HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2022-02-09 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Motions

Former Labor Government

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (16:38): I move:

That this council condemns the record of the former Labor government including:

1. Appalling financial mismanagement;

2. Economic growth below the national average growth;

3. Unacceptably high levels of unemployment;

4. More people leaving the state than coming to the state;

5. Increasing costs to households and businesses; and

6. Wholesale slashing of government services especially in areas of health and education.

I am very pleased to have this opportunity as we near the end of this four-year parliamentary term. I am not sure what the exact number of days is—everyone else seems to know—until 19 March. It is not very far away, just over five weeks away. It is an appropriate time to, in essence, look at where we are now as a state and, more importantly, compare it to where we were at the changeover of government in March 2018.

I have referred to my contribution as a revisiting of the Labor atrocities of the past to remind members and others what a bad government they had in the 16 years leading up to March 2018. One would expect a political opponent to at least make that claim. The challenge, of course, is to look at the facts and to compare and contrast because the danger is that South Australia's economic recovery should not at this stage be risked. There is no point in turning back to the atrocities of the past.

The new Labor leadership here is desperately seeking to indicate that they had nothing to do with the atrocities of the former Labor government—nothing to do with them, nothing to see here, they were not involved. I remind members that the member for Croydon, the Hon. Mr Malinauskas; the member for West Torrens, the Hon. Mr Koutsantonis; the member for Lee, the Hon. Mr Mullighan; the member for Port Adelaide, Dr Close; the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber, the Hon. Mr Maher; and the member for Ramsay, the Hon. Ms Bettison, were all key movers and shakers, senior players in the former Labor government and remain significant players in the Labor opposition as we lead into March 2022.

Should they be elected, they would again take control of significant portfolios, and the prospect of people like the Hon. Mr Koutsantonis and the Hon. Mr Mullighan having any responsibility for any portfolio areas is too horrific a prospect for any rational thinking person to even contemplate. This motion, as I said, seeks to look at where we are now and where we were and to compare and contrast.

The critical areas for the people of South Australia obviously relate to jobs and economic growth. Jobs are critical in terms of our state's economic future—prospects for young South Australians in particular but all families and households. Unless you have a government that can actually see its constituents employed in gainful employment, hopefully employment that many or most of them can enjoy and see prospects for the future, then it is a pretty dismal future.

As I reminded the house in question time only yesterday, South Australia's unemployment rate on the last recorded figures was 3.9 per cent, the lowest unemployment rate this state has ever recorded since, I think, the figures were collected in the 1970s. So in whatever it is, more than 40 years of these particular figures being collected, I am advised that 3.9 per cent is the lowest unemployment rate our state has ever seen.

It is intriguing that the Leader of the Opposition, in playing catch-up after being stung by the tenor of the motion that we are debating today, has moved his own motion to be debated tomorrow, and because he cannot abide by the facts—that is, what the most recent unemployment figures are or what the most recent economic growth figures are—he says, 'Well, let's have a look at the figures from a year or so ago rather than the most recent ones,' or, 'Let's look at the economic growth from the year before the good ones.' It was the best he or they were able to construct hurriedly in terms of providing any sort of response to, in essence, the implicit criticism as part of this motion.

So 3.9 per cent, but the unemployment rate under the former Labor government just prior to the last state election was a horrific 6.2 per cent. What we have seen is the unemployment rate almost halved, not quite, from 6.2 to 3.9. I am advised that, for the 12-month period leading into March 2018, the unemployment rate averaged between 6½ and 7 per cent—a very significant reduction in terms of unemployment.

It was even worse in relation to youth unemployment. There is still more work to be done but, pleasingly, the December 2021 youth unemployment figure was 7.3 per cent. In February 2018, just before the last state election, the youth unemployment rate was 15.9 per cent, more than double the youth unemployment rate, a decline from 15.9 per cent down to 7.3 per cent in that four-year period. So for more young South Australians worried about the youth unemployment rate, their prospects are clearly rosier four years down the track as a result of the economic policies and the financial management policies of this government. Those unemployment figures make starkly clear the significant improvement in those areas.

Employment in the four years from March 2018 through to the most recent figures in December 2021: 43,700 additional jobs in South Australia. At the tail end, whilst coping with a two-year global pandemic, we have managed to increase the total number of jobs in South Australia, compared to just prior to the last election, by 43,700 additional jobs in South Australia. That is something which should give great heart to South Australian households and families. Jobs, and income coming from jobs, is a critical aspect of their daily lives and the tangible improvements in both unemployment and employment numbers in the last four years are self-evident.

As I said, the Labor Party has to scramble and say, 'Yes, but look at 12 months ago or 18 months ago.' The people of South Australia know what the figures are now, and that is record low unemployment. I am told the number of people being employed in December was the second highest on record; the highest was actually the previous month of November, by another 2,000 jobs, approximately. The November and December figures, the most recent two-monthly figures, are the highest employment figures on record.

The other measure of prosperity and economic growth—clearly, the main one is jobs, but the other key indicator in terms of how the state is moving and where the state is heading to is obviously economic growth measurements. That is measured by gross state product (GSP) figures produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. In having a look at where we are now, pleasingly the GSP figure for the most recent 12-month period—that is, financial year 2020-21—was 3.9 per cent. For the first time, economic growth in South Australia led the nation. For the first time since records have been kept, we were the fastest growing state in the nation in terms of economic growth, and of course that is what is driving jobs growth as well. That is critical. It does not just happen, because what did we inherit? Let's have a look at what we inherited.

For the last two terms of the former Labor government, from 2011-12 to 2017-18, our economic growth in South Australia averaged 1.1 per cent a year. For about seven or eight years, we averaged economic growth in South Australia of 1.1 per cent. At the same time, national economic growth was two and half times that at 2.7 per cent. So we lagged significantly behind national economic growth in South Australia for the whole of the seven years.

It is not a question of cherrypicking one year or another. It is an average over the seven years of the Labor government's performance compared to the average of the national economic performance during that period, and our economy grew at 1.1 per cent a year while the national economy grew at 2.7 per cent.

I am delighted to be able to report that in the three years for which figures are available under this government, from 2018-19 to 2020-21, economic growth in South Australia has averaged 1.3 per cent, whilst national economic growth has averaged 1.2 per cent. So we are actually growing, over a three-year period, at a higher rate than national economic growth.

Having inherited an economy which was tanking, growing at 1.1 per cent a year on average compared to national growth of 2.7 per cent, in the space of three years we are averaging economic growth at a slightly higher level than the national growth rate, bearing in mind that we and all other states in the nation's economy for a part of that particular period were impacted by a global pandemic. It is a very significant improvement compared to the appalling performance of the former Labor government over a long period of time leading into 2018.

I highlighted in question time today, and I will briefly repeat, the figures in terms of net interstate migration. That is the net effect of how many people are fleeing the state looking for jobs compared with those who are coming into our state for whatever reason. In the last year of the former Labor government, approximately 6,000 people fled the state. More people fled the state than came into the state during that 12-month period leading into the 2018 election.

In our most recent 12-month period for which figures are available, that had been reversed and there had been an increase of 704. That is 704 more people came into South Australia, as opposed to those who were leaving South Australia. That is a total turnaround of close to 7,000, a reversal of losing 6,000 in a year to gaining almost a thousand in the most recent period.

Again, in part, that will be driven by the tremendous performance in South Australia in terms of managing the COVID-19 pandemic. Unlike Melbourne, which broke the world record for the number of lockdown days, and the other Eastern States, South Australia was either the lowest or second lowest in terms of the fewest number of days of lockdown compared with all the other jurisdictions. So in part there was that.

Post COVID-19 pandemic, some of those people may well return to their jobs in Sydney and/or in Melbourne, but given the exciting growth prospects in South Australia, if this government is allowed to continue and given the privilege of continuing to implement the policies that have seen this huge turnaround in just four years, if we can continue that recovery process for another four-year period we are confident that we can continue to maintain net interstate migration either at a stable level or at a positive level, as we have seen in the last 12 months.

As I have spoken about in this house on a number of occasions, one of the key drivers in terms of economic growth and jobs growth of this government was to have a completely different approach to jobs and economic growth. The former government's approach was very much politician and public servant driven. It was to pick a winner and give them millions of dollars in grant money. As long as they were prepared to stand up at a media event and say nice things about the government of the day or the minister of the day, they would get their millions to go off and supposedly create the jobs they had promised.

I have said on a number of occasions that the notion that politicians and public servants are the best people to pick winners—that is, in a competitive market, decide that somebody's company is more likely to be successful than somebody else's company—is too bizarre a thought for most sensible people even to contemplate, other than of course the Australian Labor Party and their supporters. Those are the economic policies they adopted for almost 20 years in South Australia, and they are the sorts of policies that saw economic growth at almost two to three times less than national economic growth and unemployment rates of 6, 7 and 8 per cent, as opposed to 3.9 per cent currently in South Australia.

The new government's overarching policy objective was a simple premise; that is, the way to grow jobs and the economy in South Australia was to drive down the costs of doing business in our state so that our small and medium-sized businesses could compete both interstate and internationally for business. We cannot expect our businesses to compete successfully interstate and overseas if the cost of doing business in our state is uncompetitive. If it is significantly higher than in other jurisdictions, then it is a tough ask for a business in South Australia to compete with those businesses.

It is a relatively simple premise, but nevertheless one that this government has adhered to during its four-year term, successfully driving down the costs of doing business in our state right across the board. In large part, it is that sort of policy direction that has seen in South Australia a turnaround in economic and jobs growth, and population growth as well, because the failed policies of the past were discontinued and there was a new policy objective in this state. That has had very significant benefits for households.

The average household with two children and two cars in South Australia is now around $1,092 a year better off than they were in 2018—$1,092 a year better off. Electricity prices are massively down, ESL charges are massively down and water rates are massively down after the rort of the former Labor government in driving up water prices deliberately so they could get more money into the budget to spend on their favoured projects. CTP and registration costs are significantly down, and the government has provided sport vouchers to help defray sporting costs for families, in particular those participating in sport in schools and other competitions.

The critical one in terms of the state's economic performance is the significant reduction in average business costs. Average business costs have declined by just under $5,000 a year for an average business in South Australia. Again, that includes things like payroll tax, land tax, ESL, water, electricity and CTP costs right across the board—very significant costs.

For a small business, and a nursery was the example given, the average costs have reduced by just under $7,500. For that small business, there is a very significant payroll tax reduction because the government abolished payroll tax for all small businesses with payrolls under $1.5 million. Right across the board, there have been very significant reductions in costs for South Australian businesses.

There are a very small number of high water-using businesses in South Australia, probably no more than a handful, whose water bills this last year were up to $1 million a year less than under the former Labor government. We significantly reduced the cost of water by removing the rort the former Labor government imposed on the price of water in South Australia. This is an enormous benefit to their budget bottom line which helps drive economic growth for those businesses. It also allows them to continue to employ trainees and apprentices and grow their businesses, not only to the benefit of the company but to the benefit of the families and households employed within those particular businesses.

The benefits of that mantra or that objective of driving down the cost of doing business in our state are absolutely self-evident. Whilst there are many other articles I can quote from that time, I want to just refer to an article dated 28 June 2017, towards the end of the last Labor government, by energy consultant Bruce Mountain, who said that South Australian power prices were going to rise to the highest in the world—the highest in the world in 2017-18 under the former Labor government.

There was a media event only last week where our independent Essential Services Commission reported that the average cost of electricity to a household had dropped by $421 under the policies of this government. Similarly, there have been massive electricity cost savings in South Australia for businesses who are operating. Under the policies of the Labor government, electricity costs in South Australia were a job killer. With the policies of this Liberal government—with grid-scale storage, home battery storage and a variety of other initiatives this government has taken—and the further encouragement to develop the renewables industry, we have seen very significant reductions in electricity prices not only for households but for businesses in South Australia.

One of the key policy differentials in terms of electricity policy has been this view of the member for West Torrens in particular, Mr Koutsantonis. He has railed against the building of the new interconnector between South Australia and New South Wales, the Eastern States of Australia. It is clear, given his significant position within the alternative government, that not only has he opposed that forever and a day but he continues to argue against the value of the interconnector in terms of driving down electricity prices in South Australia.

If there was ever a decision that was going to be required of a minister or a government that sought to ensure any problems the interconnector project might confront, you could rest assured that the member for West Torrens would be consistent with his policy position in not bending over backwards to assist the project. He hates it. He believes it is a Liberal initiative and, indeed, it is.

Minister Dan van Holst Pellekaan has been the policy driver on this particular policy. He has successfully driven it through, or been part of the process that has driven it through, ensuring it got through regulatory approvals and whatever assistance state government departments and agencies have had to provide to ensure we got to the position that we have arrived at in South Australia at the moment.

If the Hon. Mr Koutsantonis had been driving energy policy, we would not have had an interconnector. It is just so self-evident that for a state as rich in renewable energy as we are with solar and wind energy, so much that we cannot use it all, we have to have a position where we are able, when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining, to export it across a second interconnector to the Eastern States to help stabilise electricity prices and provide stability to the National Electricity Market as well.

Conversely, if the wind ain't blowing and the sun ain't shining, then we are going to need a second interconnector to import power for those brief periods to ensure that the lights do not go out as they did under the former Labor government in South Australia. This government's pleasing record is that we have not seen statewide blackouts as overseen by the former Labor government. The lights, by and large, have been kept on. Prices have been driven down because of the policy direction of the Marshall Liberal government.

That would be threatened, that would be jeopardised, by the troglodyte-type views of the Labor opposition, in particular evidenced by their leader and the member for West Torrens in relation to energy policy. Both of them, sadly, are more interested in playing politics than in serious policy reform and development, which is the only way you can stabilise a national energy market. It is the only way you are going to be able, on a consistent basis, to drive down electricity prices in South Australia. That has to continue, otherwise it will be threatened should there be a change in government.

I now turn to the other aspect of this particular motion, which refers to the gross waste, incompetence, negligence, financial mismanagement and various other financial atrocities committed by the former Labor government. I hope, possibly in the next motion, to provide some greater detail in relation to one of the starkest examples of the incompetence of the former government and, sadly, someone who portrays himself as, or wants to be treated seriously as, potentially a future Treasurer of the state, and that is the member for Lee.

That is the motion in relation to—it would be laughable if it were not so serious—the scandal that relates to the Parafield park-and-ride decision that he took when he was last in government. I will address the particular details of that in that motion. Sadly, if it were a one-off bungle, scandal, error from the member for Lee, then perhaps he might be forgiven. It cost the taxpayers of South Australia $4.5 million, and it pained me, as the current Treasurer, to have to actually sign off on this settlement based on commercial legal advice, but that is the reality. It was a mess of the creation of the member for Lee, and the taxpayers are the ones who had to pick up the cost of it.

As I said, if it were the only example of gross incompetence and wasteful financial management of the former minister, then perhaps he might be forgiven. But the reality is it was just the clearest, cleanest and worst example of many examples of financial mismanagement and/or incompetence of the member for Lee as the minister prior to the last election.

One of the ones that has not attracted the attention that it should have was the mess the member for Lee left the incoming government in relation to what is known as the Gillman deal, the subject of another motion I am moving. The issue of Gillman and the approach of the former government is a part of that particular motion as well. The member for Lee was supposedly responsible for that mess, which was the subject of an ICAC inquiry, with board members resigning from the Urban Renewal Authority and all sorts of scandalous happenings which went on under the former Labor government's watch. The member for Lee was responsible, together with others prior to the 2014 election, for promising the world in relation to what was going to happen at Gillman.

This deal, which was approved by former Labor ministers, Mr Mullighan and Mr Koutsantonis, promised thousands of jobs down at Gillman and more than $70 million in revenue. Actually it was not before the 2014 election, it was before the 2018 election, I should say. Just prior to the last state election, the then housing and urban development minister, Mr Mullighan, who was the architect of the deal, trumpeted this deal with waste company Veolia Environmental Services Pty Ltd to develop Gillman, promising hundreds of jobs during construction and thousands of ongoing jobs.

South Australians were promised that Gillman would include Veolia's new SA head office—so that would be down at Gillman—with 450 employees, an environmentally efficient logistics and employment precinct down at Gillman, a nation-leading energy-from-waste plant and Adelaide's largest solar farm with 75 to 100 megawatts. The member for Lee said his deal would see $70 million in revenue to Renewal SA, with a net profit of more than $40 million, and it was announced with much fanfare just prior to the last state election.

The former Treasurer, the member for West Torrens, just five weeks before the election signed off on Renewal SA entering into a profit-sharing arrangement with Veolia, which contemplated even higher profit margins for Renewal SA than that $40 million net profit figure that the member for Lee had talked about.

The reality is that the Mullighan deal has been an absolute stinker for the people of South Australia. I would invite people to go down to Gillman to see whether or not Veolia's head office with 450 employees is down there—I think they would be struggling to find it. I would invite them to go down there to see whether or not a nation-leading energy-from-waste plant is down there—I think they would be struggling to see it. Whether an environmentally efficient logistics and employment precinct is down there—I think they would be struggling to see it. Whether Adelaide's largest solar farm is down there—I think they would be struggling to see it. I can certainly tell you, as the minister now responsible for Renewal SA, there was no $70 million in revenue and there was no net profit of more than $40 million.

What was the end result of the member for Lee, Mr Mullighan's deal? In the 2021 budget, $39 million in revenue for Renewal SA was written off: $12 million expected in 2021, $13 million in 2021-22, and $14 million in 2022-23. So it was a $39 million writedown in revenue for Renewal SA—no Veolia head office with 450 jobs, no industrial precinct, no energy-from-waste plant and no Adelaide's largest solar farm. The only return to Renewal SA has been the Veolia purchase of 18.7 hectares of land for $7 million.

What is even more damning for the member for Lee, Mr Mullighan, the former minister, is that our legal advice indicates that Mr Mullighan's deal was not negotiated in such a way as to ensure that any of these promises by the Labor government—thousands of jobs and millions in revenue—would be delivered. So with much fanfare we had an announcement, thousands of jobs were promised, millions of dollars in revenue, but our legal advice when we came to government was that there was nothing in the agreement signed by the member for Lee in relation to these promises that would see them delivered.

Sadly, it was the latest sorry chapter in the long-running saga of scandals and failure in the Labor government's mishandling of the Gillman site. It sort of came around every cycle. Just prior to the 2014 election the then minister, Mr Koutsantonis, promised thousands of jobs at Gillman: up to 6,000 jobs could be created in a new employment precinct at Gillman.

They promised thousands of jobs at Gillman in 2014, just before the election; they promised thousands of jobs in 2018, just before the election, and we have had to clean up that particular mess. Look out, people of South Australia, look out, people of the north-west, because given the member for West Torrens and the member for Lee are key movers and shakers in the alternative government I am sure they will come up with another bright idea for thousands of jobs at Gillman. They promised it at the last election, they promised it at the election before. I am sure every four years they will come up with another bright idea.

The sad fact is that these bright ideas from the member for Lee and the member for West Torrens cost taxpayers money. They break people's hearts, but they cost taxpayers money. The sad reality for South Australia is that the member for Lee is the person who holds himself out as a future Treasurer of the state of South Australia. Heaven forbid if he is ever given the responsibility or the authority of running the state's finances or books. The record shows that we will have more Parafield park-and-ride fiascos, more Gillman mirages in the wasteland down there, all those sorts of sad projects, a litany of failure of the former minister and the person who wants to hold himself out as being a future treasurer.

I note that the member for Lee has a remarkably thin skin. I made comments similar to that to the media and within virtually milliseconds he was on the phone threatening legal action against the media if they continued to report the fact that I had criticised his competence in relation to some of these deals and whether or not he was fit to be a future treasurer of the state. I have a genuine belief that he is not. I think many South Australians, as they hear the details of the fiascos of the Parafield park-and-ride, of the Gillman deal and of his many other atrocities, will also come to a similar decision.

The sad fact is that, in issues of whether it is competence, negligence or judgement, in most of those areas the member for Lee's ministerial record demonstrates that it is sadly lacking. My experience with the competence of ministers in terms of how they handle big deals and whether they are able to protect the taxpayers' interests so they are not exposed is in some part indicated by the way they treat what might be seen, in terms of billion dollar budgets, the relatively small amount of expenses that ministers and members might have access to in terms of ministerial credit cards and the like.

Sadly, an exploration of the performance of the member for Lee, and the member for West Torrens I might say, on this gives proof to the concerns I have that if people are cavalier about taxpayer spending in terms of lunches and alcohol and dinners and the like, then they are likely to be cavalier and negligent in terms of the way they manage big projects like a Parafield park-and-ride and like a Gillman deal.

I want to place on the record some of the evidence of the abuse of the credit card system by the member for Lee and also the member for West Torrens over their time in government. The record of the member for Lee, sadly for him, was the subject of considerable scrutiny, in particular as it related to the interaction with the former CEO of his department, Mr Deegan, and was the subject of an Ombudsman's inquiry. The Ombudsman at that particular time said, and I quote:

I am all the more concerned by DPTI's practice of funding restaurant meals between the Chief Executive and other public officers. I note, in particular, that DPTI appears to have funded at least two CBD restaurant meals between Mr Deegan and the Minister responsible for this department—

and that of course was Minister Mullighan—

at least one meeting of which involved the purchase of alcohol using departmental funds.

This is the independent Ombudsman making commentary in relation to this. That is the end of the quote from the Ombudsman's report. On a number of occasions the Ombudsman's report now refers to Mr Deegan paying for a lunch with Minister Mullighan and his Chief of Staff, $374 for a lunch at Peel Street, so just for the three of them, and for a meal with Mr Mullighan, just the two of them, at Press Food and Wine, $247.40.

There are a number of other examples that the Ombudsman refers to: a meal paid for by Mr Deegan at The Barn Steakhouse, which as I am sure many members know is a very fine establishment in the sunny South-East of South Australia, God's own country. That was at a country cabinet meeting or a community cabinet meeting where Mr Deegan, for some reason, spent $860.50 on what must have been a very fine meal that involved possibly a number of ministers—certainly, we understand, Minister Mullighan and perhaps one or two other ministers. The excuse in relation to that particular event was the minister said they had left their credit cards in their rooms at The Barn and therefore the chief executive of the department would be best placed to pick up the bill.

The reality is that the issue of ministerial expenses and credit cards had been going on for quite some time. This Ombudsman's report came as a result of a freedom of information request I had lodged back in 2016, which Mr Deegan successfully stymied even with the Ombudsman right through into the 2018 election, which is why the Ombudsman conducted this particular inquiry. The Ombudsman demanded copies of documents from Mr Deegan, but he continued to delay responding to the request of the Ombudsman and managed to put it off until just prior to the election of March 2018.

The reason why I lodged those FOIs in 2016 was that, in the very early days of the Labor government, ministers like Minister Koutsantonis and others had been caught out—I will return to Minister Koutsantonis in a tick—in terms of their own use of their own ministerial credit cards. What ministers then did, once the FOIs started coming for theirs, was they moved to get their Chiefs of Staff to come to their lunches and dinners and to have the Chiefs of Staff pay for the expensive lunches and dinners.

When the opposition lobbed FOIs on Chiefs of Staff so that that was revealed, some of the cleverer ministers, in terms of rorting the system, decided to get their chief executives to come to their lunches and dinners, where that was possible, and the chief executive paid for the lunches and dinners. That was what the subject of this particular Ombudsman's inquiry was.

The Ombudsman said, 'Well, hold on, you are meeting with your minister. You are both in the CBD. Why do you have to have a $250 lunch over a bottle of wine to have a meeting with your minister? You could actually go to the minister's office and meet, as most chief executives do, with the minister and have a chat without having to go to a $250 lunch at some of the very nicest places in and around Adelaide.'

The former minister did not really have much of a response to that. He was the subject of some intensive questioning on morning ABC radio and he was asked exactly that question, which was, 'Why did you have to go to a lunch with your chief executive? Why couldn't you just meet them in the office?' David Bevan put the questions to former Minister Mullighan. His response is a classic, and let me quote it in full:

Oh well certainly, David, my recollection is that I only ever attended these meals because I was invited to them.

David Bevan is asking Minister Mullighan, 'Why do you actually have to go and spend $250 at Press, or wherever it might happen to be, to have lunch with your chief executive and spend taxpayers' money for a lunch when you could just meet him in your office?' Frankly, he could ring him on the telephone if he wanted to, but he could meet in his office. His response was, 'I only ever attended these meals because I was invited to them.'

His chief executive invited him to a lunch at Press and he only ever attended because he was invited to go to the restaurant with his chief executive to partake of the finest in food and wine that the taxpayers could provide. To that end, just to describe the games that were being played in the period leading up to the 2018 election, I do want to say that the application was made in 2016 under FOI:

DPTI confirmed that refusal on what could charitably be described as a counterintuitive interpretation of the terms of the request (how does a request for 'all documents that relate to' the payment of certain expenses not extend to the relevant invoices and transaction statements?). It did so in a manner that did not invoke a relevant exemption clause…

That was the Ombudsman in essence saying that the department and the chief executive were stalling. He continues:

It was not until January 2018 that DPTI compiled the materials relevant to the applicant's request and supplied them to my Office. The delay of approximately one year from the making of the application for access to the proper commencement of the external review was, in my view, wholly unconscionable. The application had by that time lost all currency. It was in any case rendered largely irrelevant by the change of government which shortly followed.

As near as I can tell, DPTI first commenced compiling the relevant documents in approximately October 2017. By that time, DPTI had failed to adhere to five successive deadlines imposed by my Office. It would go on to miss three more.

The Ombudsman's office gave DPTI and the chief executive eight separate deadlines to provide the documents, all of which were ignored by the department.

The member for Lee's love of fine wine and dining was not just extended to getting his chief executive to buy him lunches and dinners at our nice places in Adelaide. On his overseas travel, we are told, he also got his chief executive, who travelled with him to Berlin for example, to the fabulous Grill Royal in Berlin at a cost to taxpayers of $1,490 for their meal, with the Chief of Staff and two other non-government people.

Mr Deputy President, you will be excited to know, and I am sure former Minister Mullighan was excited that it was rated by Top10 Berlin as the celebrity restaurant in Berlin:

No matter if it is Leonardo DiCaprio, Scarlett Johansson, Samuel L. Jackson, [the late] Karl Largerfeld or many top models—all of them have been seen there. The Grill Royal is currently THE celebrity restaurant in Berlin.

I am sure Minister Mullighan was excited. The Lonely Planet writes about Grill Royal:

…[it] ticks all the boxes of a true metropolitan restaurant. A platinum card is a handy accessory if you want to slurp your oysters and tuck into aged prime steaks in the company of A-listers, power politicians—

I am sure Minister Mullighan saw himself in that category—

[and] pouty models…

I am sure Minister Mullighan was excited that Lonely Planet said if you want to be seen with A-listers, pouty models and power politicians—I am sure he saw himself fitting the category of a power politician.

My experience with ministers is that if you are cavalier with your personal expenses as a minister, whether it be at restaurants and fine dining here in Adelaide or restaurants and fine dining in other parts around the world, then you are the sort of person who is likely to be cavalier with taxpayer funding on the big projects. It is that sort of attitude to public expenses that sees fiascos and scandals like the $4.5 million lost on the Parafield park-and-ride, the Gillman fiasco and many other fiascos that Minister Mullighan engaged himself in as a former minister.

Should there be an alternative government elected in South Australia, the other one who would be a key player is the member for West Torrens, the Hon. Mr Koutsantonis. His record is legendary in relation to credit card expenses and abuses. I quote from an early press release of mine from October 2009: 'Cuts everywhere…except for Rann and Ministers' expenses.' This is me in that particular release:

Whilst the record of Mr Foley—

Of course, he was a standout performer in terms of travel expenses—

with travel and entertainment expenses has been well publicised, new Minister 'Turbo' Tom Koutsantonis has come out of the blocks at breakneck speed.

Appointed a Minister in March this year, Mr Koutsantonis has managed 12 separate taxpayer funded lunches and dinners in just four months.

There was a $500 bill at Gaucho's, a $396 bill at Georges on Waymouth, another $613 bill at Georges, a $425 bill at Panacea and another $359 bill at Georges. Pranzo's would be disappointed; they only got an $83 expense. They would be very disappointed with that. The Star of Siam at $263, Auge at $641—leader in the clubhouse in that first four months of Minister Koutsantonis's reign—and then Georges again at $166.

There is very significant expenditure in those bills on alcohol. In one of those accounts, almost $200 was spent on alcohol purchases—sorry, no, one of them was actually $275 alcohol and a $20 tip, all on the taxpayers' tab. He was a very generous new minister, the member for West Torrens—no expense was spared.

When this was publicised, the member for West Torrens repaid or reimbursed some of these expenses: some of the alcohol he reimbursed, I think the $20 tip he reimbursed out of his private account, and one or two of the other lunches he also reimbursed—I am told because should there be an ombudsman's inquiry or whatever it is, the people he took to lunch would not have qualified as a work-related lunch. But that is how he started, in a blaze of glory, but of course he continued through the period. He did not learn from those particular mistakes.

In documents only released since this government was elected, under a Freedom of Information request—from either a member of parliament or a member of the media, I cannot remember, but they were placed on the Treasury website as they were being released under freedom of information—again showed that he had not really changed his position in relation to boozy lunches and dinners.

What they showed was that the member for West Torrens had hidden spending on a series of boozy lunches and dinners, such as $856 at Louca's Seafood in the city where $247 had been spent on alcohol. There was one lunch at Georges on Waymouth for $2,282 involving more than $500 worth of alcohol, including $360 on eight bottles of Mother's Milk shiraz. So there were clearly a number of people enjoying the hospitality of the member for West Torrens and they were on the Mother's Milk shiraz and various other nice drops, including a nice Pawn Wine Co. chardonnay, on the taxpayers' tab.

The reason for highlighting these is that Minister Koutsantonis had moved beyond the experiences of Minister Mullighan. As I outlined earlier, in the early days of the Labor government they were caught with ministers putting things on their credit card. Then when they put things on their chiefs of staff credit cards, that was revealed under freedom of information. So Mr Mullighan then moved to using his CEO for some lunches, which was the subject of the Ombudsman's inquiry.

What former Treasurer Koutsantonis did was he and his office actually used the credit card of the office manager, who was a public servant back in the Treasurer's office. Under proactive disclosure, the minister was required to reveal how much on his credit card and his Chief of Staff's credit card—and potentially his CEO had to reveal it—but the office manager's credit card went in under ancillary expenses. Therefore, all this largesse and expenditure was hidden from public view by using the office manager's credit card. The Hon. Mr Ngo, of course, has had some previous experience with Treasurer's officers, so he will understand how cunning that particular plan was in terms of avoiding public exposure.

Sadly for the Hon. Mr Koutsantonis, this FOI was lodged after 2018 by, I am sure, a well-meaning member of parliament or member of the media, and this was all revealed. What it also showed was that the member for West Torrens had a particular passion for hiding spending on expensive wine such as Penfolds St Henri Shiraz and Moët & Chandon champagne. In July 2016, the office manager's credit card—not his or his Chief of Staff's—was used for a $61.99 bottle of Moët; in September $100 for a Penfold Shiraz—2012, so not a bad vintage.

His taste is pretty good, the member West Torrens, you have to say. Give him credit: he can pick a decent drop, at the taxpayers' expense. He enjoyed that so much in October, the next month he went back for another bottle ($100) of Penfolds St Henri Shiraz 2012, and then again in February. This time it cost him $120, and then in March—he got it cheaper that day—he got it for $89. Then in April he got three bottles. He must have done a bulk deal—'If you give me three of them, can you reduce the price?'—so he got it for $266. Then in November it went back up to $110.

The extraordinary thing is, if you think it through, when you go to a restaurant and you go to pay for your bill, you give your credit card. Some ministers use their credit card or, if you have your Chief of Staff there, the Chief of Staff uses their credit card. In the Deegan case with Minister Mullighan, it was Mr Deegan who was there at the lunches and he put his credit card up and paid for these bills.

The office manager, who is a public servant, does not go to lunch with the Treasurer or the minister. Chiefs of staff do. Occasionally the chief executive might go to a lunch. The office manager does not. What Treasurer Koutsantonis did was he would ring up from the restaurant and get the credit card number from the office manager and charge the bill up that way.

So the office manager was not at the lunches, enjoying the lunches, and the dinners. The office manager was rung up, the credit card number was quoted and the bill was paid, and it was hidden under ancillary expenses in the proactive disclosure. That is the sort of skulduggery that Labor ministers engage in. That is what the people of South Australia are opening themselves up for. These same people would be in positions of responsibility in terms of public expenditure.

One of these purchases from the Treasurer was actually from a Sydney wine store. Even though he was in Sydney and he had his ministerial credit card, he somehow hid the expenditure by buying one of these bottles of St Henri by ringing back—or having his staff member ring back, I assume, to the office manager—and getting the credit card number for a Sydney wine store.

I can sort of understand a local restaurant, Gaucho's or Louca's, and you have the Treasurer there, and they say, 'Hold on, I will just give you a credit card number over the phone. It is with the office manager,' they would know who the Treasurer was. If he went to The Greek on Halifax or Louca's or a variety of other places, he would be pretty well known. I am just not sure that the Treasurer of South Australia in a Sydney wine store is as well known. Anyway, somehow they managed it, and that expenditure was concealed until after the state election.

I will make some comments in relation to the media attention to this particular issue and this particular rort in a tick. But when he was briefly questioned by one section of the media as to how on earth he could justify this, he said he was giving these bottles of St Henri and champagne to dignitaries. They were gifts. That was his rationale. We did not get an explanation as to whether, in giving it to a dignitary, they both sat down together and shared it or not, but he was giving them as gifts.

All I have to say is I have been Treasurer in two iterations. This last four years is obviously clearer in memory. I have never bought a bottle of 2012 St Henri Shiraz for myself, frankly, at taxpayers' expense, as a gift to a visiting dignitary, or a bottle of Moët champagne to give to a supposed dignitary. It is really an issue for the member for West Torrens because, as I said, he is going to be a senior minister if there is to be a change of government in South Australia.

Some of us are aware that the ABC in South Australia pride themselves on forensic examination of issues that they get their teeth into. I was very disappointed in them, and one other section of the media, when this sort of information was provided to them, when the former Treasurer said, baldly, 'All of my expenses have been proactively disclosed either by me on a ministerial credit card or my staff or as part of my office expenses.'

When he made that claim, the ABC and some other sections of the media were not prepared to actually look at the facts, to look at what was on the website, to look at the documentation that was available to them on the website, and go back to the member for West Torrens and say, 'Well, hold on, you've just said all of this was publicly revealed. Show us where this was publicly revealed. Explain to us why, if you have a ministerial credit card or your Chief of Staff has a credit card, you were charging these things to your office manager's credit card, who wasn't even at the function?'

They are pretty simple questions and I think the challenge for our independent media is—if they want to pride themselves on forensic examination of particular issues—that it is not too late, five or six weeks out from the election, to turn their attention to this particular issue now that it has been laid on the public record in all its gory detail and seek an explanation, and not just a response which they accept when the member for West Torrens says, 'I have revealed all of my expenses proactively and don't you worry about that.'

Let's get the facts on the table. I have laid out the facts on the table. They are on the Treasury website; they have been on the Treasury website for a period of time. The challenge now, I think, for the media is to look at some of these expenses of former Minister Mullighan and former Minister Koutsantonis, and the people of South Australia need to make judgements as to whether these people are fit and proper persons to put in charge of taxpayers' funding, whether it be for big projects like the Parafield park-and-ride or whether it be for, in essence, smaller expenditure on items such as lunch and dinner expenses.

I conclude my contribution. There is so much more I could put on the record in relation to the atrocities committed by this former Labor government: the abuses of public expenditure, the gross policy failures right across the board, the incompetence, negligence and lack of common sense in terms of public policy.

I have not addressed some of the issues in relation to both the regions and service areas, like closing the Repat, Transforming Health and those other atrocities. I will leave that to one or two of my colleagues to add fact and information to this very important motion, and that is highlighting where we are now, highlighting where we have come from and, more importantly, highlighting the risk of the state's economic recovery and the risk of losing all that we have achieved together as a state over the last four years.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (17:48): I rise today to speak to the Treasurer's private member's motion. This is a private member's motion that I am proud to speak to, and being a country member I will speak to this motion from a regional perspective.

Labor governments are bad for our regions. As a mother and wife who is raising a family, and someone who has run small businesses in my region, I can tell you from firsthand experience that the last four years have been some of the best in my life, in my family's life and in the lives of those who make up our regional communities.

Prior to the Marshall Liberal government coming to office just four short years ago, the regional communities of South Australia were let down time and time again by the former Labor government. There was a backlog of regional road maintenance, roads that the former Labor government refused to fund for basic upkeep. Instead of investing in basic upkeep, they chose to reduce speed limits.

I do not need to tell you the impact of reducing these speed limits on productivity in our regions, but the Labor Party, instead of choosing to support our primary industries—that is, agriculture, food, wine and forestry—which contribute approximately $15 billion annually in revenue for this state, chose to ignore these industries and their country communities, ignore our regional roads. The Labor Party's answer was simply to reduce speed limits.

I am proud to be part of the Marshall Liberal team. We are a government that has delivered for our regions and will continue to deliver for our regions. This government has been getting on with the job quietly, delivering for people in our rural areas. This government is fixing over 1,000 kilometres of regional roads to make them safer and to help save lives.

In fact, prior to coming into government in 2018, we made a promise that we would fix the eight regional roads the Labor Party left to ruin, and reduce speed limits. We have done just that. We have fixed and upgraded those eight roads and have safely reinstated the 110 km/h speed limit slashed by the former Labor government, meaning our primary producers can move their freight more efficiently, more safely, and ensure more money in our state's economy.

Labor do not seem to care that fatigue is also one of the biggest contributing factors to major accidents and deaths on our regional roads. They are happy for regional road users to spend more time and money in their cars and trucks, risking their lives, rather than committing to well overdue improvements, but not the Marshall Liberal government. We value the lives of all South Australians.

In addition, we are upgrading a number of strategic regional roads across our state with improvements that include junctional improvements, new overtaking lanes and overtaking lane extensions, pavement resealing and rehabilitation, safety barrier upgrades and new and upgraded rest areas for improved fatigue management. We are upgrading the Sturt Highway between Renmark and Gawler. We are upgrading the Eyre Highway and the Lower Eyre Peninsula roads, we are duplicating the Joy Baluch Bridge and we are continuing to plan and to invest. We are investing in duplication of the Augusta Highway from near Nantawarra to Lochiel, and we are investing in the Truro bypass to improve productivity and safety in our regions.

Working together, the Morrison and Marshall governments have committed $560 million towards the Main South Road and Victor Harbor Road projects. These projects will reduce travel times, improve road safety and increase connectivity and, more importantly, productivity—something the Labor Party seem to know nothing about. These are just a few examples of our record $17.9 billion infrastructure spend across our state.

The Marshall Liberal government is building what matters by delivering more jobs and unlocking our tourism industry to benefit all South Australians, but infrastructure is just one piece of the puzzle and the Marshall Liberal government is committed to preserving our natural environment and safeguarding our biosecurity. That includes our commitment to eradicating fruit fly from South Australia, supporting our growers and maintaining the state's pest-free area. More than $34 million has been spent on eradicating fruit fly from South Australia, with another $17 million allocated in the recent state budget. We are playing our part in protecting South Australia's $1.3 billion horticultural industry, 37½ thousand jobs and 4,000 businesses.

The Labor government were happy to take preferences from the Greens, but what did they do in their 16 years of government to introduce sensible measures to protect and preserve our natural environment for generations to come? That answer is simple: nothing of note. The Marshall Liberal government has been a strong advocate for our environment under the stewardship of Minister David Speirs. I am particularly proud of our policy around single-use plastics and the steps we have taken to remove them. Many of these products end up in our waterways and land environments and have a catastrophic impact on the environment and delicate ecosystems.

We have unlocked some of our state's reservoirs, like Myponga and Happy Valley, and proclaimed South Australia's newest conservation park, the Aldinga Conservation Park. The people of South Australia have welcomed these changes. We are passionate about getting people into our natural environment and enjoying the very best that our state has to offer.

We are committed to continuing to invest in all aspects of regional health, including regional road infrastructure and maintenance, education and health services. In doing so, we can ensure that the highest quality of living, of which health care is a critical aspect—as are roads, as is education—is available to all South Australians, no matter where they live.

The Marshall Liberal government has reduced the cost of living for families across this state. In 2017 and 2018, under the former Labor government the median annual energy bill for households totalled over $2,200. Since coming to government, we have put in measures to reduce these costs and progressively increased savings for households right across our state such that the median annual energy bill for households in 2020-21 under our government is $1,784, a not insignificant average saving of $416 per household.

We have reduced car registration costs through lower compulsory third-party insurance premiums, and we have also delivered cheaper ESL bills and cheaper water bills. We will not talk about the inquiry that was performed by the former South Australian Water chairman, Mr Lewis Owens, back in 2019 that found that in 2013 the former Labor government deliberately jacked up the assets of SA Water, costing everyday households to drive extra revenue into their government coffers so they could improve their bottom line.

The Leader of the Opposition himself concedes that Labor let people down. Remember the Oakden nursing home scandal, the mismanagement of the TAFE sector and the problems within child protection. Who could forget the statewide blackout in 2016 that put lives at risk, inflicted immense damage to our economy and made us the laughing-stock of the nation. Labor could not even keep the lights on.

Then we can talk about health, and I spoke about health earlier on today. Let's look at Labor's history in health in our state but particularly in our regions. In 2008, Labor tried to downgrade, even close, dozens of hospitals in country South Australia. In December 2017, opposition leader Peter Malinauskas and Labor closed the Repat, which provided care for older patients and veterans, many of whom originated from our regions, despite former Premier Mike Rann's pledge that it would never, ever be closed by a Labor government.

Between 2014 and 2018, Labor spent a mere $14 million in total on regional health infrastructure. That equates to a mere $3.5 million per year spent in our regions. In comparison, the Marshall Liberal government has already delivered for health in our regions and spent more than $70 million in its first three years. This equates to $23.33 million per year. We have completed the upgrade to the Murray Bridge emergency department as well as significant upgrades at a number of regional hospitals across our state.

We are also upgrading our suburban hospitals, including significant improvements to Flinders Medical Centre, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Modbury Hospital and Lyell McEwin, with revitalisation of the Repat site. This investment takes pressure off our major hospitals, which in turn benefits country patients who may require transfer to a metropolitan hospital. We are also building the new Women's and Children's Hospital to provide holistic world-class health care and facilities for babies, children, young people, women and their families. This commitment is in addition to upgrades to these existing hospital sites.

We have committed more than $200 million to regional health infrastructure projects, more than double Labor's recent commitment: projects such as the Mount Barker hospital emergency department upgrade, the Whyalla Hospital accident and emergency department redevelopment, the new Strathalbyn Ambulance Station and a new Barossa hospital

In a landmark agreement with rural GPs, we are investing an estimated $188 million over two years to ensure we are attracting and retaining GPs to regional South Australia. This agreement comes after years of dispute with the former Labor government, who refused to listen to our country health professionals and refused to budge on improving conditions for our country GPs.

The Marshall Liberal government is doing everything it can to ensure that the highest quality care is available to all South Australians. There is so much to celebrate about the work that the Marshall Liberal government has done for South Australians in four short years, which is in stark contrast to what the previous Labor government achieved, or rather failed to achieve, in its 16 years of reign.

South Australia's unemployment rate is its lowest rate ever, at 3.9 per cent. This is much better than Labor's average rate of 6.8 per cent in their last term and Labor's lowest rate of 5.6 per cent for the same period, that is, 2014-18. What is even more staggering is this state has achieved this whilst dealing with a pandemic. South Australia has the fastest growing economy in the country.

The Marshall Liberal government is creating more jobs and supporting businesses through our $4 billion stimulus and $17.9 billion investment in roads, education, sporting and health infrastructure across our state. Job vacancies are at a record high. We have stopped the brain drain caused by Labor in its tracks, with the highest number of people moving to our state in around four decades.

We know that there is plenty more work to do, but we know that by keeping South Australia safe and strong we can continue to recover from the COVID pandemic, support businesses and create more jobs. The Marshall Liberal government has delivered what matters for all South Australians. We cannot afford another term of Labor. They failed in regional investment, they failed in economic management, they failed in health, they failed in roads and they failed our state.

Sitting suspended from 18:03 to 19:45.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (19:46): I rise to support the important motion moved by the Treasurer, the Hon. Rob Lucas, to condemn the terrible mismanagement of the former Labor government and echo the same sentiments expressed by my many Liberal colleagues. This motion serves to remind South Australians that the Labor Party had the wrong priorities when they were in government, and how the people of South Australia have suffered and were completely let down by an incompetent Labor government.

Everywhere we looked, whether it was in metropolitan Adelaide or regional South Australia, the Labor government had the wrong policy setting and failed to deliver jobs and encourage growth. Under Labor our economy was stagnant, and South Australia was at the bottom of the ladder in key performance indicators in comparison with the other states in Australia. Under Labor's poor management of our economy, even in a time without coronavirus, when the world was not facing a pandemic, South Australia under the former Labor government had the highest unemployment rate in the country, there was a lack of business confidence, and thousands of bright and capable people left our state to seize better opportunities elsewhere.

Labor failed to develop a suitable business climate and economic conditions to create jobs. Under the former Labor government South Australia had tens of thousands of individuals and families desperately searching for jobs. Some of the most disadvantaged groups of people in unemployment come from cultural and linguistically diverse communities. Some of these people are highly skilled and qualified, but due to the state's poor economic conditions and bad policies they were facing great difficulties in finding jobs under the poor management of the former Labor government.

Our Treasurer reminded us that in February 2018, just prior to the last election four years ago, the unemployment rate in South Australia was 6.2 per cent. When Labor was in government in the last term we saw some unacceptable employment numbers for the whole 12 months leading to February 2018; unemployment rates were averaging 6.8 per cent. In contrast, under the Marshall Liberal government there is an increase in people employed in South Australia while we have been fighting a global pandemic.

Recent ABS figures show South Australia as the fastest growing economy in the nation, and the unemployment rate of 3.9 per cent was the lowest since monthly records began in 1978. I am very proud to be a part of the Marshall Liberal government that is saving lives, providing support to save businesses and jobs under incredibly difficult business conditions. South Australia still managed to employ nearly 44,000 South Australians with an unemployment rate of 3.9 per cent.

This further demonstrates that the Marshall government can manage our economy while dealing with the unprecedented challenges of a global pandemic. The recent economic indicators show further positive signs that the South Australian economy will continue to recover strongly from the global pandemic. Instead of supporting our community and businesses in dealing with the new challenges presented by Omicron, opposition leader Peter Malinauskas and the Labor Party are undermining South Australia's pandemic response for their own political purposes.

I want to now turn my attention to speak about multicultural affairs. When I came into this parliament in 2010, I was honoured to be appointed by the Liberal Party as a spokesperson for multicultural affairs, and I have continued in this portfolio as Assistant Minister to the Premier. It is my great privilege to be the longest continuous serving member of parliament, serving our multicultural community for 11 consecutive years. My years of enduring service and strong advocacy for multiculturalism and interculturalism demonstrate a long-term vision and strong commitment by the Liberal Party and our government to serve our diverse communities in South Australia.

In contrast, the former Labor government handled multicultural affairs under a revolving door of Labor ministers. In 2010, the first year I entered parliament, the Minister for Multicultural Affairs was the Hon. Michael Atkinson, followed by the Hon. Grace Portolesi, then after that by the Hon. Jennifer Rankine, followed by the Hon. Zoe Bettison. When the Liberal Party won the election four years ago and formed government in 2018, we had seen the change of shadow ministers in Labor from Katrine Hildyard, the member for Reynell, to Jayne Stinson, the member for Badcoe and then back to the member for Ramsay.

Over 11 years, there have been seven changes in Labor's representation in the multicultural portfolio. Labor changed their multicultural affairs spokesperson seven times in 11 years and it says a lot about their lack of focus and interest in generally engaging with and working with our diverse multicultural communities. There is a pattern of the portfolio being handballed from one minister to another or from one shadow minister to another.

Labor never had the vision nor the courage in their 16 years in government to review and update the South Australian multicultural legislation to reflect the changing needs and diversity of our state. The Labor Party is full of hypocrisy when it comes to looking after our culturally and linguistically diverse community. Under the former Labor government, budget papers show that between 2014 and 2018, Labor had allocated around $11 million of grants for multicultural affairs.

I am proud to report that the Marshall Liberal government in our first term of government has delivered more than $14 million in multicultural affairs grants to support and strengthen governance, capacity building, cultural festivals, infrastructure upgrades and building stronger families and communities through four streams of grants programs, including Advance Together, Celebrate Together, Expand Together and Stronger Together.

In addition to the four grants, our Marshall Liberal government has also been responsive to the needs of vulnerable multicultural communities by listening to their concerns and redirecting funds for COVID outreach projects, translation of SA Health materials and also introducing the Connect Together grants to help the multicultural community better respond to the challenging impact of the COVID pandemic.

Going forward, we look forward to working with the new SA Multicultural Commission in consultation with our diverse community to develop the first Multicultural Charter which will shape the multicultural policy for South Australia going forward. The Multicultural Charter is the centrepiece of the new multicultural legislation that was passed for South Australia. This is unlike Labor, who continue to pretend that they are caring and supportive of people from a multicultural background and that they are backing female leadership to advance in our society but who do the opposite.

I want to take this opportunity to demonstrate how two-faced the Labor Party truly is. When they had the opportunity to support the Liberal Party's nomination for me to be the President of the Legislative Council in 2020, guess what? They went against the parliamentary convention and nominated another man for the job. The Labor Party played dirty politics, created false accusations and a negative campaign to discriminate against me, to intimidate me and deny me the opportunity to be the first female multicultural member of parliament to be the President of the Legislative Council. Peter Malinauskas, the opposition leader, speaks about equal opportunity, saying how the Labor Party is a great supporter in promoting women and a great supporter in promoting diversity. Well, they did the opposite. They are full of hypocrisy and double standards.

Later on tonight, the Hon. Rob Lucas will move another motion in this chamber that this council expresses its dismay at the toxic culture of bullying and harassment of staff that exists within the offices of Labor MPs and the lack of leadership of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Malinauskas MP, to take any action against his Labor MPs. That motion will further highlight the toxic culture of bullying inside the Labor Party.

The Minister for Health and Wellbeing will move another motion later about health. Under Transforming Health, under 16 years of Labor management of health, we saw it move in the wrong direction. It demonstrated all the hallmarks of a typical Labor government: an inability to manage budgets, subservience to the unions and an addiction to centralised government control. Transforming Health was a disaster that closed down or downgraded hospitals. So at the next election just ask the question and remind everyone of how many services and beds were downgraded and dismantled under the former Labor government and Transforming Health.

When you look at the damaging track record of Labor, we cannot trust Peter Malinauskas and the Labor Party when it comes to managing the pandemic and we definitely cannot trust Labor to manage our economy. Only the Marshall Liberal government will continue to keep South Australians safe and our economy strong.

I thank the Hon. Rob Lucas, our diligent and competent Treasurer, for highlighting the appalling financial mismanagement by the former Labor government. I also acknowledge his comprehensive recount of Labor's incompetencies and the scandals of Labor MPs and former ministers on the public record. This record will show that Labor cannot be trusted and they will continue to be bad news for South Australia.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.

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