Estimates Vote

Department of Primary Industries and Regions, $107,229,000

Administered Items for the Department of Primary Industries and Regions, $3,311,000

Minister:

Hon. L.W.K. Bignell, Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Tourism, Minister for Recreation and Sport, Minister for Racing.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr S. Ashby, Chief Executive Officer, Department of Primary Industries and Regions.

Mr A. Johnson, Acting Deputy Chief Executive, Department of Primary Industries and Regions.

Prof. M. Doroudi, Group Executive Director, Department of Primary Industries and Regions.

Prof. P. Mooney, Executive Director, South Australian Research and Development Institute, Department of Primary Industries and Regions.

Mr S. Johinke, Director, Finance and Prudential Management, Department of Primary Industries and Regions.

Dr R. Paskin, Chief Veterinary Officer, Department of Primary Industries and Regions.

Mr M. Williams, Manager, Budget Strategy, Department of Primary Industries and Regions.

The CHAIR: The estimates committee is a relatively informal procedure and as such there is no need to stand to ask or answer questions. The committee will determine an approximate time for consideration of proposed payments to facilitate a change of departmental officers. I understand that the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition have agreed on a timetable for today's proceedings; is that correct?

Mr PEDERICK: That is correct.

The CHAIR: Changes to committee membership will be notified as they occur. Members should ensure that the Chair is provided with a completed request to be discharged form. If the minister undertakes to supply information at a later date, it must be submitted to the committee secretary by no later than Friday 26 September 2014 for inclusion in the Hansard supplement.

I propose to allow both the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition to make opening statements of about 10 minutes each. There will be a flexible approach to giving the call for asking questions, based on about three questions per member, alternating each side. Supplementary questions will be the exception rather than the rule.

A member who is not part of the committee may, at the discretion of the Chair, ask a question. Questions must be based on lines of expenditure in the budget papers and must be identifiable or referenced. I do ask that members reference their questions at the beginning of the question so that we can turn to the relevant pages. Members unable to complete their questions during the proceedings may submit them as questions on notice for inclusion in the House of Assembly Notice Paper.

There is no formal facility for the tabling of documents before the committee; however, documents can be supplied to the Chair for distribution to the committee. The incorporation of material in Hansard is permitted on the same basis as applies in the house, that is, that it is purely statistical and limited to one page in length.

All questions are to be directed to the minister, not the minister's advisers. The minister may refer questions to the advisers for a response. I also advise that for the purposes of the committees television coverage will be allowed for filming from both the northern and southern galleries—not very popular this morning. I declare the proposed payments open for inspection and call on the minister to make an opening statement, if he wishes.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Thank you very much and good morning, Chair and committee members. It is my pleasure to provide information about the programs and work conducted by the Department of Primary Industries and Regions (PIRSA).

PIRSA has the lead role in ensuring the prosperity of both the agricultural sector and regional areas of South Australia. This mission is reflected in South Australia's Strategic Plan targets to grow the contribution made by the South Australian food industry to $20 billion by 2020 and increase regional populations outside Greater Adelaide to 320,000 or more by 2020. Vibrant food and wine industries help our regions and are a significant player in South Australia's economy, generating more than $16 billion a year and employing one in five South Australian workers.

Central to PIRSA's work is leading the state government's strategic priority of premium food and wine from our clean environment in all its contexts, boosting production, encouraging a market-driven focus, ensuring sustainable resource management, leading cutting-edge research and ensuring protection through world-class biosecurity.

In what is fantastic news, the current season for our farmers is looking very positive. Early opening rains have been followed by favourable rainfall for the growing season. Crops are more advanced than is usual, due to warm conditions in early winter. The Bureau of Meteorology's forecast is for a greater chance of a drier and warmer finish to the year, so rain stored in the soil profile will be important to the final crop result.

The June crop estimate for South Australia from the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, was 7.17 million tonnes. This is 10 per cent above the long-term grain production average. It is great news for all parts of South Australia, and let us hope the favourable weather conditions can continue because there are so many things that governments can do but we cannot make it rain at the right times.

Through the premium food and wine from our clean environment strategic priority, PIRSA is helping South Australia's renowned food and wine industry grow and be competitive overseas. A significant initiative in meeting this objective is the $3 million Sterile Insect Technology (SIT) facility which is being developed at Port Augusta. The facility will develop a sterile male-only line of Queensland fruit fly to combat the scourge of fruit fly in South Australia and the Eastern States.

Technical specifications for the new facility are in the process of being finalised with the assistance of international experts, and formal plans for the facility will commence shortly. It is anticipated that building will commence in early 2015 and be completed by late 2016. The South Australian government is committed to maintaining the state's fruit fly free status and the SIT facility will be a significant enhancement to the current $5 million fruit fly eradication and control program.

Members of the committee will no doubt have heard the Premier's announcement this week about the first round of funding under the $240 million Irrigation Industry Improvement Program. The government has approved grants of more than $100 million to almost 100 irrigation and industry projects along the River Murray. This program is part of the $265 million South Australian River Murray Sustainability Program (SARMS), which is funded by the commonwealth.

This program was born out of South Australia's fight for the future of the River Murray when we agreed to sign the basin plan. The projects funded in round one range from small efficiency improvements to very large international-scale joint ventures. They will all be game changers, both for the businesses involved and the wider community. They will also return about half the water required under our 40-gigalitre target in the basin plan.

Another major initiative being run by the department is the New Horizons program, which was launched last November. This program will apply advances in soil science and management to increase broadacre agricultural production by about $800 million a year. The department has committed $852,000 for the first year of the program and it has received an additional $1.1 million in the budget to fast-track some of the work.

New Horizons supports two of our strategic priorities: premium food and wine from our clean environment and growing advanced manufacturing. It is one of the most exciting changes to farming practices in the state's history and could result in an additional three million tonnes of grain produced in South Australia each year. This would be an enormous boost to one of our most important industries.

Since taking on the agriculture, food and fisheries portfolio I have been fortunate to meet with many farmers and other producers during visits to some of our regions, including to the South-East on two occasions, a couple of trips up to the Riverland, the Adelaide Hills, the Mid North and the Far North. As members of the committee would be aware, country cabinet was held in the Riverland last month and was an enormous success. We were able to meet with many industry and community groups and hear about issues firsthand.

During a recent visit to meet with drought-affected Far North pastoralists, I was able to announce funding of $275,000 to improve water infrastructure and help manage pest animals. This has since been matched by the Australian government, which is more good news for those farmers. I want to thank the member for Hammond for coming with me on that trip. I think it was beneficial for both of us to hear the same stories at the same time and come back and, where possible, work together on helping people get back on their feet.

Recently, the government announced that it will establish the Agribusiness Accelerator Program as the next phase of the premium food and wine from our clean environment strategic priority. This new $6 million program will be run over the next four years and will focus on four program initiatives:

realising opportunities for our premium food, fibre and wine;

the Agribusiness Investment Attraction Program (known as Agri-PACE);

Functional Food Focus Program;

Agribusiness Consultants Program; and

improved small to medium-size enterprise business opportunities.

In order to further enhance primary industries, PIRSA has identified a number of targets for 2014-15, which are outlined in the budget papers. Some of these targets are to:

continue to deliver the 3IP program to support the Riverland in the adjustment of the irrigation industry along the River Murray in response to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan;

commence the building of a sterile insect technology facility in Port Augusta;

expand the New Horizons soil modification/improvement program across South Australia to significantly increase South Australia's agricultural production; and

manage the implementation of the Food Innovation Program and its grants program.

PIRSA recorded many significant achievements during the 2013-14 year and, while they are listed within the budget papers, there are some I would like to highlight to the committee. PIRSA completed a memorandum of understanding between the Environment Protection Authority, the Australian Southern Bluefin Tuna Association and PIRSA for the 90-day Public Sector Renewal Program, including improved coordination and consideration for longer term legislation reform. This was an amazing piece of work where the industry and government worked together to achieve an outcome that reduced red tape. The industry has estimated these new arrangements could save it up to $700,000 a year.

PIRSA eradicated two Queensland fruit fly incursions in the Riverland. If it had not been for the work PIRSA's Biosecurity SA staff undertook with the cooperation of industry and local communities, these outbreaks had the potential to cost the state many millions of dollars. It was terrific to be up there to say thank you to the biosecurity team and the PIRSA team for all their hard work and to a whole group of people who came along to work over that eight to 10-week period to get out on their hands and knees and pick up fruit and make sure that the risk was lowered, and then finally the fruit fly was eradicated.

It was a tremendous result in a fairly short amount of time, but we would prefer not to have the outbreak. It was the first one in the Riverland in 23 years. I want to congratulate everyone who was involved from both the government side of things and the private sector, and to the member for Chaffey who was on the local coordinating group. I think it is always important to involve local members wherever possible for their leadership and their connections within the community.

Finally, there is an exciting year ahead for PIRSA. The department is currently in the process of upgrading three of its major regional hubs at Clare, Murray Bridge and Loxton. The redevelopment of the Loxton Research Centre is particularly significant. The $7.5 million upgrade funded through the South Australian River Murray Sustainability Program will provide new opportunities for collaboration between industry and researchers at a national and international level.

This will ensure South Australia builds on its reputation and market position as a leader in premium food and wine production from our clean environment. I conclude by reiterating that the government recognises the contribution our primary industries make to this state's economy, prosperity and wellbeing, and PIRSA's role in supporting this sector remains vital.

The CHAIR: Before I ask the member for Hammond to go on, I commend your work on the sterile fruit fly and I just hope someone is doing that work on the white ant as well. Member for Hammond.

Mr PEDERICK: Thanks, Madam Chair. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 12, end of paragraph 1. I refer to the objective of the department including to reflect the State's Strategic Plan target to grow the contribution made by the South Australian food industry to $20 billion by 2020. Can the minister give a summary of how that contribution is calculated, and has the process for calculating that figure changed since the target was set?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I thank the member for the question. As far as I know, the targets have not been changed and we are actually ahead of the target of $15.5 billion. The increase to the value of South Australia's premium food and wine industries was set at $15.5 billion for 2013 which was a 9 per cent increase from 2009-10. Through building on our credentials, including environmental food safety and food quality standards, gross food and wine revenue reached a record figure of $16.27 billion in 2012-13. As I said, that exceeded the target of $15.5 billion. There is a whole lot of work being done in a range of different ways, on farm and overseas as well, by PIRSA and our trade people in trying to build new markets.

I was pleased to be in Shanghai a couple of months ago with members of the PIRSA team and Food SA as well as eight South Australian food producers and 50,000 wholesale food buyers. We had an incredibly warm reception and people were very interested in our premium food and wine and our credentials in that area. That was a terrific boost. It was also good to see members of the Southern Mallee council there as well and local government getting over to China and seeing how important that export market is and getting a feel for it so they can pass it on to their constituents as well.

I can reaffirm the South Australian government's commitment to the important strategic priority of premium food and wine from our clean environment. It seeks to position South Australia to capitalise on the increasing global demand for premium products that are clean, safe and sustainably produced. South Australian food, wine and beverages are world class and our unique regions, products and the clean green environment that they come from makes up our competitive edge.

Our clean water, clean soil and clean air, along with our outstanding biosecurity, fisheries management and natural resources management, set us apart from others. We maintain high standards of animal welfare and food safety along with our status of being fruit fly and phylloxera free. I might add that when we were in China there was a lot of interest in the fact that we are also the only mainland state in Australia that remains GM free. I think we probably need to do more work with—

Mr KNOLL: Point of order, Chair. The question was quite specifically about how the $20 billion figure was calculated, and the minister is going into a range of answers that have nothing to do with the question that was asked.

The CHAIR: The minister is answering the question. We are listening.

Mr KNOLL: With respect, Chair, the question was very specifically about how the $20 billion was calculated.

The CHAIR: The minister is answering the question, and I am sure he will be wrapping it up shortly. He is providing extra information, which is really what we are after.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I think most people would agree it is important information for the public of South Australia.

Mr Knoll interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: The GM status is incredibly important, and it points to our state with a government that is willing to maintain that moratorium to increase the premium that we can get on our clean produce from here in South Australia.

Mr PEDERICK: In regard to that answer, minister, you brought up the issue of GM and a so-called premium for staying GM free. What work has the department done about identifying that South Australia staying GM free will actually provide a premium to our food producers in this state?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Anecdotally, we know that—

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: If you listen to the whole answer, we do have 2½ hours. I do not think we need to quibble over each word. Anecdotally, we know there are producers here in South Australia who are getting a premium for their GM-free produce. I have spoken to Viterra and grain producers. When we came up with the premium food and wine from our clean environment, maybe a lot of the broadacre farmers thought it was about fine wine and cheese but, of course, it is much more than that. We produce some of the best barley in the world and some of the best wheat in the world that go into some of the finest products produced around the world.

I would like to see us put more emphasis on the marketing of our broadacre crops and reinforce to the world that, if it comes from South Australia, you can guarantee it is GM-free. That is an important stamp to have on produce from here in South Australia. I spoke to a canola oil producer in the south-east of China and he says that it is much easier for him to get his produce overseas and get it through customs, because he sources all of his canola from which he produces the oil from South Australia where it is, of course, GM-free.

The other person I spoke to over there was the head of Bickford's, Angelo Kotses. Bickford's produces about 150 different lines, and it was really pushed home to him that he is there producing an end product, or 150 end products, and he saw the benefit when we were talking to government officials and these food wholesalers who were buying South Australian food.

He saw then the importance of our being able to point to our GM-free status, because anyone can put up a banner behind them that says, 'Premium food and wine from our clean environment'. We were the first to do it and we now see that other states are doing it, but none of the other states in mainland Australia can say that they have powers in place to prevent the growing of GM crops.

Mr PEDERICK: On the same budget line, in reference to growing the contribution by the South Australian food industry, we note on the 2012-13 food scorecard that there was a relatively steep decline in overseas exports in 2011-12 of 13 per cent, in comparison to Victoria and Queensland, which increased their exports by 8 per cent, and Western Australia, which increased theirs by 27 per cent. Can the minister explain the factors that contributed to this decline?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: That was before my time in the job, so I do not have an answer at hand, but we will bring back an answer to the member for Hammond and the committee.

Mr PEDERICK: Thanks, minister. How does the government plan to stop a decline in the value of wine exports from South Australia?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: We are doing a lot of work in a lot of different markets. If you look at some of the traditional markets like the UK, we are getting a lot less for our wine over there than it is worth here. We are in competition with Chile, South Africa and Argentina, in terms of what they like to call New World wine. I actually disagree with us being bundled in there, when we have some of the oldest vines in the world because of our great work here over more than 150 years to keep phylloxera out.

Where we are trying to make a difference is in the new markets that we are going into—China, in particular. We are not going in with the same sort of slogans and strategy that the wine industry went into the UK with in the eighties, where it was cheap and cheerful. Once you go there and you place yourself at the bottom of the pile in the discount bin, you never recover from that. In China, we are selling Australian wines at a premium.

Just recently, I was in India. Australia outsells France in terms of wine sold there and we are positioning ourselves at the higher pricepoint, so that is really the way to increase the value of our wine. There is also some terrific work being done by the wine industry here in collaboration with PIRSA on increasing access to markets and also ways that we can actually produce even better wines than we have already. We have a similar strategy in the US through G'Day USA and I know there is a lot of work being done over there.

We could probably reposition ourselves there. I think Yellow Tail really dominated the US market for a number of years and took the gloss off some of our higher-quality wines, so there is a lot of work being done by both the government and wine producers to increase that. Funding from SARMS, the River Murray project, will enable a number of producers to move from low-value varieties to higher-value varieties, which is also really important. We have some of the best wines in the world here and we need to make sure that we are out there selling that.

Mr PEDERICK: Minister, how is the South Australian food industry expected to grow its contribution to $20 billion by 2020 with the lowest budget for PIRSA in 12 years? In line with that, will you confirm that the 2014-15 budget is $59.8 million, as outlined on page 15 of the Program net cost of services summary table, in Budget Paper 4, Volume 4? It is the lowest budget in 12 years for agriculture, food and fisheries.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Expenditure has increased. The figure is not $59.805 million. The expenditure figure is $221 million, and that is an increase on the estimated result of 2013-14 of $178 million (almost $179 million), $153 million in the year before, and $155 million in 2012-13.

Mr PEDERICK: The budget line for agriculture, food and fisheries is $59,805,000, so where do you come up with the $221 million? That is the stated figure in the Program, net cost of services summary.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Page 16 under Program summary—expenses. Total expenses are $221 million.

Mr PEDERICK: But that is not in reference to just the budget line in regard to agriculture, food and fisheries; that is the total budget line.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: No; that is agriculture, food and fisheries. It is under Program 1: Agriculture, Food And Fisheries.

Mr PEDERICK: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, pages 12 and 13, Administered items. The government has made a recent statement that 440 government boards are on notice unless they can prove their worth. We understand that the axe is to swing by late October, so I presume that the assessment process is well and truly underway. Can the minister detail any discussions that he or his staff have been involved in with regard to the tenure of the boards listed on pages 12 and 13 for which you have responsibility? Can the minister provide copies of any correspondence from these boards relating to justifications that a particular board should be maintained?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I do not have any correspondence to give you. We have been in contact with all the boards, and a range of factors will be considered to determine whether there are better ways to engage with industry and the community on the issues and opportunities for the primary industries sector and regional South Australia. My recommendations will be finalised ahead of the 30 October 2014 deadline for the abolition announced by the Premier.

I think it is a really good thing right across government that we do not just keep on doing things the way we have always done them, but to stop, pause, have a look, ask questions, and see if there may be a better way of doing it. We in no way want to devalue or decrease the importance of any sector across any of the portfolios that I have responsibility for, but in some cases there may be better ways of doing things than how they have traditionally been done. We will ask the boards and industries to work with us to look at the best way for the future of their particular sectors.

Mr PEDERICK: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 13, Ministerial office resources. Minister, yourself and minister Brock will each have nine full-time equivalents in 2014-15 to run the portfolios of agriculture, food, fisheries, forests and regional development. Last budget, minister Gago had responsibility for both portfolios and had only 11 FTEs, so essentially there has been an increase of seven FTEs across these portfolios. Given the budget that minister Gago worked with in 2013-14, why do the two ministers now responsible for PIRSA need an increase in FTEs and the cost of provision?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: There is a different portfolio mix across my office than what minister Gago had, so we do have nine full-time employees, but we have responsibility for agriculture, food and fisheries; forests; tourism; recreation and sport; and racing. So, we do have to have people to be able to work with other members of parliament, the community, the sector and to work within government to get us the sort of information that we need to be able to run the portfolios in a professional manner.

Mr PEDERICK: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 14, the workforce summary table. The full-time equivalent budget for 2012-13 was 1,036.5. This year's budget provides for 914.7 FTEs. In two years, there has been a reduction in PIRSA jobs totalling 121.8 FTEs and the job cuts to PIRSA have been an ongoing issue. How many years' experience has PIRSA lost with 121.8 FTEs lost since 2012-13, and has any other department cut 12 per cent of its workforce since 2012-13?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Sorry, could we get the reference number again, please?

Mr PEDERICK: Workforce summary table, page 14.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I am advised that it is probably not 121; it is probably more like 50. The figure you are referring to is a reduction in the budgeted workforce cap, so it is actually not dollars appropriated to some of those staff members. There has been a reduction, but not to the extent of 121.

Mr PEDERICK: Minister, if I may—

The CHAIR: It is probably best if we let the minister finish the answer.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: No, I am happy to—

The CHAIR: Alright. He is happy to defer, member for Hammond.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you, Madam Chair. I note the actual is different to the full-time equivalent budget, but I would have thought if a department budgets for a certain number of people they should be there, and obviously they were cut along the way. However, the full-time equivalent budget for 2012-13 was 1,036.5.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: We have just checked the staff numbers and PIRSA in total has gone up in terms of employees since 2012-13 from 878.4 to 912.7.

Mr PEDERICK: The issue is, minister, that budgeted in 2012-13 was 1,036.5, but I guess it is up to how people perceive that number.

The CHAIR: Where is the 1,036 coming from, member for Hammond?

Mr PEDERICK: That was the full-time equivalent budgeted figure for 2012-13.

The CHAIR: What papers are you—

Mr PEDERICK: That is not the actual figure.

The CHAIR: Where are you getting that from; last year's budget, are you?

Mr PEDERICK: It is in reference to the 2012-13 budget.

The CHAIR: Where are you looking though? We cannot see that figure on page 14.

Mr PEDERICK: The actual figure is there, but not the budgeted figure (I will admit that) but the budgeted figure—and the department will know this—was 1,036.5.

The CHAIR: We are just asking where you got that figure from, and I am suggesting it might have been the budget papers from last year—

Mr PEDERICK: And it would be there.

The CHAIR: —which we do not have in front of us. In fairness, it is a bit hard to answer this question. They have done their best to do that for you.

Mr PEDERICK: We have 900 employees and we cannot answer the question?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: There are a number of seasonal factors involved in counting the number of employees as well. At 30 June this is what this captured, but we are not funded for the whole 1,021 people to be there all of the time.

The CHAIR: Perhaps if we take that part of the question on notice and you can provide some extra information. No?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I think we have probably covered it.

The CHAIR: You have covered it?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Yes, thank you.

The CHAIR: Okay. Member for Hammond.

Mr PEDERICK: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 15, the investing expenditure summary of existing projects. It mentions that the government will invest in the Loxton Research Centre in 2014-15, with $700,000 being committed. Can the minister provide a breakdown in spending for the Loxton Research Centre redevelopment in 2014-15 and how many jobs this funding will create for the centre?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: The $150,000 spent in the last financial year was about working with the industry and local people up there to work out what it is that they would like to see in the Loxton research facility. In this upcoming year there will be movement to full design and development as well, so it is a work in progress.

Mr PEDERICK: That is for this financial year, minister; is that correct?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Yes. So $150,000 was budgeted last financial year and $700,000 this year. The $7.5 million Loxton Research Centre redevelopment forms part of the $265 million South Australian River Murray sustainability program and supports a positive vision for a brighter future for our state’s River Murray communities.

The redevelopment of the Loxton Research Centre, along with the associated $5 million industry-led research component and $12.5 million Regional Development and Innovation Fund will deliver on this locally-led proposal. The redevelopment will provide new opportunities for collaboration between industry and researchers at a national and international level to ensure that South Australia builds on its reputation and market edge as a leader in premium food and wine production from our clean environment.

At present, the Loxton Research Centre include 33 hectares of land and 1,100 square metres of existing office laboratory and shared space. Delivery of a number of research and project-based activities occurs from the site through Primary Industries and Regions SA, including SARDI and Rural Solutions SA, and also through other commonwealth government and private activities, such as the Bureau of Meteorology’s weather station for Loxton and the production and supply of biocontrol agents, such as insect and mite predators and parasites by Biological Services.

The iconic research site will be transformed to create opportunities for strategic co-location of key industry, research, primary production and business support entities. The centre will act as a hub for attracting, promoting and trialling new ideas and opportunities from across South Australia, the nation and the globe, and we will have the capacity to broadcast these new capabilities and technologies to the world.

Significant interest in the centre has been received from potential tenants, including universities, training and research organisations and other private businesses wanting to have a presence at the site. Negotiations are currently underway with a number of organisations to relocate to the centre prior to the redevelopment.

The community and industry are supportive of the approach PIRSA is taking on the redevelopment. A regional consultative reference group of 20 industry and community representatives has informed PIRSA, through Planning, of the redevelopment. A management reference group of nine skills-based members has advised PIRSA on the redevelopment. The management reference group has agreed a draft management structure for the new centre to ensure that the centre remains sustainable into the future.

On Friday, 28 February 2014, PIRSA submitted a draft redevelopment plan to the commonwealth government to meet milestone 1 under the National Partnerships Agreement on the South Australian River Murray sustainability program. Part A has been agreed and the milestone payment received. The final redevelopment plan due to the commonwealth government on 31 May has been approved by the Minister for Regional Development and was announced by the Premier on 23 June 2014.

The final redevelopment plan has been submitted to the commonwealth for achievement of the May milestone and the redevelopment will progress the building construction process, in conjunction with the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure project services in 2014-15.

At Loxton all existing PIRSA jobs are currently funded through divisional budgets. Any new jobs are yet to be determined based on research programs. The concept designs includes a community conference facility as well as an upgrade of the existing facilities to modern standards. We see it as an asset not just for the agricultural and horticultural sector but for the whole community. We think it is one that certainly the local community up there is well on board with.

Mr PEDERICK: In regard to the investing expenditure summary on the same page, how far has the sale of the Flaxley site progressed? When will it be sold and what is the estimated market value? Will assets within the facility be sold or warehoused? Will the proceeds of that sale be quarantined for spending in other research projects and facilities?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: PIRSA delivers a range of services to South Australia's primary producers through a network of district offices and research centres. A combination of changes in the national research development and extension framework, demand for services and budget reductions has led to a review of regional service delivery and rationalisation of the regional office and research farm network.

It is no longer economically viable to maintain all existing regional sites, particularly where researchers shifted interstate due to national framework agreements. I think that is one of the important things that we do here in South Australia these days, that rather than being in competition with other states in terms of research we all work together as team Australia.

We do a lot of research for the fishing industry here and aquaculture but in maybe some other areas the research is done in Victoria or Tasmania or another state, but we do work collaboratively in a way that we can best achieve a better result for all Australian producers, not just South Australia. When we do that, of course, South Australians benefit as well.

PIRSA proposes to sell Flaxley and to reinvest sale proceeds into upgrading regional offices and laboratories at Clare, Murray Bridge and the Adelaide University's Roseworthy Campus pig and poultry research infrastructure facilities, and the SIT facility at Port Augusta as well, that we mentioned before.

PIRSA has ceased research for the dairy industry and is also transitioning out of conducting research for the apple and cherry industries. These changes in national research priorities have led to these facilities becoming redundant. The Flaxley Research Centre comprises 187 hectares which was used for dairy research until mid-2010. We do not have a figure that we are going to release here about what we expect to get for it. We would like to keep that figure close to our chest. You do not tell people turning up for an auction what you want.

Mr KNOLL: Does the minister have a date for when the Flaxley site is likely to be sold?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: We are looking at spring this year to go to market.

Mr PEDERICK: Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 16, Program 1: Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Program summary—Income, Net gain or loss from disposal of assets. Can the minister explain the $57,000 net loss from disposal of assets in the 2013-14 estimated result and what asset caused that net loss? What asset will be disposed of in 2014-15, leading to an estimated budgetary income of $680,000?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: The decrease of $57,000 in the 2013-14 estimated result reflects the loss on sale of asset disposals for two vessels: a boat and a trailer. As to the other figure you mentioned in terms of asset sales in the upcoming year, Flaxley is obviously a part of that, but that figure is what we want to raise to put towards the SIT facility.

Mr PEDERICK: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 16, Program 1: Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Program summary—Income, Fees, fines and penalties. Income due to fees, fines and penalties has risen by $1.844 million in 2014-15. What fees, fines or penalties have been increased and is the government still considering legislation for a biosecurity animal health cost recovery measure?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Most of the increase of $2.9 million between the 2014-15 budget and the 2013-14 estimated result largely reflects an intended increase of $2.3 million for animal health cost recovery in 2014-15. Can the member please repeat the second bit of the question; I think that it was about—

Mr PEDERICK: Just in line with that, minister, you talked about increases in animal health cost recovery. Is the government still considering legislation for a biosecurity animal health cost recovery measure?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: The previous minister established the Mutton review to investigate the policy to increase cost recovery in animal health. This was after the amendments to the Livestock Act were defeated on two occasions. The Mutton review made 23 recommendations, and the government's response to the recommendations was to advise that the government would not be seeking to pursue further cost recovery in the animal health programs at that time and that discussions would continue with industry on cost recovery programs.

The previous minister made comments in parliament that the government was not pursuing further cost recovery in the animal health program. Given the Mutton review process, before the government moves ahead with any further cost recovery in the animal health program, a dialogue needs to be progressed with industry, and we are doing that at the moment.

Mr KNOLL: There is a bit of confusion there. In your previous answer, you talked about the $2.3 million increase coming from animal health cost recovery, whereas your answer you just gave said that you are not seeking legislation.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: The figure is still in the forward estimates and, as I said, we continue to work with the industry to work out how we can work and achieve that.

Mr PEDERICK: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 16, Program 1: Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Program summary—Expenses, Borrowing costs. Borrowing costs have doubled in 2014-15 despite a decrease in interest rates. Can the government please explain this increase in expense?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: The increase of $1.3 million between the 2014-15 budget and the 2013-14 estimated result largely reflects an increase in budgeted interest costs of $0.9 million associated with lending under the Farm Finance Concessional Loans Scheme in 2014-15. We do not know where that figure will end up, but we have budgeted for $900,000 on that budget line to cover the Farm Finance Concessional Loans Scheme.

Mr PEDERICK: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 17, Financial commentary, 2014-15 Budget/2013-14 Estimated Result, dot point 10, regional trademark brands. I note that the regional trademark brand initiative was $300,000. Can the minister give an explanation as to what this initiative entails? I note that $1.3 million has just been spent on Brand SA. What is the rationale for creating further branding?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: The government is committed to supporting regional branding initiatives through a two-year funding commitment of $250,000 per year for 2014-15 and 2015-16. In recent years, a small number of regions have embarked on their own regional branding initiatives, with some financial support from the state government; that includes Eyre Peninsula, Australia's Seafood Frontier and the Barossa Trust Mark. These initiatives have seen strong collaboration between key stakeholder groups in the region to develop a marketing and branding program that promotes their quality produce, businesses and experiences in a unique way to target markets.

The government wants to support other regions to learn from the experiences of Eyre Peninsula and the Barossa, and embark on a collaborative marketing program to promote the authentic produce and experience to locals, tourists, and interstate and overseas markets. Regions such as the Adelaide Hills, McLaren Vale, the Clare Valley, Fleurieu Peninsula, the Riverland, Kangaroo Island and the Limestone Coast will be encouraged to develop their own branding framework to put forward and manage their regional brand.

Mr PEDERICK: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 17, Financial commentary, and the premium food and wine brand. Dot point 8 states:

new initiative funding to realise overseas market opportunities for South Australia 's Premium Food and Wine brand in 2014-15 ($0.3 million)

In its initial press release announcing this policy in February 2014, the government said it would create a major marketing program in our key markets of China, India, Japan, Indonesia, Singapore and the USA. If this program is only $1.35 million over four years, does that mean that for each country only $225,000 is being allocated over a four-year period; in essence, $56,000 per region per year?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: No, it does not, member for Hammond. I guess it is one funding stream of many that go into promoting South Australian wine sales in export markets. We are constantly having trade delegations go to various wine shows and other trips over to these important markets, and we will continue to work with the industry and assist them, where possible, if they are heading over to wine fairs. That will come from a number of different budget lines.

For example, the China Agribusiness Initiative and Action Plan is a $2.54 million three-year program which commenced in July 2013. Specifically, there are four objectives driving the development of activities:

more South Australian companies exporting more to China;

more Chinese investment in agribusiness to help scale up and modernise South Australian companies;

increased agribusiness research collaboration and technical exchange with China; and

strategic relationships with Chinese governments to establish and enhance platforms for business engagement.

A number of targeted inbound and outbound trade missions have been delivered to provide opportunities for South Australian businesses to expand their opportunities in this market. The most recent trade mission to China, from 14 to 25 May 2014, visited Shanghai, Jinan, Qingdao and Xiamen. The mission aimed to generate awareness and interest for South Australian agriculture and food industries, and enhance our businesses' knowledge on market access, barriers and distribution channels in China.

The mission coincided with a number of trade exhibitions in China, including SIAL China in Shanghai from 13 to 15 May (this was one I mentioned earlier, where I was there with members of the PIRSA team and Food SA as well as councillors from the Southern Mallee council). There was also Austrade's Seafood and White Wine Festival in Qingdao, and also the ninth China Fisheries Expo in Xiamen during that trip. The mission built on crucial government to government relationships PIRSA has developed with Shandong and Fujian provincial governments to develop greater export opportunities for South Australia.

PIRSA is leading the agriculture subcommittee of the South Australia-Shandong High-Level Working Group Initiative, and is working closely with Shandong counterparts to improve exchanges between companies, develop and promote mutual investment opportunities, and jointly participate in research and policy development events. The Deputy Director-General of the Shandong Department of Agriculture visited South Australia in June to formalise the collaboration with PIRSA. This included signing a memorandum of understanding on a framework for communication and cooperation between PIRSA and the Shandong Department of Agriculture. I was pleased to be at the signing ceremony as a witness; best man, if you like, to Mr Ashby here, and he did a very good job signing away—

The Hon. S.W. KEY: Any bridesmaids go?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I think so, I cannot remember. It was a very nice ceremony.

Members interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Nothing he can tell us about anyway.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: No, it was here; we signed that MOU here in Adelaide. A partnership is also proposed between the University of Adelaide, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, the South Australian government and the Chinese government to pursue the development of a joint Adelaide-Shanghai centre in wine, grains, healthy foods and land and water management. I was pleased to meet with representatives of the Shanghai Jiao Tong University when I was in Shanghai.

Hong Kong chef, Wong Wing Chee, was named South Australia's first premium food and wine (from our clean environment) international ambassador in August 2013. It was terrific to have him out here in April. We had a great function at The InterContinental and then a team of chefs and restaurant owners toured Eyre Peninsula, looking to source more fresh seafood straight into Hong Kong and Guangzhou.

South Australia's premium wine was showcased at the Hong Kong Crown Wine Cellar in August 2013. A trade delegation, led by minister Gago, to China and Hong Kong in August last year resulted in two contracts signed for a total value of $4.6 million.

The China agribusiness initiative and action plan was launched in 2013. Two China forums were organised to present PIRSA's initiative in 2013. South Australia's agribusiness capability needs were assessed to become China-ready in January 2014. Two seminars were organised for our agribusiness success at the negotiating table in China with Joanne Wood of Capital Eight, Shanghai, in January 2014 and 'In Search of Safe Food' with the Confucius Institute.

I should also mention, for the benefit of the member for Schubert, that a regional wine roadshow was organised with McLaren Vale, Adelaide Hills, Barossa and Clare with the Hong Kong Trade Development Council in May 2014. There is a lot of work going on under a lot of different funding streams to make sure that we do everything we can to get more of our wine and premium food into overseas markets.

The CHAIR: Member for Schubert.

Mr KNOLL: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 17: dot point three under the financial commentaries, 'Realising Opportunities in China for Food, Wine and Capability Development initiative'. After the previous minister first visited Fujian in August 2012 she announced that two SA produce centres would be opened within 18 months: one in Nanping and one in Jiangxi. It has been almost two years since that announcement. Can the minister update us on the status of those produce centres?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: As we understand it the developer involved in China is still proceeding with the development and he has now formed a relationship with trade partners here in South Australia. So, that is a more direct business-to-business relationship and what we are doing as a government is dealing directly with the Fujian Department of Agriculture and that is where the government relationship comes into it now. The last we heard was that these projects were underway and being developed.

Mr KNOLL: On the same line: the minister also signed an MOU with the Fujian provincial government in August 2012. Since that time, how many Fujian-South Australian business arrangements have been entered into and at what value to South Australian producers?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: In August 2012, PIRSA signed a memorandum of understanding with the Fujian Provincial Department of Agriculture. This is an agreement for both parties to work collaboratively to promote agricultural opportunities with a specific emphasis on food safety. South Australia's engagement with Fujian in China has been strengthening and has broadened from cooperation in the agriculture space to include fisheries and aquaculture. Engagement has also moved from government to government, to interactions with private industry seeking trade and investment opportunities here in South Australia.

Following the former minister for agriculture, food and fisheries' visit to Fujian in August 2013, a delegation led by the Deputy Director of Fujian Department of Agriculture visited South Australia in November 2013. This visit focused on horticultural, animal husbandry, food safety and biosecurity issues. During the visit, the Fujian department and PIRSA agreed to establish regular communication and ensure that a work plan is developed to implement areas of mutual interest. The trade delegation resulted in two contracts signed for a total value of $4.6 million.

In December 2013, the Director-General of the Fujian Department of Oceans and Fisheries led a delegation to visit South Australia, which resulted in a significant improvement in the understanding of the needs and capabilities of both departments. It also identified potential areas for collaboration and appropriate communication channels. A number of Fujian-based companies have since travelled to South Australia to explore trade and investment opportunities in the meat and seafood sectors.

PIRSA led a trade mission to Fujian in May this year to attend the Ninth China Fisheries Expo in Xiamen. This was to promote South Australia's leadership and strengths in seafood and aquaculture research as well as position South Australia as a partner in the production and supply of premium and sustainable seafood. PIRSA also met with the Fujian Department of Oceans and Fisheries to pursue the collaborative research opportunities discussed in December.

Discussions are currently underway with the South Australian rock lobster industry and tuna industry for exports to Fujian as well. So, what we are doing is government has formed a lot of the relationships and now we are seeing the private sector in both South Australia and Fujian Province working closely together.

Mr KNOLL: I refer to Budget Paper 4, volume 4, page 20, Sub-program 1.1: Agriculture, Food and Wine. Under targets 2014-15, point seven refers to 'Manage the implementation of the Food Innovation Hub grants program.' Does this program have any relation to the High Value Food Manufacturing Centre?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Yes, it does. The $4.15 million High Value Food Manufacturing Centre commenced operation in DFEEST in November 2013 following the appointment of the food hub manager. The establishment phase of the food hub involved development of programs aimed at bringing together the food industry, research and technology providers.

In February 2014, the Advanced Food Manufacturing Grants Program was launched to support partnerships between food manufacturers and the research sector in South Australia. The High Value Food Manufacturing Centre moved to PIRSA under machinery of government changes and will continue to deliver food innovation programs to the food manufacturing sector with the support of research and technology providers.

If we look at the 2013-14 outcomes, nine food manufacturers received grant funding from the Advanced Food Manufacturing Program. Approved projects resulted in state investment of $693,900 over two years. Industry co-investment was $542,000, so a combined total project value of $1.236 million. In addition, $458,840 was expended by DFEEST in 2013-14, with the remaining $235,060 committed through scheduled grant payments for 2014-15 and 2015-16 by PIRSA.

Targets for 2014-15—due to the success of the Advanced Food Manufacturing program, it is likely the program will be supported again in 2014-15, and a tiered program aimed at start-up food manufacturers is in development and is anticipated to be released this financial year. Also in development is a program that will provide a mechanism to train graduate and postgraduate students directly in the food industry.

Food innovation programs align directly with two of the Strategic Priorities: Premium Food and Wine from our Clean Environment, and Growing Advanced Manufacturing. It is worth noting that food manufacturing has grown year on year for the past 18 years, and is an incredibly important part of our economy.

Mr KNOLL: It certainly is, minister. I am a little bit confused, and if I can reference, in conjunction with the budget line that we are talking about currently, the Food Innovation Centre. Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 17, under Financial commentary, talks about a high-value food manufacturing and the High Value Food Manufacturing Centre. I asked a question about the Food Innovation Hub but it sounded like you were answering in relation to the High Value Food Manufacturing Centre. Are these the same thing? If so, why are they talked about differently within different parts of the budget, and have different money attached to them?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: They are one and the same, in that the Hub comes under the High Value Food Manufacturing Centre as a subsection of that.

Mr KNOLL: Hopefully the industry can work that out. In Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 17: Financial commentary, dot point nine states:

new initiative funding to assist food producers and businesses to attract further investment through the Agribusiness Investment Attraction Program (Agri-PACE) in 2014–15 ($0.3 million)

Can the minister provide details on how this program will work? How will the $300,000 be used to assist food producers to attract investment, and how can producers and businesses participate in this program?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: The Agribusiness Investment Attraction Program (also known as Agri-PACE) is a $1.15 million program over four years, commencing in 2014-15. The initiative will deliver a single web-based data package to provide industry with all the spatial information required to investigate investment opportunities in agribusiness in this state. This package will provide investors with information on infrastructure, land types and soils, land zoning, rainfall and climate, as well as government policies and current projects to enable them to determine the best options for new developments in South Australia.

Mr KNOLL: Just following up on that, minister, essentially you are saying that we are going to spend $1.15 million over the next four years to build a website.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: No, it is a lot more than that. There is all the intelligence and information that goes into it. If you know your history of South Australia, we did a similar thing with the mine sector. We went out and identified all these great sites. People who have the opportunity to look around the globe for investment opportunities have to do a lot of digging for information. If we can serve stuff up to them on a platter, it is going to make South Australia a much more inviting place to invest their money in, and that is what we are after. We are after investors who can provide capital so that we can grow this very important sector.

Mr KNOLL: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 17, Sub-program 1.1: Agriculture, Food and Wine, and the 2014-15 budget compared to the 2013-14 estimated result. According to the financial commentary, an increase in expenses is primarily due to:

new initiative funding for a new regulatory standard for premium South Australian food, and introduction of a symbol certifying top quality South Australian grown produce in 2014-15…

Can you explain first of all what this 'certifying top quality' symbol is and how that program will be implemented?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: South Australia produces a diverse range of high-quality food and beverage products. To support future growth, South Australian food needs to achieve premium prices in key markets. Increasingly, customers are seeking endorsement on the quality and other credentials of the food products that they buy. There is an opportunity to expand the recognition of South Australia's food and beverage products and the businesses that produce them. This recognition should be supported by clear criteria and information supporting the quality claims.

The government has identified a need for premium food standards to be established that provide customers and consumers with certainty about what they are purchasing. This initiative will be supported by industry codes that establish standards for particular products. The program will operate as an opt-in accreditation. It will not be additional regulation, but it will be a valuable marketing tool.

The first step will be consultation with industry and sector groups to identify how such a system could be designed and implemented to best support South Australian businesses in their key market. I guess what it will actually look like is to be determined through consultation with industry.

Mr KNOLL: Given that it is down as a new initiative, and work would have been done within the department around this, can the minister give me some understanding of how he believes it will interact with current food safety codes and current food safety regulation? How does this add to what is currently there?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: All that existing stuff would remain in place. This is just another level of, I guess, marketing to reinforce to consumers that what they are buying has a great provenance and is a quality product.

Mr KNOLL: Just to further follow up, minister, I understand that Buy SA, which was a great campaign run separately from what we are talking about today, had its website taken down over issues around being able to certify businesses and the extent of their South Australianness. In the same way, how is the department going to be able to enforce a new regulatory standard? Is the department going to be accepting some sort of legal liability when it comes to abuses of the standard and symbol? How will they seek to enforce it?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: It is not a new regulatory standard: it is—

Mr KNOLL: Sorry, minister, it says 'new regulatory standard'.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: But it is actually like a marketing tool for people to be able to add to their business—

Mr KNOLL: I am just referring to the budget papers.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: —and we will be working with industry to come up with the safeguards around that. It is in no-one's interest for people to devalue what will become a premium mark on produce for South Australia. It reflects existing regulatory standards, so those standards are already in place. Unless you have those, you do not get the tick.

Mr KNOLL: Can the minister explain what existing regulatory standards he is referring to?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Well, it depends on the produce. There is a whole range of things you have to have, whether it is fish or meat or wine or eggs. There will be different regulations for different produce.

Mr KNOLL: I refer to the same page, Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, sub-program 1.1. There is an increase in expenses under Financial Commentary regarding the Farm Finance Concessional Loan scheme. How many applications did the government receive from primary producers in SA for assistance from the federal government's Farm Finance Concessional Loan scheme? How many do we envisage will be successful?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: In December 2013, PIRSA commenced administering the Australian government Farm Finance Concessional Loan scheme. The first of two funding rounds closed on 30 April 2014. Round 2 commenced on 1 July 2014 and will close on 31 March 2015 or when funds are fully allocated, whichever occurs first. No applications for round 2 have been received up until 18 July this year.

Under the agreement, the commonwealth government made available up to $25 million of loan funding in 2013-14 subject to loans being approved and contractually committed. A further tranche of $25 million is available for 2014-15. Under the agreement, any uncommitted funds cannot be carried forward into 2014-15. To 30 June 2014, three applications, totalling $1.6 million, have met the eligibility criteria set by the Australian government; 45 applications were declined.

Given the program is targeting farm businesses experiencing difficulty servicing debt, there has been a high level of declines, noting South Australia has had up to five years of favourable seasonal conditions in some areas. The scheme eligibility criteria are better suited to states that are experiencing severe drought conditions, including Queensland and New South Wales.

The scheme eligibility is limited, noting that the scheme can assist up to 50 farm businesses each financial year based on an average loan amount of $500,000. The level of inquiry has been low in recent months. PIRSA has held recent discussions with the Australian government to improve their communications, specifically around eligibility criteria, to ensure a better understanding of the scheme across the state.

Mr KNOLL: Just to follow up, I refer to the same budget line. Can the minister outline why there were delays in the set-up of the scheme?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: In November 2013, the new Australian government reduced the total funds potentially available for South Australian farmers, from $60 million to $50 million for the next two years. Prior to the Australian government entering caretaker, PIRSA had sought to finalise the guidelines and contract with the commonwealth department. This was not able to be achieved and the incoming government was asked to agree to finalise the contract and guidelines.

Mr KNOLL: I only ask in the context that I understand it is the same office that does the exceptional circumstances funding. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 19, the same sub-program, Highlights 2013-14, specifically:

Developed trade and investment opportunities for Premium Food and Wine from our Clean Environment by leading and coordinating inbound and outbound trade missions.

Can the government please list in full detail the successful trade investment outcomes as a result of the trade missions? What was the total cost of these inbound and outbound trade investment opportunities?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: We do not have a precise figure with us, but all that funding comes from existing budget lines. Obviously it is very important that we see a big return on investment for the private sector in undertaking those delegations and also for hosting people who come here to buy our produce.

Mr TRELOAR: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 20, Sub-program 1.2: Aquaculture. Minister, with respect to government cost recovered services, there has been an evaluation of the services—that is, their costs and overheads—against minimum legislative requirements, particularly in a changing economic climate which is increasingly reliant on production. I believe this question is applicable to both the aquaculture and fisheries programs. Is there a reporting accountability process in place for any rise of government service values above and beyond CPI?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I thank the member for Flinders for the question and obviously acknowledge the huge role that aquaculture and fisheries has in your part of the world, in your electorate, and your fantastic advocacy on behalf of the industry. The cost recovery process for the aquaculture sector is a consultative process conducted annually to ensure that adequate lease and licence fees are in place to resource PIRSA for each financial year to provide the services required under the Aquaculture Act 2001.

The cost recovery process for the aquaculture sector works on an activity-based approach and is consistent with PIRSA's cost recovery policy, which was based on national cost recovery guidelines. PIRSA is undertaking consultation with all aquaculture industry sector associations and representatives for the 2014-15 cost recovery year to determine the level of service required to manage the industry and the cost associated with providing those services.

Cost recovery consultation was conducted through a well developed transparent process that involved a series of meetings with each industry sector's representatives to discuss the proposed service programs to be delivered in 2014-15.

Service levels are determined using an effort recording system that involves all operational PIRSA staff recording their time against each sector and the activities undertaken. All aquaculture sectors reached agreements with PIRSA on the fees to be applied to their industry sector for the 2014-15 financial year. The total expected amount to be collected from aquaculture lease and licence fees for 2014-15 is $1.5 million. This represents a decrease of approximately 11 per cent from the 2013-14 cost recovery process.

The decrease was due to efficiencies gained through streamlining industry processes, specifically in the tuna industry, and the utilisation of the effort data to inform service levels for the specific industry sectors. Revised aquaculture fees resulting from cost recovery negotiations this year were finalised and gazetted prior to the 1 July 2014 for immediate implementation.

Mr TRELOAR: Minister, as part of that streamlining and quest for efficiency, has the relocation of any PIRSA operations, such as aquaculture, been considered for regional South Australia? For example, I am informed that the cost of leasing space in Port Lincoln is only about $200 per square metre.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Thank you again for the question. I might ask Mehdi Doroudi to answer that question.

Prof. DOROUDI: We do have some research activities running from regions, including Port Lincoln. We also have our compliance activities which are focused and decentralised in our regional towns, from Ceduna to Mount Gambier. The main unit that currently sits in the head office is the policy and management group and there is inter-relationship with a number of different agencies: there are a number of referrals and concurrences; all other governmental procedures.

Some of the industry associations are based here and it is better for them to have discussions and negotiations around our policy and management from Adelaide. That unit is based in Adelaide and the major part of our research activities are based in West Beach. Apart from that, the rest of our activities are already in regions.

Mr TRELOAR: Minister, what is the PIRSA policy on recovering capital asset costs?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: We do recover some capital costs in line with national guidelines around cost recovery.

Mr TRELOAR: Over the past financial year and in the coming year, what actions have been or will be taken to reduce the costs of services which are cost recovered from the industry?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Again, I will ask Medhi Doroudi to answer that question.

Prof. DOROUDI: I will talk on both aspects of fisheries and aquaculture, if it is possible and okay. We recently (last year) issued a new policy, which we call our co-management policy. Under co-management, the level of delegations to associations and industry can vary from mainly government being in charge of administration to the areas of work that can be conducted by the industry under some arrangements, subject still to public scrutiny and also not in breach of legislation.

We are pursuing those discussions with industry sectors and associations. Maturity of our industry sectors are different and at different levels: some are prepared and ready to take the next step; some others we just need to work further to get to that stage. That is an area where efficiency in the long term can come in to reduce the costs, rather than employing individual officers to deliver on services, work with industry in a collaborative way, for them to deliver under certain rules and regulations to be able to reduce the cost. In general, that is what we want to do and would like to do in pursuing that co-management policy.

On an annual basis, currently and in the last 10 years when you look at that, every year we sit down with the industry sector, each sector separately, to develop a work plan. All those work plans and activities associated with that are going to help us make sure that we are not doing activities that are not needed or not necessary, and they are all consistent with the current legislation.

The third matter I can raise is that we amended the Aquaculture Act very recently. We are in the process of amending regulations that we have for aquaculture. We would require industry's input throughout this process to make sure, again, if there is no need for any regulation or any set of legislation, to go through this process and revoke them, and bring more efficiency in the system.

On top of all of those we have been running separate projects like the recent project that we had with the tuna sector in relation to looking at the environmental sustainability and the need to deliver on having a creditable environment to be able to grow more. As part of that, recently that tuna project created a considerable amount of efficiency for the sector and for the government between EPA and PIRSA.

Mr TRELOAR: Minister, you spoke earlier about the transparency of the process, of establishing the cost-recovery figures, and we have just heard Professor Doroudi speak about his engagement with the various sectors but one of the things I hear time and time again from the sector itself is what it perceives as a lack of transparency in all of this. Would you care to speak to that?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: First, I would like to commend Professor Doroudi for all the great work that he does with the sector. I think he is well known throughout South Australia in fishery and aquaculture. Even people who might disagree with the decisions that are made—and I have sat in the room with Professor Doroudi and those people—have a great deal of respect for the work that he and his group do, so I want to first commend Professor Doroudi for all that work.

I guess no-one wants to pay more money for things, but there are costs involved and those costs quite often result in big benefits for the industry. It gets down to regulations to make sure that we are not overfishing areas, and then there are the food safety aspects as well. They are all really important parts. No-one wants to be putting their hand in their pocket but, for the overall benefit of the industries and for the state and for our premium image that we have right around the world, I think it is really important that we have those in place. Again, I might just pass back to Professor Doroudi to talk about the transparency.

Prof. DOROUDI: Definitely I have personally heard those comments, as well, from some sectors. When I say 'some sectors' they are in the minority from my perspective in both fisheries and aquaculture. With aquaculture we have had a very extensive process with the oyster sector over the last few years. We are still working on some outstanding issues.

In the fisheries sector, for a number of years the abalone sector has raised a lack of transparency in the work that we do, for instance, in the compliance area. All of those are known to us. We have been talking to them. I have asked all my compliance officers to talk in a transparent way about their work plan.

Based on interest and the request of the industry we developed timewise data that is collecting the days and hours of our officers: where they work, what sector, what activity and what area. If you look at that as a benchmark in Australia as a whole country, South Australia is the most transparent in terms of sharing the cost of government and the agency in relation to research, policy and compliance with industry.

Mr TRELOAR: Minister, will there be a cost-recovery reduction in line with the reduction in quotas, for example, in the northern rock lobster zone?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: We did have increased cost in that zone, and we have absorbed that within PIRSA so that it was not passed on to the industry.

Mr TRELOAR: Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 20, Sub-program 1.2: Aquaculture. I note the objective of the aquaculture program with regard to zoning for aquaculture. What is the available acreage for expansion of marine-based aquaculture?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Again, I must ask Professor Doroudi to provide an answer to that one.

Prof. DOROUDI: We do have currently about 11 aquaculture zone policies in the state. Up to 10,000 hectares of water is available for growth. Every different zone has different attributes to it in terms of the species and up to what volume we can grow fish there. There is room for development in the kingfish area and in oyster and abalone. If successful some day in a commercial sense the propagation of southern bluefin tuna, we do have room for that.

In terms of new policies, Franklin Harbor and Ceduna are two areas where we have had extensive oyster farming, but we did not have a zone policy. Based on the request of the industry, we are working with them to establish policies there. In relation to new zone policies, we have just modified the Lower Eyre Peninsula to accommodate better the demand and requirement for southern bluefin tuna and the additional quota they have received over the last few years. We have a proposal in hand, and we are getting to the later stage in relation to Tumby Bay.

In terms of the room and environment, we are not insured, but we do need to work on newer species. We are working again with industry and, through engagement with China, we are working also with overseas investors to grow further seaweed. We have potential investors interested in sea cucumber and sea urchin. They are the species we would be trying to grow further in South Australia in relation to the next emerging industries. Definitely, the oyster sector can grow still further. Our mussel sector and abalone sector are also in an emerging and developmental stage. They are good, promising industries that can grow further into the future.

Mr TRELOAR: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 22, Sub-program: Fisheries. Has the state government finalised its purchase of commercial fishing licences and entitlements across all fishing sectors under the South Australian Marine Parks: Commercial Fisheries Voluntary Catch/Effort Reduction Program?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: The short answer is that there is still one to go, I understand. By way of background, the government announced the finalisation of management plans for South Australia's marine parks on 29 November 2012. Restrictions on fishing in sanctuary zones will not come into effect until 1 October 2014. Restrictions on fishing in sanctuary zones will displace the commercial fishing effort that was previously undertaken in those areas.

The government's longstanding position has been to approach the management of displaced commercial fishing effort, using the following sequential steps: pragmatic zoning to avoid displacement; redistribution of effort, where possible, without impacting ecological or economic sustainability of the fishery; market-based buyback of sufficient effort to avoid negative impacts on the fishery; and compulsory acquisition as a last resort option.

Steps 1 and 2 have been implemented and, as a result, no removal or reduction of commercial catch effort was required in the sardine, Lakes and Coorong, southern zone abalone, blue crab or prawn fisheries. In July 2013, the government approved the commencement of step 3, the South Australian Marine Parks: Commercial Fisheries Voluntary Catch/Effort Reduction Program.

The Voluntary Catch/Effort Reduction Program provided an opportunity for commercial fishers to offer licences and entitlements for surrender at self-determined prices. Ex gratia payments were made in consideration of those licences and entitlements that were accepted for surrender.

The initial round of seeking voluntary offers to surrender fishery authorities was completed in December 2013. The entire estimated displacement of catch effort for five of the six fisheries involved—charter, marine scalefish, southern and northern zone rock lobster, and western zone abalone fisheries—were successfully acquired. Overall, 118 applications were received and 21 licences were accepted for surrender. No offers were received from the central zone abalone fishery. PIRSA has entered into direct negotiation with this fishery to seek a voluntary and mutually acceptable outcome, with negotiations still continuing. Again, I will pass over to Professor Doroudi to elaborate.

Prof. DOROUDI: I think you covered the details, minister. There is one sector out of six that was affected and that is central zone abalone, which is still outstanding. We have been unable as yet to reach agreement on quantum. When I say 'quantum', we utilised the South Australian Research and Development Institute to work on the logbooks that fishermen provided. I have gone back about 17 years to look at the catch in some sectors to provide their estimates for displaced catch and effort.

Most of the industries out of those six came to the table and provided their own data as well to qualify and validate the assessment of SARDI. The methodology that was used by SARDI was independently approved by an independent expert group including scientists from CSIRO, and that was the basis for us to develop the program for the voluntary reduction of catch and effort due to the closure areas.

Five sectors participated in that program, and we had more than was needed to remove them from the fishery in relation to the applications. Again, there was an independent process: a group of experts sitting independently from the minister to assess those applications and provide recommendations back to the government.

We are still working with central zone abalone. I had my last meeting with them about two weeks ago, and I am expecting that a new offer is going to be submitted from them to remove their displaced effort for that sector.

Mr TRELOAR: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 22, Sub-program 1.3: Fisheries. This highlights that in 2012-13 the extension of the seasonal spawn enclosure to protect snapper spawning aggregations caused significant angst amongst recreational and commercial fishers. Can the government provide an updated status of the snapper stocks in Spencer Gulf since the implementation of the new fishery management arrangements?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: There is work being done in that area, and again I will pass over to Professor Doroudi to give the specifics.

Prof. DOROUDI: The next report since the closures were implemented has not been finalised. The South Australian Research Development Institute is working on that. We did put these measures in place because of the concerns we had for snapper. They were identified in parts of mainly Spencer Gulf where they are transitionally depleted, and we had to protect them in their aggregation areas and spawning areas.

We had to go on an equitable basis after all three sectors, not only putting restrictions on the commercial sector. We reduced their catch limit to a number of tonnage and kilogram per day, and at the same time we needed to protect those spawning grounds by closing them to charter and recreational fishers. There was definitely some discomfort with the charter sector because that was the area in which they were running their businesses, but sustainability of that fish was becoming important enough for us to take those measures. We did complete an economic analysis of these measures prior to implementing them. We are going to review that again to make sure that the socioeconomic impacts are well realised by getting tourism, local councils and all three sectors involved with that development. By the time we get to that point, SARDI would be able to provide the next scientific reports on their assessment as well.

Mr TRELOAR: Does that include an economic and social cost analysis on regional towns?

Prof. DOROUDI: The answer is yes, because initially we have done that, but what we did two years ago before we implemented these measures were estimates of what could be the potential impact. When we go to the next step, we do have some figures and facts that we can work from; therefore, that would that be included in that.

Mr TRELOAR: In the 2013-14 budget, one of the budget targets was to develop new management plans for various fisheries—sardine, prawns in both gulfs, southern rock lobster, marine scalefish and the Coorong fisheries—and that included a new management plan for a recreational fishery. One of the targets I noticed in the 2014-15 budget is now to develop a new management plan for the commercial, sardine, Gulf St Vincent prawn, northern zone rock lobster and lakes and Coorong fisheries. Given that this target has essentially been copied and pasted from the previous budget, I put to you, minister, that the government is failing in its goals for our fishing industry. Is the inability to achieve targets a result of PIRSA staff cuts?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: No. Have you got any more?

Mr TRELOAR: I have one more, minister. Thank you for your succinct answer. At what stage of development are the management plans I have just mentioned?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I might pass over to Professor Doroudi.

Prof. DOROUDI: Since 2007, when the new fisheries act was put in place, obviously the Fisheries Council was created as part of that act and the main objective of the Fisheries Council was delivering on the management plans for all 11 different sectors that we have in the fishing industries, including the recreational sector. We have delivered on a number of them. The list you have gone through are the last few management plans that need to be provided. It is true that we have postponed a couple of these management plans from one year to another, but it was mainly because of the work that needed to be done and, secondly, the demand that industry had.

For instance, Northern Zone Rock Lobster asked to postpone the implementation of that plan from last year to this year due to some concerns they had with the establishment of marine parks. It has not been a lack of performance or delivery from PIRSA's point of view. There have been a number of different contributing factors here that have delayed the delivery of those management plans, but we are planning to finish them. I do not have it in front of me, but I can provide the detail or the end point of each management plan later on. By June 2015, we are supposed to finish all those management plans that you have named.

Ms CHAPMAN: Madam Chair, may I have the indulgence of the committee to ask a question?

The CHAIR: Yes, just a question.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you. Minister, the Gulf St Vincent prawn fishery, which I am sure you are aware of, has been active probably since before you were born. It has been a very important fishery for the state. It has been opened and closed regularly. Is this one of the management plans that has been delayed into this year?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: PIRSA closed the Gulf St Vincent prawn fishery in December 2012, following a request from all 10 of the Gulf St Vincent prawn fishery licence holders, due to its poor economic performance. The stock assessment survey prior to the fishery closing conducted by SARDI Aquatic Sciences found that the biomass of prawns in Gulf St Vincent decreased significantly in the past few years whilst the fishery was open.

The economic performance of the fishery reduced in the past few years that it was open due to declining catches, the high Australian dollar, prawn price decreases largely due to the increasing imports of lower-value farmed prawns from South-East Asia, and increasing operational costs. An independent review of the fishery management framework in 2013 concluded that rationalisation and restructure are required to realise the economic potential of the fishery.

A number of recommendations were made by the review, which included the introduction of individual transferable effort units, and an amalgamation scheme to allow for autonomous structural readjustment of the fishery to reduce the number of vessels in operation.

PIRSA developed a proposal for the future management framework of the fishery. Initial industry feedback indicates broad support for the proposed future management framework, and that the majority of licence holders wish for the fishery to remain closed until November or December 2014. PIRSA undertook an independent fishery survey in May 2014 to assess the prawn stocks in Gulf St Vincent. The results indicated the catch rates were above biological set criterion to reopen the fishery. PIRSA is working towards reopening the fishery on 1 November 2014 under a revised management framework.

The annual licence fees for the fishery were waived for the 2012-13 fishing season and not collected in 2013-14. Any costs associated with services normally required for management of the Gulf St Vincent prawn fishery will be collected in 2014-15. A new management plan for the Gulf St Vincent prawn fishery will be developed for this fishery during 2014-15.

Ms CHAPMAN: Minister, we have had all that from Maurice Corigliano and others, of course, in this industry who are at war with the department, clearly, over this issue. So, my question again is: is this revised management plan going to be developed, you say, and published before 1 November when this is going to be reopened? We are now obviously in late July; hence, my question, again, is: is this management plan going to be ready? When is it going to be published so that the industry knows what is going to be happening come 1 November?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Firstly, I would like to say that the industry is not at war with the department. I think there are differing views within the industry, and certainly we hear different views and we take them all on board. I might pass over to Professor Doroudi to give an answer to the specific question.

Prof. DOROUDI: The time frame for the management plan is June 2015. After closing the fishery for two years based on the request of industry, and in working closely with them, we conducted a survey that shows that, biologically, fishing can take place again from this November. There are very significant differences of opinion and views within just 10 players of this sector, and that makes everything difficult.

Having said that, they have recently created an association that has got the majority of them—six, and I am hoping that seven of them will be members of this association. It would be a way forward for the department to sit down and have constructive discussions with them in terms of where to go from here. It is chaired by Jim Raptis, and Neil MacDonald is the executive officer. We are closely working with Neil.

We would like to open the fishery in November for fisherman to be able to go back to fishing. Having said that, there are certain individuals and interests there; they do not want to go fishing, and they are just requesting a government buy-out. We need to implement a process in this fishery so that it is managed internally within the structure of the fishing community that is there.

We introduced transferable nights last year; they did not pick that up. It is equivalent to a quota system but not exactly a quota system. People can trade days and nights of fishing with each other. More than half of them want to introduce a quota. The rest of them say, 'We don't want that. We want to buy out.'

At the end of the day, I do not believe that, until we are agreed on the framework of the fishery, any plan could be developed for that fishery. That is something that is between us. They need to really come constructively to the table and sit down and discuss it with us, for us to be able to resolve that. As you mentioned, this is not a problem of today: it goes back more than 20 years.

Mr TRELOAR: I refer to Budget 4, Volume 4, Sub-program 1.5: SARDI, on page 24. Minister, has the government budgeted for any income from the sale of the Lenswood research facility and, if so, what is the estimated market value?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: As I mentioned earlier, when someone asked me the question about the $680,000 that is in the budget for the sale of assets, we have not pinpointed where that $680,000 will come from, and we may well get more than that budgeted number anyway, so we have not got a figure in there for the sale of Lenswood. I have a meeting this afternoon with the local residents from around the area about what they would like to see the future use of Lenswood to be.

Mr TRELOAR: Minister, does the government believe that the research that has been conducted at Lenswood is possible on a commercial property, and has the government consulted on this? I suspect it is probably a topic for this afternoon's meeting; I do not know.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Yes. In general terms, we will have a discussion with the local community about what they want to do, but we are putting money into, I guess, bigger hubs. Murray Bridge, Loxton and Clare are examples of that, and we are building the SIT facility up at Port Augusta, so things will look different to what they have in the past. There has been some really good work done interstate in collaboration with the horticultural sector here as well. So, it does not look like it did 10 years ago or 20 years ago. Things are changing, and I think this is good for the future of the entire Australian industry, of which South Australia is an important part.

Mr TRELOAR: Particularly, minister, in relation to cool climate productivity. Once again, it is an ongoing discussion, I am sure, but is the minister getting feedback from the apple industry, cool climate viticulture, and the vegetable and cherry industries on the impact of any impending closure?

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

Mr KNOLL: In Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 26, Sub-program 1.5: Rural Services, I refer to the $2.2 million budget for rural services. After the minister's recent trip up north, he issued a press release which referred to an earlier commitment by the previous minister to increase financial counselling and case management support for pastoral businesses from rural businesses' support, along with business plan reviews by RDS and Rural Solutions SA.

I am told that this commitment to a partnership in these areas was actually made to a major rural business support after the previous minister travelled up north in July 2013—that is 12 months ago. Minister, has anything happened with regard to these commitments since July last year? What recent contact have you had with RDS in recent weeks?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I am not sure what commitment you are referring to as being made last July. It is not one that I am aware of.

Mr KNOLL: I can refer to a press release from you, minister, dated Tuesday 24 June this year talking about increased financial counselling and case management support for pastoral businesses from Rural Business Support (RBS).

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I know what I said, but I am not sure what was said 12 months ago.

Mr KNOLL: To clarify, minister, in relation to the comments you made in your press release, can you advise any conversations you have had with RBS over recent weeks in relation to this press release?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Is that a budget line or a press release?

Mr KNOLL: It refers to the budget for rural services, and Rural Business Support is funded or is done through rural services, so it is pertinent to this 2014-15 budget.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: They are two different things. The previous minister was able to enter into negotiations with the federal government and receive funding for an additional counsellor for the service, and what we have offered is a different lot of money for other purposes, and those negotiations and discussions are continuing. When I was in the Far North we were joined at the meeting at Lyndhurst by one of the members of the counselling service. I had a meeting with Kay Matthias from the service as well. Off the top of my head I would say that would have been in late May.

Mr KNOLL: Can I follow up to comments you have just made then? On your trip up north, was Rural Business Support invited to travel by plane with the minister on that trip? Was that plane at full capacity for that trip?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: No. I did not invite anyone from rural services to join us on the trip. We had the member for Hammond; the head of Primary Producers SA, former premier Rob Kerin; a journalist from the ABC; Andrew Johnson, who is the Acting Deputy Chief Executive, who has done a lot of work with people out on the pastoral country; a member of the Department for the Environment who does a lot of work in dog control; and my chief of staff, Ruth Awbery, who was also present.

Mr KNOLL: You referenced the fact you had a meeting with RBS up in the Far North. They just had to make their own way up there. I am sure the member for Hammond would have gladly given up his seat. Anyway, that is—

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Well, you know, I actually take issue with your comments there. Maybe if you spend a little bit longer around the parliament you will realise that it is actually good to work in a bipartisan way, and I think there was terrific value in having the member for Hammond with us.

Mr PEDERICK: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 28, Subprogram 1.6—Biosecurity under Description/objective. As it is the objective of the department to:

…protect the economy, environment, communities and human health from the negative impacts associated with the entry, establishment or spread of pests, diseases and contaminants…

the minister would be aware of a new test for ovine Johne's disease (OJD) called the high throughput Johne's or the HTJ PCR test. From last July it was promoted for use as a screening test for OJD, namely as a means of identifying the suspicion of disease. Later it was publicly reported that the use of the test by Biosecurity SA had been suspended due to inconsistencies. Can the minister please confirm that this test was indeed used by PIRSA before laboratory testing procedures had been fully developed and approved by Animal Health Australia?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I thank the member for Hammond for that question. We have got with us today Dr Roger Paskin, who is the Chief Veterinary Officer, and I would like to ask him to give some detail about this one.

Dr PASKIN: I think it might be appropriate to give a little bit of background on Johne's disease before we go into the testing procedures, for the benefit of the members present. Johne's disease is a disease caused by a bacterium, which is related in some ways to the human tuberculosis bacterium. It is extremely difficult to diagnose. It is very difficult to find. The only definitive test that is possible for Johne's disease is a test that isolates the organism, finds it, cultures it, and identifies it. That test is a very difficult, very complex and very expensive test, and it takes up to four months to run that test.

The normal approach with Johne's disease, because it is so difficult to detect, is to use what we call screening tests. The screening test will give you an assurance of negativity, but it will not necessarily give you an assurance of positivity of positive test results. There are three different screening tests that we use for that particular disease. None of them detect the organism per se. One of them is what we call histopathological test. What that detects is a suspicion of a lesion in the intestine microscopically; so, what you see is damaged tissue. The damaged tissue could be due to Johne's disease, but it might not be. If you see no damaged tissue it all, that means the disease is absent.

There is another test known as an ELISA test. It is an antibody test. Again, this does not detect the organism. It detects the response of an animal to the organism; in other words, it finds antibodies in the bloodstream. There are a number of different microorganisms that can give antibodies very similar to an exposure to Johne's disease. So, again, if you do the test—it is a relatively inexpensive test; it takes only a few days to run—and you find it is negative, you are okay. If you find it is positive, that only means that there might be Johne's disease present. Again, that then means that you have got to move forward to a test and culture procedure which will take several months.

The last test that the member referred to was the high throughput Johne's disease PCR test. The PCR test is a new technology, and it is very widely used across the world. It is not approved by Animal Health Australia. It is approved by what is known as the Animal Health Committee, which is a committee of chief veterinary officers of the different jurisdictions. The test was approved for limited use at that point in time.

What this test detects is not the organism but DNA material from within organisms that might or might not be Johne's disease. Most of the time, when it detects DNA, it is detecting DNA from the Johne's disease organism per se, but we do know that there are a few other organisms in the environment that do have similar DNA, and that test might pick up DNA from those other organisms.

Again, if there is no DNA detected we know that the farm or the animal concerned is negative. However, if DNA is detected, it is possible that it might be due to Johne's disease and it is also possible that it might in a small percentage of cases be due to a different organism. So, all of these screening tests have their shortcomings. We have used and are using all of them. With respect to the PCR test, this particular test was not done inside South Australia. It was a test that was outsourced to a number of different laboratories in other states.

The test costs were roughly $300 per test. Again, because this was outside of our control as this was done in other jurisdictions, we had no way of proving that they were doing the test according to the right protocols. We did find some inconsistencies in the way those tests were run. So, we thought the best thing to do was to suspend the use of the test while it was being used outside the state, and we would then make sure that our own laboratory was equipped to do that test.

The issue as it stands at the moment is that our laboratory is busy developing and testing that test. We are very happy with what we are seeing in terms of the results coming out of the initial trials. We believe that before too long we will be back to using that particular test again; but I do want to emphasise that none of these screening tests is a guarantee of positivity of disease. If you find suspicion you still have to go ahead and do the full culture and examination and pay another few hundred dollars more and wait a few months more to get a final result.

Mr PEDERICK: In regard to the PCR test, from the answer I have just been given does that mean that no flocks in South Australia have used this test as a screen for OJD?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Again, I would like Dr Paskin to answer that one. I also thank him not only for being here today and providing this vital information to the committee but for all the great work he and his team do to keep South Australia safe from these devastating threats to our industries.

Dr PASKIN: We have used all of these tests in various different situations. The ELISA test is the one we use most commonly; it is the blood antibody test. We do use the histopathological test, particularly on sheep that have gone through abattoirs and we have access to their intestinal tissue for testing. The PCR test has been used in South Australia mainly in sheep. We are busy, as I said, working on the redevelopment of that test to re-use again in sheep. We have not used that much in cattle. It has been used in cattle very much in Queensland, but less so here. We tend to use the ELISA test more in cattle.

Mr PEDERICK: In regard to the PCR test, were properties which reacted under this test put under quarantine prior to further testing?

Dr PASKIN: The way the marketing scheme runs at this point in time, we do not quarantine properties that are suspicious. What does happen with those properties—obviously because the farmer is under suspicion, so to speak—is that his marketing possibilities become more limited. It is more difficult for that person to sell live animals to live markets. There is no prohibition on him selling livestock if he wishes to.

Most farmers in that circumstance have managed to sell quite successfully through abattoirs and other markets, but this is a voluntary scheme. Most of our stud breeders are members of that scheme and they know the rules. They know that, if their animals are under suspicion, they do have a waiting period until the final culture is finished, and they do understand that their sales possibilities will be somewhat restricted under those circumstances.

Mr PEDERICK: How many South Australian properties had a reaction to this particular test and how many were quarantined as a result? From what you are saying, it is a quarantine because of the screening test.

Dr PASKIN: I am not making excuses, Madam Chair, but this was before my time, before I joined as Chief Veterinary Officer, but I am aware of the fact that in the months between (I think it was May and August last year) three properties did show up positive to the High Throughput Johne's (HTJ) disease PCR test. They were all subject to further bacteriological testing and found negative.

I must also say that a number of properties—and I do not have these figures in my head—were positive to HTJ PCR and also found positive on culture. So, the number of abnormal findings, if you like, is normally very small and it is expected. It is expected that with screening tests you will get false positives, but I do want to emphasise that, of those three properties, none of them was quarantined.

Mr PEDERICK: Minister, your adviser who assisted us with this questioning earlier indicated that it already had an impact on the sales from these properties, potentially of rams, etc., because of the process. Are they put under some process of self-quarantining because of this initial test?

Dr PASKIN: The rules of the scheme—it is a national scheme—are determined nationally by industry itself. Under the rules, if a farmer is found to be what we call 'suspected to be infected', then they limit themselves in terms of their marketing opportunities. They are welcome to find a market anywhere they like for their livestock, but it is simply a natural process that no-one is going to buy from a property that is suspected to be infected until they know that that property is not suspected to be infected. It is a natural consequence of the status of the property, but it is a voluntary program and the status is accorded under that program.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you. Minister, what is PIRSA's process for notifying properties that they are under quarantine?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: None of the properties has been under quarantine.

Mr PEDERICK: I will go back: what is PIRSA's process for notifying properties where they have had a positive test for OJD with the PCR test?

Dr PASKIN: Under those circumstances, the veterinarian who is responsible for investigating the disease and for running the management program will contact the farmer by phone and inform him. The farmers are also given a written laboratory result which shows the status of his laboratory results, and those laboratory results are updated from time to time as the testing process continues.

Mr KNOLL: Just to be clear, minister, what documentation does PIRSA provide in these instances?

Dr PASKIN: What PIRSA provides to the farmer is the laboratory result from his farm.

The CHAIR: Phone call and letter.

Mr PEDERICK: Did the minister recently write to a Mr Ian Pfeiffer of Bordertown, informing him that his property was never under quarantine for OJD?

The CHAIR: Is this proper?

Mr PEDERICK: This is very important.

The CHAIR: But it is proper for the budget, I am wondering?

Mr PEDERICK: It is very relevant for biosecurity if you are in the sheep-selling game.

The CHAIR: But is it if we are naming someone?

Mr PEDERICK: Absolutely. It is directly related. It is ovine Johne's disease, sheep get it. Minister, did any PIRSA staff visit the property of Ian Pfeiffer of Bordertown throughout July 2013, and what was the purpose of that meeting?

The CHAIR: We are just concerned that we are going into specific individual cases which is not what, I am advised, is normally the procedure in budgets. I am wondering if the member for Hammond would like to reconsider that question.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you, Madam Chair. What properties were visited by PIRSA staff during July 2013 and what was the purpose of those visits? Was this in regard to properties that had had a reaction to the HTJ test? How many were found to be OJD positive after subsequent testing and how many were cleared?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: The first answer to one of your earlier questions is: yes, I have written to Mr Pfeiffer, and I guess from being too specific that was probably a bit too general, asking for every property that PIRSA visited last year, because—

Mr PEDERICK: I was directed by the Chair, sir.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Yes, I know. Maybe we will try to deal with the specific question you asked because it is an important question and it is an important issue. While we do try to do the right thing by the entire state and by the industry to keep diseases out that could devastate the industry, we have to be very cautious about that. I will seek some advice about what would have been discussed.

Member for Hammond, rather than do this by recollection, perhaps we can get you some specific answers to specific questions and maybe we will go backwards and forwards because I know that it is a really important issue, particularly to the farmer concerned, and I have a great deal of sympathy for what they went through on their property and how this affected them. Perhaps that is a better way of dealing with it, rather than through the estimates process.

Mr PEDERICK: Minister, can you bring back an answer regarding the properties that had a reaction to the HTJ test, how many were found to be OJD positive after subsequent testing and how many were cleared? I am happy for you to bring that information back.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Yes, we can maybe do it in a letter direct to you if that is more appropriate.

Mr PEDERICK: Okay. Same budget line, minister: were any of these properties which were put into this—I will call it 'self-quarantine' now because that seems to be the information—self-quarantine process following a reaction to the HTJ test and, given the preceding suspension of the test, were any of these properties compensated for resulting financial loss?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: No, there is no compensation.

Mr PEDERICK: Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 28, Sub-program 1.6: Biosecurity 2014-15 budget, 2013-14 estimated result net cost of sub-program. Will the minister confirm $5.5 million has been cut to the net cost of the sub-program from 2013-14 estimated result to the 2014-15 budget?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: The net cost of the sub-program shows a decrease of $5.5 million. This is primarily due to an intended increase in cost recovery in 2014-15 of $2.3 million from animal health at a biosecurity level, as well as a 2014-15 savings measure of increased cost recovery relating to plant health.

There is a once-off additional expenditure in 2013-14 for fruit fly eradication, which we have mentioned here before. That was primarily in the Riverland and Sellicks Beach; that was a cost of $1.1 million. Obviously, we pump a lot of money into prevention, but sometimes we have to put in money for cure, and we do that on an 'as needs' basis. It is the first outbreak we have had in the Riverland for 23 years; hopefully, it is another 23 years before we have to do that.

This government knows how important it is to retain our fruit fly-free status, and whatever we have to do we will do in terms of eradicating the fly. With the Pyap and Loxton outbreaks, there were three eradication responses, and they followed on from an intensive and widespread surveillance campaign during 2013.

We also had the completion of the commonwealth/state-funded national plan for transitioning of the branched broomrape eradication program, something close to the heart of a former member for Hammond. That commenced in 2012-13 and was to be finalised in 2013-14. In April 2012, the standing committee on primary industries agreed to a two-year transition to a management plan, following acceptance that it was no longer technically feasible to eradicate branched broomrape. Landowners will be responsible for managing branched broomrape on their land, in compliance with industry standards and regulatory requirements under the Natural Resources Management Act 2004.

Mr TRELOAR: Minister, I refer you to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 12, Administered Items. Minister, the Eyre Peninsula Grain Growers Rail Levy Fund was established in 2006. Its intention was to raise $2 million from growers on Eyre Peninsula, in addition to $21 million from industry and government. The fund was to assist in the upgrade of the Eyre Peninsula rail system.

A good season in 2010-11 meant that the fund exceeded its target by approximately half a million dollars. The regulations that established the fund allow the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries to apply the surplus to projects that benefit Eyre Peninsula grain growers. I understand, minister, that $100,000 was set aside for a feasibility study for an Eyre Peninsula-based multicommodity port, and the remaining $400,000 to R&D programs of value to Eyre Peninsula. Can the minister confirm whether all of the surplus has now been allocated?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Your figures are correct. We are not sure whether it has all been spent, but it can be carried over anyway. So, if the money is still there, it will be spent on things on Eyre Peninsula that will benefit the growers.

Mr TRELOAR: You could provide that information as it comes available?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Yes.

Mr TRELOAR: One last question: can the minister explain why six months after these funds were supposedly reallocated there is still no functional rail system north of Wudinna?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I think this has been a matter going on for many, many, years. There are some discussions happening at the moment with the Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, myself, Viterra and grain growers about rail infrastructure right across the state—the Mallee and, of course, Eyre Peninsula being two key areas.

We know just how important it is, particularly in your home town of Port Lincoln, where having trucks bringing all that grain down through the two roads into town and through the town itself would cause a lot of grief. So, the discussions on a solution are continuing and we would like to make sure that you are involved in those discussions as well.

The CHAIR: There being no further questions, I thank the minister and his advisers, and declare the examination of the proposed payments completed. I now call on the minister to assume his role as Minister for Forests.

Membership:

Mr Bell substituted for Mr Knoll.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr S. Ashby, Chief Executive Officer, Department of Primary Industries and Regions.

Mr S. West, Executive Director, Forestry, Department of Primary Industries and Regions.

Mr A. Hatch, Chief Executive Officer, ForestrySA.

Mr S. Johinke, Director, Finance and Prudential Management, Department of Primary Industries and Regions.

Mr J. Coleman, Chief Financial Officer, ForestrySA.

Mr M. Williams, Manager, Budget Strategy, Department of Primary Industries and Regions.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: The forestry industry is incredibly important to all South Australians. What we have seen in the past few years is a period of transition and I know, since I have taken over this role in late March, early April, that this has probably consumed more time than any other single portfolio that I have responsibility for, and one that I have been happy to undertake because of the massive changes that we have had, some that we had some control over, some that we had no control over.

I refer to the Bundaleer fires that devastated the forest last year and then the Wirrabara fires this year. It was a real double blow for the Mid North forestry area, and I have been pleased with all of the work that the member for Stuart has done up there. I have been up there a couple of times working with him and the member for Frome to try and work out where the future will be for the Mid North forestry operations.

Also, to forestry and the Green Triangle in the South-East, it is great to have the member for Mount Gambier here today, and I would like to pay tribute to the great approach that he has taken since becoming a member of parliament and that we work together. We cannot always agree on everything, but I cannot remember too many disagreements that we had so far. I am always happy to pick up the phone or receive an email or a text message, because it is vitally important for the South-East and we know, as a government, that people were really unhappy with the forward sale down there.

What we are doing by going down there and spending four or five days a time down there is getting around and talking to as many people as we possibly can and meeting with the member for Mount Gambier and making sure that the people who he knows are important down there come along to those meetings and we have the discussions. So, there have been some fundamental changes. I informed the parliament a few weeks ago that 66 people have taken targeted voluntary redundancies from ForestrySA, so it is a very different organisation than it was six months ago, and for people who grew up in the South-East and know how important the former woods and forests department was down there, it is a vastly different organisation than it was two decades ago.

So, to the people of the South-East, I want to reassure them that we are doing everything possible to make sure that ForestrySA is in the best condition possible so that it can get another five-year contract to OneFortyOne, the people who bought the Forward Rotations off us in that sale process, because it is important that not only those people have jobs but also the mills and the hundreds of people who are employed in the mills and the harvesting and haulage jobs as well have confidence that, as a government, we believe in the future of forestry in the South-East and the products that come from those forests. That is it for me for an opening statement.

Mr BELL: Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge the time the minister has spent in my region. It has been quite welcome and much appreciated. Minister, on Budget Paper 4, volume 4, page 33, grants and subsidies, in the expenses figure for the 2014-15 budget is $7.006 million; however, the minister has stated $10.5 million of the fund is accessible for this year. Can the minister explain the $3.5 million discrepancy between those two issues?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I thank the member for Mount Gambier for the question. Yes, when this fund is opened up, there will be. Just by way of how money is spent by the private sector and government, we do not envisage that the entire $10.5 million will be spent this financial year, so we have an allocation for part of it to be spent this year and part next year. If needed, we can bring money forward from next year if it all had to be spent, just as if companies cannot actually make use of that money in this financial year, we could come to an arrangement that any unspent money can be carried over into the following year.

Mr BELL: Just to be clear, minister, because I really do want to go back to my community and—I think one of the biggest issues that the government has had with the South-East is a lack of trust, and I really want to be able to go back and say the $10.5 million is quarantined; $7 million of the $7.006 million is allocated for the Forestry Partnership program; and if need be, the other $3.5—so, that other $3.5 million, you are giving a guarantee that that is there for that?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Absolutely; we guarantee the whole $10.5 million, and it is just the way that things are structured for the projected spend and milestone payments. But, this is part of a $27.5 million incentive to get local businesses there, putting money into doing things a different way than they have before. What we do not want to do is be exporting logs that then come back as a finished product if we can actually be doing that work down in the South-East and then exporting something that has had two or three sets of hands go over it, and increase the amount of jobs in the South-East. So, an absolute guarantee that that $10.5 million will be available.

To be honest, I would have liked to have been able to have that grant out this week. We were looking to announce that this week. We are only a few days away from doing it, but we have to get the tick-off from some other departments, and we also have to get the approval of people in the private sector as well. There is no doubt that so many people in the industry, not just here in South Australia but nationally, know that this money is going to be made available, and I know some have approached you; some have approached me as well. I guess, everyone in the industry knows what is available, and there are some pretty exciting prospects around for where that money may be able to be spent.

There is also the $15 million in regional development funding that minister Brock is in charge of, and we are encouraging people to have a look at that as well. Do not just put all your eggs in one basket; have a look at what may be available from other funding streams, because it is so important. I was in Melbourne just a couple of weeks ago having a look at a 10-storey apartment building built entirely out of wood. It is the world’s tallest wooden building; that record is only going to last a few more weeks, as I think there is one in Denmark or Germany that is going to surpass that in the next few weeks, but it is really impressive to see the sort of work that Lend Lease is doing in that area. They want to roll out more of these buildings around Australia.

We know we have got the forest down there. We know we have got a good workforce down there. We have got people who are eager to get in and get a job, so if we can marry it all together, I think the future is pretty bright, and that is what that $10.5 million will be aimed at, not necessarily to put into that particular project, but things that are game changers in terms of increasing productivity, increasing end product, and making a difference. Some of the technology that I have seen down there was introduced in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, and you cannot be competitive on a global scale if your infrastructure is out of date. So the McDonnell sawmill down there—it is NF, isn’t it?

Mr BELL: Yes.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Yes—NF McDonnell & Sons sawmill, and see them as fourth generation sawmillers. They have just put in a new $9.6 million plant, with some government help in terms of grants, and that is going to lead to the employment of another 15 to 20 staff members and another shift. So, they are the sort of game changers. When people say, ‘Government should get out of the way and business get on,’ this is the sort of stuff that, when we all work together, we can give people a bit of a leg up. That speed hump to get over to make an investment is really hard without government help. So, yes, can guarantee the $10.5 million. I am very excited about the future, and it is good to see the confidence around in the South-East too.

Mr BELL: In relation to Budget Paper 4, page 34, second dot point down: can the minister detail how many times the South Australian Forest Industry Advisory board has met between April last year and the end of this current financial year just gone?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: We will try to get an answer to that before this half an hour is up, if you like.

Mr BELL: A supplementary question to that theme is: is Trevor Smith employed in any other capacity within the forestry portfolio? I know he is a member of that board.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I am advised he is the Chair of the board and not employed in any other capacity.

Mr BELL: My question then is around why Trevor was paid $50,000 per year to chair that board, which may or may not have met in the last 12 months, and the Chair of the ForestrySA Board was paid only $46,000. There seems to be a discrepancy in roles and remuneration for those two roles.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: We know that they have met in the past year; we just do not have the figures on how many meetings they had. I have met with Mr Smith, and he has done some really important work on the blueprint for the way forward for the forestry industry. We really value that work that he and his team have done, and we will be launching that soon.

Mr BELL: On the same budget line, there is a $0.3 million expense for the first full-year operation of the South Australian Forest Industry Advisory Board, which is the same board that Trevor Smith chairs. The documents that were tabled in parliament on 10 September 2013 on government boards and committees information (I have it here if advisers need it) highlight that the expenses were $95,200 for that advisory board, yet the budget papers talk about $300,000. I am really curious about the $200,000 discrepancy. This is the last dot point on page 33.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: The $95,000 represents only part of the cost, and the $300,000 represents full operating costs. To be effective, the board needs a range of skills and experts. You mentioned Trevor Smith, but Shelley Dunstone has a background in law and works as a consultant as well. John Fargher has extensive experience in forest and water management. Caroline Pidcock is an architect with interest and experience in sustainable built environments. Dr Bob Smith is now an independent forestry consultant after being chief executive of both the Victorian and New South Wales public forest growers.

The South Australian Forest Industry Advisory Board has recently prepared its Forest & Wood Products Industry Blueprint and Policy Statement, which is a document which will receive consideration and will be released soon. As I understand it, that is the result of extensive consultation with people around the South-East, so there has been a lot of travel involved as well and that is where the costs would have come from.

Mr BELL: Basically, it was $95,000 for the board and then extra consultants, travel and the printing and publishing and things like that.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: The full cost was $300,000, but that figure of $95,000 represents a part year.

Mr BELL: Is that board one that may continue in the future or do you think the time is about done for that advisory board?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: The Premier has announced that all boards will be abolished in October and I think this board has done an excellent job and I am looking forward to reading their report. It is probably a good time to wrap things up, I would say.

Mr BELL: Make an assessment, yes. I refer to Budget Paper 4, page 33, Description/objective. I cannot see any funding in the program summary for the replanting of the Wirrabara Forest. I am wondering if I have missed something or if there is another allocation somewhere else from another department that might be coming in to tackle that.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Yes, there was $30,000 for this year's replanting which just comes out of the normal ForestrySA budget. It does not have a budget line to it; it just comes out of their general operating budget.

Mr BELL: I refer to Budget Paper 4, page 34, Forestry Policy, Targets 2014-15 regarding contracts. A target in this budget paper is to:

Monitor compliance with the ForestrySA forward sale government contract requirements.

Can the minister confirm at the time of the sale were all contracts transferred from ForestrySA to OneFortyOne Plantations?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: They were all transferred with the exception of the Carter Holt Harvey contracts.

Mr BELL: Can the minister explain why that contract was not transferred across?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: No, because of commercial-in-confidence arrangements that are in place.

Mr BELL: Does that commercial-in-confidence extend to log volume as well?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I am advised it does.

Mr BELL: I refer to Budget Paper 4, page 33, Forestry Policy, Financial commentary. The budget paper makes mention of a decrease in expenditure of $500,000 due to:

…administrative efficiencies associated with reduced policy support responsibilities following the sale of the state's forest forward rotations…

Can the minister outline what policy support responsibilities he is referring to?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I thank the member for Mount Gambier for the question. As I mentioned in my opening statement, the government's involvement is now very much reduced. I guess that funding reflects the difference in operations in ForestrySA having gone from owning a lot of forests and being heavily involved to being primarily a contractor.

Mr BELL: Probably the last topic I would like to talk about is fire and fire protection. ForestrySA's annual report showed that ForestrySA still possessed $66 million worth of standing timber for the year that ended June 2013. However, the fire insurance fund has been dissolved. Can the minister explain why this fund was dissolved and if these remaining forests are insured and, if not, why they are not?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I have been advised that in October 2004 cabinet approved self insurance, and the money that was in that fund was returned to Treasury. I am also advised that OneFortyOne now has the responsibility for the insurance of the forest that they have the control of.

Mr BELL: Finally, are the remaining standing forests that are owned by the state government located in fire prone areas?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Absolutely; as we have seen over the past 18 months two very bad fires destroyed so much of the Bundaleer and Wirrabara forests, and we have forests right throughout the Mount Lofty Ranges that are high risk bushfire areas.

Mr BELL: Given that, minister, and that there is no insurance for them, can you confirm any processes or contingencies that are in place to deal with associated fire risks for the forests?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: ForestrySA took the view that it was not financially prudent to insure the forests. There was not value for money in that, so they decided to self-insure. I guess the best insurance we can have is to have good firefighting systems in place. It was pleasing to have that meeting, that you attended, in the South-East to make sure that we had everyone around the table. Work will continue there to ensure that we have not only the right sort of physical capacities there, whether that be vehicles, but also to have people with the right set of experience to be able to fight fires.

Mr BELL: Going back to the Wirrabara forest and the fires that took that area out, has an accurate quote been tabled for the full replanting of that area to get it back to where it was prior to the fire?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: The estimate is about $5 million to $7 million to do the total replanting.

Mr BELL: From that, only $30,000 has been allocated this financial year.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Yes, what we have is a situation where the conditions in the last four to five weeks were ideal for replanting and we did not want to miss an opportunity while we make the broader decision about what parts, if any, will be replanted next year. You cannot replant an area devastated by bushfire until the salvage operation has occurred and you have all that burnt timber out of the area, and then you have to prepare the ground to do the replanting. So, we could not have done that this year even had we wanted to do that.

There is a report that I have just seen that ForestrySA commissioned, which is a bit pessimistic on the outlook for whether we replant Bundaleer and Wirrabara, but I know how important it is. There are 30 to 40 jobs at the Morgan Sawmill that are vitally important for that area, because they probably lead on to another hundred jobs in the area around Jamestown. What we want to do is go and have discussions with people like the members for Stuart and Frome and the local community up there to see what the future could look like. We know the Morgans are very optimistic about what could happen under a different thinning regime and under different ways that they could harvest from the forest.

I guess we need to take a look at everyone's point of view and see where we can land, and maybe not all of it is replanted. Maybe some of it set aside for recreation activities. We know nearby at Melrose that they have an amazing reputation for being one of the mountain bike capitals of Australia with their Fat Tyre Festival and other activities. We have the Heysen Trail that goes right through there. So there is enormous tourism potential. There are also people growing some great horticulture up around the area, and some—even the most avid forest people—say it is actually better suited for broadacre farming, to be returned to broadacre farming.

I think what we need to do—we have until probably June next year, when the replanting conditions will be right for a lot of it, to have some really good discussions about what the area is going to look like in the future.

Mr BELL: I understand that. I want to go back to whether there is any response on the Forest Industry Advisory Board—how many times they have met.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Thank you very much for the question; I am glad you asked it. I am pleased to inform you and the committee that the South Australian Forest Industry Advisory Board met six times since April 2013. It met four times in the past 12 months. It also conducted consultation in Adelaide, Mount Gambier, Melbourne, Canberra and Sydney. So they have not been sitting on their hands.

Mr BELL: A final confirmation, I suppose, minister, of your commitment to the South-East that there will be no diminished firefighting capabilities in our region. That is probably more a statement than a budget line question.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Absolutely. I have mentioned before to you that, having grown up Glencoe and been there with the red glow at night when the forest fires are raging through those surrounding forests, it is a terrible thing. Forest fires are something that everyone who has ever been to the South-East, or who grew up down there or who lives there is totally concerned about, because so many lives were lost in those Ash Wednesday fires in 1983 around Kalangadoo. It is something that we take a great deal of interest in, from the Premier down.

When we mentioned that we would have to offer 60 redundancies down in the South-East in ForestrySA the first thing the Premier said to me was, 'Well, there can't be any diminished firefighting capability down there.' We give you that guarantee that there will not be. It was good to have that meeting, where we had ForestrySA, those two wonderful gentleman from the volunteers, the CFS, the police, yourself, and the two unions (the CFMEU and the AWU) there as well.

I think, possibly by the tone of that meeting, everyone had not been around the table like that in the past. I think there had been separate meetings where everyone had been included, but I think that was a terrific opportunity, and I know my parliamentary colleague and Parliamentary Secretary, Kyam Maher, will be going down to the next meeting, which you will be involved in as well. We have to do as much as we can between now and the start of the bushfire season to make sure that everything is prepared.

On raw numbers there is an increase of ForestrySA contractors and staff members who will be out there on fire watch, and that is a good thing. We need to make sure that there is also the blend of experience that we have there of people who know the terrain, know the local geography and know the local weather patterns and what wind changes are likely to happen. I think there is still some work to be done to make sure that we are ready, but the best way to prevent fires is to do the work during winter.

I was really pleased with the meeting we had down there a few weeks ago. I know there is another meeting in a couple of weeks. It is terrific to see that group working together to ensure that we have the very best fire prevention in place and then, should a fire break out, that we are ready to hit it hard.

I also want to thank OneFortyOne for its contribution. They have built a new fire tower at Penola South, I think, and another one they built last year. It is in OneFortyOne's interests, obviously, to do as much as it can. Again, I just want to reassure the people in the South-East that it is one of the highest priorities of this government to protect the forests of the South-East. By doing that you actually protect an entire industry and hundreds if not thousands of jobs as well. If we were to lose those forests the impact would be absolutely devastating.

The CHAIR: Thank you, minister. There being no further questions I declare the examination of the proposed payments adjourned until tomorrow. I thank you and your advisers.

Mr PEDERICK: May I make a quick comment?

The CHAIR: Yes, of course, member for Hammond.

Mr PEDERICK: I would just like to express my gratitude to the departments for getting things in order for estimates, and their work preceding and today. I thank the minister for letting the opposition fill all the time; not all ministers do it so, from our little part of your estimates, I appreciate that.

The CHAIR: A very constructive morning, I think.