Bills

Appropriation Bill 2014

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 6 August 2014.)

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (15:50): I rise to make some comment on the Appropriation Bill which, as promised by the opposition, passed the other place unfettered, as I predict it will here. Despite the predictable scaremongering from the Treasurer that we planned on blocking supply, no such thing occurred. However, the opposition does have a few concerns with the budget—in fact, we have many concerns with the budget—and in particular some nasties the government refers to as reforms. I refer, of course, to the new car park tax and the increases to the emergency services levy.

It is important to recognise that having concerns or even recommending amendments, which is all we are constitutionally limited to do in this place, is not the same as blocking supply. I do note that in addition to this bill it has been foreshadowed that a budget measures bill will be introduced, and it is this bill that has much of the proverbial devil within in its detail.

The glaringly obvious thing about this budget is that it does not fix the problems it is intended to fix—or that the government says that it will. As many of my colleagues, both here and in the other place, have acknowledged, one of the major problems right now is, of course, unemployment. In the last 12 months South Australia has lost in excess of 19,000 jobs. The unemployment level is currently well over 7 per cent, the highest in mainland Australia. In May alone unemployment jumped by 0.6 per  cent, although that may change soon, given the upturn in business confidence we have seen in Tasmania as a result of the election of the reformist Liberal government under Premier Will Hodgman.

South Australia is on track to become the worst performing economy in the commonwealth. The growth figures are poor also. In the last three quarters the South Australian economy has contracted. It is unsurprising why our young people are leaving in droves. Last year we had a 30 per cent increase in net interstate migration. It is an easy enough pattern to see: growth is poor, confidence is low, emigration is up.

The Liberals went to the election promising significant payroll tax relief, and Labor matched that commitment, only to say a mere three months later that it cannot afford it and that that relief will end. Not much of significance has changed in the last three months. There was not another financial crisis, which we know ministers opposite like to carp about a good six years later. If the situation is so dire now that payroll tax relief can no longer be granted to small business, why did the government promise it at the election in March? The Premier and his government could not possibly have been lying to the people of South Australia, could they?

Perhaps the Premier recognised his own incompetence and that is why he gave the job to the member for West Torrens. Either way, it is a broken promise and, frankly, an unnecessary one. Why would Labor promise tax relief it could not afford? It was forced into matching the commitment the Liberals made as it was popular with business people, the job creators of this state. It is pretty simple: either do not make the commitment when it is clear that it was unsustainable, or cut spending to ensure it is sustainable. Neither was done, and now we have a broken promise which has broken the will of business people in this state. Is it any wonder that confidence is down?

A common scare tactic used by Labor against cutting spending is that services will be reduced—services to the most vulnerable in the community. It is the same tired argument that Labor has been rolling out for the entire life of this government. It is hard to sustain that line when there has been almost $4 billion of unbudgeted expenditure. This expenditure is not the crucial social programs in communities. This is not doctors, nurses, teachers and police, which are always budgeted for. This is spending on the run. In household budget terms, this is not your meat and vegetable money, this is your chewing gum and magazine money, and those opposite spent $311 million last year alone. The figure is $4 billion and growing over the life of this government.

This is frustrating to families and business owners who have to stick to their budgets. They only have a finite amount to spend, which is the exact point of a budget; yet they are still being slugged taxes—families even more so now with the latest increases to the emergency services levy which is linked directly to land value, 98 per cent of which will not be spent on emergency services.

An emergency services levy which is not spent on emergency services sounds as silly as the save the River Murray levy for a river with record flows and charging a victims of crime levy for a victimless crime. If the government wants to raise a tax without taking it to an election, at least have the stomach to call it what it is: a land tax. Labor loves to talk about how it looks after the most vulnerable in the community and deliver services better than the Liberals, therefore, it would be reasonable to expect that if taxes are going up South Australians would be receiving better services. Strangely, this is not the case.

If we look at the health portfolio the government has shelved upgrades to the following hospitals: Flinders Medical Centre, worth $100 million; The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, worth $125 million; the Noarlunga Hospital, worth $31.3 million; and, finally, the Modbury Hospital expansion, worth $27.8 million. I think those voting Labor in the electorates of Cheltenham, Croydon, Elder, Florey, Kaurna, Mawson, Newland, Reynell and Torrens have every right to feel betrayed by this government's action. Would Elder, Florey and Newland have returned a Labor member if they knew that their local hospitals were no longer being upgraded?

Another broken promise (and one that Labor previously formed as the backbone of their platform in the past) is no privatisations. This has been promised by Labor governments past at almost every election, and the promise continues to be broken. This time it is the Motor Accident Commission which is going. The understanding is that the money stowed away for compulsory third-party insurance claims will now be moved into consolidated revenue and the insurance offered via contract.

The problem here is that, in a similar way to the Lotteries Commission and the forests before it, is this a long-term benefit for all South Australians? Revenue from the lotteries, for instance, went back into hospitals and community sport. Is there any chance of that steady funding source being replaced? A once-off payment for the sale of an income-producing asset to pay wages is not a very smart way of going about your business.

A more efficient way of doing it would be to reduce Public Service numbers, as promised. Divestiture and borrowing to fund wages is, at the very least, short-sighted and, at worst, gross economic and financial mismanagement. This lack of action constitutes another broken promise from this Labor government—this time around Public Service reduction targets. Before we got to the figures we saw the usual game playing from Labor. The farce that was estimates was on show for all to see. The Treasurer stated that specific figures of targeted voluntary separation packages were not in his area; they were under the purview of the Minister for the Public Sector. When it was the minister's turn, she then said that it was the responsibility of Treasury to give those figures. Once again, more smokescreening and delaying tactics.

Finally we got the numbers, and a new figure of 208 reductions out of a target of 2,240. On top of that, the Minister for Health stated that his department had only met 277 reductions out of a targeted 959. Why are ministers not being forced to meet their targets before taxes are raised and assets are sold?

To compound this issue the government has been promising surpluses on top of its increases in spending. In 2008, the government predicted that this year the state budget would be in surplus. We know that the ministers opposite love to blame the global financial crisis. According to the Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills, the global financial crisis is still alive and well here in South Australia—it is so rife and so global that New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australian are all running budget surpluses and have positive growth. The minister is half correct: there is still a crisis but it certainly is not global; it is limited to South Australia and it is a crisis of the making of the minister and her colleagues.

Rather than fudging figures and using fanciful predictions to prop up income levels resulting in false surpluses, why not work hard to actually produce fair dinkum surpluses which would not then embarrass the government and make Labor look like it is such a basket case. What those opposite continually fail to realise is that their actions affect and reflect on the entire state and everyone in it. Supporting the local economy should be basic for the government; however, we have seen continually decisions made that adversely affect the local economy.

Take stationery contracts for instance. Following the disgraceful cartridges scandal ('cartridgegate' as the Hon. Mr Lucas likes to call it), rather than weed out the bad eggs, the malpractice and toxic culture which led to this happening, the government decided to centralise all stationery contracts and limit purchasing to two overseas companies. The result was that good contracts between schools, departments and local suppliers were torn up. If not for the good work of KW Wholesalers to lobby the government on behalf of its workers, there would have been significant job losses as a result of this autocratic and arbitrary decision. I know there were good stationers in this state who lost significant contracts as a result. To them, the government should apologise.

Another example of this is the purchase of Victorian-made state flags which electorate officers give out to organisations and schools in the community. One would assume that, at the very least, we should purchase state flags from a local manufacturer. South Australian flags from Victoria. Imagine what Knuckles Kerley would say!

Finally, I want to talk about the waste of taxpayer money in government advertising. Last year, we had the It's More Than Cars campaign with Chinese-made shirts which, of course, did nothing to stop the closure of Holden. More recently, we have had $1 million spent on an advertising campaign condemning the federal government for its budget, which is extraordinary insofar as it flagrantly violates government advertising rules by using the likeness of the Premier. It was blatantly political and did nothing to benefit the people of this state. If anything, it demonstrates that this government's priorities are wrong, wrong and wrong. I commend the bill to the council.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (16:00): In supporting the passage of this bill, I recognise its importance in providing $11.496 billion to the various programs incorporated in the 2014-15 budget of the government. It is my intention to focus on several particular areas that have come to my attention as they relate to the priorities of the government and the manner in which public servants carry out those wishes.

First, I want to deal with mental health issues in the northern suburbs. As a community, our country is facing serious mental health challenges. Currently, one in five people, or 20 per cent of the national population, will experience a mental health problem or illness each year. Forty-five per cent of the national population will experience a mental health issue or illness at some point during their lifetime and, of that 45 per cent, 75 per cent of these individuals will have their first episode before the age of 25.

What I would like to highlight to honourable members is the key thing to remember about mental health issues is that they do not discriminate. Mental illness can affect men, women and children of all ages and from all cultural backgrounds.

The City of Salisbury has recently published its draft Regional Public Health Plan in which you can find some harrowing statistics about mental health issues facing the second largest city in metropolitan Adelaide. The draft plan paints an acute picture of the state of mental health in the Salisbury council region when it states that 13.8 per cent of the population of the City of Salisbury have reported high or very high levels of psychological distress, which is above the South Australian metropolitan average; 11.1 per cent of males and 12.6 per cent of females have been estimated to be suffering from long-term mental and behavioural conditions, which again is above the South Australian metropolitan average.

The City of Salisbury has a higher level of individuals aged 18 years and above who were clients of a government funded community mental health service than the South Australian metropolitan average. Most alarmingly, there are more deaths by suicide before the age of 75 in the City of Salisbury than the metropolitan average.

Having demonstrated the impact of mental health issues in South Australia's northern suburbs and the need for services across the region to support individuals in crisis, I would like to turn to the government's recent response to the issue. Before the election, the government undertook a review of non-hospital-based health services across the state to identify savings. Following this review, the Women's and Children's Health Network has advised it has finalised service sites for youth health services in Adelaide, as well as its new workforce structure. The transition to the new service has occurred over June and July and impacted those who are eligible, opening hours and the services that are available.

One of the crucial youth health services available to those in the northern suburbs is known as Shopfront. Shopfront is a service that was established by the department of health and the City of Salisbury in 1983 and it has taken the brunt of the government's restructure of the youth health service delivery structure. It was established over 30 years ago as a service to the youth in the north and is now more specifically targeted at young people in and around the northern suburbs who are battling mental health, drug and alcohol issues.

It also provided vulnerable youths in the community with other services such as needle exchange programs, lawyers and counselling. Over its three decades in operation it has become a one-stop shop for vulnerable youths facing issues in the wider northern community. The future of the Shopfront service has been on the chopping block for this government for a number of years until it committed to retaining the service just before the 2014 state election. This commitment by the government was brought about after much advocacy by the City of Salisbury, local members and community leaders on behalf of the vulnerable individuals who use the service.

After the government's commitment, the Shopfront service on John Street operated as it has for in excess of 30 years, with the exception of the fact that it was unable to take on new clients up until July this year. From this point the government reduced the Shopfront service to a one day per week outreach service, serving vulnerable youth between the ages of 12 and 25,with a specific focus on those under the age of 18 who are Indigenous, under the guardianship of the minister and/or who have a range of complex vulnerabilities such as teen pregnancy, parenting, refugee, homelessness, newly identified as same-sex attracted, transgender or gender questioning. This has significantly reduced Shopfront's ability to service its client base and provide a place for at-risk youth to visit in a time of crisis. Whilst Shopfront has remained open, this new service structure has significantly reduced the scope of individuals the service can assist across the community.

Statewide changes to youth health service delivery tell the same story as the Shopfront saga unfortunately. The WCHN has devised a hub and spoke service delivery model, with fixed youth health services at two hubs based at Elizabeth and Christies Beach, and only outreach services provided at several other locations around metropolitan Adelaide. This service delivery model has been devised by the department to save money; however, it seems that this government's priorities for spending money seem to be badly out of kilter.

Whilst the new service delivery model for youth health services will save the government money, it appears the Premier and Treasurer have no compunction spending over $1.1 million of taxpayers' money funding blatantly political attack ads directed at the federal government. Whether it is in print, on radio or on television, this is an appalling misuse of taxpayers' money and is an affront to what government funded advertising is meant to be for. The Labor Party's flagrant disregard for the notion of politically neutral and unbiased government advertising, which is meant to be designed to broadcast necessary community messages, is an utter disgrace.

Imagine what Shopfront or other youth health services could do with that money. Imagine what community organisations, especially those working in the field of suicide prevention, could do with that money. Most of these organisations are mainly volunteer-based and they run off the smell of an oily rag. They step into a void that the government has been unable to fill. As I say, just imagine what those organisations could do with $1.1 million.

I would like to turn to suicide prevention. There are a number of community organisations that work in the field of suicide prevention and postvention. My passion for this subject would be well known to honourable members in this place and I took particular interest in the government's funding commitments to this area in the recent budget. The member for Morphett in another place, during the estimates process, asked a number of questions to the Minister for Health regarding funding for community-based organisations engaged in providing suicide prevention services to those in crisis. The minister boasted the government has committed $150,000 to small grants for suicide prevention initiatives and activities, as well as further commitments of $200,000 to Lifeline South-East and Lifeline Adelaide, and $278,000 to beyondblue.

I commend the government for committing these funds, particularly off the back of Liberal policy prior to the last state election in this area, which I am proud to have championed. What I am disappointed about is the lack of funding for other community programs such as MATES in Construction. I know many colleagues on the other side are well aware of the great work that MATES in Construction does in the construction industry.

Indeed, in the estimates process in another place, the minister lauded that the government is continuing to work with non-government organisations in the area of suicide prevention and specifically mentioned the work MATES in Construction does in the construction and mining industries. Yet the government has yet to give this organisation and the important work it does a single dollar, although it has a state government officer appointed to its board.

The state government gives MATES in Construction no money at all but then uses it to hold up as an example of its great work in that sector. That is hypocritical to me, and I think disappointing to many. MATES in Construction's only source of government funding is the federal government. It is a great organisation which shows what can be done with a very small amount of support. They are another group that would have loved to have had a share of that $1.1 million spent on blatant political advertising.

On a more positive note, the government's suicide prevention strategy has helped establish a number of local suicide prevention networks across the state. Once one of these networks has been established and a local action plan created and endorsed, that local network will receive $5,000  in funding from the government to assist in their work.

I have been privileged to work with a number of these groups since their formation and also those that are in development at the moment. Suicide prevention networks have been established in the City of Mount Gambier, the Town of Gawler and the Clare & Gilbert Valleys Council. In the City of Playford and The Rural City of Murray Bridge networks are also very much along the way to having their action plans adopted, and I have been privileged to work with them.

In addition, suicide prevention networks are in the establishment phase in the City of Whyalla, where I understand some 40 people attended a meeting last night, including the former Liberal candidate for Giles, Mrs Bernadette Abraham, who is a great advocate for suicide prevention. The City of Victor Harbor is also in that phase and next week on 12 August I will be in Naracoorte for the development of one of the networks in the Naracoorte Lucindale Council area.

I look forward at the end of September to the 'Network of Networks', which has been organised for all these networks and the prospective ones to get together at a one-day free conference which is being organised by the Office of the Chief Psychiatrist. I am also pleased to know that while some of the council areas are just starting to get involved in this work, including Mid Murray and the Karoonda East Murray council, the existing groups, like the Wesley LifeForce group in Strathalbyn, the Suicide Intervention Life Preservation Action Group in Port Augusta and the CORES program run with the assistance of the local government bodies in the Riverland, will all be included in that 'Network of Networks' conference. It will be held on 26 September. It is also worth noting that an Indigenous suicide prevention network has been established in Mount Gambier, bringing together two Aboriginal communities in that region in suicide prevention work.

It was also heartening to hear the Minister for Mental Health advise, in the estimates process, that an additional one full-time equivalent staff allocation has been committed to the rollout of the suicide prevention strategy. I think that this is a crucial addition to this process as, at the moment, all this work is being done by one single officer, who has been doing a great job.

I was disappointed, however, that in the estimates process the minister did not commit to specific funding for suicide prevention in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community. For a multitude of reasons, both social and emotional, the LGBTI community does have a higher than average rate of suicide and, in many other jurisdictions, has been identified as needing separate commitments from government in that area. Prevention and postvention programs for members of the LGBTI community in crisis are far more effective when specifically targeted at issues affecting that community. While the minister indicated that an application for grant funding would be given favourable consideration, I think that it would be much better if the minister worked with that community to identify some targeted funding commitments.

One of the areas where I would like to see a significant change of direction from the government is on the issue of Modbury Hospital. In the recent state budget, the government scrapped a promised $27.8 million upgrade to the hospital, an upgrade which was promised before the 2014 election and which was scrapped almost immediately afterwards. What is more concerning is that, when the Hon. Mr Snelling, the Minister for Health, was questioned about whether he would commit to not closing any more hospitals in South Australia, he stated, 'No, I'm not going to play the rule in, rule out game.'

Before the last state election, the South Australian Liberal Party promised to reopen the paediatric ward at Modbury Hospital. This was a ward that the Labor health minister closed. He thought that it was okay to shunt all serious paediatric cases to the Lyell McEwin. The community did not think that was acceptable and, sir, I can tell you that they certainly will not think that it is acceptable to make all residents of the north-eastern suburbs go to the Lyell McEwin for all their emergency health needs.

Modbury is a vital community hospital and needs to be supported. I think that anybody who lives in the north and north-eastern suburbs and the inner country northern areas is well aware of the pressure on the Lyell McEwin hospital. While it has had a significant upgrade, it is certainly a hospital that is under great pressure most of the time.

I want to turn to the delay in the electrification of the Gawler rail line. Figures recently released by the Minister for Transport have shown that passenger numbers on the Gawler line over the past 12 years have consistently outpaced that of its Seaford counterpart, often by at least 15 per cent. This is despite the southern rail network being extended by the government by an additional 5.7 kilometres past Noarlunga. Despite passenger numbers on the Seaford rail line increasing by only 12.7 per cent over the same period, electrification of this southern service, at the expense of over $1.5 billion, was prioritised by the government over the often promised, yet never delivered, Gawler rail line electrification.

Gawler rail line commuters have been left dudded yet again by the government despite patronage of the service increasing by over 38 per cent since 2008. The government’s promised electrification of the Gawler line has been started then stopped, then started again, then scrapped, then re-announced and now delayed until at least 2017.

I would just like to put on the record today the government’s record on the Gawler line. It is a sad tale but one that I believe many honourable members would be interested to note. On 5 June  2008 Labor announced the electrification of the Gawler line all the way to Gawler. On 31 May 2012 Labor scrapped the electrification of the Gawler rail line, despite having already begun the installation of the poles that would be used to hold the wires for the electric trains. On 6 June 2013 Labor announced that it would electrify the Gawler rail line to Dry Creek, mainly because otherwise they would be unable to get the new electric trains for the Seaford line from the depot to the Adelaide Railway Station and back without using another diesel train to tow them.

On 3 December 2013 Labor announced it was scrapping the planned electrification to Dry Creek. Then on 16 February this year, just before the election, Labor announced the electrification to Salisbury. I must add here that much of the publicity was about the electrification of the Gawler line, but the fact that it was only going to be as far as Salisbury was obviously in the fine print. It was a bit of a ruse for many people.

A few short months after the state election, on 19 June this year, Labor again dudded the growing number of commuters on the northern suburbs rail line and announced that the planned electrification would be delayed until at least 2017-18 and outside the forward estimates. The cynical part of me cannot help but wonder if the seats along the Gawler line and the northern suburbs were more marginal we may have got some more action on this line, because it is obviously used much more than the Seaford line.

Now the Minister for Transport has decided to announce to the long-waiting commuters of the Gawler line that, as the government rolls out its new electric trains on the Seaford line, the Gawler line commuters will get handballed hand-me-down 3000 series diesel trains as more become available. The minister says this as if it is some kind of favour, some kind of consolation prize for the commuters of the northern suburbs.

As someone who uses the Gawler rail line reasonably regularly, and for many others who use it on a daily basis, I think we deserve better, especially as these hand-me-down trains, as I have described them, would be travelling past the countless unused electrification poles that are along the Gawler line all the way to Gawler, reminding us of the countless broken promises.

I call on the government to honour its commitment to the people of Gawler and the northern suburbs and to get on with the electrification of the Gawler line. The way it has used that rail line to dud, confuse and mislead people about what it is actually doing is a testament to the very bad management of this government. As I said, if you were to go anywhere near that line, you would see all of those empty poles standing there as a testament to the bad management of this government.

With those words, and in the hope that the government will refocus some of those priorities, I support the passage of the Appropriation Bill.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (16:24): I rise today to speak on the Appropriation Bill. The government's budget comes at a time when South Australian families are struggling and our unemployment levels are the highest of the nation and rising. Last month, it was reported that our unemployment rate was up from 6.9 per cent to 7.4 per cent—the highest levels we have experienced since around 2002. The government's response to this is, 'Let's make it even more difficult for our struggling communities.'

Although we will consider the government's budget measures more closely when we consider the Budget Measures Bill, I would like to elaborate further on a few of them are now. First, at a time when the cost of living is increasing exponentially, the government has decided to deliver a big hit to the hip pockets of homeowners, businesses and primary producers.

The removal of remissions for the emergency services levy is akin to reintroducing a land tax on all properties, including the principal place of residence of an owner, other than pensioners, and land tax on rural properties. The more your property is worth, the more you will pay, with residential properties with a capital value of $400,000 having to find an additional $150 per year for the increased emergency services levy. This is in addition to the extra moneys they will need to find to pay the increases in council rates, water, electricity and gas prices.

Businesses will be hit even harder with the removal of remissions for the emergency services levy, given the differential rate they are charged. An industrial business on a property with a valuation of $5 million will have to find over $2,000 extra for their emergency services levy. The Treasurer said that an increase in the emergency services levy is needed to help fill the health budget hole left by the commonwealth Liberal government. However, it seems that the hole may have already been in existence, given the recent reports of ramping in our hospitals only one month into the new financial year.

The Treasurer has also said that the government is expecting a reduction in payroll and property taxes this year. In my view, this is a direct result of the higher rates in taxes that we have here in South Australia. For years, businesses have told me that there is no point investing in South Australia because its uncompetitive land tax especially been a bugbear.

Businesses go interstate or overseas and by doing so take their jobs with them. Even local businesses are beginning to wake up and send jobs overseas. Just the other week, a small business owner told me that he had to send a job offshore because, after crunching the numbers, it was cheaper to do this than employ another person in South Australia due to the payroll tax. This is indeed a sad state of affairs.

The fact that local jobs are going overseas should not surprise the government, as they have been opting for multinational or international companies, rather than local companies, for years now. When the state does not have confidence to invest in the local economy and local businesses, how does it expect everyone else to? It is a pity because South Australia and our people have so much to offer; they deserve better.

I am proud of my state and the people who take the risk to start their own business. I am proud of the products we manufacture and proud to support the local businesses who showcase these products. If the transport development levy, or car park tax, is passed many of those local businesses situated in the CBD will be hit yet again. Again, I want to place on the public record that I am completely opposed to this measure. One of the reasons behind the ill-conceived car park tax is to ease congestion in the city.

The government says, 'Let's get workers out of their cars and onto public transport or bikes and make more room for those visiting the city.' Introducing a new tax may go some way towards encouraging people to seek alternative transport if they come into the city for work; however, I doubt that it will have the same effect on those who want to visit the city for recreational purposes. City shops have a lot to offer; however, when this is weighed up against the increased cost of parking, I imagine many will opt to visit their local suburban shopping centre instead.

Another way the government may be encouraging decongestion is through increased compulsory third-party premiums motorists will face if the Motor Accident Commission is privatised. Motorists may simply be unable to afford the premiums and be forced to give up their vehicle altogether. This is unlikely, given the poor public transport alternatives available to many, especially in the outer suburbs. However, it is one way to highlight yet another bad decision.

The proposal to privatise the Motor Accident Commission is also expected to drive up the prices motorists pay for compulsory third-party premiums. The Motor Accident Commission reported that it had control of $2.54 billion in its 2012-13 annual report; $2.54 billion that has been given by motorists of South Australia to the government to hold as a safeguard should they be injured in a motor accident. Under the proposal, the Motor Accident Commission's assets are to be transferred to general revenue and the matter of insurance given to private insurance agencies—private insurance agencies whose primary purpose is to turn a profit rather than look after the injured. Again this is a bad decision for South Australia.

I do not see much benefit in the new $8,500 incentive for people over 60 to downsize their homes. The stamp duty in this state is so high that in most cases the grant would only account for half of that payable at best.

Finally, I oppose the government's decision to cut the leave entitlements of temporary or contract teachers if they have more than a three-month break in service. The government has said that this is to bring contract teachers in line with other public servants—not other teachers, other public servants—and there is absolutely no recognition of the fact that contract teachers face different conditions to other public servants. Just yesterday I was contacted by a constituent who highlighted that, as a contract teacher whose contract concludes on the last day of term 4, it is virtually impossible for him to get another contract position for five weeks due to the school holidays. This is markedly different from other public servants, and would leave him with just over two months to find another position before his leave entitlements are affected.

The government also proposes to make this measure retrospective, which would remove the leave entitlements dating back to 1972. If this measure gets through, that is 42 years of accrued leave entitlements gone. Even if they did not know about the entitlements until 2005, I am sure there are plenty of teachers who have taken these entitlements into account in planning their futures and their retirements. At a briefing with the AEU representatives, organised by the Hon. Tammy Franks, we were presented with a letter from the education department dating back to 2005. That letter states:

The Department of Education and Children's Services has taken legal advice as to the matter of appointing persons to temporary teaching duties. The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the proposed changes to practise on the basis of that advice.

In the past contract teachers and temporary relieving teachers were appointed under section 9 subsection 4 of the Education Act. It is proposed that contract teachers, now to be known as temporary teachers, and temporary relieving teachers will be appointed under section 15 of the Education Act on a temporary basis.

From 2005, the department itself acknowledged that temporary teachers were to be treated in the same way as permanent teachers. The decision of the High Court in AEU v DECS 2012 also confirmed that position, yet the government has stated that it was not the intention of successive governments to provide a more generous entitlement accrual of long service leave to temporary teachers than is available to public sector employees. Once again I remind honourable members the government is proposing now, somewhat conveniently, that temporary teachers should be distinguished from permanent teachers and treated like other public servants.

The government has also advised of a $15 million ex gratia payment scheme for some affected teachers. No explanation has been given as to how that figure was arrived at, how the government intends to determine eligibility for such ex gratia payments, or indeed what the total estimated cost of the High Court decision would be, yet we are being asked once again to trust that the government will do the right thing by teachers. These arguments beggar belief!

I have only touched on a handful of issues that we will be considering as part of the Budget Measures Bill, but I think we all get the picture. I understand that we are living in a tough economic climate, but kicking those who are already down will only exacerbate the problem. It is about time the government faced up to the facts of life, the same way as families are being forced to do, and live within their means. I urge the government to rethink all of these measures and find more workable alternatives.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (16:34): I rise to support the Appropriation Bill 2014. I do so in my new role as shadow minister for health. In the health area the recent state budget abandoned four major hospital redevelopments worth $284 million; it suspended the electronic patient health record (EPAS); it added $178 million to the state health savings targets; and it passed on $322 million in federal cuts. It was a budget of broken promises. The government is breaking promises a matter of four months after they were made. The government is cancelling a $100 million FMC upgrade which was not dependent on commonwealth funding; it is simply a broken Labor promise.

The government has also gone back on commitments of previous budgets: the redevelopments of TQEH, stage 3, Modbury Hospital and the Noarlunga Health Service stage 2A redevelopments. Nor has the government honoured its commitment to the member for Brock in relation to palliative care at Port Pirie. The South Australian healthcare system faces a triple whammy. First, the healthcare system has weakened over 12 years of state Labor mismanagement of the health system; secondly, it faces more than $1 billion of state cuts to health; and now hundreds of millions of dollars in federal cuts.

Let's be clear: the state Liberal team does not support the federal cuts to health. In our view, they are a breach of a national agreement and we consider them to be ill conceived. In particular, we have highlighted our concern about the Medicare co-payment which, at a time when we are trying to strengthen primary health care, in our view that undermines it. I personally met with the federal Minister for Health, Mr Dutton, in Canberra and conveyed the fact that the South Australian Liberals do not support the federal cuts to health.

However, let's keep these cuts in context. The federal cuts are dwarfed by state cuts. From 2012-13 to 2017-18 state and federal governments are planning to cut more than $2.5 billion from the funding of health services in South Australia. Of that $2.5 billion, the state government is planning to cut $1.87 billion and the federal government is planning to cut $655 million; in other words, more than two-thirds of the total cuts to health state cuts.

In this budget alone, the additional state savings target on health was $97.8 million. The federal cut to the national health reform agreement in 2014-15 is $37 million. The state cut is almost triple the federal cut. State Labor is using federal cuts as a smokescreen for cuts of its own. When the Premier was questioned on ABC radio on 19 May, he revealed that he would not back down on his cuts. The presenter asked, 'Will you suspend your billion dollar worth of cuts to health in light of the $600 million federal cuts to the SA health system?' The Premier replied, 'No.'

The state government is playing the blame game. It was business as usual while health faced $1 billion in state cuts, yet when federal cuts increased the task by a third, the state government calls 'catastrophe'. We call on the state and federal governments to work together to develop a plan which maintains services and quality. Budget initiatives need to be based on well-coordinated reform and fiscal discipline. In contrast, the state government has no strategy to achieve either the state or federal cuts—this is after 12 years of mismanagement. Their response to the current situation is to form a series of committees.

The state government has also responded by initiating a $1.1 million taxpayer-funded Labor Party propaganda campaign against the federal government budget cuts. At a time when outpatients at eye clinics are waiting for clinically dangerous times for treatment, the government's priority is to spend $1.1 million on a politically motivated advertising campaign. At a time when people with mental health issues are crying out for additional services in the regions, the government gives priority to spending $1.1 million on a politically motivated advertising campaign. At a time when the ramping of emergency patients has spread to the Royal Adelaide Hospital for the first time, the government is giving priority to spending $1.1 million on a politically motivated advertising campaign.

The government's thinly veiled attack seems to be gaining very little traction. The indication of this is that on the campaign website the indications of those who support the campaign number fewer than 100 of South Australia's 1.1 million adults. Many of those who are listed as supporters are paid Labor Party activists. As usual, the Labor government's approach is confrontational rather than strategic and their lack of statesmanship is made all the more visible by their high profile campaign. They would rather be seen to be putting up a fight than to actually secure a better deal for South Australians.

The Premier's mantra during the 2014 election campaign was that he would get into a fight with the federal government. The Premier wants to be seen as a brawler rather than a leader. I fear that it will be the elderly, the sick and the vulnerable South Australians who come away from that fight bruised.

The Treasurer (Mr Koutsantonis) seems to delight in threatening a callous menu of healthcare pain. He said the government may close hospitals, sack health workers, close beds, increase taxes and increase waiting times. In the House of Assembly estimates the Minister for Health (Hon. Jack Snelling) refused to guarantee that hospitals would not close. Specifically, he refused to commit to the future of the Repat hospital.

In our view, that is a grave offence to those veterans who served in our community. The kind of people who will be bruised in this fight may well be older South Australians and veterans supported by the Repat hospital. The government is spending taxpayers' money to convince people to back its fight with the federal government but where are they when it comes to supporting those who fought for our country?

The minister has also refused to back critical hospitals such as TQEH, the Noarlunga Hospital and the Modbury Hospital. The Weatherill government is directly threatening the future of these hospitals, even though federal funding for hospitals is increasing over the forward estimates. The minister has refused to back South Australia's regional hospitals on which many of our regional communities depend. The government promised to stand up for the regions. Now they are considering cutting these communities off from essential medical care.

The Liberal team believes that, instead of the Koutsantonis priority hit list, the first items on a state health agenda should be three initiatives—sound management, waste reduction and decentralisation. The Labor Party has failed to deliver sound management in health. In the last financial year, Labor overspent in the health sector by $163 million. If Labor had managed to live within its means last year, they would still have in the kitty more than half what they are looking to cut over the next four years. In the last 12 years, Labor has overspent in health by $2.2 billion. If they lived within budget, they could have funded the new RAH.

In terms of waste reduction, Labor has a $40 million blowout in the Oracle IT system. It is now facing cost blowouts approaching $100 million in other IT projects. In terms of decentralisation, we have the most centralised bureaucratic health structure in the nation, which is far too expensive.

The state Liberal Party is taking a stand against the Weatherill Labor government's cuts to public hospitals. We oppose the closure of any public hospital in South Australia. For every South Australian to get the quality health care they deserve, our hardworking doctors and nurses need first-class facilities. Unlike Labor, the Liberal team is committed to saving our hospitals and improving health outcomes through reforms, not through cuts to services. In our view, no community should pay for Labor's failure to manage the state's finances or the health system with the closure of its hospital.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (16:44): I rise today to make a few remarks about the Appropriation Bill 2014. I agree that the government has the right to set its budget and the role of the opposition is to question and challenge how taxpayers' money is being spent. This process is supposed to enhance our likelihood of having good government in this state so, in theory, the government can bring down its budget, followed by the estimates process, which is the committee stage of the budget bill.

I have to say that the whole process is causing a great deal of frustration. There has to be a better and smarter way in terms of the money and time that are spent in the process that we currently have. One of the most annoying things about the whole estimates process is that it does not matter whether a minister is appointed from the House of Assembly or from the Legislative Council, the minister can come into the chamber to answer questions as the minister responsible for his or her portfolio. I do not understand why, if we have a shadow minister who is appointed in the Legislative Council, that shadow minister cannot come into estimates to ask questions. Isn't that an illogical and unreasonable convention?

Historically there is no reason why that should be the case. In the federal parliament it is the upper house, the Senate, that does the estimates. There is absolutely no reason from any historical or practical perspective why the South Australian parliament should not allow the shadow minister responsible for a portfolio to be the person charged with and allowed to ask questions about the budget itself.

The estimates is definitely not a very inspiring experience given the government's poor performance. Why can ministers not provide direct answers to the opposition, particularly when you think about the enormous resources available to ministers? They have their ministerial staff, their advisers and their departments, and supposedly they should be working at least 80 hours a week on their respective portfolios. You would think that they would be full of knowledge and information and hardly have the need to seek advice, but unfortunately through the budget estimates process we see the lack of capacity of the ministers in the Labor government. This is extremely disappointing for South Australia. A change of treasurer and a few new faces on the frontbench, but still the same old tired government with the largest deficit in the state's history.

The budget they have presented to South Australia is filled with these unrealistic assumptions in terms of growth and improvement in productivity, so we go through this annual groundhog day exercise which we refer to as budget estimates. It is a really frustrating process because we can never get any useful answers for the people of South Australia.

When the Liberals highlighted key issues in the budget, the Treasurer went out attacking the federal government. He went to great lengths to say that all the problems that are associated with the horrible Labor budget were to do with the federal government. It is always easier to blame somebody else for their problems. Instead of being accountable for the mess that the Labor government has created in the last 12 years in office, the state Labor government just shifts the blame to the federal government—how convenient!

The government went to a huge effort on page 6 of Budget Paper 3 to outline $885 million of what they refer to as federal government cuts. What the Treasurer failed to do is provide a corresponding table of the federal government increases in revenue to the state. The government is very deceitful by not giving the people of South Australia a clear picture of what their budget is all about. It is time for the Labor government to have the guts to admit that it is their incompetency and bad economic management that put South Australia in a bad financial position, with the largest deficit in the state's history.

We already know that the federal government has written up GST revenue to the state by a significantly large amount. Page 55 of Budget Paper 3 clearly shows that in each and every year of the forward estimates, GST revenue to this state from the commonwealth is significantly increasing. It is ridiculous for the Labor government to say that the federal government is ripping GST money from the state; it is not true. The public need to know that the federal government is actually increasing it by 7.3 per cent. The federal government is increasing the GST distribution to this state many times over the inflation rate each and every year of the forward estimates. This is the true picture in South Australia. This is about the government having mismanaged the economy of this state. Labor has put all of us in a most outrageous financial position with $14.3 billion of debt that will cost the people of this state $2.6 million each and every day.

Our budget is in crisis and various government departments here in South Australia are simultaneously in crisis. The environment department is in crisis, Families SA is in crisis, the Department for Education is in crisis, and the Small Business Commissioner's office is in crisis. There is no confidence in a number of ministers handling a series of tragic events in this state. The people of South Australia have completely lost confidence in so many ministers and in this government in the way they handle the economy and the wellbeing of individuals, particularly their handling of the child protection issue.

If we remember, the government said that this spending was about creating jobs. In that case, let's talk about jobs, shall we? Maybe it should be the lack of jobs. South Australia has retained its unenviable position of having the highest unemployment rate on mainland Australia, according to the latest ABS job data released today, 7 August. This is bad news. What is of most concern is that unemployment has been trending upwards for 23 consecutive months—nothing to be proud about. In fact, South Australia's trend unemployment rate is at its highest level in more than 12 years. In the last four months, South Australia's jobless rate has risen from 6.3 per cent to 7.2 per cent. Today's figures confirm the extent of South Australia's deepening unemployment crisis on Premier  Weatherill's watch.

Under the Weatherill Labor government, South Australia has the highest taxes in the nation, the worst performing workers compensation scheme in the nation and low consumer and business confidence. With South Australia's unemployment rate the highest on mainland Australia, it is time for Premier Weatherill to drop the pretence that Labor will create 100,000 new jobs by 2016. Earlier this week, ANZ jobs ad data revealed that in both trend and seasonally adjusted figures South Australia recorded the worst performance for the month of July 2014 and the year to July 2014 of all states and territories in the nation.

South Australians are really good people; we have been extremely patient with the Labor government. They have been promising surplus; they have been promising jobs. Remember that—100,000 promised in 2010? What the government has delivered instead are massive debt levels and failure in all main economic and social indicators, whether they be employment, education, debt or taxation. As the shadow parliamentary secretary for trade and investment and someone who has a personal and professional connection with South-East Asia, I cannot help but notice that the Labor government and Premier Jay Weatherill have conveniently adopted another state Liberals' policy. Specifically, it is the state Liberals' trade policy for South-East Asia. During a visit to South-East Asia in 2012, state Liberal leader Steven Marshall announced that if we were elected to government in 2014 the state Liberals would develop a whole of region strategic plan for South-East Asia with industry-led trade missions.

This Labor government has missed so many golden opportunities presented by years of dramatic growth in Asia. It is failing to meet its export target of increasing South Australia's annual exports to $25 billion by 2013, and now the Weatherill government is actually following the Liberal opposition's lead in recognising the importance of South-East Asia. If there is anything to congratulate you for, maybe I will congratulate you guys on this one. Since the 2011-12 budget, Labor has almost halved its funding for programs designed to increase exports. In 2012-13, SA Labor closed seven trade offices across the world to save $2.7 million and focus on trade with China and India. South Australia's interstate counterparts have an advantage across South-East Asia due to their trade office presence. We do not have that.

The state Liberals have recognised the economic importance of South-East Asia for many years, whilst Labor has ignored many of our trade partners, stifling export and jobs growth. Due to its close proximity, South Australia remains well placed to take advantage of the growth potential in the South-East Asia region. Under Labor, South Australia has lost vital market share to the Eastern States and failed to capitalise on growing international markets, including the rapidly growing Asian markets.

The other concern I really have is the organisational structure of the Department of State Development. It is a very noble campaign to have a state development department and we should be proud of that, but the problem is that there are six ministers responsible for 13 programs, each of which have multiple subprograms all tied up in state development. Many of my colleagues on this side remain exceptionally concerned that those six ministers do not all hold the same views and do not all share the same values on a lot of issues. How will they move toward a shared vision for the state in terms of development of the state when they are competing at so many levels? They compete ideologically, operationally, financially and commercially for their own areas of responsibility. How are they going to manage that?

It is imperative that industry stakeholders understand which minister is accountable for what and also that they have the confidence that the government will be able to merge all of these operating departments and ministerial offices into state development. They include minister Gago, minister Snelling, minister Koutsantonis, minister Hunter, minister Hamilton-Smith and minister Close. Well, let's see whether they can do that smoothly.

It is a privilege to be the shadow parliamentary secretary for small business. I am extremely proud of our resilient small business sector. The small and family business sectors are the driving force of our economy. Many of these family and small business operators come from the multicultural community, so I see them regularly and work closely with them. These business people are doing it really tough. Collectively, the sector is the largest employer for the state, so it is important that they stay viable. They need to survive in order for many individuals to have a job in order to cater for their family needs.

I am particularly concerned to find that quite a number of programs that existed previously have been taken out of this year's budget for small business. Unemployment in our state is now the highest in the nation. Small and medium-sized businesses, manufacturing and innovation are the areas we really have to focus on to try to make sure that people have a secure job into the future. That has to be one of the most important priorities of any government: to provide an environment whereby businesses can offer secure employment and generate wealth for the state.

The government continues to fall short on its Strategic Plan target of 45,000 international students. This year it is 15,000 short. I am aware that other states, such as Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia, are working very hard on attracting international students, and they have been effective in their policies. They have a long-term vision, and that is something we are lacking in South Australia, particularly with enticing those students to come here to study, and also retaining qualified graduates to convert them into permanent residents via the Skilled Professional Migrants Program. However, even if they become permanent residents, where are the jobs? The Hon. Mr Maher, you are looking at me frowning? Well, you should be frowning because, you know what—

The Hon. K.J. Maher: I'm getting smashed by Ms Lee now.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): The honourable member should address her remarks through the Chair.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: I am sorry, Mr Acting President.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Protect me, Mr Acting President, I'm getting smashed here.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order!

The Hon. J.S. LEE: Usually, we look forward to the start of a new financial year, but how can we do that when South Australian families are expected to pay another $1,100 out of their pocket, thanks to the increased taxes and fees and charges from the Weatherill Labor government? An average South Australian household will experience increased taxes and charges for items such as bus tickets, electricity bills, the emergency services levy and motor vehicle registration. Life just keeps getting harder and harder for South Australians thanks to the Weatherill Labor government's escalating cost of living pressures.

This $1,100 hit to families does not include the impact of other savage budget cuts, such as the Weatherill Labor government's decision to scrap pensioner council rate concessions and to introduce a fun tax for events with more than 5,000 attendees—I am not sure how many family members I can take to the Royal Adelaide Show now—such as the Royal Adelaide Show and football games at Adelaide Oval. At a time when families are struggling with higher cost of living expenses, Labor has no hesitation in ripping even more money out of their household budget.

I am a proud shadow parliamentary secretary for multicultural affairs. I want to make a brief contribution to this area because many members of the multicultural community have complained to me about the lack of support coming from the Labor government since the merging of Multicultural SA into the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion. The resources of Multicultural SA really have been reduced to a minimum. The website is not running properly, and people are finding it really hard to find out what events are on within their own community, so it is very difficult. I encourage the new minister to have a close look at that. With those few words, I conclude my contribution to the Appropriation Bill.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (16:59): I rise to make some remarks in relation to the budget appropriation and reluctantly support it. It is very disappointing that after 12 years of Labor at the helm we find ourselves in the sort of budgetary situation that we are in. When the Liberal Party was last in office we had returned the budget to surplus. Since that time I think this government has only obtained one surplus and has seen revenues go from $8 billion to $16 billion. It is just beyond belief that they could have got themselves into so much trouble.

We are paying some $2 million in interest every day of the year and the government tries to blame the Abbott government, which was only elected in September last year. They really only have themselves to blame but, as my colleague the Hon. Jing Lee was saying, they seek to blame everybody else.

In my areas of responsibility on behalf of the Liberal Party, it is particularly disappointing that the environment has become the whipping boy of any budget cuts that take place. I have actually done a spreadsheet which goes back to 2008-09, which has been provided to numerous media outlets and has been published in various forms. I should add that the cuts started earlier than that, in 2006-07 when the Hon. Kevin Foley was still the treasurer of this state. He used to be rescued every budget. The government would overspend and it would be rescued by increasing revenues which would come via the GST and property taxes.

Following the GFC, if the government had been able to exercise some restraint, they probably would not have had to go into deficit and they certainly would not find themselves in the phenomenal situation that we are in now, facing some $800 million to be found. The environment portfolio has been the whipping boy of this government. If we go back to 2008-09, the funding collectively for what was then the department of water, land and biodiversity conservation (DEH); NRM funding; the EPA; and Zero Waste SA was some $258 million, which is not a huge amount by any stretch.

In this current budget, 2014-15, the combined appropriation from Treasury towards that set of agencies—there have been a number of amalgamations but the functions should still exist—is $107.5 million. So that has gone from $258.3 million to $107.5 million. I should add that in this current budget some of that is because of the Waste to Resources Fund, which is actually not spent on environmental purposes. It is sitting in an account—some $54 million, I think, as at 1 July—to offset this government’s phenomenal debt. It is a very sad tale.

Over the same period, 2008-09 to 2014-15, the FTE staff working in these areas has gone from 2,236 to 1,709. Environment is getting to the point where there are functions which should be considered core business for this state government which no longer are. I think in all of this the finger certainly needs to be pointed in some way at the Greens. While they profess an environmental agenda, where have they been in this whole issue over these years? In fact, I remember after one of the budget lock-outs, when the budget had been presented to the parliament, the Hon. Mr Parnell was duplicitous in calling divisions which prevented a number of us from actually being able to examine the budget papers. I think their role in this, continuously preferencing the Labor Party when this is what happens, shows a level of political impotence or naivety.

In this most recent budget, we had the combined department, DEWNR as it is known, going from some $170 million to $120 million. The Treasurer (the member for West Torrens), in fact joked at the budget lockup this year that one of the ways he could help fund the black hole would be to shut down the environment department. It was an extraordinary admission, really. When he was questioned about the next day, he tried to make light of it and said, 'I didn't want to do it. It was the first thing that came into my head.' I think that in itself speaks volumes about where the environment department sits in the priorities of this government.

We are facing areas that are very much core business being cut. Through the Budget and Finance Committee and via other ways, people who have contacted the Liberal opposition, we found out that there will be the number of things that will happen. We know that 100 jobs will be lost within DEWNR, and the park ranger position has been pretty untenable for some time.

The government states that it has in the order of 88 rangers; I think that in fact it is a lot fewer than that because they are adding the positions for fire management, which you could argue have some ecological function. However, I think it is more about public safety than it is an environmental importance. When the Liberal Party was last in office—the party the Hon. Mark Parnell claims is less green friendly than the current administration—had 300 park rangers, and we had made promises that we would increase those numbers.

The native vegetation unit is losing a huge number of positions and, through discussions in the media particularly, it has come to light that a lot of those positions are the technical scientific based ones. Associate Professor David Paton I think is to be commended for blowing the whistle on the ABC about the massive cuts to the environment department. He has certainly highlighted this is taking place so that people are coming to realise what is going on.

We are also going to lose the visitor centre at Innes National Park, and the Murray-Darling Basin Authority funding, which runs a whole range of environmental programs and protects Adelaide's drinking water quality (and I will talk about that in a moment) is being halved. I understand that the state will have to pick up the tab to fund those and that there is also the likely closure of community-based natural resource centres in the Adelaide Hills.

Over recent years, there has been the loss of expertise from DEWNR, particularly in relation to hydrology, and those positions are important to manage the water side of natural resource management. I predict that there will be great difficulties in managing water allocation plans into the future because the department has just lost so much of its corporate knowledge from that area. It is a problematic area already, particularly when the government has to implement plans for the first time and then, in subsequent plans, when it is reducing allocations to particular irrigators, clearly there will be difficulties, and I think that it will be quite chaotic.

In this current round of cuts, we have also seen the grants program through the NRM axed, and it has been reduced a few times over the last several years. It was actually implemented by the Hon. Jay Weatherill when he was environment minister, so it is ironic that it is now disappearing under his watch.

That funds a range of groups, such as Greening Australia, Trees for Life, Friends of Parks, the NRM LAP groups, Foundation for Australia's Most Endangered and Landcare. While we do have great volunteers—and they are to be commended (the Friends of Parks groups and a lot of the NRM LAP groups all perform an incredibly task in tree planting, weed eradication, and so forth)—they do need assistance from time to time through contract work to do some of the much heavier lifting.

I have been out a couple of times with Friends of Scott Creek, and a number of their volunteers are in their 70s and 80s—very fit and healthy, and they obviously love the outdoors. They have really become the backbone of our conservation efforts in South Australia as the environment department continues to face cuts. Those grants programs have been quite an iconic part of the loss in the agencies that we have seen over these years now that this program is gone.

It speaks volumes too that, while the environment department budget is in such a dire situation, what does the government fund? It funds $600,000—it can find $600,000—for this artificial reef, which while people enjoy them—and that is great when you have lots of money available—in comparison to the NRM grants program this is a very poor priority indeed. The government also has seen fit to return half the funding to what is currently Zero Waste SA. The decision was made in a previous Mid-Year Budget Review to axe that agency effectively, so it is pleasing that it will continue in some form and we will look forward to the legislation coming to this place in due course, and on which I think I have sought a briefing. That is a very common-sense decision that has been made.

In relation to Murray-Darling Basin cuts, we have had much commentary in this place, particularly during question time about that. This government has decided to halve its contribution. It keeps pointing the finger at New South Wales. Once again, it is always someone else's fault, so if you can find yourself a scapegoat you can get away with anything really. The New South Wales government has just reinstated some of its funding—certainly not the full amount—so it will be interesting to see whether the government reinstates its funding, as it said that it would if New South Wales moved, and that it would reconsider its position.

I have received a letter from Mr Neil Schillabeer, a well-known advocate for the Murray-Darling Basin and the Lower Lakes area, who has written in some detail about what the impact of these cuts to the Murray-Darling Basin will result in. He refers to deteriorating water quality as a result of reduced operation of salt interception schemes. I think that will impact on the operations of SA Water if that takes place, and there will probably need to be an increase in the amount of work they are doing as a result of this short-sighted, robbing Peter to pay Paul exercise of cutting MDBA funding. He goes on to say:

Impacts on tourism and recreation as a result of reduced operation of locks and weirs and reduced scrutiny of river operations and water quality as a result of cuts to monitoring and water resource assessment and accounting activities.

He goes on to say:

To minimise these impacts it would be necessary for the South Australian government to undertake and directly fund many of the activities currently funded under the joint programs. It is likely that this will cost more than the savings made by cutting joint funding and will still not deliver the same level of outcomes or benefits. The members of the Lower Lakes and Coorong Tourism and Environment Group are particularly concerned at the potential impacts in their region as the influence of decisions such as these is often magnified as we move downstream.

To that I say, 'Hear, hear!'

I also add that because these impacts are in regional South Australia I think that the government views most of regional South Australia as expendable. That is alright because that is not going to impact on marginal seats in South Australia unless these matters are brought to the attention of people in metropolitan South Australia.

It is a very sad situation that we are in. I have spoken about budget cuts in this place numerous times. I feel like a broken record at times. I am pleased that it has made the mainstream agenda now, and I commend Associate Professor David Paton and Mr John Walmsley for speaking publicly on these issues because I think that is what it has taken.

There are a number of people who work in this field within the department, within NRM and in other areas who would like to speak but I think they have been silenced and feel that they cannot comment or there will be consequences for them. To those people I say, do try to keep the faith; there are still a lot of South Australians who care about this field. With those comments, I support the bill.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (17:16): I do not believe that there are any further contributions to the Appropriation Bill so I rise in support of the bill and conclude the debate with a couple of very brief comments about the budget.

The federal Coalition government made brutal cuts that have profound ramifications across the nation and, as such, there is no way for the South Australian state government to quarantine these reckless decisions. In fact, given the size and magnitude of the cuts, there is no state within Australia that could absorb these brutal tax cuts without reparatory measures or asset sales.

For the record, I will just quickly list some of the cuts that the Treasurer has highlighted in his speech. Over the next four years South Australia will lose $898 million because of cuts by the Prime Minister Tony Abbott. Over the next 10 years hospital and school funding cuts equate to a whopping $5.5 billion. These cuts include $655 million reduction across the forward estimates in health spending alone.

The reduction in national reform payments will be more than $4.6 billion across the next 10 years, compared to what was contained in the commonwealth's 2013-14 Mid-Year Economic And Fiscal Outlook. Other cuts and broken promises include $123 million in funding for pensioner concessions over four years and $47 million in skills and vocational education—and that only includes the national partnership money cuts. The total cuts across the SA VET sector will be in the vicinity of $154 million. There is $45 million in school funding under the Gonski funding agreement which will rise to a reduction of more than $200 million in 2019. As I said, they are savage cuts.

These are such large sums of money being drained from the state's finances that they are almost abstract—but they are not: they have a very profound and very real impact, a flesh and blood impact on people's lives. The Joe Hockey budget cuts to South Australia's health system of $655 million over four years will have devastating consequences and it is equivalent to the loss of 600 hospital beds or 3,000 nurses or will double elective surgery times in our state's hospitals. I urge members opposite to consider that last Joe Hockey budget impact—doubled elective surgery times—and that will literally mean more pain for a large number of people waiting for an operation or surgical procedure.

To people waiting for surgery, those numbers are not abstract economic data or columns of figures on a page: they are real and tangible impacts that inflict pain and suffering on people. When the Premier launched the Federal Cuts Hurt campaign, its key message is a statement of fact and I urge all South Australians to join our Premier and this Labor government in the fight against the Abbott government cuts. Together with a united voice, we can all call on the Prime  Minister  Tony  Abbott to end the assault.

While we cannot ignore these cuts, we will not follow the same path as the Abbott federal Liberal government and walk away from commitments made before the election. We cannot, in all conscience, simply copy the federal slash and burn approach to funding services and wash our hands of any responsibility. In contrast, we must work hard to achieve a responsible outcome, and proportionate savings measures have been put in place. Savings include:

a further efficiency dividend on government agencies to the tune of 1 per cent in 2015-16 and a further 1 per cent in 2017-18;

pay freezes for executive and ministerial advisers in 2014-15;

merging the departments of DMITRE and DFEEST to create our new Department of State Development;

reducing expenditure on non-service consultants and contractors;

procurement efficiencies; and

public sector wages growth will be contained at 2.5 per cent.

They are some examples. So you can see these measures would have been in place regardless of the commonwealth budget. These measures are prudent and appropriately balanced where we need to cut our own cloth to ensure our election commitments are delivered sensibly. I thank members in this chamber for their contributions and support for this bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Bill taken through committee without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (17:22): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.