State Governor's Establishment, $3,988,000

Department of the Premier and Cabinet, $78,456,000

Administered Items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, $1,930,000

Auditor-General's Department, $16,966,000

Minister:

Hon. J.W. Weatherill, Premier.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr A. Richardson, Auditor-General, Auditor-General's Department.

Mr I. McGlen, Assistant Auditor-General, Auditor-General's Department.

Ms M. Stint, Manager, Finance, Auditor-General's Department.

Mr D. Romeo, Chief of Staff.

The CHAIR: In relation to the State Governor's Establishment, I declare the proposed payments open for examination and refer members to the agency statement in Volume 3. Do you we have questions or statements on this line? If not, I will declare that line closed. We are now looking at the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and the administered items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. I declare the proposed payments open for examination and refer members to the portfolio statements in Volume 3. Minister, do you have an opening statement?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I do, but I understood that the first area of questions were going to be directed to the Auditor-General's Department. I do not know whether that is comprehended by yourself?

The CHAIR: Both pages are here marked 9am, so let's leave that one open, and we will open this one as well,

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Thank you.

The CHAIR: I declare the proposed payments for the Auditor-General's Department open and refer you to portfolio statement Volume 4. Do you have an opening statement, Premier?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No.

The CHAIR: Leader?

Mr MARSHALL: No.

The CHAIR: Straight to questions then?

Mr MARSHALL: If we could have an introduction of the people present.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, I have no opening statement in relation to the Auditor-General's Department, other than to say that it is a very fine department. I should say that on my right is Andrew Richardson, our Auditor-General. On my left is Ian McGlen, Assistant Auditor-General, and to his left is Megan Stint, Manager, Finance, Auditor-General's Department. Behind me is Daniel Romeo, the Chief of Staff.

The CHAIR: Leader, did you want to make a statement?

Mr MARSHALL: No, no statement from me.

The CHAIR: Straight to questions?

Mr MARSHALL: Yes, thank you.

The CHAIR: What page are we looking at?

Mr MARSHALL: We are looking at Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 77, Sub-program 1.2: Special Investigations. I note that there is no budget for Special Investigations. There was no budget for Special Investigations last year. What is the purpose of this sub-program, and how are funds allocated to Special Investigations?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I would invite the Auditor-General to respond.

Mr RICHARDSON: The Special Investigations program is when the Treasurer or the Commissioner Against Corruption requests that the Auditor-General performs an investigation. We have not had any requests along those lines, either in the past year or the prior year. Where those types of investigations are requested and we need to respond to those, then, depending on the nature of the investigation requested, if we do not have ongoing funding for those arrangements, if we are unable to meet the cost of that from our existing funds, then we would be requesting a direct funding through the Treasurer.

Mr MARSHALL: Can you clarify who else could actually refer work to you for a special investigation. There was some discussion last year about whether the parliament could do that on motion.

Mr RICHARDSON: There was that discussion. The act only identifies the Treasurer and the Commissioner Against Corruption. As a program, it is there to recognise a provision of the Public Finance and Audit Act. As far as the act is concerned, they are the two who can make that request.

Mr MARSHALL: In your targets, as outlined on page 77. for this coming financial year, or the financial year that we are currently in, it states:

Undertake and report on certain reviews of specific issues of importance and interest in the public sector, aimed at improving processes and/or maintaining accountability in state and local government agencies.

Is this over and above the annual report, and does the Auditor-General have any investigations currently underway over and above the annual reporting cycle?

Mr RICHARDSON: There are a couple of provisions in the act that enable me to report to parliament, and there are provisions, in fact, outside of the Public Finance and Audit Act—for example, the Adelaide Oval reports that are presented six monthly. The annual report is our predominant cycle and, because of the nature and the provision of the act, that has been the focus and timing of reports over many years for the Auditor-General's Department. There is a provision that allows us to do a supplementary report, and we have taken advantage of that provision over a number of years now to have reports tabled at different times than the annual report but all based on that same financial year's work.

The reports that we have tabled, for example, just recently on EPAS and concessions in the Department for Community Services were both tabled as supplementary reports to last year's annual report. That is just the technicalities of the reporting. The work really all comes under the same banner of our controls mandate, our financial audit mandate, and we will be raising to the parliament any matter that I believe is of interest that arises out of the work that we have done.

Those reports are more aligned to the times that we are able to complete them to our satisfaction before the parliament, and it gives us a bit more flexibility than just the usual tabled report in October.

Mr MARSHALL: When we asked in this committee last year whether there were any other supplementary reports which were envisaged, you said that the planning for that was underway and would be completed around November last year. Can you outline to the committee what supplementary reports are currently under investigation?

Mr RICHARDSON: At the moment, we have just finished the previous year, so our next round will be the annual report. The annual report, if I do not complete some work that we were doing on the Royal Adelaide Hospital, is an ongoing review. We have tabled one particular report there. The nature of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital, of course, is that it still has got a way to go, and we will be doing some work with that.

I also mentioned to the Budget and Finance Committee that we were doing some work in relation to the Adelaide Festival Plaza, and if we do not finish that work in time for the annual report we will do that as a supplementary. We are just finishing one that I did mention last year, which was the provision of section 32. We do the local government work. We are just trying to wrap up the Brown Hill Creek work that we were doing. That has just reached the end of its natural justice cycle, so I certainly expect to be tabling that in the near future but, because of the timing now, it will probably be around the same time as we table the annual report.

They would be potentially three reports above the annual report. The way that I am anticipating tabling the annual report this year, in terms of the state finance section, is that we have dealt with that as a supplementary report in the previous year. It ended up being tabled on the same date. We have the same plan this year. We also were looking to do a compendium report, if I can put it that way, of IT matters that have more broadly come up across the public-sector audits that we have completed.

Mr MARSHALL: The three reports that you are envisaging are a supplementary report on the NRAH?

Mr RICHARDSON: That is right.

Mr MARSHALL: A supplementary report on the Festival Plaza?

Mr RICHARDSON: That is right.

Mr MARSHALL: And a supplementary report on ongoing IT projects? Are they the three?

Mr RICHARDSON: Those and one on the Brown Hill Creek project, which is a local government review.

Mr MARSHALL: But what you are suggesting to this committee is that, if the work on those is completed within the ordinary time frame of the annual audit, they will just be incorporated, but in this instance you are probably thinking that there will be ongoing work and that it will fall outside of that annual report, but there will be references to the work completed by the time that the annual report is published and there will be in a supplementary report in addition.

Mr RICHARDSON: The reporting is to a reasonable degree formed around the reasonably limited provisions that are in the existing Public Finance and Audit Act. We had a talk to Treasury about just changing the wording slightly so that we were able to table reports as soon as we had finished the work. The nature of the wording of the act is slightly restrictive in that sense to have that degree of flexibility but, for practical purposes, where we are now in the calendar, what I have just outlined are our immediate reporting goals.

Mr MARSHALL: Are you concerned that the report that was handed to parliament, the supplementary report on the NRAH, only handed down late last year, really did not envisage anything like the problems that we are currently experiencing with this major project?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: You direct the questions to me.

Mr MARSHALL: I was.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: What is the question?

Mr MARSHALL: I just gave it. Do you want me to give it again?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: You are looking at him and you are asking a question.

Mr MARSHALL: Actually, Premier, I was looking directly at you. The question is: are you concerned that the supplementary report on the new Royal Adelaide Hospital, only handed down late last year, did not envisage any of the problems that we are now currently experiencing with this major project for South Australia?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think the first thing that we need to be clear about is the nature of the difficulties that are essentially presenting themselves. I know that there has been gross exaggeration expressed by the opposition about the nature and extent of the problems that do exist at the hospital. This is going to be a first-class hospital which will meet the needs of our citizens. I know that there is a massive interest in the opposition in talking up the so-called problems at the Royal Adelaide Hospital, but I think in the fullness of time it will present itself as a massive and important contribution to the people of South Australia.

The truth is that the contractual arrangements and any problems that have arisen largely fall at the feet of the contracting parties, because in large measure we have been insulated because of the nature of the contract that we have entered into, so much of the downside risk really falls on the proponents that are seeking to build the project. It does create some planning difficulties for us, but much of the financial burden falls on the other contracting parties.

Mr MARSHALL: Nevertheless, Premier, are you concerned that the agency that you have given carriage to conduct these audit processes for you presented a report to the parliament in November last year regarding the Royal Adelaide Hospital, which was due for technical completion just two months later in January? We still have a position where the Auditor-General cannot provide the parliament with any indication as to when the new Royal Adelaide Hospital will be open.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I do not think it is the job of the Auditor-General to be warranting construction time lines for public works.

Mr MARSHALL: Whose job is that?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The Auditor-General's role, and that is the line that we are analysing here, is to analyse the financial elements and impacts and obligations in relation to government procurement in relation to the hospital. We have entered into an arrangement where that responsibility is in the hands of a private sector proponent. That was done for sound reasons, that is, that they bear the burden of the risk of a very complex project.

We could be here, presumably, being asked questions about the various failings or otherwise of state government agencies if the burden of risk had actually been allocated to state government agencies. But we made a decision in the construction of this contract to shift that burden of responsibility to a private sector proponent, and they bear much of the risk associated with this very complex project. Remembering that this is probably one of the most complex builds that the state has undertaken in recent memory, I think that was a prudent decision. In fact, the problems, to the extent that they have been identified, I think only serve to demonstrate the good sense of that arrangement.

Mr MARSHALL: Nevertheless, the situation that we have in South Australia is that this project does not have parliamentary oversight, other than by the Auditor-General. This is not a project which goes through the Public Works Committee. This is something that was discussed at this committee last year. You said that you might turn your mind to looking at some of these issues. The only course for review of the project for the parliament is via the Auditor-General's Report. This was provided to the parliament in November last year. Only two months before the technical completion date, it did not envisage that there was a delay in the project.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I recall asking the Minister for Health about this very matter, and I think at the time we did offer the opportunity for the opposition to scrutinise this contract in a particular way—that is, through some process or committee—but it involved and required a commitment by the opposition that they would not, in my recollection from discussion with the Minister for Health, then seek to engage in a further upper house inquiry in relation to the matter.

That commitment was not forthcoming and so therefore the offer lapsed. We had indicated a capacity to engage in a further process of scrutiny of the hospital and its arrangements, but no agreement could be reached around it. I have seen no lack of scrutiny that has been applied to this project. It has been the subject of routine questions that have been asked and answered in question time over an extended period.

Mr MARSHALL: Of course, we still do not know at this stage when it will open. Who could give us an answer on that, if it is not the Auditor-General and his report?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I just do not think it is within the province of responsibility of the Auditor-General to be talking about construction time lines. It is barely within the capacity to be known by government agencies. We are very much reliant upon the information that is being supplied to us by the contracting party. They have supplied us with information and we have undertaken our own independent assessment of that information. We are not presently satisfied with the information we have received and we are continuing to analyse it and seek further information.

Obviously, the first point of call is to rely upon what we have been told, but we are not taking that at face value. We are analysing it and subjecting it to our own scrutiny. Presently, we are not satisfied with the information that we are given, but we hope to be in a position to have a greater degree of satisfaction once we see the sorts of detail in the so-called cure plans about dealing with deficits that exist in the existing construction arrangements.

Our analysis at the moment shows that there are different categories of defects. Obviously there are small things like scuffing of surfaces on particular areas of the hospital. They are obviously small things that can be dealt with in time, but there are other more fundamental issues about the way in which the hospital operates that need to be grappled with. We need to be satisfied that they are all resolved and have a proper process for resolution for them before we can be clear about the time line for the opening of the hospital. That will then, of course, trigger a range of important decisions about moving into the new hospital.

Mr MARSHALL: Because we are on the Auditor-General's investigation or line at the moment, is the Auditor-General conducting an ongoing investigation into the new Royal Adelaide Hospital?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes.

Mr MARSHALL: What is the scope of that investigation then?

Mr RICHARDSON: You are referring to it as an investigation; we are conducting an ongoing audit. Because the nature of the arrangement is that there is a PPP, as everybody knows, the department responsible is incurring expenditure in a range of areas before the state budget for capital works and fixtures and fittings. There are equipment purchases that are being done. We have reported in the previous report and we will continue to report on the governance arrangements that are in place as far as both the Department for Health and DPTI, who manage the building contract on behalf of the Department for Health. So, we are looking at and continue to look at those aspects of the project.

In the previous report, at the time that we tabled the report, there had just been a negotiated outcome, a deed of settlement, which changed the dates that were expected to be arrived at. Those dates were then subsequently not met. In fact, at the time of the November report, there had been an agreed amendment negotiated outcome between the parties about what the delivery dates would be, and that then was evidently not met by the builder, so the state went into exercising its contractual rights with issuing notices.

Mr MARSHALL: For clarity then, it is completely within the scope of the Auditor-General to look at the time frame of the opening of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No. Can I answer that question? The construction of the hospital is not something over which the Auditor-General has any capacity to influence.

Mr MARSHALL: He reports on it. It is in the supplementary report that was handed down to parliament in November last year.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: He may well, but he has no capacity to involve themselves in any influence on the way in which that construction schedule is determined or to know anything in particular about the timing of the conclusion of that particular construction schedule. It is a matter between the constructor of the hospital and their legal obligations—

Mr MARSHALL: Well, can the Premier—

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —to pursue the hospital in an appropriate fashion.

The CHAIR: Can I just ask that the Premier be allowed to finish his answer?

Mr MARSHALL: Well, I'd like the Premier to clarify his answer actually.

The CHAIR: Well, he just needs to finish his answer first and then you can clarify.

Mr MARSHALL: How can the Premier say this has nothing to do with the Auditor-General? Was the Auditor-General operating outside of his scope, looking at the delay to the new Royal Adelaide Hospital?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, you are just playing with words. You are talking about the timing of the completion of the hospital. It is not within the province of responsibility of the Auditor-General.

Mr MARSHALL: So why does the Auditor-General spend so much time making an investigation into this?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Because he audits against what people say they are going to do and makes reports on that. As for telling us when it is going to finish, it is not within his area of responsibility.

Mr MARSHALL: Premier, in November last year, the Auditor-General made a statement on page 10 of his report that the opening of the hospital is now approximately one year away. At that point he was suggesting that the new Royal Adelaide Hospital would be opening in November of this year. At the moment the health minister is suggesting that it will be September. Can you provide some clarity on this issue, or can the Auditor-General provide some clarity, or can the Auditor-General update the house because, of course, we have not had an update on his position on this now for eight months?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: But the Auditor-General is not going to be able to provide information to the house which will assist in understanding when the hospital is going to be completed.

Mr MARSHALL: He could in his last report.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, the Auditor-General was simply reporting on the basis of the material that was supplied to him. If there is any additional material that can be supplied to the house, the Minister for Health has been providing that and, if I have any update, I will provide it. But at the moment we have no further information about when the hospital will reach its ultimate technical completion; that is going to be a matter for us being satisfied about the responses to the various notices that we have been given to cure defects in the hospital.

Mr MARSHALL: When will the Auditor-General be presenting his next supplementary report on the new Royal Adelaide Hospital?

Mr RICHARDSON: Our goal was to be able to report by now. That changed when the builder received the notices from the state because of the situation with the contract. As the Premier has indicated, the date that I reported in the November report that it was the expectation that the hospital would open in November was based on the information provided to us as that came out of the deed of settlement, so there were changes to the time lines that were expected for the project at that time from what the Department of Health and its steering committee looking at the hospital were expecting for the project.

We do not have access to the builder, we do not have access to the details of the builder's construction scheduling. Again, as the Premier says, that is not something we have access to. What we are able to report upon is the information that is provided to the governance committees that oversee the project, although the Project Steering Committee for the new Royal Adelaide Hospital is the key steering committee that we look to.

Given the nature of the situation between the state and the builder as it stands, until there is a resolution there, however that might come out, I am certainly not going to be in any position to be able to say what the new expected time lines for that project are. Consequently, it is not my intent to report until we know that there has been an outcome here. We did that with the last review; the timing of that changed. We had fairly well completed our work at the time the deed of settlement was announced. That was something that we then needed to have a look at to see what had changed out of that negotiated outcome. I would expect to be doing the same thing here. We do not have any better information than waiting to hear how the state and the other parties resolve the current situation.

Mr MARSHALL: For clarity, you are bringing down your next supplementary report on the new Royal Adelaide Hospital very soon. Can you give us some indication when that will be?

Mr RICHARDSON: That was my intention. Very soon for me is the time line that we have for the annual report, which is the beginning of October would be its tabling. However, if the situation is not resolved for the Royal Adelaide then I will not have anything conclusive to say. I would only be reporting what was already known: that the state was in negotiation or in dispute with the other party.

Mr MARSHALL: And the Festival Plaza supplementary report?

Mr RICHARDSON: That one we are intending to have something out in October.

Mr MARSHALL: And the IT report?

Mr RICHARDSON: Similarly, in October.

Mr MARSHALL: Will that IT report be dealing with the issue of the CHIRON system?

Mr RICHARDSON: Again, it depends on the court outcome. My last information on that was that that goes back to court in December of this year. I stand to be corrected on those dates but, until that is resolved, the discussion that we had about CHIRON remains the same. It clearly is an important court case for providers of software but, similarly, it is an important court case for the users and in this case the state. I also understand that the department is beginning to look to alternative systems (EPAS) to be able to replace CHIRON, but I do not have significant information about that.

Mr MARSHALL: Will that be something that you envisage in your supplementary report: the consideration of other systems in Country Health SA?

Mr RICHARDSON: As it stands, CHIRON is the system that is still being used, so the only information we would be looking to give would be: what are the plans that the department has in place to roll out a patient system for the country hospitals?

Mr MARSHALL: The Auditor-General has no concern that we are currently using software to run our country hospitals that is out of licence and subject to what could only be described now as a very lengthy court dispute?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Can I answer that question? Of course it is an issue of concern to the government that we have disputes in relation to the question of the application of this software and that is why we are seeking a speedy resolution of the matter. It is certainly our intention to do all things necessary to ensure that we get service continuity but also the resolution of this dispute.

Mr MARSHALL: How long has the dispute been going now, Premier?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We will have to take that on notice. Obviously it has been a substantial period of time that we have been in dispute and I will bring back an answer.

Mr MARSHALL: Premier, are you concerned? EPAS was originally going to go across all hospitals in South Australia and then the scope was changed to focus on the majority of metropolitan hospitals and two country hospitals, leaving the rest with the remaining CHIRON system. The CHIRON system is out of licence and the provider of that software is in dispute with the government and has been in dispute with the government for an extended period of time. Are you concerned about the continuity? What are the contingencies that you have put in place if in fact CHIRON are successful in stopping the state government from continuing to use that platform?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I have already indicated my concern, but they are matters best directed to the Minister for Health.

Mr MARSHALL: There are no further questions for the Auditor-General. Thank you very much.

The CHAIR: We can close the Attorney-General's Department and move on to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr K. Winter-Dewhirst, Chief Executive, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Ms I. Haythorpe, Deputy Chief Executive, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Mr S. Woolhouse, Chief Finance Officer, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

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

Mr D. Romeo, Chief of Staff.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The Department of the Premier and Cabinet and its role is very much at the forefront of reforming our democracy in South Australia. We are seeking to effectively change the way in which we do govern in this state, which very much involves putting people at the centre of our politics and policymaking. This means mobilising something which may sound very obvious, but I think has been largely neglected in the way that many governments deal with complex decisions: to mobilise the underutilised common-sense judgment of everyday citizens.

The ultimate purpose is to approach the creation of wealth and prosperity, jobs and the transformation of our economy in a way in which people and our community need our things to operate. For this, we require government to consult more widely, to be open to more ideas and to involve more people in the decision-making process so that we can make sounder decisions and more responsive decisions, and also resolve some of the more difficult unresolved questions.

We are undertaking this process of reforming democracy because the times demand it. As I have often said in this place and on various occasions at press conferences, interviews and speeches, South Australia is in the midst of a period of unprecedented transformation and, for many, uncertainty. We are making the transformation from the old to the new economies and we are positioning ourselves within a global economy which, with every single day, is becoming more dynamic, competitive and internationalised.

In light of this profound and prevailing trend, it is not surprising that citizens feel fearful, but it is crucial that we honestly communicate with them the size and scale of the things that are occurring around us, and to call on them to join together—businesses, industry, citizens and community groups—to actually respond to these challenges by applying themselves creatively and to be adaptive to these changed circumstances.

It seems to me that in turn the people of South Australia have every right to expect innovative thinking and actions from me as Premier and from my whole department as a lead agency within South Australian government. Before coming to specific programs and initiatives, I want to say a little about the general style of the way in which we are approaching these matters in the current environment. One of the main observations that can be made about us, and something that we certainly do not apologise for, is that we are a campaigning government. Rather than passively accept the sometimes poor treatment we receive as a member of the commonwealth, we have no hesitation in standing up.

We have no hesitation in standing up for South Australia when, for instance, federal budget cuts threaten to have a direct and negative impact on our schools and hospitals. We also stand up boldly and immediately when we are not being accorded our fair share of resources, or when our obvious capabilities or achievements are derided or blatantly overlooked. The important thing about our campaigning is that it is effective, and by and large, it works. Our Federal Cuts Hurt campaign has been a success. There is no doubt health and education funding were key issues at the 2 July federal election, and even in the lead-up to that election we saw some (albeit small) concessions in favour of the states and territories in response to a campaign which was largely led by South Australia.

Still, we have a lot of additional work. The commitments made by the Turnbull government on hospital funding remain inadequate and finding a long-term solution to this problem is a priority, not just for South Australia but for every state and territory. We have also campaigned in other areas as well. For example, we helped achieve the return of 3,200 gigalitres of water to the River Murray under the revised Murray-Darling Basin Plan through our Save the River Murray campaign.

We also, of course, in May, received the news that we had all been waiting for and hoping for, the news that the federal government had decided, after many months of giving out worrying signals, to finally come good with the promise to build the Australian Navy's 12 future submarines in Adelaide. We make no apologies for the fact that we teamed up with the Defence Teaming Centre and with their Australian Made Defence campaign to achieve that objective. But make no mistake, there are elements within the defence bureaucracy that believe that was the wrong decision and we saw echoes of that just this week through the Productivity Commission report, and you will continue to see a backsliding on that question. We need to maintain our campaign pressure in those areas.

We also know that in the most recent federal election we issued a list of 11 major local projects for which we are seeking a constructive partnership with the next commonwealth government, and that was no matter who formed the government. I can say that both major parties committed to many hundreds of millions of dollars to nine of those 11 issues. These included support for our steel industry and for the expansion of our public transport network, and we are going to continue to campaign on those issues—they remain crucial.

One which is of contemporary importance is, of course, the reform of the National Electricity Market. I think there is a growing consensus around the nation, despite some very short-sighted criticism, of the fact that South Australia has a nation-leading commitment to renewable energy. There is, I think, a national consensus emerging, including amongst the business community, that there is no turning back in relation to renewable energy. What needs to give is not renewable energy but, indeed, the National Electricity Market, it needs to accommodate what is a national imperative and, indeed, an imperative for the planet.

The second major characteristic of our work and the work of this department is the determination to have citizens play a more decisive role in making South Australia the place they want it to be. This goes directly to this question of cynicism in politics and the political process. It is at an all-time high. We saw that, I think, evidenced around the world, but in the most recent federal election. I believe that, in response to this widespread feeling in the community, we do need to move beyond announce and defend politics to what I have called debate and decide politics, a more participatory form of democracy.

People need, though, to feel motivated to be a part of that. At the heart of it is the belief that we need to trust our citizens more. If people have the scope to post questions, establish facts, initiate discussions, and explore options, then they are capable of working through complex issues and reaching considered judgements. That is why we have taken such a leadership role in this participatory democracy. So, citizens' juries, Fund My Idea, Fund My Community, country cabinet, GOVchat, even the formulation of the 10 economic priorities for our state are all areas which are examples of this progress.

Through Fund My Idea and Fund My Community a total of $1.15 million was allocated to worthwhile projects last year, and more than 8,000 South Australians took part in coming up with those solutions. Through the recent citizens' juries, everyday South Australians have come together and devised policies in relation to creating a vibrant and safe night-life, through to cycling on our roads. I believe in citizens' juries because I think they give people a process that allows them to work through issues that are complex. It gives people the means to make the necessary three-stage process to move from mass opinion to public judgement. These steps are: consciousness raising about the issues involved, working through and, finally, resolution.

I think the recent Brexit vote in Britain demonstrated what happens when citizens are asked to deal with complex, far-reaching issues in one-off yes/no votes. There was ignorance, confusion, crude and oversimplified public debate, and, once the result was known, some regret amongst voters who simply had not explored the issue and had made an uninformed decision.

I think there are some basic rules governments should follow when asking citizens to work through an issue to reach resolution. For me the key rule more often than not is that experts on the topic, including politicians, who for these purposes are within that category, start from a position which is different from members of the public. If experts have been studying a topic for many years but others are new to it, it is not surprising that we are out of step with one another.

Leaders wanting to engage people need to provide an opportunity for the public to determine where they want the debate to start from. The largest most high-profile application of these principles of participatory democracy is the mechanism following from the royal commission into South Australia's role in the nuclear fuel cycle. This entire process, which includes the handing down of the royal commission's final report, the two citizens' juries, the statewide consultation, is, for me, an example of debate and decide writ large. It focuses on establishing and debating facts. It provides for the broadest possible kind of community involvement and includes the broadest possible range of perspectives.

In line with what I said earlier, it allows in non-expert levels of knowledge to catch up with the experts. It respects the ability of everyday citizens to have intelligent discussions about complex matters and to reach sound judgements. In June, I attended the opening day of the deliberations of the first citizens' jury at the SAHMRI building and on 10 July I received the official report of the jury's deliberations that will now set the agenda for the statewide consultation period that will run until October. The report identifies four themes the jury believes South Australians should focus on: community consent and the importance of informed opinion; economics, including the benefits and risks to the state; safety, including issues such as storage, health and transport; and trust noting that accountability and transparency must be built into any regulatory system.

I must say that the jury's deliberations were incredibly impressive. People came together with very different perspectives, as you would imagine, across the whole spectrum, but with a spirit of goodwill they worked through the issues in a mature way without rancour. It was interesting to me that the jury focused on topics which initially I did not think would attract much attention, in particular their focus on the economic benefits and wanting to get to the underpinning assumptions.

At the same time, the members were relatively unconcerned about matters I thought would be potentially a significant area of contention. This demonstrates to me the difference between expert and non-expert opinion, and the need for people of different levels of understanding to become more closely aligned. Overall, I think this process is being managed by the dedicated unit within the Department of the Premier and Cabinet in a very effective way and I look forward to the people of South Australia having their say in this most pivotal and profound topic. The next citizens' jury will be in October, which will bring forward recommendations that will inform the government's ultimate response.

The CHAIR: Leader, do you have a statement?

Mr MARSHALL: No.

The CHAIR: Leader, questions?

Mr MARSHALL: Thank you very much. Just while we are on that nuclear royal commission, I can reference Budget Paper 5, Budget Measures Statement, page 69. Does the government rule out a referendum on the nuclear opportunities for South Australia?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, but I do not think it is the style of approach which is going to yield the best results here. In fact, for all the reasons I just mentioned in the example of the Brexit vote, I think a referendum does not give you the capacity to reconcile different perspectives; it just gives you a yes/no answer which does seem to me to be inconsistent with the complexity of the issue at hand. It also does not give you the opportunity for something which seems to be emerging from the deliberations of the first citizens' jury, a so-called 'gated approach'.

So it may well be that what emerges is a provisional go/no-go for the first step of the process, and then a provisional go/no-go for the next step of the process with the community, in a sense, reserving the right to retrieve the decision until the final irrecoverable decision is taken. I think a referendum would not provide the level of nuance that is, essentially, necessary in this area. I note that that it is being called for in some quarters. In particular, some Green groups are calling for a referendum. Of course, they are the same Green groups that do not want a referendum on gay marriage. Leaving aside that little internal inconsistency for the moment, I think it tends to close down public debate rather than allowing it to be developed.

Mr MARSHALL: If you will not rule out the concept of a referendum, in which circumstances would it be appropriate for there to be a referendum?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I cannot envisage any at the moment. My preference at the moment is that, one, it is not necessary, there is no constitutional requirement for a referendum, and, secondly, at the moment it seems to me to be inconsistent with the way in which we need to approach the issue.

Mr MARSHALL: The royal commissioner himself said that it would be critical to have a social licence for this project to proceed.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes.

Mr MARSHALL: You have outlined in great detail your method of engagement, and the expenditure of $3.6 million has been put into the budget for this important process. How will you actually determine whether that social licence has been granted? Are there measures, or have you just formed the opinion?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes, it is the latter. It is not capable of precise measurement—I think it is a qualitative assessment. In a sense, it gets to this: when has the community reached a point where they are prepared to say, 'We have had our say, we have expressed ourselves, we are fully aware of all of the issues for and against, and now we believe the debate is in a mature enough phase for the government to make a decision about it.' Ultimately, one measure of community consent is going to be the attitude of this parliament and the attitude of all members of parliament, and that will be a critical part of the whole question of social consent.

Mr MARSHALL: Are you convinced that you will reach that position by the end of this year?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I do not know. It may well be that we reach that position by the end of the year—we certainly want to be in a position to make a decision, but it may well be that we reach a decision to essentially take the next step, remembering, of course, that even if we were to say tomorrow that we were going to pursue a nuclear waste facility in South Australia, there would still be the next (and critically important step) of determining a precise proposal for a facility, and then the location of that facility in a particular place. As the royal commissioner contemplates, that consultation around a particular place requires specific community consent, and that would be another whole exercise.

There are many steps to this, and it would not be something that would be resolved quickly. I would like to be in a position to make a decision about whether we are able to pass the first threshold, and there is an important go/no-go first threshold which needs to be considered by the parliament if, for no other reason, the practical considerations that are embedded in the nuclear waste facility legislation which prohibits us from taking any steps to encourage such a facility—that would have to be grappled with if we were to take any further steps.

Mr MARSHALL: That first decision would be made without a site being chosen; is that correct?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes.

Mr MARSHALL: What is the time frame for then ultimately making a decision regarding the preferred site?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I do not know the answer to that question. I have to take that on notice. There probably is some material contained within the royal commissioner's report about that, and I would have to hunt that out for you.

Mr MARSHALL: Can we now move to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 153, general questions on Premier and Cabinet. You have generally described this budget that was handed down as a jobs budget. How can you justify that when there is a situation in which the jobs forecast is less than half the national figure?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Because we are consuming the single biggest change in the South Australian economy in recent history. Where is he? Looking down at you there. It is essentially the reconstruction of the Playford legacy, of the unwinding of very significant elements of our secondary industry. If we are able to do that and at the same time still keep growing in terms of employment, it will be an extraordinary achievement. This budget forecasts that we will achieve that: every single job lost in the manufacturing sector replaced and, in addition, job growth.

That is not to be sneezed at. That is a very significant achievement. It is nothing less than the transformation of the South Australian economy. Is it enough? No, because it means that we are not going fast enough to soak up the additional people who are coming into our job market. However, it should not be underestimated as a substantial achievement, the capacity for us to essentially keep growing while there is massive destruction going on in what has been really a mainstay of the South Australian economy for decades.

So we will be running very fast just to stay still. To actually be able to achieve gains will, of course, be an even bigger challenge. Of course, you have to remember that these estimates are conservative. They are provided not by the government but certainly by agencies of government, which tend to make conservative estimates of jobs growth. We hope to exceed them. We have already seen, I think, significant job growth associated with the last budget, and we are expecting to see very significant accelerating growth associated with the budget that we have recently announced.

Mr MARSHALL: You describe this as a jobs budget and that there is projected jobs growth in this budget. That is exactly how last year's budget was framed. The reality is that we did not go anywhere near achieving those conservative estimates, as you describe them, in last year's budget. So what is it about this year's budget that makes you more optimistic that we are going to achieve jobs growth?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I would query that. Many thousands of jobs have been created in addition to the jobs that were lost since the last state budget. Remember, of course, that the investments that we made in that budget were about encouraging businesses to restructure their operations, to invest in plant and equipment through the reduction of stamp duties, which provided a disincentive for them to do so.

What this budget does is take the next step. So, for those businesses that have taken the step to invest in new plant and equipment, to restructure their organisations, to acquire other businesses, to change their business models, we are now encouraging them to employ additional labour. We do that by encouraging them with a substantial stimulus of $10,000 for payrolls in excess of $5 million for each additional person that they employ, and for less than that it is $4,000 for any additional person they employ. We think that does provide a stimulus for people to take that step.

We know that for many small businesses these are marginal decisions. Do we employ the extra person or not is a question of sentiment as much as economics. People are choosing to take a risk, choosing to take a risk on an apprentice, somebody that may cost some money, or a trainee or a new employee. Any new employee has lower productivity when they begin, as opposed to when they are experienced, and making that choice is a difficult one for a business. We hope this will be the tipping point that will cause many businesses to make that decision.

In addition, we are also conscious of the need to keep the engine of this economy going, so there is substantial stimulus in the economy to create short-term opportunities. The investments in building the new science labs and the building and construction projects around our state not only yield long-term benefits in terms of our human capital and physical capital, they also provide a short-term impetus into the South Australian economy.

We think we have the balance right. We have delivered a budget which is in the black at a time when we are also delivering very substantial tax reform. We are also doing that in a way that does not put a sudden deflationary impact into the economy. We are using asset sales to assist us to achieve that. That is intelligent, because what that does is recycle government assets which are sitting there and not necessarily unlocking value in a way which achieves those objectives. I think it is a very intelligent budget. I think the Treasurer should be commended for the way in which he has constructed a budget that sends a positive message around financial prudence but at the same time does not put a deflationary impact into an economy which is already in a fragile position.

Mr MARSHALL: Did we create any additional full-time jobs in the South Australian economy from last year's budget?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We certainly created additional full-time jobs, and they replaced many of the full-time jobs that went, but in net terms, in terms of jobs created over those lost, I think all of the additional jobs were part-time jobs.

Mr MARSHALL: Are we transitioning in South Australia from a state of full-time employment to part-time employment?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Along with the rest of the nation, in large measure, yes. A number of key elements have been a big shift to the service sector, which is characterised by less than full-time employment, a shift to 'female occupations' (occupations which have traditionally been associated with female employment), and a shift to work which may not necessarily be full time. Of course, full time for the purposes of those statistics is more than 37.5 hours a week, so there are many substantial jobs that are still available. This is all employment and creates value and income in family households. But it is changing the nature and the composition of the Australian workforce, and South Australia is no different from what is occurring in the rest of the nation.

Mr MARSHALL: Maybe a better method of looking at this then is the total number of hours worked. Did we increase the total number of hours worked in South Australia from the jobs budget last year?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I do not have that information in front of me. I will bring back an answer.

Mr MARSHALL: Do you envisage that we did grow that employment in South Australia last year?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We certainly increased in net terms, over jobs created and lost, the number of employers, depending on which period you take, by about 5,000 jobs. I would imagine that would translate to an increase in full-time hours, because in net terms we replaced almost all of the full-time jobs and created part-time jobs in excess of that.

Mr MARSHALL: So it is your belief that we created more workable hours in South Australia last financial year?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I will bring back an answer.

Mr MARSHALL: Can we move then on page 153 to have a look at the ministerial office resources. There was an increase in the number of resources in your office from 35 last year to 40.4. What are those additional resources in your office doing?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Apparently, the number of people has not changed, they have just been shifted from different classifications. That is apparent when you look at the budget, because the budget has not substantially changed. We will bring back an explanation about how that works.

Mr MARSHALL: And is that the area that contains the media advisers provided to other government ministers?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes.

Mr MARSHALL: Of the 40 people in your ministerial office then, how many of them are dedicated officers in other ministers' offices? Media people.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: On just a quick count, it looks like there are about 15 and two of them are in my office, so the rest are allocated to other ministers.

Mr MARSHALL: So 15 in total, two of whom are in your office and then there are another 13. Can you give us an indication of what proportion of the overall budget that would be then that is on that media advice?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We would probably have to do those sums and bring back an answer.

Mr MARSHALL: Also on that page, we see a substantial increase in the number of employee FTEs in your department for the year, rising from 1,540 to 1,612. Can you explain the reason for the increase to 1,612 and then also the reason for the forecast reduction for this coming year?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Once again, I think there is no substantial real increase. It is really just the way in which FTEs are allocated between staff and labour hire. The decrease of 69.6 FTEs reflects lower FTEs within Shared Services due to refined staffing structures and the CHRIS 21 payroll reform project reaching its budgeted completion date, so the increase in 112.2 FTEs between 2014-15 actual and 2015-16 estimated result primarily reflects the use of temporary contractor staff rather than public sector management employees during 2014-15 within Shared Services and Service SA.

Mr MARSHALL: If we can move to Program 1: Premier and Cabinet Policy and Support on page 156, you talk there about the Tailem Bend expenditure last financial year of $7.5 million. Can you tell us whether that project is on target to open in June of next year?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I am going to have to refer that one to the Minister for Tourism. It was negotiated by the Commercial Advice Unit on behalf of the Minister for Tourism, so I do not actually have the answer to that question.

Mr MARSHALL: So this is a project which has been transferred? Because previously the incentive has come from the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and last year you informed this committee that the new facility would be open in June of 2017.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes, I think the funding agreement contains a date for the implementation by 30 June 2017, which gives us rights of clawback. Obviously that remains an element of the funding agreement.

Mr MARSHALL: Nothing is envisaged at this stage in terms of—

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I do not know where it is up to, and that is why I will refer that matter to the Minister for Tourism, who seems to be handling that.

Mr MARSHALL: You also talk on that same page about the establishment of the Low Carbon Economy Unit. Where does this unit sit?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It sits within DPC. It is a unit that reports directly to me in relation to my role in chairing the Low Carbon Economy task force.

Mr MARSHALL: Can you give an indication of what the budget is, what personnel are in this unit and when it was established?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes, I can. The unit has been formed through the reallocation of existing resources across government, including six FTEs from DSD; three from RenewablesSA; another three to contribute to clean technology industries, energy efficiency and energy market regulation; one FTE from DEWNR to provide climate change expertise; one FTE from DPTI to support low carbon transport and planning; one FTE for a year from PIRSA; and the director position has been funded from within the DPC operating budget.

Mr MARSHALL: What is the total budget for that unit, though?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The total operating budget for the unit is $1.733 million.

Mr MARSHALL: Who heads up that unit?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Josh Carmichael.

Mr MARSHALL: When was it formed?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think in about January of this year.

Mr MARSHALL: What assistance, if any, is this unit providing to support wind or solar industries or opportunities in South Australia?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: That is its role. The unit is focused on initiatives to attract investment in wind, solar, PV and solar thermal renewables; develop innovative cleantech industries, and potential use of novel hydrogen and battery technologies; capture energy efficiency opportunities including in buildings; low emission vehicle transport opportunities; developing a bioenergy industry; and progress economic development opportunities from carbon offsets and bio sequestration; and also to attract sustainable energy service companies to South Australia.

It is essentially directed at ensuring that we create the jobs and opportunities that re-emerge through the renewable energy sector and make this transition to a low-carbon economy. As I touched on earlier, the imperatives around renewable energy have been established by international, national and state policy. So, South Australia has excellent renewable energy resources. We have played a leadership role in the technologies associated with them, and this is part and parcel of the transformation of the South Australian economy. There could not be a more profound element about the new economy that it is going to be low carbon.

There are massive opportunities for first movers who are able to take a leadership role in renewable energy. As I said, while there was some hysterical commentary about the challenges of renewable energy for South Australia, I think what we have thankfully seen is the new energy minister say that renewable energy is the future, and what needs to change is not renewable energy but rather the National Electricity Market which presently does not accommodate the situation. We are talking about an irreversible international and national imperative, so it is natural for South Australia to take advantage of its endowment of renewable energy and pursue those opportunities.

Ultimately, it will lead to lower cost power. Ultimately, it will lead to jobs and opportunities as we innovate as we transition to a low carbon economy. We will be first movers and we will gain an international reputation for being a clean, green state because we have done so.

Mr MARSHALL: Are there any specific programs or grants envisaged as part of this new low carbon economy unit, or is it purely advice to you as Premier?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We have one at the moment which is presently being evaluated which is the quarter of a million-dollar prize for the low-carbon entrepreneurs initiatives to promote South Australia's ambition to have Adelaide as its world's first carbon neutral city and indeed for the state eventually to become carbon neutral, so that is a grant program. It is presently open, and the submissions are being evaluated and will be announced shortly.

There is no other specific grant program that is associated with the low-carbon economy unit, although we are using procurement to drive innovation in this area. You would have seen the announcement of the energy minister yesterday about the 25 per cent of our state's procurement of electricity being devoted to renewable energy with associated storage battery capacity which is also designed not only to drive renewables but also provide us with that sustainable baseload contribution.

Mr MARSHALL: Coming back to page 153 when we were talking about your workforce summary, can you confirm whether Paul Flanagan, previously an executive director in your department, received any form of employee separation payment or settlement at the end of his employment?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I will take that on notice about what he sought. I presume he has received his entitlements under his contract of employment.

Mr MARSHALL: What were the circumstances of that separation? Was that position made redundant? If he is just seeking his entitlements, I presume he did not resign.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Entitlements involve accrued entitlements to annual leave and whatever other arrangements exist, but I think there has been a restructuring in the agency, which is something that has been undertaken by agencies. There have been a number of restructuring of arrangements within DPC and this is a further restructure which has led to a position that is no longer being filled or the duties are not being performed in the same way.

Mr MARSHALL: What position did Paul Flanagan hold before his termination?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Head of communications within the agency.

Mr MARSHALL: So you are not having a head of communications in the agency?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I understand the disposition of the roles has been split up in different fashions, so there is not one position that actually has all of those functions. I understand that there has been a reallocation of duties and responsibilities amongst different employees.

Mr MARSHALL: So you will come back to the committee with the total cost of the separation?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: If you are asking me to do that, yes.

Mr MARSHALL: Yes, please. Also, can you confirm the circumstances of the termination of Adele Young to the committee? Was that similarly a restructuring? What role was she in previously?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think that employee worked for the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment and we will have to take that on notice and find out the circumstances of that termination.

Mr MARSHALL: Thank you very much. If we could move over to page 158, Strategic Engagement and Communications. Can you explain the 12.8 FTE increase in staff between 2014-15 and the estimated results for last year?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: There are no additional employees in that section, it is just a reorganisation of the same employees into a different program. The FTE cap really reflects the fact that that program area has that number of employees, so it is not an additional 12 employees in the agency as a whole.

Mr MARSHALL: How do you explain that? Basically you are saying one year there were 17 people and the following year there were 30 people. How can you explain there were no extra people?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We move people around.

Mr MARSHALL: Where were they previously such that they have been moved into this program now?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: They are in the department and there are a number of subprograms where people are organised and now they are reorganised in this fashion, so the total numbers have not increased.

Mr MARSHALL: Is this the unit that also engages external contractors like 57 Films?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No.

Mr MARSHALL: What area is that of DPC?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It was done by the director of that group and that was the head of communications.

Mr MARSHALL: The expenditure though is from that group, so it would come under supplies and services in the 2015-16 budget of $4 million; is that correct?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes.

Mr MARSHALL: Why did you just tell the committee that 57 Films was not under this?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It was by the director. It was entered into by the director of the group.

Mr MARSHALL: Who is the director of the group?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Paul Flanagan.

Mr MARSHALL: Was he dismissed because of the 57 Films debacle?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No.

Mr MARSHALL: What were the circumstances in terms of the procurement process for 57 Films? This was just a decision of Mr Flanagan?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No. The procurement of 57 Films was a matter for the communications director and there have been a number of procurements concerning 57 Films. The most recent has been the subject of a procurement exercise which involves the selection of 57 Films to provide various services to government.

Mr MARSHALL: Do you know what the total expenditure with 57 Films was last year?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We will take that on notice.

Mr MARSHALL: Just for clarity, was Mr Flanagan operating independently when he contracted 57 Films to do this work?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I do not understand what you mean. He was performing his terms and conditions of employment in exercising his responsibilities. One of his core responsibilities was to engage contractors to provide services to meet the communication needs of government, so the extent—if you want to describe that as 'independent', yes.

Mr MARSHALL: Do you support the expenditure that your department made with 57 Films last financial year?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Absolutely.

Mr MARSHALL: At one stage, it was reported that 57 Films were paid $12,000 to put together a message from your chief executive to his department. Have any other messages to the department been made using this methodology and using 57 Films?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: There have not been further exercises of that sort because that was about the communication of a very substantial restructure of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, but it has been used as a template, if you like, for other work.

Mr MARSHALL: Has 57 Films been used for any other chief executive messages to the department over and above the Christmas message or that initial message that you refer to that has been reported earlier this year?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: None of the chief executives across government, if that is your question, and I think no other messages have been sent by the chief executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Mr MARSHALL: Thank you very much. I would like to go to Budget Paper 5, page 70, which relates to the France engagement strategy. Can you perhaps give us some indication when you decided to proceed with this program?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think immediately upon the awarding of the Future Submarines contract, for a range of reasons. It has a number of different elements to it. One is to maximise the opportunities which are directly as a consequence of the Future Submarines project, and that involves an interrogation of the South Australian supply chain to make sure that we are able to capture as much of that work as possible.

The second element is to look at, to the extent that we do not have all the skills and capabilities here, whether we can lift our skills and capabilities to gain them and, where we cannot, to find businesses from interstate or overseas that could be part of South Australia and supply those gaps. So, that is the first fundamental exercise. The second is the other business opportunities associated with the connections with France, which include the regions of Brittany and Normandy, which house these facilities. To give you one example, Brittany has an extraordinary international reputation for food manufacturing technologies which could obviously be highly beneficial if they are paired up with South Australian produce and South Australian opportunities. So, that is one area of operation.

Then, of course, there are the broader connections between France and South Australia which emerge as a consequence of our embedding now this very substantial contract between France and Australia. There are things like cultural elements, people-to-people ties, academic institutions, cultural events, artistic events, sister state relations, sister city relations, that all need to be managed. Certainly, on the French side, they are pursuing it with this systematic approach, so we needed to have a corresponding South Australian approach.

Make no mistake, other states and territories are eyeing off this relationship, so I suppose we want to have the best relationship with France that South Australia can possibly get. We are, obviously, in the box seat because the contractual arrangements are centred here, but we cannot take any of that for granted.

Mr MARSHALL: How many people work in this—is it an agency or unit?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, it is not an agency, it is just a French strategy group. I have appointed Jos Mazel to lead the French engagement strategy and there is a coordination plan that will be supervised within our international section within the Department of the Premier and Cabinet which will, obviously, have a close relationship with Defence SA.

Mr MARSHALL: Has Jos Mazel been appointed to lead the team?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes, she has been transferred to an executive role within the Department of the Premier and Cabinet to lead that group.

Mr MARSHALL: Previously, you have reported to parliament, and I quote:

We are currently recruiting for a project director to lead this team. Meanwhile, Jos Mazel will join DPC to begin to map aspects of the French strategy.

So, you have now made that appointment?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, there is a separate—Jos Mazel is not the person appointed to that position. The project director's role is the thing that is being advertised. That will sit beneath Jos Mazel and that is presently being analysed. I think we have applicants and we are about to make an appointment.

Mr MARSHALL: So, Jos Mazel sits above the project director?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes.

Mr MARSHALL: What was the process put in place regarding her appointment to that position?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It was a decision that I took to transfer her from her previous role into this role because we wanted to make sure that we had a high-level executive who was able to put effort into what I think is one of the biggest opportunities that we have as a state. She indicated a willingness to shift from her previous role and so it became convenient to apply her to this work. She also has a French background. Her mother tongue is French and she obviously has a great familiarity with the French culture.

Mr MARSHALL: What is the term of her appointment to this role?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I do not think she has a fixed term. I think she has transferred on the same terms as her previous contractual arrangements.

Mr MARSHALL: To be clear, you approached her for this role, she did not apply for this role, or did not seek this role?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No. We had discussions about her future employment. She indicated that she was agreeable to, essentially, looking for a different and new challenge within state government and obviously agreed to perform this role.

Mr MARSHALL: So, she had approached you saying she was looking for something other than Families SA and you thought: 'Well, this is a role that is coming up, your experience and seniority would suit this role'?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I am in routine discussions with the chief executives about their futures, so there are ongoing discussions about where people are, what their ambitions are and where they are looking for fresh challenges. I think, though, the suggestion for her filling this role came initially from her, if I am not mistaken. Ultimately, I thought it was an excellent idea. I stand to be corrected about this, but I think when she heard of the creation of this strategy group she indicated her interest in it.

Mr MARSHALL: Were you dissatisfied with her performance as a chief executive in Families SA?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, not at all, but, as I say, we are in regular discussions and from time to time chief executives indicate that they are looking for new opportunities and fresh challenges and we seek to accommodate that where we can.

Mr MARSHALL: How many people will Joslene Mazel have reporting to her in this new role?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: In a sense, it is a coordination role. There are not many direct reports because she essentially is ranging across the whole of government to coordinate all of our efforts in our engagement with France. In some senses, we are seeking the whole of the Public Service to respond to this strategy but there is only a handful of people who directly report to her within DPC.

Mr MARSHALL: So at the moment there is Joanne Murray, who you have reported to parliament has been transferred there, and you have the project director who you are recruiting, but other than that it is a coordinating role. What salary package does this position attract then? Is it the same?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: If you are talking about Jos Mazel, her terms and conditions of employment are the same as her existing contract as chief executive for DCSI, and she has been transferred pursuant to section 36 of the Public Sector Act.

Mr MARSHALL: Yes, so what is her current—

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I will take that on notice and bring back an answer.

Mr MARSHALL: Going back to the previous Premier and Cabinet policy and support, in previous years you have spoken in this area about your support for driverless cars in South Australia, but that no longer features in the highlights. Is there any specific expenditure from this area going forward in DPC or, in fact, in any other agency in government?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: There is a specific reference to driverless cars in another section of government, so it is being handled through the Minister for Transport, and I will bring back a reference to that to you. In terms of the role of DPC, DPC's role, through the international section, is to engage in discussions at an international level in terms of trade delegations, and so the general support for that work would be contained within the work of agencies.

Often, as Premier, I act on behalf the whole of government, especially in relation to international visits, but once those matters become more mature, they are then sent to line ministers to pursue. I know the Minister for Transport together with the Minister for Manufacturing is pursuing the relationship with a range of different organisations that may be able to assist us in taking the next steps in relation to driverless cars.

Mr MARSHALL: So you remain committed to the driverless cars initiative from DPC—

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Absolutely.

Mr MARSHALL: —and you will come back to us with what programs you have in place, but they are no longer something which are coordinated by your department?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: They are within line agencies, so there are areas that as I say are contained within the Department of State Development and also the Department of Transport. I think there is a specific sum of money that we allocated to it in the context of the budget.

Mr MARSHALL: So you will come back to us with that. This is also the area where you have previously talked about the Future Fund. Can you update the committee regarding your plans for the Future Fund? You have previously reported to this committee under this item, that this will be established once the budget returns to surplus. Now it is in surplus; further, it was previously reported in estimates that the legislation for this would be introduced into the parliament before the end of last year. How is that progressing?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Obviously, the Future Fund consideration has a certain test associated with it. It is only when the surplus reaches a certain level that the excess funds will be applied to a future fund. The economic circumstances that face this state at the moment mean that there is no obvious windfall that is associated with the projected increases in revenues associated with economic activity, although a future fund is part and parcel of the analysis associated with the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, where there is a substantial discussion about the way in which any excess funds could be applied should the state wish to involve itself in a nuclear fuel cycle waste facility.

I will bring back an answer on where the disposition of that work is, but obviously it has become less urgent because the surplus funds have not risen to a level where there would be a contribution, necessarily, to such a fund.

Mr MARSHALL: Nevertheless, are you concerned that because we remain in a structural deficit, i.e. we only achieved the surplus because of the transfer of the one-off MAC payments, that it just is not appropriate at this point to proceed with your previously announced position regarding the Future Fund?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, I do not accept that analysis. We have achieved a surplus.

Mr MARSHALL: Then why have you not set up the Future Fund? As you previously told this committee, you said that the legislation would be in place I think in November last year.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Because that is not the only test for the Future Fund. The surplus has to be of a certain quality and type before a contribution is made into the Future Fund. There is a formula that we have laid out where, obviously, the circumstances do not pertain that would lead to the creation of the Future Fund. The sensible step in the short term is to pay down government debt associated with the surplus that we have created.

Mr MARSHALL: Previously, under this item in your budget, you have spoken about the State Strategic Plan. Have you given up on that now?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, not at all. We have simply sharpened up what are the key priorities under South Australia's Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan targets remain, and they guide government—not just government, but the whole of community decision-making and goals. We have simply sharpened them up into 10 economic priorities which guide our thinking.

Those priorities are the five sectors of the economy: resources, food, health, education and tourism, and then the enablers of innovation, business environment, the vibrant city, international connections and small business. We are pursuing those matters because they are the central imperatives for the South Australian economy. That is not to suggest that there are not other measures that the government is guiding its work in having regard to; it is just that we have decided that it is important to reduce the number of areas of focus for attention.

Mr MARSHALL: Really, for the last two years you have reported that an audit would be underway of the State Strategic Plan. Is there any plan whatsoever this year to conduct that audit which is now two years late?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We will bring back an answer to that question, but certainly we remain committed to pursuing the South Australian Strategic Plan targets. Our energies, though, are being directed at the 10 economic priorities. That is the single most important thing on the minds of South Australians—the transformation of the South Australian economy.

Mr MARSHALL: Is there anything in this year's budget, though, for that audit of the State Strategic Plan?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is certainly not a specific initiative, and whether there are resources that will permit it to occur—that is something that I will take on notice.

Mr MARSHALL: Is that audit committee still in place?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I will have to take that on notice.

Mr MARSHALL: When was the last reported audit of the State Strategic Plan?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Once again, I will take that on notice.

Mr MARSHALL: So you are suggesting to this committee that it is still the guiding strategy for this state. You do not know when the last report was, you do not know whether the audit committee is in place and you do not know whether there is a budget for the audit which is now running two years late; is that plausible?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: That is a comment. I have given you my answer.

Mr MARSHALL: Well, no. I am asking whether it is plausible that it remains the guiding strategy for the state, given that there is nothing in the budget, the audit is running two years late and you do not even know when the last audit of the State Strategic Plan was. Why do you not just say, 'We are not pursuing it any more'?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Because I do not agree with that statement.

Mr MARSHALL: Can you give any evidence that you are still pursuing the State Strategic Plan, given there has been no audit as promised now for more than two years?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: As I said, we have sharpened our priorities to the 10 economic priorities. That is the thing that is on the minds of the South Australian community. Our capacity to deal with many of the other issues associated with the South Australian Strategic Plan will in large measure depend on our capacity to restructure the South Australian economy. I am surprised to hear that the Leader of the Opposition is such a supporter of the South Australian Strategic Plan, given his opposition has spent most of the existence of the life of the plan bagging it.

Mr MARSHALL: I am just asking what it is. You keep saying that you are a supporter of it.

The CHAIR: That question is on notice and you will bring that back.

Mr MARSHALL: Is there a similar audit process put in place for the 10 strategic priorities?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: What we do in relation to the 10 economic priorities is that we manage them through a cabinet committee process, and they remain the subject of regular reporting to me through the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. It is published material online, which allows people to follow our progress in relation to each of those matters. We have laid out for ourselves very clear targets—12-month and two-year targets—which will all emerge throughout the life of this government. People will be able to evaluate each of those things.

Mr MARSHALL: Just for clarity, there is no independent published audit of those 10 economic priorities; it is just something which is monitored by the cabinet?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is published. By the end of 2015, we achieved 59 of the 68 objectives we set for ourselves in 2015, and we are working to deliver the 72 objectives we have set for ourselves in 2017. The opposition, like anybody else in the community, will have the capacity to evaluate our success or otherwise in achieving those objectives. I do not think we can be any more transparent than that.

Mr MARSHALL: I think you could.

Mr SPEIRS: Supplementary on that: we have the State Strategic Plan and we have the 10 economic priorities. There are also the seven strategic priorities. What is the evaluation and monitoring process for those?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: As I said, we are making a very concerted effort to focus on 10 economic priorities which target the five key sectors and the five enablers. That has been our focus and our attention. I do have, though, in relation to the 10 economic priorities, a range of other, if you like, non-economic priorities that I pay particular attention to. They are the subject of regular reporting and monitoring on a weekly basis to me.

Mr SPEIRS: Are the seven strategic priorities still in place for the state government or have they fall in the same way as the State Strategic Plan?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, the seven economic priorities are wholly encapsulated within the 10 economic priorities and the other priorities that are reported to me on a weekly basis.

Mr SPEIRS: But I thought that the seven strategic priorities were not necessarily economically focused. I think two or three of them are, but there are three or four which are socially based.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: That is right.

Mr SPEIRS: It all gets quite confusing, Premier.

Mr MARSHALL: With the marching on of time, I suggest we move on to the Economic Development Board.

The CHAIR: Are you happy for me to close Premier and Cabinet, which I will do. We thank the advisers. We do need to refer this to Estimates Committee B this afternoon, so we will be leaving it open and adjourned.