Estimates Vote

Department of State Development, $674,320,000

Administered Items for the Department of State Development, $7,629,000

Minister:

Hon. M.L.J. Hamilton-Smith, Minister for Investment and Trade, Minister for Defence Industries, Minister for Veterans' Affairs.

Departmental Advisers:

Dr D. Russell, Chief Executive, Department of State Development.

Dr P. Heithersay, Deputy Chief Executive, Department of State Development.

Mr M. Johnson, Executive Director, Investment, Trade and Immigration, Department of State Development.

Mr R. Janssan, Executive Director, Strategy and Business Services, Department of State Development.

Ms N. Slivak, Director, International, Department of State Development.

Mr M. Pegoli, Director, Investment and Capital Markets, Department of State Development.

Mr M. England, Director, Programs, Department of State Development.

The ACTING CHAIR: As per normal in estimates, it is a relatively informal procedure. There is no need to stand to ask or answer questions. I understand the minister and the lead speaker of the opposition have agreed on approximate time for consideration of payments which will facilitate a change of departmental advisers. Changes to committee membership will be notified as they occur. If the minister undertakes to supply information at a later date, it must be submitted to the committee secretary by no later than Friday 30 October 2015. This year estimates committee responses will be published during 17 November sitting week in corrected daily Hansard over a three-day period.

I propose to allow both the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition to make opening statements for approximately 10 minutes should they wish to do so. A flexible approach will be taken based on roughly three questions per member, alternating each side, with supplementaries being the exception rather than the rule. A member who is not part of the committee may ask a question at the discretion of the chair. Questions must be based on lines of expenditure in the budget papers and must be identified or referenced at the beginning of the question. 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 it is purely statistical in nature and limited to one page in length.

All questions are directed to the minister, not the minister's advisers, and the minister may refer questions to advisers for a response. During the committee's examination, television cameras will be permitted to film from both the northern and southern galleries. I declare the proposed payments open for examination and refer members to the agency statements of Volume 4. Minister, if you would like to make a statement, you may do so now. I ask you at the same time to introduce your advisers.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Could I welcome members of the committee to this hearing and thank them for the work they have put into preparing. I am accompanied today by, on my right, Mr Matt Johnson, Executive Director, Investment, Trade and Immigration, with whom I deal most closely. On my left is Mr Don Russell, Chief Executive, DSD and Dr Paul Heithersay, Deputy Chief Executive, DSD. Our agency is a part of DSD and we thank DSD for all they do for us. Sitting behind me is Mr Rick Janssan, Executive Director, Strategy and Business Services; Ms Narelle Slivak, Director, International; Martyn England, Director, Programs; along with Mario Pegoli, Director, Investment and Capital Markets.

I would like to make a very brief opening comment before throwing it open to the opposition because I think this is a day for the opposition to ask questions and I am happy to take as many as they have. Could I just say that in the 12 months that I have been minister, with the help of Mr Johnson and Mr Russell, we have reorganised very substantially the government's approach to investment and trade.

For a start, based on the good work of others before us, we have regularised our engagement strategies with China and India; that is, we have booked a regular outbound and inbound mission each year going forward with both China and India so that people can plan ahead, so that people can budget, so that people can organise themselves in both China and Australia for that engagement, and in India of course as well.

We will do an outbound every year in around May to China and have an inbound mission every year from China in around September to coincide with the Royal Agricultural Show. We are testing those arrangements this year. It has gone very well and they will endure in the years ahead. I would strongly encourage the opposition, and we will get you much more involved in this strategy in the years ahead, to consider that as an ongoing bipartisan approach because it will do a lot to create jobs and promote investment in small business in our state.

In India we have built around a regular outbound mission in August, which is about to occur, and an inbound mission in late January every year to coincide with the cricket. We have tested those arrangements again this year and hope that will go well.

The other thing we have done is completed our South-East Asia strategy. We are executing that for the first time shortly. The mission will be in a week and a half, or two weeks. We will be going to Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand. Again, we hope to regularise that and have that occur each year at the same time. Of course, we are working away on a North Atlantic and North Asia strategy. I know the shadow minister has raised the North Asia strategy and I agree with him completely: Japan and Korea are very important. We are stepping forward on those fronts as well. Everything we are doing is all about jobs, investment and helping South Australian workers and small businesses to prosper.

The other thing we are doing on the investment side is forming a new investment agency, which has been announced in fairly thorough detail, to harness and focus governments across the whole-of-government effort on investment attraction. We can talk more about that during the course of the estimates, but can I just say in summary that it has been a busy 12 months. We have reorganised things fairly substantially. We have re-energised them. We need to prove our work around the cabinet table in budgetary terms and establish the good work we are doing to build and grow investment in this part of what government is doing going forward, but that is what we are doing. That is all from me. I am very happy to have questions.

Mr WHETSTONE: No statement from me, Chair.

The ACTING CHAIR: Straight into questions then.

Mr WHETSTONE: Thank you, Chair, minister and your staff. I guess we will touch on China, Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 105, Financial commentary. The budget highlights increased expenditure for 2014-15 for overseas strategies and envoys. Can you provide a breakdown of the $1 million in spending?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Can I clarify exactly where the shadow minister is going here? You mentioned page 105.

Mr WHETSTONE: Yes, I did, under financial commentary.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Which particular line?

Mr WHETSTONE: It is just a breakdown of the million dollar spend. Obviously this million dollars of spend was not budgeted.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Is this the South East Asia Engagement Strategy you are talking about, the first line under commentary?

Mr WHETSTONE: We will start with the China trip.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I want to make sure I have got exactly what you are asking for, so which particular line in financial commentary are you referring to?

Mr WHETSTONE: Expenses—'increased expenditure in 2014-15 on overseas strategies and envoys ($1.0 million)', third dot point after the 2014-15 Estimated Result/2013-14 Actual.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I am struggling to find that reference. So it is page 105. The third dot point says, 'commencement of the South Australia—South East Asia Engagement Strategy in 2014-15 ($0.8 million).'

Mr WHETSTONE: No, page 105. If you go down to 2014-15 Estimated Result/2013-14 Actual, 'The $3.8 million increase in expenses is primarily due to:'—the second dot point.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Yes, 'increased expenditure in 2014-15 on overseas strategies and envoys ($1.0 million)'. I will give a general overview and then I will ask Mr Johnson to elaborate if it is needed. However, in 2014-15 we commenced work and investment on the South-East Asia strategy. That has been posted online and I think copies have been sent to the shadow minister. That strategy will be exercised for the first time with our outbound mission in August to Singapore, KL, Penang and Bangkok. Of course, we have also started a process of reviewing China and India.

Mr WHETSTONE: This is for the previous year, minister. This is increased expenditure in 2014-15, not about your South East Asia Engagement Strategy. It is the dot point above what you are generalising on at the moment.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: It says, 'increased expenditure in 2014-15 on overseas strategies', which includes all of them, and I have just explained South-East Asia and China and India, 'and envoys ($1.0 million)'. On the envoy, there is only one envoy, and that is Sir Angus Houston, who has accepted an appointment as our special envoy for international engagement. The others, Brian Hayes QC and Sean Keenihan, assist us with India and China respectively, and they are special advisers. I can explain to you, in regard to Sir Angus Houston's appointment, the arrangements for that if you wish. I can also separately explain on each of those strategies—China, India and South-East Asia—exactly what we are doing, then I will ask Mr Johnson to go through exactly how that million dollars is broken up once that is done. Which would you like me to start with, China, India or South-East Asia?

Mr WHETSTONE: I really wanted to know what the increased expenditure on strategies of $1 million were. I understand that Sir Angus Houston is part of that team, and so is Brian Hayes and Sean Keenihan. I will ask you what budget those two appointments are to the taxpayer.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Let me go through them one by one—first of all, the China strategy review and the main mission. China continues to be South Australia's largest two-way trading partner, making up 22.4 per cent of the state's total exports. You would be aware of the official signing of the China free trade agreement on 17 June which, of course, is very important to South Australia. We are very active in making sure we optimise the benefits of that for South Australia.

In 2014-15, South Australia attracted significant investment from China into wineries, property development and agricultural businesses. You would be aware that, in May, the Premier led the state's most ambitious outbound mission to Shandong, where 256 delegates travelled to Jinan and Qingdao to meet with counterparts across a number of business streams. That has required some additional investment, some of which would be within that $1 million that is mentioned in that budget line.

The areas we focused on included tourism, culture, health, environmental services, resources, agribusiness and wine, and local government. There were 160 delegates from the private sector, many of them from electorates represented here in the committee, 27 local government representatives, where the Chinese are very keen to engage with us, nine Austrade reps, five BioSA delegates and 49 state government public servants in one form or another. Individual members of the delegation have reported commercial outcomes across a range of sectors:

South Australian produce into 300 supermarkets worth $10 million a year and $500 million in 2018 was agreed to;

the Bank of China has agreed to open a branch in Adelaide in 2015;

the Chinese consulate is to open in South Australia in 2016;

a $10 million deal with Seppeltsfield to export $1.5 million worth of premium wine was done that week;

the $12 million Balco agricultural partnership was entered into;

Hagen Stehr sold, I think, 40 tonnes of tuna that week, $1 million worth, based on that one visit;

the South Australia-Shandong local government training program was initiated;

the State Library and the Shandong library have even agreed to a financial collaboration;

biomedical research arrangements were entered into; and

$4.5 billion worth of resources projects were advanced.

I could go further. Some 30 MOUs were signed, so part of that $1 million to which you are referring relates to, if you like, an upscaling, an increased effort load, in regard to the China strategy.

Then of course there is India. Some of that $1 million is being deployed to improve our India strategy. At the request of minister Robb, I attended, with Mr Johnson, his Australia-India business week in January which was a grand affair organised by the federal Coalition. It was very good, I must say, and I commend minister Robb for the work he is doing. We treated that as a reconnaissance for the mission we are organising next month, but it did require some additional investment and effort, because we are quite serious about India.

We intend to take what is probably going to be the biggest mission South Australia has ever had to India in a few weeks' time. There is quite a lot of effort involved in it. We have announced a review that was released at the Committee for Economic Development Australia event on 16April. The review received a number of contributions from the private sector and various degrees of involvement in India.

The contributions have now formed a part of an updated India strategy and costs will be incurred for the review of the India strategy and are in the process of being paid: for example, the launch of the review for the outbound mission; contacting South Australian businesses as part of a telephone survey; coordination of feedback, desk research and drafting of revised strategy—$15,000; in addition, printing and design of the discussion papers and costs. These are indicative of the sorts of ways in which that $1 million is being deployed.

Of course, I can talk separately about the South-East Asia strategy if you want to ask me a separate question on that. I am more than happy to answer questions as well about Sir Angus Houston, if you want to go there.

Mr WHETSTONE: I just want to touch on outcomes on that trade mission which you were saying happened on the mission—the Cleanseas tuna negotiations, the Balco negotiations, Seppeltsfield wine. Those negotiations have been ongoing for up to four years, and I guess the truth of the matter is that it was a photo opportunity, more than being about a real outcome. I know that Hagen Stehr, Malcolm May and the Seppeltsfield group had already negotiated and had the deal done. It was a matter of a photo opportunity for you and the Premier, really. It was four years in the making. It was not one day or one trip.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I am really disappointed to hear the shadow minister characterise the trip to China as a photo opportunity. The very large number of businesses that attended might be a little offended by that comment. I will rattle off—

Mr WHETSTONE: I know that Seppeltsfield were offended.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: No, listen. You asked the question; I will provide the answer.

Mr WHETSTONE: They were offended by the negotiation of bulk wine.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: You asked the question; I will provide the answer. Relationships with overseas countries and doing deals, as you point out, take time—it takes time. I cannot make any judgement about the assertion that the shadow minister just made that every single one of those deals that was done was under negotiation, I think you said, for four years.

Mr WHETSTONE: Three or four years.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I will check with each individual as to whether or not that is truthful and accurate because you have just said that every single one of those was under negotiation for four years.

Mr WHETSTONE: I named three.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Which are they?

Mr WHETSTONE: The tuna Cleanseas, Balco and Seppeltsfield.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I will check with the proprietors of each of those, and I will find out if that is correct. It may well be, but these things take time. The question is: when was the deal done? When was the agreement reached? I can tell you that if you want to speak to Warren Randall from Seppeltsfield I think you will find a man very happy with that mission. Let me just run through some of the companies that attended the photo opportunity the shadow minister just mentioned.

You might want to talk to—where does it start?—Austofix Group Limited, Asian Agribusiness Consulting, and Artlab. You might want to talk to Belvidere Winery. You might want to talk to BHP Billiton. You might want to talk to the seven biomedical companies that attended with BioSA or to Brothers in Arms Vineyards, Carpentaria Exploration, CASAR, Caudo Vineyard, Cavitus Pty Ltd, C Technologies, and Chinatown.

There are a number of local councils who have grouped together businesses within their council districts to do business in China in very clever and innovative ways, all of which are great advocates for this engagement strategy and thought the trip was the best thing they had ever attended. It has helped them to advance projects within their council districts, many from the country.

You might want to talk to the fashion industry that attended and Deloitte Tax Services. You might want to talk to, as I mentioned, a number of district councils, or to Dinko Tuna Farmers. You might want to talk to Dover Fisheries, Don Alan Pty Ltd, Ellex Medical Lasers, Elwa Pty Ltd, Finlaysons Lawyers, Food and Beverage Australia Limited, Gaetjens Langley Australia, Glen Eldon Wines, Grain Producers SA, the Hahndorf Inn—which is are doing some fantastic work in China, by the way—Hassell, He Yi Advisors, Health Industries, HenderCare, and Hilton Australia. You might want to talk to Iron Road, Knight Frank, Mallee Estate Wines and Masonic Homes. You might want to talk to Nova Vita Wines and Pernod Ricard. You might want to talk to Red Lion Australia, Renmark Paringa council's CEO—

Mr WHETSTONE: You do not have to go through them, minister. I have talked to most of these people.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Have you told them that you thought their mission to China was a photo opportunity?

Mr WHETSTONE: I talked about three businesses. I did not talk about the entire delegation.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: The point I am making to the shadow minister is that building these relationships, if you read the strategies, takes time. What the trade missions do is create an opportunity for companies to do deals to bring to a conclusion negotiations they have been making that have hitherto struggled.

To give you just one example, and this is a very important example, a major miner in this state has being negotiating an offtake agreement with a Chinese company. They were having trouble getting to the chairman and the president; they were about three levels down in the management chain in their negotiations. I was able to put them together with the chairman and the president of the Chinese buyer because government to government opens doors; government to government makes it possible for deals to be done.

When the Governor of Shandong or the party chairman stands beside the Premier of South Australia and says to businesses, 'We want you to talk to South Australian companies,' deals get done. You will find, if you have spoken to the companies that attended the China mission, that they were overwhelmingly pleased and impressed with the doors that opened for them as a result of intervention by the Premier and the government on their behalf through the mission.

Things do not happen in China unless it is government to government, and that is also the case in large parts of South-East Asia. To suggest that these businesses had the deals all done and did not require any assistance from the government at all is simply wrong, and I think they would be the first people to straighten you out on that. By the way, all the companies involved paid their own way to attend this 'photo opportunity' that you have just described, and I must say that the opposition's characterisation of the China mission as a waste of time, a waste of money, a photo opportunity, a junket, has not gone over well in industry.

Mr WHETSTONE: Who said it was a waste of time? Who said it was a junket, minister? Tell us names, name them.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I think your leader did.

Mr WHETSTONE: No, that is so not true.

The ACTING CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Just look at the media. I think your leader and your party described government officers attending as a complete and utter waste of the taxpayers' money, or words to that effect.

Mr WHETSTONE: Words to that effect.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I will come back to you on that. I will get my staff, in fact while we are here, if they can put it together, to provide me with a summary of some of the negative commentary the opposition provided on the whole China mission. I can tell you there were people over there who were just gobsmacked in disbelief.

You are either on side with Australian jobs and Australian industry or you are not as an opposition. My strong advice to the opposition would be to support our small businesses, our farmers, in their efforts to sell their products in China and not be as dismissive of it either during estimates or separately as the opposition has been. This has achieved fantastic outputs. You do not go off to China on a trade mission and generally come back with the absolutely amazing results that we came back with. It takes time afterwards, and further negotiations are underway.

If you take the example of Seppeltsfield, the proprietors tell me that since the mission they have actually gone further with sales agreements all based around the mission. Go and talk to Hagen Stehr. Not only that, but in September we are expecting a reasonably substantial delegation to arrive from Shandong Province headed up by the party secretary. I do not think a party secretary has visited South Australia in 13 or 14 years, and this is a huge thing. This is a province with a population in the order of around 90 million; it is one of China's biggest provinces.

This is all based around the success of May. It was the biggest mission Shandong had ever hosted from anywhere in the world, it was the biggest mission we have ever conducted and it took more companies overseas than this state government has ever done before in its history, all of whom are now negotiating to create jobs and enterprise through this special relationship with China. Can I say that for the very small amount of money we are spending in this portfolio which is all about jobs, jobs, jobs, we are getting a disproportionate result.

Mr WHETSTONE: Is there a budgeted allocation for the cost of travel for the minister and his department that comes directly out of the Globally Integrating the South Australian Economy program?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I am pleased that you have asked this question, because I am happy to take as many questions on travel as you want to ask. I will take them all on notice, and I will get back to you with some cogent and accurate information. I would just say that we have an hour and a half to ask questions about how we can create jobs and enterprise from trade and for you to inquire of the government about whether it could do more to create even more jobs and enterprise. We can spend that hour and a half talking about travel or we can spend it talking about how we work together to create jobs; but, yes, there is. If you have a budget for travel, and I think if you ask the Hon. Julie Bishop, the Deputy Prime Minister or the Hon. Andrew Robb, the trade minister, whether they need to travel to be the minister for trade and the minister for investment—

Mr WHETSTONE: That wasn't the question, minister. It was a simple question.

The ACTING CHAIR: He can answer the question how he likes. The member does not get to interject on him.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: No, you asked me whether there was a budget for travel. I will stun you and say that, yes, for the Minister for Investment and Trade, yes, there is a budget for travel. In order to promote trade investment, yes, you do need to travel to the countries with whom we trade; yes, there is a budget. I am more than happy to answer any questions you may have on it.

Mr WHETSTONE: You talk about the extra programs, the export missions that are outbound and inbound. Why isn't there extra funding in the budget for overseas trips, considering we now have this regular calendar?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: There is a budget that picks up all of the needs for our outbound and inbound trade missions, including the requirement for ministers and government officers to travel to and from those destinations. Let me give you an example: the way I like to do things is as professionally and as competently as is possible. For that reason, before organising the May outbound mission, and at the request of the Chinese government in Shandong, I went there in November for a planning mission with key staff, during which we went through all the arrangements for May. We did the same thing in India, where at the request of federal minister Robb, who was particularly keen to get state ministers up there, we went to India on a planning mission on our outbound mission to India. That is to make sure that when we go up there our companies get maximum value out of it; so that is precisely how we do it.

We then will have a regular planning mission with the Shandong government every November, during which we will go over the arrangements for the following year. What our government is focused on is jobs, jobs, jobs. I went to a Food SA expo recently, and there were about 20 or 30 companies there, and I spoke to every single one of them. There were 10 jobs here, 20 jobs there, 30 jobs there, and when you added them up, the 30 food producers that were at that expo were employing more people than Holden—more people than Holden. If every one of them can increase their sales and their exports by, say, 20 per cent, that is 20 per cent more jobs.

We are methodically setting about creating jobs from sales of our wonderful products to overseas destinations, and that does require going to those destinations. For example, we participate in SIAL, the food expo in Shanghai and we go HOFEX in Hong Kong to help promote and support our food producers, many of whom are represented by electorates from those opposite. We are out there helping our farmers and our food producers sell their things and create jobs and, yes, that does involve getting our people, our officers, overseas to help them, with our companies, do that very thing.

Mr WHETSTONE: I would like to come back to the core of the question, which I do not think I got an answer for. Where will the money for these trade missions come from in the future if it is not in the budget?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: It is in the budget. I refer the member to the 2015-16 budget estimated result net cost of services, an increase of $0.5 million is predominantly due to 'the commencement of expenditure in 2015-16 for the Industry Attraction Fund'. Then it goes on: additional expenditure 2015, $0.3 million, 2014-15 to $1.3 million, and '2015-16 to implement the South Australia—South East Asia Engagement Strategy'.

Bit by bit the budget spells out how the existing budget is going to be deployed to execute the strategies I have mentioned. It is all spelt out there in estimated result and expenses on those relevant budget pages. If you see a dollar amount put alongside a strategy, or for a supply in services, or an employee entitlement or a grant and subsidy linked to one of those strategies, that is what it is all about.

Mr WHETSTONE: Did that include the cost of the China mission?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Yes, all the costs of the China missions are included in the China strategy. I might ask Mr Johnson to elaborate a little and give more of a detailed breakup mission by mission.

Mr JOHNSON: Our missions are budgeted for and reflected in the respective geographic strategies that we have, and I thought I would provide some information on what the existing budgets are. For China, we have an allocation of $1.18 million at the moment. For India, we have $0.8 million. For the ASEAN region, the new funding that the minister referred to, we have $1.3 million.

In response to your earlier question that you opened up the session with about the increase of $1 million, I wanted to give you a bit of information on some of the new things we are spending money on. We have $300,000 which we put towards the development of the South-East Asia Engagement Strategy that we are now moving into implementation. We spent just under $50,000 on the India visit which was supporting those South Australian businesses that took part in Australian Business Week in India under minister Robb's leadership. We have a new strategic adviser in India who has provided support to us throughout the 2014-15 year, and that is costing us about $70,000 a year. With the China mission, which you have asked questions about, to this point we have spent $187,000 on the mission in 2014-15. That is an estimated result. There are still some invoices and payments to settle.

Mr WHETSTONE: Of the $187,000, where did the budget line come in to take the departmental people, the minister's office, to China? Where is that budget line?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Let me start on that one because I can see where the shadow minister is going. The shadow minister's view is that any public servant travelling to China is a waste of the taxpayers' money.

Mr WHETSTONE: You are saying that.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I can see that is where—

Mr WHETSTONE: No, you are saying that.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Let's just see where you take the question line, but can I explain to you that I attended that mission and I think one of my policy advisers dedicated to China came on that mission and I am pretty sure that was it from my office. The others who attended that mission were principally officers of government.

Everything in the Chinese economy involves the government. A lot of the enterprises in China are state-owned enterprises. It is a nation where a lot of the business opportunities—the buyers and customers—are government-owned, so you cannot interact with the Chinese without doing it to some extent at a government to government level. For example, for the mining and energy forum, Dr Heithersay was due to come, but I think had to pull out at the last moment. We had senior officials from the department hosting and running that. It was the same with agribusiness as the CE of PIRSA came because that opened doors. In the arts and cultural area we had officers from the relevant departments, and so it went on.

It is not right to imply that those people were on some sort of a junket or were unnecessary. In fact, if you talk to the businesses concerned, you will find that having those officials there was the very thing that opened the doors for them—it was the very thing that made it possible for them to then interact—because, until the Chinese government officials say, 'Yes, let's engage,' it does not happen. That is why it is so important that our public servants, particularly in the case of China, are part of our missions. If they are not, things do not move as well as they should.

Their travel costs, to cut to your point, were largely met from within the respective departmental budgets. Not everyone who attended, attended from within our budget line: some of them would have attended from within their own, and they are questions that could be asked of them in their respective estimates hearings.

Mr WHETSTONE: The China and India advisory councils, Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page105 under highlights. The state government has reviewed the China and India strategies. What is the cost of these reviews?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Before going on with that question, you inferred that no-one in the opposition had been critical of the public servants attending—

Mr WHETSTONE: Minister, no-one has been critical of your department taking public bureaucrats and public servants on the trip, no-one. To date, you are the only one who has inferred that the public servants should not have gone or it was a waste of money. You are the only person here today who has inferred that they are a waste of money, no-one else.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Can I respond to that assertion which is in the form of a question, because the shadow minister is completely and utterly wrong. Let me read an extract of what he said in an article reported by Andrew Hough in The Advertiser on 12 May at 3pm. This is a direct quote:

Opposition Trade and Investment spokesman Tim Whetstone criticised the trip.

It then quotes Mr Whetstone:

While it's important we build a better relationship and understanding of China as a trade partner, it is outrageous that the Government is sending more than 80 publicly funded employees on one trip.

Then it goes on:

They are stripping money from trade offices overseas and small business programs at home, while they are spending big on airfares and hotel rooms.

And it goes on. They are your own words, shadow minister, so you are completely and utterly wrong. You are the one who said sending those 80 publicly funded employees on the trip was outrageous, so I have just answered your question.

Mr WHETSTONE: No, you have not. One in four: did you get good value for money?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Your claim was that I was the only person who criticised the attendance of those public servants on the trip. In fact, you were.

Mr WHETSTONE: Minister, you have answered the question. Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 105 under highlights. The state government has reviewed the China and India strategies. What cost was it to the taxpayer for these reviews?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I will start, first, with the India strategy review because I think your question cuts to the cost of those reviews. It has been about two years now since we wrote the India strategy. We said we would review it after a couple of years. We commenced the process on 16 April when I launched a discussion paper. Submissions closed on 22 May and we are currently compiling those submissions and will be releasing a revised strategy in the near future, particularly after the visit coming up next month. The following costs were incurred for the review of the India strategy and are in the process of being paid:

the launch of the review of the strategy in addition to the launch of the outbound mission to India, $3,150;

contacting South Australian businesses as part of a telephone survey, $1,500;

coordination of feedback, desk research and drafting of a revised strategy, $15,000; and

printing and design of the discussion paper costs, $3,085.

The updated strategy, I hope, will be released after our mission in August. It is being developed in consultation with Brian Hayes QC, strategic adviser on India (who, I must say, has been a wonderful help to the government), and other key stakeholders, including those within the commonwealth and state governments in the Consulate General in India. I think you can see the costs for the India review have been quite modest.

In respect of China, the engagement strategy is undergoing a review to take account of changing circumstances and the emerging opportunities between South Australia and China. The need to take a strategic approach to maximise economic opportunities is clear, given the competing attention for the Chinese investment and trade from other countries and Australian jurisdictions. The Premier has invited senior Shandong leaders to bring a delegation, as I mentioned. As to the review and in terms of the actual costs, I do not have the detailed breakdown but I expect it to be in the order of those that I ran through for India. My approach as the minister has been to steer away from consultants. I do not like the idea of paying consultants large amounts of money to do these things.

Mr TARZIA: What about Brian Hayes?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: You might want to ask me a question on that separately. I am talking about the sort of consultancies that involve the usual consultancy companies to produce glossy reports and brochures for government that arguably could have been produced internally. For that reason I am relying on our special adviser, Brian Hayes, and my own staff largely to do the India review. We have some consultancies underway on India on separate but related matters, but generally I am trying to get my own government officers and departments to do the work rather than to expend the taxpayers' money on the usual large consultancy companies because I just think it makes for better government.

In regard to China, ChAFTA has 900 pages of tariff schedules, timelines for reductions and other information on non-tariff concessions for Australian exporters and it is quite a significant task to translate these into policy and action proposals under our China Engagement Strategy and, for that reason, some consultancy costs are unavoidable because you simply need to break through copious details and information. For example, in regard to China, we are going to engage the Institute for International Trade to help us with that and I think a consultancy has been agreed to. About $50,000 has already been paid in 2014-15—it would be about $137,000 overall—to make sure that we get it right in regard to optimising opportunities from the ChAFTA for South Australian companies. Where possible, I am trying to steer away from consultancies but when there is copious amounts of detailed information that needs analysis, it is unavoidable.

Mr WHETSTONE: Minister, I understand you are trying to steer away from private consultants and work with the state government's advisory councils.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: We get fantastic support from our special advisers, Brian Hayes QC on India and Sean Keenihan on China. Mr Alfred Huang, former lord mayor of Adelaide, also helps us with China. Generally I am trying to use those people to guide our strategy forward rather than to bring others in, although as I have mentioned there are still consultancies that are needed from time to time to wade through the mass of information and the statistical data that we need to diagnose.

Mr WHETSTONE: Essentially, if they are so important, why has the China Advisory Council not met for 15 months at a time when the free trade agreement with China has been signed and South Australia's delegation has travelled to China?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: My advice is that the advisory council was important at the initial stages of the development of the China strategy. I think what is happening now is that Sean Kunihan and Dr Alfred Huang are consulting informally with members of those organisations on an ongoing basis.

The Premier has made a conscious effort to try to reduce the number of boards and committees in government, to get rid of both the cost and complexity of government, and I commend him for that. Our part of that has been to try not to tangle up our approach to investment and trade with too many boards, committees and quangos. In fact, rather than have a dedicated China, India, South-East Asia council, I am looking to have one that brings all of them together, with subcommittees, if you like, to work on individual countries.

What we found is that we learn a lot from each other. For example, what we are doing with China applies to what we are doing with India and South-East Asia. As we develop North Asia, the North Atlantic and other strategies, they will feed off each other, if you like, in terms of ideas and information. I am looking to try to reduce that to one committee, not a multiple of them. So, there is plenty of informal communication going on.

Mr WHETSTONE: The China Advisory Council—as important as the free trade agreement has been to be signed and the state's history-making delegation to China—did not meet for 15 months. If we look at India, they met once in nine months. So, you are obviously looking to move onto a new model.

The South-East Asia strategy, Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 105, financial commentary. Further funding has been allocated for the South East Asia Engagement Strategy, but with very little detail to date. Can you provide a breakdown of how that funding will be spent, and how many Austrade officers will be employed under this initiative?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Thank you for the question. The region of South-East Asia has enormous economic potential for the state, with exports presently valued at around $1.9 billion in 2013-14. The government said it would develop a South-East Asia strategy. It has delivered on that election promise. There were a series of public consultations held across Adelaide and four regional areas. Submissions and feedback were received from Australian diplomatic posts and South-East Asian heads of mission in Australia, as well as from the business community. The result is the strategy that was launched by the Premier on 19 March, and it is aligned to the 10 economic priorities of government.

In June 2014, as part of the 2014-15 state budget, the South Australian government committed $1.1 million over four years to develop the engagement strategy. In March 2015, following development of the strategy, the government committed a further $1 million as additional ongoing annual budget to the DSD, commencing in 2015-16, to support the implementation of the strategy. Expenditure of $255,463 in 2014-15 consisted of: salary components of staff, $92,000; and project expenditure, $163,463.

In 2014-15, targets have been set, along with 2015-16. We are now planning a business mission to Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand in August, as I have mentioned, leveraging on the new relationships formed through my April visit when we went up and did a reconnaissance talk to all of the Austrade staff, to all of the key players, and we have set up what I think will be a very good mission. Of course, it will be led by the Premier, supported by myself and Sir Angus Houston. We expect the mission will comprise 40 businesses, as well as being heavily represented by the University of South Australia, the University of Adelaide and Flinders University.

Again, with this mission we have taken a whole-of-government approach to the program, with representatives of agencies engaged with South-East Asia providing support. There will be four main sectors: defence, aerospace, electronics and advanced manufacturing; food, wine and agribusiness; liveable cities, health and aged care; and tourism, arts and education. We did have some assistance with this strategy from PricewaterhouseCoopers.

South-East Asia, of course, is defined as 10 countries, the 10 countries of ASEAN. We are going to have a separate approach in regard to the others, in particular Indonesia, Cambodia, Brunei Darussalam, Laos, Myanmar, the Philippines, Vietnam and Timor-Leste. It is a big area. We cannot group them all as one and we cannot visit them all in one mission, so we will have more announcements that we will be making in the fullness of time about that.

You also asked about embedded officers. We are considering embedding someone with the respective Austrade offices in Singapore, Malaysia and possibly Indonesia, but we are at the very early stages of that. The cost for doing that would be around $570,000. We have found embedding officers with Austrade to be extremely cost effective. The government did previously experiment with having its dedicated offices overseas. We had one in Shanghai and we had one in Chennai, India, and it did not end well. I think the government was rightly criticised from time to time about the cost of those offices. We have gone for a much more economic and simple model, and other states are now starting to follow our lead.

Mr WHETSTONE: How many individuals made submissions to the South-East Asia strategy?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I might have to seek help with that one. I think I will have to take that one on notice, if I may, because that would require the search of some papers to find out who we engaged with on that.

Mr WHETSTONE: I could suggest that there were none, minister. Trade strategies in Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 106—

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Excuse me. I have found in this business that assertions and throw-away lines are then represented as fact.

The ACTING CHAIR: Order! Just before you do that, minister, it is questions and answers, not snide comments and then questions, so if you want to say something then say it in the body of your question.

Mr WHETSTONE: I—

The ACTING CHAIR: If you want to say something, say it in the body of your question. I remind everybody, just so we maintain some decorum for the rest of the day, that standing orders that allow me to boot people out still exist under the committees. If you want to get all rowdy, you can, but people can also leave. Carry on, minister.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Thank you. To clarify that issue, I would be confident that that assertion by the shadow minister is completely and absolutely factually wrong, but I will get back to the committee with an answer.

Mr WHETSTONE: Make sure you make it public, minister, because the FOI tells us that there were zero.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Well, we will check.

Mr WHETSTONE: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 106, under targets 2015-16, referring to the target to develop trade engagement strategies with North Atlantic and North Asia. Is there any funding for these strategies to be developed in the 2015-16 budget?

Mr TARZIA: Can't find it; it doesn't exist.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I want to make sure the information I give is accurate. My understanding is that I think in the order of $160,000 has been put aside for the North Atlantic strategy, and that is well advanced by the way. One of our officers in our mission in London is working on that fairly assiduously. I have met with him. He has been out here and I have seen the early drafts. We are making good progress on that.

What the government wants to do is make better use of our office in London to run our activities in the US and Europe more extensively. The budget assigned in 2015-16 for the North Atlantic engagement strategy is $182,000, including: Director, North Atlantic, $100,000, appointment in January 2016; strategy implementation and potential reconnaissance visit, new investment agency, possible involvement in G'DAY USA, outbound mission in January, around $82,000. Cabinet approval will be sought for an additional implementation cost to be identified during the strategy development phase in 2015-16.

New strategies are being considered for North Asia and the MENA regions. Budget is allocated for the development of these strategies in 2015-16, including $60,000 for the North Asia strategy, with the MENA strategy yet to be determined. The throwaway line from one of the members opposite is clearly wrong again. You just have to get your facts right in this business.

I would say this: under previous governments, when the Liberals were in, there were no strategies for any of these regions—none at all. I am just making that point. The approach this government has taken is to develop strategies for each region. We are taking a far more professional approach, and we believe that, by writing a strategy, funding the strategy and then organising the strategy, we can get better results.

That does not mean that we and South Australia businesses are not actively engaged already in trading in Europe and the US. In fact, there is daylight between the US and Europe and the rest in terms of inbound investment; most of it comes from the US and Europe. A lot of Australian and South Australian companies are up there busily working away in Europe and North America, with the full support of our office in London, which is doing a very good job backing them up. Similarly, previous ministers have led missions to the Middle East and extremely well too and also, in the past, we have been active in North Asia.

South Australian companies are active and the South Australian government is helping, but what I would like to see is better-funded strategies for North Asia—and I know the shadow minister would agree with me on that, because he has raised it publicly—and also for the Middle East (MENA) and the North Atlantic. I think in the fullness of time we may need to look elsewhere around the globe as well.

I would like to see better strategies better funded in all those areas, but what I have to do, as a member of cabinet, is argue my case for resources. To do that, I have to prove that we are creating jobs and enterprise from the actions and the activities we are undertaking. There are many competing demands on the budget, and I have to argue that case. We are fully engaged with the resources we have at the moment with our India, China and South-East Asia strategies and developing North Asia and the North Atlantic, but I would dearly love to see strategies for all the regions we are trading with underway and better funded.

Every minister would like more money in his portfolio, and I think there is a very strong argument that can be made for more money to be put into this portfolio, but I have to compete with the demands of the health system, the education system and everything from primary industries through to science and technology for every dollar that is available, and that is what I will be doing.

Mr WHETSTONE: I refer to the investment attraction fund, Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 108, sub-program 9.2. What is the overall cost to establish the investment attraction agency and how many FTEs will be dedicated to this agency?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Thank you for the question. The government is of the view that it is timely to reorganise its approach to investment attraction. It had previously been undertaken across government. The Department of State Development was involved and the offices of international trade, Health Industries, Tourism Commission, Primary Industries and Defence SA were all involved in investment attraction.

For that reason, some work was undertaken by the EDB that involved consultations with the economic development board of Ireland and their investment agency. Recommendations were put to the economic development committee of cabinet and ultimately accepted. The net result is that we are going to form our own new agency. It will be modelled on world's best practice in investment attraction agencies, following consultations with Singapore and Ireland, as I have mentioned.

On 13 July, the state government announced that Mr Rob Chapman will become chairman of the new agency. The CEO will be selected and appointed through a global search; in fact, that is underway. Dr Don Russell, CE of DSD, will be acting CE, and is acting CE at the moment under the interim arrangements. The new agency will report directly to the Minister for Investment and Trade and will lead major transformational investment attraction.

As outlined in the budget, the new agency will administer a new fund of $15 million over two years: that is $5 million for the remainder of this year and $10 million for next year, and that is a start-up. I have made it clear that I will be pitching for at least $20 million in the subsequent years per annum, and that was a recommendation of the EDB in its work, but we have not budgeted that as yet. We want to get this thing up and running first, have it prove its worth and then review the situation, and then there will be further announcements.

I would like to see around 6,000 new jobs from inbound investment over the next three years; that will not be easy. The national and international economic environment is tough at the moment, but I will make sure that this agency makes its contribution towards that target. The investment attraction agency will be established this financial year to provide a coordinated and central point of contact within government for investment attraction, aim to create new jobs and investment through targeting projects, develop and market suitable projects for investment, identify and facilitate potential investment and target strategic new head offices in the state.

Can I add that it was found during our work on this that 80 per cent of the attraction in coming to South Australia need not be financial; that is to say, a lot of it is about facilitation, not offering money. Can I say that I am personally very negative about offering cash to companies, and we will not be doing that.

Mr TARZIA: OZ Minerals?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: What was that?

Mr TARZIA: OZ Minerals, you offered them money to come to Adelaide.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: If you want to ask a question about OZ Minerals, I am happy to answer it. If you look at the way that was done, I think you will find the money has not been given to OZ Minerals. It has been done far more intelligently than that, and it has been put into R&D. I think there are other ways to help companies identify South Australia as a base for their operations other than to offer them money. We have set up the investment attraction agency to do that, and we are prepared to do that as part of our offerings, but I think there are a lot of other things that we can pursue as well.

The financial data reflected within the Agency Statements do not include the operating costs of the new agency. At the time of preparing the budget papers, the scope and organisation had not been determined, and that is still a little open. Subsequently, cabinet has approved that the agency will be operationalised within existing budget resources. The base operational funding will be $2 million in this initial set-up period which has been found from other agencies, so there is no net increase for its day-to-day operating expenses.

To break that up further, that $2 million comprises a $550,000 contribution from DSD, for which we are very grateful to Dr Russell; Defence SA has contributed $450,000; PIRSA has put in $325,000; DPTI has put in $225,000; DPC, $250,000; and DEWNR, $200,000, comprising the $2 million required to get things started. Requiring funding to support operational costs beyond that tranche is still subject to further consideration.

Additional resources will be drawn, however, from other agencies because we will need more, and it will be subject to the chief executive and the chief executive agreements, using the machinery of government framework. In other words, there is going to be a process of moving money from other agencies into the investment attraction agency so that there is no net additional cost to the taxpayer. The Treasurer quite rightly required this of me and other ministers, and we were more than happy to do that, so that the $15 million that is there is for investment attraction initiatives.

The business support cost for the agency will be provided by the Department of State Development which will act as an umbrella agency for the IA. By the way, based on Defence SA as a guide, the chair will be remunerated at around $75,000; the deputy chair, $60,000 to $69,000; and ordinary members, $30,000 to $39,000. I am particularly keen to put together an international board here. We do not want a board that is local for this: we want a board that has reach into our target markets for investment; for that reason, we will be looking internationally for people, and we are already putting together a list of names.

Mr WHETSTONE: As the investment attraction agency, is it taking over from InvestSA?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Yes, InvestSA will be subsumed into the new investment agency, and Mario Pegoli is here with me today. InvestSA was an earlier initiative of the government which the government would readily acknowledge probably did not work quite as we had hoped for a range of reasons. One of those reasons is that, to do this properly, there must be buy-in and engagement across the whole of government.

As minister, I have been very careful to engage with all of my ministerial colleagues, and I know that Dr Russell has likewise with this colleagues at CEO level, and we have had great support from the Premier and CE of Premier and Cabinet. We want to make sure that when we set this up everyone has purchase and buy-in to it. That will involve discussions that will be occurring in the months that follow about people moving from various other agencies into the new investment agency, and I think you will see people move from InvestSA into the agency.

In other cases, it may be that the resources or the money is moved and new people are sought because we may need to go out and find some new people with skills that do not presently exist within the existing basket of people that we have available. There will be some people move into the agency, there will be some money moved into the agency which will be used to find new people, but, where possible, we are funding this from reallocating resources that already exist across the whole of government rather than to put a new burden on the taxpayer.

Mr WHETSTONE: Will the state government continue to operate the interstate investment business awareness campaign?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I am advised that that program will fall into the basket of programs that will be reviewed by the new agency. We will look at the way we have been doing things; we will look at the way we should be doing things; we will decide what will go, what will stay, and what will be introduced as a new initiative; and we will be very happy to brief the shadow minister on that fully further down the track. I am not quite sure what form our interstate activities will take in terms of inbound investment, but certainly the agency will be looking at attracting investment from the Eastern States and from other states into South Australia, as well as internationally. I will have to update the house on that once the situation is clearer.

At the moment, the focus has been on getting a chair, and we have done that—tick. We now need to identify a CEO. Once we have a CEO, the chairman, Rob Chapman—who has thrown himself at this with complete enthusiasm and is a fantastic person for the job—and the CEO need to sit down and work out the form so that we can answer that question for the shadow minister at a later time.

Mr WHETSTONE: Will the $15 million over two years of the investment attraction be available to businesses currently operating in South Australia?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: It is possible that that is the case because businesses that are already here may seek to expand and grow and they may see an opportunity. For instance, let us say we win the submarine and surface ship program and some of the defence primes here want to grow their footprint. An international corporation like a Lockheed Martin, a Raytheon or a Hewlett Packard may seek an opportunity to grab something from elsewhere in the global network and bring it to South Australia. They may well come to us with a proposal, so it is possible.

What I am going to be very sceptical about is any request for support that is an attempt to hang on to jobs here to stop them from going interstate because the fundamentals of that business are in trouble. I would rather put the investment into the fundamentals of a business that is thriving than to try to throw money at a business that is struggling to survive to keep it here. I must say, I have seen a fair bit of that over the years that I have been in this parliament, going right back to 1997. We will make sure that this fund is not milked by businesses that are in difficulty and seeking a cash handout.

We are looking here to bring in businesses for whom the economic fundamentals in South Australia are good. The rules or the guidelines as to what will frame a successful application will be determined by the chairman, the CEO and the board, who will provide advice to me that I can then provide to cabinet, through the EDCC, so that we have the right approach to investment. But, the answer to your question is yes, it is possible for existing companies to grow their footprint here by making application, as well as companies not presently in South Australia to come in using this fund.

Mr TARZIA: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, Program 7: Opportunities for Small Business. There are over 100,000 small businesses operating in South Australia. Can the minister outline how many small businesses closed down in South Australia in the last period, 2014-15?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I am not the Minister for Small Business, although I do co-chair with the Treasurer the Small Business Round Table, so I do not have that information, but I would have to ask you to refer that to the Minister for Small Business during his estimates hearing. I would, in answer to your question, agree with the member that this portfolio of investment attraction and international engagement and trade is vital to small business. One of my aims, having been in small business myself, will be to do everything I can to optimise the opportunities for small business from this portfolio, but on the broader snapshot of how small business is travelling across the state you will need to refer to the Minister for Small Business.

Mr TARZIA: Getting back to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4: Opportunities for Small Business, within your area of ministry, total expenses for this program were over $2 million. I would like to know how many small businesses closed down in 2014-15 in SA and how many opened in 2014-15 in SA. I put it to you that the net number of business exits in 2013 was over 18,000. Could the minister outline to me, in regard to that program—and I appreciate if you do not have the data if you come back to the house—on page 100, what training services will be available to train employees and in what sectors of the business sector will this be concentrated?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: What budget page is the member referring to?

Mr TARZIA: Page 100, Opportunities for Small Business, State Development.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I think you have just referred to a program which is not open—

Mr TARZIA: Expense line $2.277 million, which—

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: No; what I am getting at is that you have referred to a part of the budget paper which is not open for consideration in this session. Page 100, Program 7: Opportunities for Small Business, is a page in a program which is open under the auspices of the Minister for Small Business, so, obviously, I do not have the office for small business here with me today. It is a good question, but it is a question that is appropriately put to the Minister for Small Business, who is on tomorrow. So, if you can hold that question with baited breath for tomorrow, I am sure he would be delighted to answer it. Now that you have given us the head's up, we will make sure we pass it on so that he comes well prepared.

Mr DULUK: I refer to Significant Investor applications, Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 107, which is under consideration today. I note that, while fewer significant investor visa applications are expected due to changes in the qualifying investment criteria, increased applications are expected overall in 2015-16 as the federal immigration department will relax some of their business criteria. Can the minister outline why changes in the qualifying investor criteria are expected to result in fewer SIV applications, and which type of migration visas are expected to increase?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Excuse me, can I ask the member for Davenport to refer me again. Is it page 107?

Mr DULUK: Correct.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Is it business migration? Is it 892 and 839 visas or 132 and 188 visas that are you particularly interested in or both?

Mr DULUK: Both, but the significant investor applications associated with those.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I thank the member for his question. This is something we are working quite hard at trying to improve. We can always do better. More new business migrants were nominated in this program than last year with 187 compared to 130. Of the 187 nominations, 46 were significant investors who were required to make a minimum investment of $5 million each. Potential outcomes from these business migrants are $167 million in investment and the creation of 369 jobs.

We promote these visas during trips to China by migration officers. There were four. In Malaysia there were two visits and they helped to achieve higher business migration nomination outcomes. The interim nomination target for 2015-16 is 200. This is achievable with the commonwealth introducing more favourable eligibility requirements for the business innovative visa.

Unfortunately, low numbers of significant investor visa applications are expected due to the new $5 million complying investment requirements and a focus will remain on the attraction of high net worth 132 business talent migrants. Over the last two financial years, Immigration SA has been provided with an additional $300,000 per year to reinvigorate the business migration program. From 1 July 2015, revenue from application fees will be used to maintain business migration promotional activities.

For your information, I have around 12 people working in this area within my agency, so it is an area that we value. Of course, the key decisions and policies here are determined by the commonwealth. Our job is to make sure that South Australia punches well above its weight and that we compete. However, I am advised that we feel some of the new visa requirements do favour the Eastern States a little, particularly in the way that they are structured.

Mr DULUK: In that regard, as the minister are you going to work in collaboration with the federal minister to maybe change some of that criteria to make it more attractive to South Australia?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: The commonwealth has been conducting a review of these arrangements with which we have fully engaged. We provided a submission on the visa reviews and we did express the view that we thought that the criteria disadvantaged South Australia to some degree. We have sought some special consideration for South Australia given our remoteness and those sort of interactions are underway and ongoing. I wrote personally to minister Robb about it.

Mr WHETSTONE: Moving on to international education, Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 71, targets. How many submissions did the state government receive for the formation of the South Australian International Student Strategy?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I would just ask the shadow minister to indicate the page number again please?

Mr WHETSTONE: Page 71.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I point out to the shadow minister that that program within DSD falls to the Minister for Higher Education (Hon. Gail Gago, in another place) and that her budget estimates are being managed by another minister, not by me, so it would be better to direct that question to her because she has the government officers and resources to answer it. However, can I say that minister Gago has been very supportive and engaged in our activities. There is an interconnect between international student attraction and what we are doing and we work very closely together, but she is in a better place to answer that question for you than me.

Mr WHETSTONE: Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 104 under Program summary. An extra $500,000 was spent on employee benefit expenses in 2014-15. What area was that spent on?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Employee benefit expenses have increased by $0.5 million due to the transfer of two FTEs from the Greater Europe Desk and Research and Development Collaboration Unit within the Department of the Premier and Cabinet to the Department of State Development in 2014-15. That was $0.3 million, and funding for staff to administer the introduction of immigration application fees was the additional $.2 million.

To explain that further, my aim as minister has been to ensure that DPC and the office of the Premier have full confidence in our office and they rely on us to do the work, if you like, on international engagement. Partly as a consequence of that, two FTEs have been moved from DPC to DSD. I think our job is to make sure that the needs of Premier and Cabinet are met, so we are trying to make ourselves as useful as we can. It is an internal reorganisation of people moving from one agency to another. It bumps up our employee figures but there would be a corresponding reduction in DPC.

Mr WHETSTONE: I refer to page 58 of Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, Ministerial Office Resources. Your ministerial office budget is $1.491 million and last budget period was $1.446 million, which I presume your ministerial travel was funded from. I am led to believe that on 17 May you flew to Dubai on an Emirates flight, first class. If so, what were the arrangements for the booking, were your tickets upgraded and at what cost? Did anyone else travel with you and what were the ticket arrangements?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Let me answer the back half of your question first. I will need to check that. I think you will find that all ministerial travel is business class. I will need to check but, from memory, I think you are correct that I and, I think, the CE of Defence SA, were both asked to go up to first class, which often happens when they want to bump extra people on. In economy or business class they push you up, and I assume we were asked to go up. A business class airfare was paid for and booked. I will need to check that. If we were upgraded, then that would be the reason. It would have been at the request or suggestion of the airline, but a business class airfare was paid for. I need to check if that is correct because I am not actually sure we were put up but, if we were, that would be the reason.

Yes, I remember this flight actually now that you mention it. Halfway through the flight, by the way, somebody had a heart attack in economy. Gracefully, in front of them was sitting the manager of the ambulance station in the Barossa Valley who was on holiday with his wife, and he was able to resuscitate the person. The plane was diverted to Thailand where we sat on the tarmac for several hours while the patient was removed and the plane was refuelled. We got to Dubai quite late, missed our connection and had to spend the whole day in Paris. Remembering that flight, it was not all that chipper really. I think the details that I have given you are accurate. So, to confirm, that was a business class flight and, if there was any reallocation, and I think there was, that was at the request of the airline or at their suggestion.

The ACTING CHAIR: The time having expired for further questions, I declare the examination of the proposed payments adjourned until later today.

Sitting suspended from 11:31 to 11:45.