waite needs more support to continue developing its programs but, instead of funding, it gets more cuts, which leads to the department shedding more core staff, who are desperately needed by the industry.

It is interesting to note that the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics used to have a budget well in excess of $1½ million; it is now down to around about $200,000. As we all know, the Waite Research Institute (the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics is located there) is in the electorate of Waite. When the member for Waite was a minister in the last few months of the Kerin government, the funding for the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics was something he took through the Liberal Party room and also through the Liberal cabinet, and he provided the funding for it.

It is rather ironic that, now he has made the decision to become an Independent and to cosy up with the Labor Party in government, the amount of money that is being spent on his ministerial office—some $2 million—would more than keep the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics funded and operating. I think that some of his comments, when he made that decision, related to the fact that he felt that he could better represent the people of Waite in government than in opposition and that he would make a strong contribution to that community. Yet this is one of the first examples where the government has turned its back on it, and the member for Waite has been silent on that issue.

SARDI is not the only department losing significant funding and staff. Biosecurity will lose some 13 full-time employees and its budget will drop by $5½ million. With two recent outbreaks of fruit fly, it seems almost incredibly ignorant for the government to be cutting a program that is responsible for keeping our state fruit fly free. We know how important that is, but the government obviously thinks that it knows better. I truly hope that there is a provision in place and that it is enough to stop the spread of fruit fly; if not, the industry will suffer a spectacularly unpleasant result.

Exports also have stagnated significantly, dropping by 13 per cent in 2012 alone. I know that the minister was talking in this place yesterday about the fact that state exports had gone up. I suspect that does not include agricultural exports. Agricultural exports have grown by only a measly 1 per cent, on average, over the past decade. Compared to other states, this is an embarrassment. It just reflects the priorities of this Labor government.

Livestock exports have decreased by 10 per cent over the same period, dairy exports have decreased by 10 per cent, and seafood exports have decreased by 5 per cent. For a state that relies heavily on primary production and the exports they create, these statistics are incredibly disappointing. In budget estimates a week ago, minister Bignell was unable to explain the drop in exports and how he plans to reverse this downward trend. It is interesting that at the time premier Rann came to office with the launch shortly thereafter of the State Strategic Plan, they had a plan to grow our exports to $25 billion by 2013. Of course, that was last year.

I think the minister yesterday was saying that exports are now, from my recollection, at $12.1 billion or $12.3 billion. It is not even half of the target they set more than 11 years ago that we were to have achieved yesterday. They will always say, 'Oh, it was the global financial crisis,' but the strategic planning was never in place. They plucked a figure out of the air. I think they looked back over the decade of Liberal government and saw that exports had gone from $3 billion to $9 billion and thought, 'Well, that's easy. The Liberals trebled it. We'll almost treble it from $9 billion to $25 billion.'

What they did not understand is that you actually have to have a long-term partnership with industry, agriculture and food, especially, and this is just something that this government has neglected until just very recently, when they have talked about this strategic priority of premium food and wine from a clean environment, but you have to question some of the strategies there. The government is trying to spruik some of its achievements in its relationship with China, but there is little to show for that at this stage in our export figures.

The Leader of the Government in this place was the minister for agriculture at the time that we were going to have these two fresh food centres in the province of Fujian, in Nanping and Zhuangzhou, which were promoted by the government, and minister Gago was actually very upset when I criticised it. She said I would insult the Chinese partners. In fact, she called me to an urgent briefing with her departmental head and some of the guys from the Australia-China chamber of commerce, I think it was, in her leader's office, just outside in the corridor here. She reprimanded me for being outspoken about this project and assured me that everything was on track, and her chief executive of the time said, 'No, no, these will be built and we will have South Australian produce in those centres within 18 months.'

That was about two years or maybe 2½ years ago now and, in estimates, when I had my colleagues in the House of Assembly ask the current minister, minister Bignell virtually washed his hands of it and said that it really was not the government's responsibility. The developers are yet to build the buildings that these food centres are going in and they have not actually been realised. It is quite sad, and there were some millions of dollars put towards that program. I am not quite sure where it has gone—

The Hon. G.E. Gago: Rubbish—that is absolute nonsense! There was none of our money.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: There was $4 million over the forward estimates for that project.

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: At the end of the day, you said they would be opened within a couple of years—

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order! The minister is out of order.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: —and now there is nothing, nothing, nothing.

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order! We are not having a conversation. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Agriculture remains one of the biggest earners in this state and employs roughly one-fifth of the state, yet it faces its smallest operating budget in over a decade. It is a truly sad picture for our world-renowned agricultural sector. Labor has so spectacularly botched its policy, particularly on things like marine parks, deciding to pursue a political agenda rather than a sensible, logical policy that does not send our fisherman to the wall. I am hoping this government will wake up to itself and shelve that particular policy.

It is also interesting that minister Bignell and the government have committed to a moratorium on GM crops until 2019 and they always spruik how much better off our producers are and that we get a premium for all our food and wine. It is not a premium from just our grain but also our food and wine, so I assume that is our livestock, our cheese, our wine, our seafood. During budget estimates, we asked minister Bignell to actually try to quantify that and his only answer was that he had evidence that was anecdotal.

We support our moratorium, but we also believe we need to be able to measure those benefits. You do not have a policy and say, 'Well, we have a policy and we think that it's a good policy.' You actually need to be able to measure those benefits. So, again I ask the minister to actually start doing some work around where we get premiums, and not just in grain. When they talk about our premium food and wine, in what markets do we command a higher price for our products and in what markets do we have easier access?

I know there is some interest in non-GM canola in Japan, but I am told that GM canola is brought out of other states and goes into Europe and, while it is banned in Europe, it is used for making ethanol, for industrial purposes. I am interested to know exactly what benefits we get and what market access we have been able to get over our competitors in Victoria, New South Wales, Western Australia and Queensland, because at the end of the day we will be the first ones to say that this is a great policy. That is why we supported it at the election; so we could actually do that work in government if we were fortunate enough to be elected, and measure the benefits and base those policies on fact rather than just hearsay and rumours.

Also in estimates we had the minister contradict his own policies on food branding. The budget document clearly outlines a new program for branding quality food as a new regulatory standard. In fact, it was an announcement prior to the election, but the minister then came out and said that it was not. The minister needs to clarify the purpose of this policy and explain why taxpayers are spending $2 million on more branding and regulation when we already have Brand SA. That $2 million would be much of much greater use to the industry if it were spent on research and development or biosecurity. These are areas that require more funding and not branding and regulation. It will only duplicate services we have already seen.

It is interesting to look at that particular budget measure. The branding program that the minister spoke about he said was voluntary, that it did not need legislation but that it would be introduced. I have the notes from estimates. He said that in the budget papers it was new initiative funding for a regulatory standard for premium South Australian food, an introduction of a symbol to certify top quality South Australian produce. When he was asked to explain it, the minister said that we have a range of diverse premium food and that to support this future growth South Australia needs to achieve premium prices in these key markets. He then goes on to talk about what he would do. He said that the first step will be consultation with industry and sector groups to identify how such a system could be designed and implemented to best support South Australian businesses and key markets. I guess what it will actually look like will be determined through consultation with industry.

It is interesting that the minister and the government has allocated all this extra money for new branding, but the minister does not actually know what it is. He says that they have to consult with industry and sector groups to identify how such a system could be designed and implemented. I do not understand how you can go to an election with a policy that clearly has not been thought through, nobody knows exactly what it will cost and, a few months after the election, after the budget, come into estimates and say that the first thing they are going to do is consult and then we will see how a system could work.

This was a Labor Party policy, a thought bubble. When asked how it would interact with current food safety codes and regulations, and how would it add to what was there, the minister said that all the existing stuff will remain in place, it is just another level of marketing to reinforce to our consumers what they are buying has great providence and is a quality product. South Australian, and perhaps even more broadly Australian, food already has a wonderful standing internationally for being quality, safe produce. It makes no sense whatsoever to have another level of not necessarily regulation, but it appears that it could be a little more red tape.

It is interesting to know that with the Brand SA, the doorway in South Australia, a lot of producers still have not taken up because you have to change all your packaging, and to display it it has to be printed on there, so now the minister is talking about yet another regulatory standard and he does not know how it will work. I suspect that there will have to be compliance officers and interaction. It would be interesting to know exactly what the minister was referring to.

We also have had the Buy SA campaign, and my understanding is that the website for that has been taken down. I think there were some issues around legal liability when it comes to abuses of standards and the symbol. It is interesting that that has been pulled down, although tragically the other day I saw on the way to the airport Buy SA flags on some of the light poles and they were in shreds, in tatters. They are not boldly presented, they have been there flying in the breeze and have been ripped apart by the strong winds.

That is indicative of the government's policies: they are falling apart, they are just thought bubbles with no long-term strategic plan to grow our agricultural sector. We have to remember that our state was founded on an agricultural company, the South Australian Company. It was the biggest business in town 175 years ago and it is still the biggest business in town, yet it receives a diminishing amount of financial support.

It is interesting to note some of the other issues that were brought up during estimates. Of particular interest to me was the sale of a couple of research centres: the Lenswood facility and also the Flaxley facility. Flaxley was decommissioned some time ago. I think it was in minister Gago's time that plans were made to sell it. We are yet to see any evidence of that being sold. There is $680,000 in the budget this year for asset sales but Flaxley is worth significantly more than that. Minister Bignell tells us that it will be going on the market in the next few months but I am at a bit of a loss in knowing where the financial gain from the sale of that asset will come and why we only see $680,000 in the budget from the sale of assets.

There is also the facility at Lenswood. We understand that we are part of a national research framework around the nation and we look after dryland agriculture, pork, poultry and wine. However, we have the Lenswood facility and I know there has been some community interest in taking over that facility. What I would like to know is: has the minister gone to industry?

We have facilities in which taxpayers have invested over many years. Particularly in places like Lenswood, there are trees in the ground and stuff growing in the ground. One can understand that with a dairy or livestock research facility, the stock can be sold, they can be moved on, but we have trees and plants in the ground. Clearly, you are going to have some issues there because you cannot just shift them—and so that is all lost. I would be interested in hearing from minister Bignell—but I expect I will not get a response—because he said:

Yes, we have received a lot of feedback, and we are listening to the industry and having discussions with a whole range of people about what the future will be not just for the site but for research in the horticultural industry.

The Adelaide Hills region is, I think, being promoted to be included in the World Heritage List and I am not quite sure how that is going to impact on primary production up there. We have a research facility in the middle of it now that really could underpin agricultural development in that region. It is a bit unique from the rest of South Australia because the Hills are in a higher altitude and higher rainfall area. There are many hundreds of thousands of hectares of dryland agriculture so I think that is a little bit like cutting off our nose to spite our face.

I know some of the cool climate horticultural research is done in Victoria but we are different from Victoria. I think it would be foolish to see that facility go unless industry had an opportunity to put up some sort of proposal to take it on.