SUPPLY BILL II
Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (17:23): I am grateful to have another 10 minutes to talk about the Supply Bill. The reality is that we have heard a lot of people from our side talk about the great sadness that it gives all of us that nearly 30 per cent of the financial year will be finished when the budget is handed down by the Treasurer. I am not going to dwell on that other than to say that it is very frustrating. The flip side of that, of course, is the reality that the government does need money to keep operating and to do its work, so we will support the Supply Bill.
As you know, we on this side of the house have some different priorities. With regard to health, I do not underestimate the size of the challenge of the minister's work or the government's work in regard to health in this state. My job is to stand up for the people of Stuart and more broadly for regional South Australia. I am disappointed that I do not see the focus on regional health nearly as strongly as it should be, but it is a big challenge; there is no doubt. With the ageing population and the growing health bill, I recognise that it would be a difficulty for any government. I am disappointed that the people of Stuart and regional South Australia do not get as much support as I think they should, but it is a big job, as I said.
If I heard the Treasurer correctly when he was speaking earlier today, he said that the current government has doubled spending on health from where it was when the government came in eight years ago. It is very—
The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:
Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: On health across the state is what I was referring to; what the Treasurer said. The inflation rate on health is approximately 10 per cent; I think the Treasurer said between 9 per cent and 11 per cent. Inflation of between 9 per cent and 11 per cent over eight years in itself would account for approximately a doubling in health spending. I have no doubt that the numbers are accurate. He would not have said them if they were not, but that is probably a nominal doubling in the dollars. However, by his own admission, in real terms it is essentially the same amount of money to do the same job; so I do not think there is any room to be claiming too much credit.
There are lots of priorities—and obviously there is education and roads, and some very specialised things where we miss out in the country with regard to special needs education and mental health. It is, of course, very frustrating that people from the country continually have to come down to the city to access a lot of these services.
The difficulty is not just for the specific families who incur the cost and disruption to themselves but also more broadly to the community. If you happen to have a child with particular circumstances and needing particular help, and you are travelling back and forth to Adelaide all the time, then naturally you will be tempted to leave the rural community and come down to the city. That is hard enough for that family and for that family's friends and relatives, but it is a great drain on the regional community as well, because every single family in a regional town counts, and every single family that moves on decreases the critical mass that supports the businesses and the schools, and then, by a sort of a sly stealth of hand, supports the requirements for the services. So then there is a self-fulfilling prophecy that the school can shrink or be closed, that the hospital can shrink or be closed. It is a cruel situation that people in the regions find themselves in.
I would like to spend a fair bit of time focusing on the state government's dealing with the federal government's mining super profits tax. Certainly I have a great deal of concern on any tax that identifies success. I do not mind the fact that, in relation to royalties or some form of repayment for the physical assets that belong to the crown which are being removed and which go forever from our country, there may need to be some adjustment there. I am happy to consider that.
I am very uncomfortable with the concept of a super profits tax, given that we have a percentage-based tax system already. It really does take a lot of incentive away from people to be successful. I understand that that is a federal government initiative. What I would like to talk about is the state government's handling of that, and I would like to commend our Speaker, who, as the member for Giles, went to see the federal government and advocate particularly on behalf of her electorate. I thought that was a responsible, brave, courageous move, and I cannot see why the Treasurer and the Premier cannot do exactly the same thing.
I cannot see why we do not hear on the radio, see on the television or read in the newspaper that the Premier is leading a delegation to Canberra to talk to the federal government about the dreadful impact that this mining tax will have on the state of South Australia. So I credit our Speaker, as the member for Giles, for doing that. Why cannot the Premier lead and represent the whole state in exactly the same way that she has done?
Most economic and commercial realities come down to common sense. There are some very basic common sense facts that are the substance of most commercial issues. I am sure it was very tempting for the federal government to implement that tax because they looked primarily at Western Australia and at Queensland, where mines are already up and running. They are already successful and they are already going very well, and they cannot slow down. If they are in full swing and they get slugged with a tax, they cannot shut down or slow down production or make too many adjustments. Once a mine is running, it takes months or years for them to make adjustments.
But this is a very cruel thing for South Australia, where the majority of our mines are still to come. We hear the Premier talk all the time about new mines on the way. The reality is, as our deputy leader said last night, that all but one of the mines that have come on stream lately were explored and the resources found long before this government came to power. The real fact is that all governments support mining. It does not matter whether you are Liberal or Labor, all governments support mining (as they should) because it is one of the best industrial and export opportunities that our state has. So, governments, whether Liberal or Labor, would always support mining.
However, for South Australia, where we are looking at new finds coming on stream, this tax is potentially devastating. It does not matter whether you are a family just getting by and you are contemplating trying to buy an investment property, suddenly, if the return from that investment property is to be slashed by 40 per cent, hang on, that decision is on hold. That decision is on hold for quite a few reasons: maybe you cannot afford it now; maybe it is not an attractive option anymore; or, guess what, maybe the bank will not lend you the money anymore.
The reality is that large mining companies, even mining companies as large as BHP, are in the exact same situation. One of the greatest impediments for the potential expansion of Roxby Downs is the fact that they may not be able to finance it now. BHP may decide that it is still attractive, it would still like to go ahead, but the banks, the international finance options that they have, might just vanish. They might say, 'We were happy to lend you the money before on the plan and the scope of works and everything that was in line before, but we are not happy to lend you the money now. We will not give you that finance.' That reality is exactly the same for the family who is trying to buy an investment property to expand what they do and create some wealth for their kids and grandkids. The principle is exactly the same for a large international mining company.
I think it was our deputy leader who said that exports are the very best form of revenue that we can get, because it is other people's money that is coming in. Circulating money and transactions are fantastic, and selling within a state or within a country certainly stimulates the economy, and it is a critical part of our economy, but you cannot beat exports when you are trying to grow your economy. So, why would anybody put our exports—and I mean ours as in South Australian exports—at risk? That is the best opportunity we have.
If mining does not continue to grow in South Australia, we are in big trouble. I do not think there is anybody in this house who would disagree with that. We are in big trouble if mining does not continue to grow. So, I challenge the Premier, the Treasurer and everybody in government to get up, get moving and publicly say, 'We are going to Canberra. We are taking a delegation to Prime Minister Rudd. We are going to fight against this tax with the federal government.'
I give great credit to the member for Newland. He was certainly not saying anything against the government, but several weeks ago he was talking very rationally regarding his views on this mining tax. The government has to go to Canberra (as the member for Giles did on behalf of her electorate) on behalf of this state and say, 'This is not good. This is no good for this state.'
I hope that some work is going on in the background. We are told that some work is going on in the background, but there has only been one person on the government side who has said, 'I'm not working in the background; I'm working in the foreground. I am going to fight, on behalf of the people that I represent, against this for the good of my electorate,' and I challenge the Premier to stand up and say that he is going to go to Canberra to fight for the people whom he represents on the same issue.
Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.D. Hill.
Comment