Estimates Vote

Department for Health and Ageing, $3,711,780,000

Department of State Development, $672,950,000

Administered Items for the Department of State Development, $10,448,000

Minister:

Hon. J.J. Snelling, Minister for Health, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Health Industries.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr D. Swan, Chief Executive, SA Health.

Mr M. Baccanti, Chief Executive, Health Industries SA.

Mr J. Woolcock, Chief Finance Officer, SA Health.

Mr L. Richards, Deputy Chief Executive, System Performance, SA Health.

Mr D. Frater, Deputy Chief Executive, Finance and Corporate Services, SA Health.

Ms V. Kaminski, Deputy Chief Executive, Transforming Health, SA Health.

Mr M. Hillard, Chief of Staff.

The CHAIR: The estimates committees are a relatively informal procedure and, as such, there is no need to stand to ask or answer questions. I understand the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition have agreed to an approximate time for the consideration of proposed payments which will facilitate a change of departmental advisers. Could the minister and lead speaker for the opposition confirm that the timetable for today's proceedings previously distributed is accurate?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes, indeed.

Mr MARSHALL: Yes.

The CHAIR: Changes to the committee membership will be notified as they occur. Members should ensure that the Chair is provided with a completed request to be discharged form. If the minister undertakes to supply information at a later date, it must be submitted to the committee secretary by no later than Friday 28 October 2016. This year, estimate committee responses will be published during the 15 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 an opening statement, should they wish, of about 10 minutes. There will be a flexible approach to giving the call for asking questions based on about three questions per member, alternating each side. Supplementary questions will be the exception rather than the rule.

A member who is not part of the committee may ask a question at the discretion of the Chair. Questions must be based on lines of expenditure in the budget papers and must be identifiable or referenced at the beginning of the question, so we ask members just to let us know where they are. Members unable to complete their questions during the proceedings may submit them as questions on notice for inclusion in the assembly Notice Paper.

There is no formal facility for the tabling of documents before the committee; however, documents can be supplied to the Chair for distribution to the committee. The incorporation of material in Hansard is permitted on the same basis as applies in the house, that is, that it is purely statistical and limited to one page in length. All questions are to be directed to the minister and not the advisers. The minister may refer to his advisers for a response.

During the committee's examinations, television cameras will be permitted to film from both the northern and southern galleries and we do ask media to try to keep their noise down in the galleries, as last year it was difficult to hear from the desk. I declare the proposed payments open for examination and refer members to the agency statements in Volumes 3 and 4. Does the minister wish to make an opening statement?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Very briefly, Madam Chair. Firstly, obviously the Department for Health and Ageing is undergoing enormous change at the moment. We have a number of reform projects at the moment, chief of which is the new Royal Adelaide Hospital and the work we are doing to be able to commission that new hospital. It is probably the largest piece of work this government or any government in South Australia will ever undertake. Moving from one end of North Terrace to the other is a hugely complex piece of work, and I would like to thank those clinicians and public servants who have been working very hard on that particular project.

Obviously we are waiting for an authoritative cure plan from SAHP, the consortium that is building and operating the hospital on our behalf, in terms of completion dates. We hope to have that soon. I have made it very clear, however, that unless I am satisfied that the completion date they provide us with is one that we can rely on, we will continue to challenge them on that. We should bear in mind that building a new hospital is very, very complex. I am not necessarily surprised that it has taken longer than was originally anticipated because of the complexities of these things, but what we do expect from SAHP is that they are up front and honest with us and provide us with information that we can rely on so we can communicate things to the public and have confidence in what we are communicating to the public.

The other significant reform project, of course, is EPAS. EPAS is more than just an IT project; it is actually expecting people to significantly change the way they go about their work. So far we have rolled it out at Noarlunga and the Repat hospitals, our GP Plus centres, the SA Ambulance Service and the Port Augusta Hospital. Most recently, about a month ago, we rolled EPAS out at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital. I have to say it was an extremely successful rollout to The Queen Elizabeth Hospital. Of course, there have been a few teething issues, but you would expect that; in fact, I would be surprised if there were not any. That is a rollout that has gone very, very well and the feedback I get from clinicians is that if we tried to make them go back to the old paper records there would be a riot, so that has been very successful.

When I went down there a few weeks ago, a week after it had been rolled out, I spoke to the director of the emergency department of The Queen Elizabeth Hospital who related a story that for the first time they had a patient present and they were actually able to access that patient's medical records. He had previously presented at the Repat, and the ability to be able to have at their fingertips those medical records from a different hospital was extremely valuable to them. Of course, as we continue to roll EPAS out, that will continue to be the case. We are now working on its rollout to the new Royal Adelaide Hospital and are going through those processes now, as well as consolidating the work we are doing at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital.

Finally, of course, is Transforming Health, which is the biggest overhaul of our health system in South Australia in the state's history, with considerable reconfiguration. As I have previously said, if you have a look at any of the indicators, this state spends more on health, we have more doctors, more nurses and more hospital beds, yet we lag on the tables when it comes to emergency department waiting times. There is clearly an issue there that has to be corrected.

We have identified that the issue is the way our hospitals are basically configured. We try, in many cases, to do too many things at too many sites and we do not have proper 24-hour coverage in some key areas where we need to at particular hospitals, so we are going through the process of doing that. Of course, that is a significant upheaval and a significant change to where people work and how they work, so it is no surprise that, with any sort of disruption like that, there would be issues and people for various reasons who are not happy. However, we have been working very closely with our clinicians to work through these issues.

I have to say that the changes or realignment between Modbury Hospital and the Lyell McEwin Hospital have gone very, very well. My son broke his wrist playing soccer about a month ago and I took him to the Modbury Hospital emergency department, where Stuart Smith, a nurse practitioner, looked after him and we were in and out of that emergency department in an hour. That is exactly the sort of work the community in the north-eastern suburbs wants to see in their local emergency department. Those are the sorts of services they are looking for that hospital to be able to provide and it does a very, very good job.

We have seen significant improvement as well in the Lyell McEwin emergency department. Of course, it has been extremely busy this winter and it will only get busier as the population in the northern suburbs grows. I have to say that our doctors and nurses working in the Lyell McEwin Hospital are doing an incredibly good job. As we continue to move additional resources up to the Lyell McEwin Hospital—a second CAT scanner, an additional cath lab—these are the sorts of things which that hospital needs to deal with and cater for an expanding population.

There are a couple of things I will point out. Firstly, we released a report this morning compiled by the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care into the PSA issue in SA Pathology. I do not need to go through everything, but that report is damning of the actions taken by the former executive director Ken Barr. I was interested to hear on radio this morning the Leader of the Opposition calling into question that report, suggesting that it had just been done to confirm a decision that the government had already taken.

I think that is a pretty remarkable statement, given the authority that the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care has. No doubt others will deal with this issue. I am amazed that their integrity would be called into question by the Leader of the Opposition, but that is a matter for him. Certainly, the report does vindicate the actions taken by the chief executive in terminating the employment of Ken Barr. Obviously, there are other recommendations with regard to an overhaul of SA Pathology and the way it works. Clearly there were systems that should have been in place to deal with these sorts of issues that were not.

In conclusion, I would like to thank Chief Executive of SA Health, David Swan, for his 5½ years of service as chief executive of SA Health. It has been an absolute pleasure working with David over the last 5½ years. There are other chief executives or directors-general of Health in other states who have come and gone in the five and a half years that David has been in the job, and we have been extremely fortunate in this state to be able to hold onto David's services for as long as we did. He obviously takes up a different position—I am somewhat envious—at running St Vincent's Private Hospitals based in the Eastern States. It is an extremely prestigious position that he takes up, and I think is a measure of the esteem in which David is held right around the country.

The CHAIR: Can you introduce your other advisers?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I will happily introduce them. I have Jamin Woolcock, Chief Finance Officer of SA Health, and Len Richards, incoming Deputy Chief Executive of SA Health, System Performance.

The CHAIR: Leader, do you have a statement, or are you going straight to questions?

Mr MARSHALL: Absolutely not. I would like to maximise the amount of time I have for questions because we have a very short time this morning.

The CHAIR: What book do you want me to look at?

Mr MARSHALL: My first question relates to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 26: on what date does the minister expect the new Royal Adelaide Hospital to reach technical completion and also commercial acceptance?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: We have a draft cure plan that has been submitted to us. That cure plan has not been confirmed by SAHP; it has been supplied by the builder to SAHP. We hope to have a definitive cure plan in the coming weeks which will tell us when technical completion will be. Commercial acceptance would be three months after technical completion. We do not have that answer at the moment but we hope to in coming weeks.

Mr MARSHALL: How many cure plans have now been presented for this project?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Under the contract, the way it works is that every time we put in a default, the builder or the SAHP are required to admit to us how they intend to rectify that default with a cure plan.

Mr MARSHALL: Will patients—

The CHAIR: He is still going.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I am just getting some advice. Generally what happens is they will put in a cure plan to us. We will make some comments on it and send it back, and they will resubmit it based upon our comments and questions.

Mr MARSHALL: With regard to the technical completion date, how many cure plans have been presented to date?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Two.

Mr MARSHALL: Can you outline to the committee whether or not you believe we will be admitting patients to that site this year?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No, I do not think we will.

Mr MARSHALL: What does the budget provide for in terms of the go-live date for the new Royal Adelaide Hospital?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It is the budget that we had with regard to the transition. I am not sure what the leader is getting at, but the main costs around transition of the project team that are in place, whose job it is to formulate the plans for the move, to formulate how the new models of care work, and so on—

Mr MARSHALL: What does the budget provide for in terms of the date that you are planning to incur the costs of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital? What date does that envisage that the first patient would—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I see. I understand that Treasury have their own assumptions that they have built in to the budget—

Mr MARSHALL: So what had been built in for your numbers?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: That would be an issue you would have to raise with the Treasurer.

Mr MARSHALL: But I am asking you about the budget as it relates to Health and Ageing. They are the numbers you are responsible for.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: There is the quarterly service payment, and obviously it was the case that the quarterly service payment had been budgeted to begin, I think, in July. Clearly, we are not going to be paying that from July, so there is a benefit to the budget. Treasury will have revised that to a different date, but that is all Treasury assumptions when they are formulating the budget, what the budget benefit might be. Treasury make their own assumption on that.

Mr MARSHALL: So those payments do not occur in your part of the budget. They are in a completely—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: They would obviously do it in consultation with Health, but at the end of the day it would be Treasury's call about what assumptions they make, for the purposes of the budget, about when commercial acceptance will be.

Mr MARSHALL: Yes, but in which quarter in your budget do the numbers for the new Royal Adelaide Hospital cost begin?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: December is when Treasury have made the assumption that—

Mr MARSHALL: But you have just told the committee that you will not be accepting—

The CHAIR: Can we just wait for the answer before the next question?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Treasury have made an assumption that December will be the date. I would say that it would be after December that we would begin—

Mr MARSHALL: So there is an error?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No, there is not. Treasury make very conservative assumptions. Given that anything later than December would be to the benefit of the budget, that would be the way that Treasury normally do it.

Mr MARSHALL: Yes, but Treasury have informed—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The other thing is there are two questions you asked. You asked a question about when we would be accepting patients. I would expect we would not be accepting patients this year, that we would start accepting patients in the new year. If you were to take September as technical completion, then three months after that commercial acceptance would bring us to December. Obviously, if commercial acceptance were in December, we would not be moving patients over Christmas. I have already said that. That is quite public.

You asked me two separate questions but, having said that, I imagine Treasury would make a very conservative estimate of December because anything later than December is going to be to the benefit of the budget. Treasury, of their nature, do not normally guess things on the upside. They normally take a very conservative approach.

Mr MARSHALL: On page 38, under Central Adelaide Local Health Network, dot point 1, it says that there will be an annual service payment for the operation of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital, $131.5 million. You are indicating to this committee that the budget is that that will begin on 1 December, but you have just informed the committee that, despite that being the budget, as per the evidence provided by the Department of Treasury and Finance to the select committee, in fact you are not expecting those payments to begin until well into the new year. You would not be accepting patients in the December-January period, so the earliest would be, what, February, March?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: We start paying once we have a hospital that is ready for us to move into. If that were to happen in December, we would not be moving patients over Christmas. It would be later in the year, but we would still start paying the service payments from commercial acceptance.

Mr MARSHALL: I understand now. So commercial acceptance could be 1 December; that is what is provided for in the budget.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: As I say, that is entirely for the purposes of the budget. The government does not necessarily accept that commercial acceptance would be in December. We are waiting on receiving the definitive cure plan, and we will not be saying any more until we have that definitive cure plan from SAHP. But Treasury, for its own purposes, for the purposes of budgeting and calculating how much money it has, made an assumption that it would be in December and we would start making the quarterly service payments in December. If it were later than that, that would be to the benefit of the budget.

Mr MARSHALL: Just for clarity, we have no idea at this stage until the cure plan is finally received and accepted by the government as to when the technical completion date will be. For the purposes of the budget, it is from 1 December. If it were on 1 December, though, of course naturally, and I think everybody accepts this, we would not be making the transition over the Christmas period.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: That is true, but to say we have no idea are not the words I used; they are your words.. What I would say is what we do not have—

Mr MARSHALL: What idea do you have then?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I listened to you without interrupting you and I would appreciate it if you would provide me with the same courtesy. What I would say is that we are not prepared to, firstly, go public with anything, and we are not prepared to do anything in our planning around a date that we do not have confidence in. Until we receive from SAHP their cure plan, which is going to provide us with a date and, more importantly, tell us how they are actually going to get to that date, and it is something that we have confidence in, then we will be in a position, firstly, to say to the public, 'Well this is when we expect technical completion and this is when we expect to be in the hospital.'

Mr MARSHALL: On Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 38, is there any medical equipment at the current Royal Adelaide Hospital site currently unusable either through breakdown or by reaching the end of its safe working life?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: We have a sustainment fund for the equipment that is at the hospital and the chief executive of the Central Adelaide Local Health Network uses that to make sure that the equipment is kept in a fit-for-purpose state.

Mr MARSHALL: What additional budget has had to be provided for that sustainment fund for the existing Royal Adelaide Hospital to cover the delay in the opening of that hospital?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It is no additional money. It would just be a normal budgeted provision we make for keeping equipment up to date across all of our hospitals. It does not require any additional funding. It is just money that we would be spending anyway.

Mr MARSHALL: But there could not have been a budget because you were meant to—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Regardless of whether it is the Royal Adelaide Hospital or the new Royal Adelaide Hospital, we have a budget to keep our equipment up to date, and just because the equipment is in the old—

Mr MARSHALL: But the equipment would have all been new at the new Royal Adelaide Hospital.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Sorry?

Mr MARSHALL: You surely did not have a budget to update equipment at the old Royal Adelaide Hospital.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Well, there will be equipment that we will be moving that will need to be updated in time.

Mr MARSHALL: So you are saying unequivocably that there is no medical equipment that is either not being used at the moment or reaching the end of it safe working life?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I do not have that information, but what I would say is that it is our responsibility to make sure that the equipment we have is kept fit for purpose. We do have a budget for that, and we do not have to provide additional money because it is money we would be spending in any case.

Mr MARSHALL: What is the budget for that at the existing Royal Adelaide Hospital?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It is $18,269,000 across all our SA Health sites. For minor works, it is $14,345,000, but that is across all SA Health sites.

Mr MARSHALL: Can you provide the detail of what that budget is for the existing hospital?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Sure, we can get that.

Mr MARSHALL: Back to page 26, what is the current total project budget for state-funded works at the new Royal Adelaide Hospital?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It has not changed. The total project cost for state-funded works is $256,049,000.

Mr MARSHALL: You say it has not changed, but last year it was $244 million so it has changed. What was the reason for the $12 million upgrade to that budget? The original budget was $244 million and it is now $256 million.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: There might have just been a shift of budget allocation between different agencies, but we will find that out and get back to you.

Mr MARSHALL: Can you explain to me page 27, item (c), which relates to that line on the table on page 26. It says:

The total project cost including operating project expenses for new Royal Adelaide Hospital—Site Works is $463.6 million.

Can you reconcile that $463 million with the $256 million? What is the difference?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: We can give you a reconciliation of the two and explain what the difference is between those two figures.

Mr MARSHALL: Can you hint towards it now. It is a pretty big number. It is not like a $2 million rounding error: one says $463 million, and the other one says $256 million. It is over $200 million in difference.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I think that the $255 million is a capital cost, and the $463 million is an operating cost. The cost of the state's capital and operating investment in the new RAH project is $476 million. This amount includes 138—

Mr MARSHALL: Sorry, 476?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes. There is a slight difference because of this issue with the other agency, but $138.8 million—

Mr MARSHALL: Sorry, what was the slight difference?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: As I said, we can get back to you but, essentially, we think it is because of a transfer from one agency to another. There was $138.8 million for equipment purchases, including major clinical equipment installation in the new RAH by SA Health Partnership, including linear accelerator imaging equipment and pathology equipment; $86.4 million, for information communications technology; and $40 million for site works and supply of utility infrastructure.

There was approximately $129 million for implementation of transition programs to ensure operational readiness when the construction is complete, including operational design, policy review and development, commissioning plan development and facility readiness (including equipment procurement and commissioning), and operational commissioning execution, people readiness (including a sense of training and communication program), and system readiness, in particular ICT systems in the supply chain.

There was also $62.2 million for specific costs, including site remediation, dual running of both hospitals and modifications to the new RAH; and approximately $20.1 million for further project-related costs, including $6.7 million centrally held contingency for furniture, fittings and equipment re-use. So, I think the difference between the two is that one is an operating figure and one is a capital figure.

Mr KNOLL: In last year's budget, the total cost, including operating costs, was $375.8 million. So, we have seen an $87.8 million increase from last year to this year. In the Mid-Year Budget Review, there was $34.3 million added to the costs. If we can assume that that is part of that increase, we still have a net increase from the Mid-Year Budget Review, according to the way I look at it, at $53.5 million. Between either last year's budget and this year's budget, or the Mid-Year Budget Review and this year's budget, why has there been a blowout of—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Firstly, there has actually been a saving to the budget overall from this project because we will not be making quarterly service payments, but that does mean we have to keep the project team around longer than was originally envisaged, but that is more than offset by the reduction in service payments. There was also the settlement, which we announced last year with SAHP, and I imagine that figure of $30 million is included. There was, I think, a $32 million budget impact from the settlement we did with SAHP—$34 million with SAHP because of the settlement over remediation.

Mr KNOLL: Was that settlement included as part of the Mid-Year Budget Review?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I would need to go back and check, but we announced it in September last year, in 2015.

Mr KNOLL: From the Mid-Year Budget Review to this year's budget, there is another $53.5 million extra included in that total project figure.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It would include a number of things. I do not have a complete breakdown but, obviously, we suspect it would include the money as part of the remediation settlement, and it would include probably extra money around the timing issue—the fact, we had to keep the project team longer because originally, obviously, we had budgeted to keep that project team there to April, when we expected that we would originally make the move, and we have had to keep the project team around longer because that has been delayed. I point out that all of those things have been more than offset by the reduction in quarterly service payments. In fact, overall, we are paying less.

Mr KNOLL: Except that in the Mid-Year Budget Review it talks about a decrease to the budget of $18.65 million for delayed service payments, and then—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: That was the MYBR, when the expected technical completion was going to be in July—

Mr KNOLL: Well, it says in here April, and then commercial acceptance on 3 July.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: —and then April for technical completion. But now—obviously, we are in July—we are not going to have commercial acceptance in July, so there is further savings to the budget because commercial acceptance is not going to happen in July: it will happen later in the year.

Mr KNOLL: I understand that, and I take the point definitely that there is a decrease in operating expenses and a lesser increase in investing in payments, according to the Mid-Year Budget Review. My point, though, is that, if you are suggesting that there is going to be savings from a delay to the hospital, why is it that since the Mid-Year Budget Review we have seen an increase of $53.5 million to the total operating costs?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Because you are just looking at one part of the question. You are just looking at the expenditure side. You are not looking at the saving side. Globally, we are making a saving because we are not paying the $394 million a year, or the equivalent thereof, for the lateness of the hospital.

Mr KNOLL: Except that, according to the Mid-Year Budget Review and the comments you just made before, those savings were included as part of part (c) on page 27.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: In the Mid-Year Budget Review, that would have been until July. This budget takes in a later commercial acceptance date. Those figures do not include that. Those figures are just looking at the expenditure side. They are not looking at the saving side. That is not a global project cost. That higher figure is offset by the reduction that we are spending in service payments. You are just looking at one part of the question.

Mr KNOLL: Yes, certainly I accept that.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: You are looking at the expenditure and, yes, obviously we do have, the hospital being late, some additional expenditure associated with that. It is not all on the upside. It means that the teams that we have to transition the hospital, and some expenses with continuing to potentially have both hospitals run at the same time, have to keep the Royal Adelaide Hospital running longer than we expected. All those things are taken into account, but they are more than offset, as I said, by the reduction in quarterly service payments. We do not start paying for the hospital until commercial acceptance.

Mr MARSHALL: Can I ask some questions now on the clinical research. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 40. Who commissioned the report by Michael James and Jenny O'Neill into the relocation project for RAH research?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I imagine it would have been the Central Adelaide Local Health Network, but we can check.

Mr MARSHALL: Have you read this report?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No, it is not something that has been brought to my attention.

Mr MARSHALL: It has not been brought to your attention?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No.

Mr MARSHALL: Why is it that this report was received only after the original go-live date for the new Royal Adelaide Hospital?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Again, I would have to get that for you from the chief executive of the Central Adelaide Local Health Network. Can I say, with regard to clinical trials, obviously I also have a health industries hat, and one of the areas that we have identified, that is incredibly important, is clinical trials. It is a key strength of our health system, and one that we are determined to see continued. Obviously, clinical trials are one area that has to be accommodated within the new hospital, among many other areas, but my bottom line is that if clinical trials need to operate and run in a hospital environment, they will—and that is the bottom line.

The clinical trials that have been going on have varying needs. Not every clinical trial needs to be conducted in a hospital environment. Some of them require infrequent interface with the patient undergoing the trial. They do not require a hospital environment. The person can be given whatever needs to be done, tests and so on, which can operate essentially in a GP clinic-type environment. For those things, that is what will happen but, for those more intense-type trials that do need to happen in hospital environment, they will be accommodated within the new Royal Adelaide Hospital.

Mr MARSHALL: What informs the statement you have just made if you have not read the report?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: My advice from Julia Squire, the chief executive of the Central Adelaide Local Health Network?

Mr MARSHALL: What informed the answer you provided in parliament to a Liberal question that suggested that the majority of the existing Royal Adelaide Hospital clinical trials could not be accommodated in the new Royal Adelaide Hospital?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: My advice, and I would need to check, is that anything that I have said in the house—

Mr MARSHALL: Well, you said, 'Absolutely not.'

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No, I think your question was quite different. I think, in fact, you are misrepresenting what I said to the committee. Your question, like all silly questions you ask, was: can the minister confirm that a majority of clinical trials will not be able to happen in the new Royal Adelaide Hospital? To which my answer was, 'Absolutely not.' That is, absolutely not—I cannot confirm, so you perhaps need to look at the questions you ask and take—

Mr MARSHALL: So it was not that it was not correct; it was just that you could not confirm it.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I was not confirming, I was not suggesting that a majority of clinical trials could not happen at the new Royal Adelaide Hospital. I was doing quite the opposite.

Mr MARSHALL: Can a majority of the existing trials—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: All I will say is that we will accommodate those clinical trials that need to happen in a hospital environment. They will be in accommodated within the new Royal Adelaide Hospital.

Mr MARSHALL: How many of the existing trials?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Whether that is a majority or not would depend upon the needs of those clinical trials. If those clinical trials require a hospital environment in which to be conducted, then they will be conducted in a hospital environment.

Mr MARSHALL: What proportion?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I do not have that. I think that is something that is still being worked through because we have a number of clinical trials, all of which have varying needs and varying requirements, but that is a piece of work that is being undertaken at the moment within Central Adelaide Local Health Network.

Mr MARSHALL: Yes, in fact it has, and it has been with your department since 7 May. You have not had a chance to read it as yet, but it clearly identifies that there are 358 clinical trials that are currently either underway or envisaged to be underway at the existing Royal Adelaide Hospital, and it goes on to say that 85 per cent of these could not be accommodated within the new Royal Adelaide Hospital. What do you have to say about that?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Of those clinical trials, there would be a variety of needs, as I have said. Some of them will need to be undertaken in a hospital environment, and they would be very intense trials where patients have to be very closely monitored in a hospital environment. Those trials will happen in the new Royal Adelaide Hospital. There will be other trials that do not need to happen in hospital environment, and I would envisaged that not all of those that do not need to operate in a hospital environment will be able to happen elsewhere and be able to be done quite safely and quite effectively off-site.

Mr MARSHALL: Given that this report, which you have not read, has been written—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It is not a report to me. There would be any number of reports that are done through SA Health—

Mr MARSHALL: Can I just ask my question?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I do not normally expect to be given reports that I do not commission. If I commission a report, then yes, I would expect to see it, but if a report is done and it is commissioned by someone else within SA Health, then I would not expect to read it.

Mr MARSHALL: You are answering a question that I have not even posed.

The CHAIR: It is not okay for everybody to talk. You have done it a fair bit this morning.

Mr MARSHALL: That is your only rule against the opposition. So, this is a new ruling that only the opposition will be ruled out.

The CHAIR: No, in fairness, each side—

Mr MARSHALL: Good ruling!

The CHAIR: Just before you speak over me, each of you has spoken over each other despite my requests. Shall we start again now and no-one will do it from on.

Mr MARSHALL: So, my question is—

The CHAIR: Is that a yes?

Mr MARSHALL: My question is that given that the report was written by a current serving SA Health employee, why is it that the minister is dismissing the concerns of the two retired practitioners in this area who stated exactly and precisely what was contained in the report received by your department in May this year?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I am not dismissing anything. Obviously we have to do a body of work to make sure we can accommodate those clinical trials within the hospital that need to be done within the hospital. All I am saying is that the clinical trials have a variety of needs—

Mr MARSHALL: You have completely dismissed what the clinicians said last week.

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: You cannot have it both ways, Steven.

The CHAIR: Order! We have started our new forum now where we do not speak over each other, so the minister has the talking stick at the moment.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I happily give you my undertaking not to interrupt the Leader of the Opposition.

The CHAIR: No, we don't need to recap that. Just answer the question.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: All I have said is that I give my undertaking that those clinical trials that need to operate in a hospital environment will be undertaken at the new Royal Adelaide Hospital. That is not the case for all of the clinical trials that we do. Not all of them have that requirement and can be safely done off-site. I do not see a problem with that.

Mr MARSHALL: Do you retract the criticism that you made of doctors Chatterton and Harley last week?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I did not make a criticism of them.

Mr MARSHALL: Sorry?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I did not make a criticism of them; that is incorrect.

Mr MARSHALL: Okay, thank you very much.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: A false allegation.

Mr MARSHALL: My next question is Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 38, and it relates to inpatient beds at the Royal Adelaide Hospital. What is the current average available overnight inpatient bed number at the Royal Adelaide Hospital?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It would be approximately 650 beds.

Mr MARSHALL: So, this is—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I have not finished. So, 650 beds, but it is important to state that that number does vary considerably. You will have significantly more than that over the winter months because we have higher demand over winter and you would have fewer than that over summer, but that is an approximate figure.

Mr MARSHALL: Can you provide an accurate figure, rather than an approximate figure?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: To the extent that you can, our bed numbers are fluid, they are not static, as I have repeatedly said in the parliament before. We do not have a static number of beds. We open and close beds according to what the needs of the system are. Average daily occupied beds is 639 for 2015-16 at the Royal Adelaide Hospital. That is average: 639.

Mr MARSHALL: So, 639 was the average for—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: For 2015-16.

Mr MARSHALL: —2015-16, 639. How many overnight inpatient beds will be funded and operational at the new Royal Adelaide Hospital at the conclusion of the ramping up period? So, the transition period. Obviously, it is not going to start with that many.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The physical capacity is 700 beds, in terms of physical capacity of the new hospital, and you have, in addition to that, 100 day beds at the new Royal Adelaide Hospital, so 800 beds in total. We are working, as part of the commissioning process, through how many of those 700 beds we will commission. Obviously, we are not going to need, with the different requirements and so on, to commission all 700 beds straightaway.

Mr MARSHALL: Just for clarity, there is going to be a transition period as we exit the existing Royal Adelaide Hospital, with the approximate 639 average number of beds. You have a total capacity that you can build up to, eventually, at the new Royal Adelaide Hospital of 700 inpatient beds, plus the 100 day beds, but once you have gone through this transition period, so you close all the beds at the existing Royal Adelaide Hospital, how many do you envisage will be funded of the maximum 800?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: As I say, we are working through that at the moment as part of the commissioning work that we are doing with the new hospital. It will depend on how many beds we require. It will largely be driven by the time of the year that we open as well. If we open the new hospital coming in to winter we would have a higher requirement for beds than we would to coming out of winter.

Mr MARSHALL: Do you envisage that the number at the new Royal Adelaide Hospital will be higher than the existing Royal Adelaide Hospital?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I would say so, yes, particularly with service moves and so on, I would expect, yes.

Mr MARSHALL: What is the current average available same day inpatient beds at the existing—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: At the existing Royal Adelaide. We need to get the number; we have not got it.

Mr MARSHALL: If you could just check what that average is at the existing hospital, as you are with the—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I think it would be fair to say that there is significantly increased day capacity at the new Royal Adelaide Hospital from what there is at the existing Royal Adelaide Hospital. The 100 day beds would be a significant increase in the day capacity at the Royal Adelaide Hospital. They would not do much day surgery, I would think, at the existing Royal Adelaide at all. As technology changes and the opportunity to do day surgery increases, we would envisage that many procedures that are currently done as multiday procedures would be done as same day procedures, so that is why we have that capacity.

Mr MARSHALL: It would be good to know, if you could take it on notice, what the average same day beds are at the existing hospital and what you envisage will be—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes, sure. I can tell the committee that it would be significantly less than the capacity at the new Royal Adelaide Hospital.

Mr MARSHALL: Yes, I would envisage that would be correct. Can you tell us the maximum number of inpatient beds currently at the existing Royal Adelaide? We are going to 700—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: In terms of physical capacity?

Mr MARSHALL: Yes. We are going to 700 plus 100 at the new hospital. What is the current maximum capacity—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Are you talking about how many beds we could cram in or are you talking about how many they are funded for?

Mr MARSHALL: Maximum capacity at the moment.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Physical capacity?

Mr MARSHALL: Yes.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I do not know. It would be significant, but the way we treat patients has changed. For example, the bed bays that I think now currently only have six beds in them, in previous times they would have been crammed in. What has happened is that bed numbers right around Australia have decreased significantly over the years, as the way we have treated patients in hospitals has changed.

There was a time when, if you had a baby, you were kept in confinement I think for a week or so. Now we have women at Lyell McEwin Hospital who are in and out the same day. So things have changed significantly and so bed numbers have reduced. If you wanted to absolutely cram bed numbers into the old Royal Adelaide Hospital, it would be significantly more than the 639 that is the average at the moment, but I do not think that would be a desirable thing to do.

Mr MARSHALL: The question really relates to what the additional capacity is going to be at the new hospital versus the current hospital. On the dashboard, as we speak now there are 690 people occupying inpatient beds at the moment. Does it go above 700?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: But bed numbers, despite the fact that we have been treating more and more people in our health system—and this is not just South Australia but right throughout I think the western world—and despite the increasing number of patients going through hospitals and seeking treatment, hospital bed numbers have actually been in decline. We have significantly fewer beds than we would have had in the 1990s, even though presentations to our hospitals have increased exponentially.

We are actually doing things better and differently. We do not keep people in hospital for long periods of time and, as time goes on, we would expect that to be more and more the case. Day surgery as a field has completely expanded all sorts of procedures that previously required lengthy stays in hospital; they are now done as day surgery, and we would expect that to be the case. We would be mad to have designed and built a hospital with the assumption that bed numbers are going to continue to increase because, if you take a look at the last 20 years, that has not been the case.

The cost of the system has increased, there is no doubt about that, but we treat more and more people with a relatively stable number of beds. The fact that we have more hospital beds per head of population than anywhere else in Australia I think is something we can considerably improve on, and there is no reason why South Australia should be so different from any other state or territory in the country.

Mr MARSHALL: But do you accept that the new Royal Adelaide Hospital will have no more inpatient bed capacity than the existing Royal Adelaide?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Firstly, yes, it does have increased inpatient bed capacity, but—

Mr MARSHALL: Well, there are 690 there at the moment and the max at the new one is 700.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: —we expect that the growth in the need for beds is not going to be there because we are going to continue to do things better. There is no reason why the last 20 years in history with regard to bed requirements in South Australia should be any different. We are not expecting a sudden increase in the number of beds we require. In fact, we think we can probably do a lot better than we currently are, given what other states around Australia have been able to achieve.

Mr MARSHALL: Currently, your Royal Adelaide Hospital dashboard shows that there are 719 beds occupied at the existing Royal Adelaide Hospital.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: That would include same-day beds.

Mr MARSHALL: What is the split between the same-day beds and—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: As I said, we do not have that, but it would include same-day beds.

Mr MARSHALL: What is the day-bed capacity at the existing Royal Adelaide Hospital? It is nothing like 100.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: 700 would include same day. As to how many there are, I would have to get back to the committee.

Mr MARSHALL: You have said repeatedly that times are changing and that fewer beds are required. You have repeatedly said in the media that we would like to see our number of beds per head of population brought down to the national average. How many beds would we therefore be proposing to cut in South Australia?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: We are not proposing at this stage to cut any beds. With regard to what I have said about getting down to the national average, that is something to which we aspire, but it will take a significant period of time for us to get to that. It is not something that is going to happen overnight or even in the next 12 months; it will happen over a period of time. I cannot see why it is particularly controversial that a health minister would want a health system that is as efficient as possible. Other states do quite well with fewer beds than we currently have, relative to our size, and that is something I want to achieve in South Australia. I cannot see that there is anything particularly controversial about that.

With regard to how many beds that might mean, it would change because you are talking about something that will happen over a period of a number of years. The beds that other states have will change; it is not a fixed number. I think there is considerable scope for us to make improvements in health care in South Australia and I cannot see any reason that we should not have it as a goal to be closer to the national average than we currently are.

Mr MARSHALL: According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare hospital statistics report which was published in 2015, South Australia has 4,923 available beds. It says that we have 2.9 hospital beds per thousand people in South Australia. If we were to take that down to the national average, which you suggest would not be radically unacceptable, this would cut 509 beds across South Australia.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: You are presuming everyone else is standing still for one thing and that is obviously not going to be the case. Other states' bed numbers are going to change. You are talking about a period of a number of years and other states' bed numbers are not going to remain static; they are going to change as well. I am not nominating any figure; I am simply saying that over a period of time I would like to see South Australia get closer to the national average than we are at the moment.

I point out a couple of things: South Australia will always have more beds because we have an older population and we also have about 70 country hospitals, of course, and because of our geography we need to sustain them and we need to have beds available in those country locations. It is always going to be the case that we are going to have probably a higher number of beds than the national average, but I think getting closer to the national average than we currently are is something to which we should aspire.

Mr MARSHALL: Over what period of time? Is there a plan?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No, there is not a specific plan other than what Transforming Health is trying to do. No, we do not have some schedule to get to that point because it is something that would happen over a number of years and I suspect something that will only be achieved long after I have ceased being in this portfolio.

Mr MARSHALL: How many hospital beds were removed from the average availability in South Australia last year? You are using this average availability number rather than potential, so how many did we decrease by last year?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: We will have to get that for you. We do not have that.

Mr MARSHALL: Maybe an easier question is: how many fewer beds were funded last year than the year before?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: We do not fund on beds, we fund on activity, so that is not actually the way it works. We fund on activity, but we could find that out for you.

Mr MARSHALL: Did we have an increase or a decrease in activity last year?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: We had an increase in activity of 4 per cent. They are technically called separations, but for all intents and purposes they are admissions, so basically 4 per cent.

Mr MARSHALL: There was a 4 per cent increase in activity.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: A 4 per cent increase in admissions. That does not include presentations to our emergency departments where an admission was not necessary.

Mr MARSHALL: I might come back to that. I would like to move on at this stage to patient records, Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 38. Where will patient records be stored when the new Royal Adelaide Hospital opens, particularly during that transition period?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The new Royal Adelaide Hospital have a combination of paper and electronic patient records during the first months of operation. Electronic records will be those already in use at the current RAH, including OACIS and access to the Enterprise Patient Administration System records. The new Royal Adelaide Hospital will have a mixture of paper and electronic during the first months before moving to purely electronic system.

Once EPAS has been fully implemented, the new RAH clinicians will have immediate access to a single electronic record. There will be paper records. I imagine some paper records would be kept onsite for a short period of time. Other paper records will be kept offsite. It is no different from the way our hospitals operate at the moment.

Mr MARSHALL: During the transition period, will you be transferring some paper records?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: There would be some paper records that would need to be kept onsite at the new RAH, yes. Obviously the records of those patients that are currently admitted would need to go over. Outpatient records would obviously need to go over to the new RAH as well. If you were to present unexpectedly at the new Royal Adelaide Hospital and you had some previous treatment, they would have to extract your record, but that is something that happens at the moment. Your paper records are not all kept at the patient's fingertips. That is why we are moving to EPAS, so that in the future, that will be the case.

Mr MARSHALL: Where will the existing records be stored during this transition period?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It is still being worked through.

Mr MARSHALL: With respect, we were already meant to be in this new hospital. You do not have a plan?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It is still being worked through. I can get some latest advice, but it will be offsite.

Mr MARSHALL: Do you have a budgeted cost for the storage of these records?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It would be met within the existing budget.

Mr MARSHALL: I presume if it is going to be stored offsite then there would be some sort of transport arrangement?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes, and that happens at the moment. We have to move records around metropolitan Adelaide and indeed around South Australia all the time. That is something that we regularly do. People present to different hospitals at different times and we need to get their medical records couriered out, and we have good systems in place to do that. The whole reason we are going to EPAS—we recognise and agree with the opposition. While it is something that we do, we would rather not, and that is why we are moving to EPAS, so that we do have electronic patient health records.

A gentleman presented to The Queen Elizabeth emergency department shortly before I visited there a few weeks ago, and the emergency department was able to have that patient's medical records from previous treatment he had received at the Repat Hospital because of EPAS. This is something we would be seeing more and more of, and the director of the emergency department at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital was saying how useful it was to have that at their fingertips. That is why we are making this move.

Mr MARSHALL: What is the plan with the existing records? Are you going to be digitising those existing—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No.

Mr MARSHALL: —or do you just start from the new date, and all the new information goes into EPAS?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No, we are not, because that would just be a manifest waste of time and money. The vast majority of those records are never going to need to be accessed again so no, we are not going through the process of digitising. Basically, once EPAS is turned on, people presenting are going to have their details entered onto EPAS for the first time. For some specialties, we do keep the records. We do keep the previous system, OACIS, available for clinicians on a read-only basis. They cannot make changes to the records or enter anything new, but they are able to read the record and access the information that is on there.

Mr MARSHALL: But OACIS is an electronic system, and then there is another hard-copy system.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes. We are not entering paper record information and making it electronic because that would just be a waste of time and money.

Mr MARSHALL: In 20 years' time, the existing data would be almost useless, but there is going to be a pretty messy period where somebody's relevant information from two years ago is going to have be manually retrieved from some external storage.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes, that is right, but there is no getting around that, and that would be for a relatively small number of patients.

Mr MARSHALL: But there would be millions and millions of records.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes, there would, but only a tiny, tiny proportion of those would ever need to be accessed again.

Mr MARSHALL: A tiny, tiny proportion of millions and millions is a hell of a lot of records.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Indeed, and we have systems to extract those.

Mr MARSHALL: Your plan, although not yet determined, is to store these records somewhere and then to have a retrieval methodology for the hospitals.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes, indeed, as currently happens.

Mr MARSHALL: But there is no budget that has been determined for this as yet?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: There is no additional budget required for it. It would just be part of the normal running expenses of the hospital. It is something we do at the moment, so it does not require any existing budget. It would already be budgeted for because it is something we currently do.

Mr MARSHALL: You currently have an off-site storage facility for electronic patient records—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No, what we do is we have to extract—

Mr MARSHALL: —where a hospital can say to you, 'We would like this piece of information transferred,' and there is some central repository for all state medical records at the moment that somebody can access; is that correct?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No, there is not. We have to extract records and move records around the state on a frequent basis. It is not unusual for us to have to move records from one hospital to another and extract records from our storage. We do not keep, in the emergency department at the Royal Adelaide Hospital, the records of every single person who has ever presented there. Those records have to be extracted, they have to be brought out. That does take some time.

Mr MARSHALL: Just for clarity, at the moment there are hospital-based records, electronic and hard copy, but the plan going forward is for a central state records, Attorney-General controlled, medical record repository that would be accessible—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No, I do not know where you are getting that from.

Mr MARSHALL: So you are going to have separate hospital-based systems remaining? You are not going to centralise those records?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No. There is no suggestion we ever were. Electronic, do you mean? Do you mean on EPAS?

Mr MARSHALL: No.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: We are not going to centralise all the paper-based records. Yes, EPAS will be a central record, so Steven Marshall would have an EPAS record that could be accessed by clinicians at any of our metropolitan hospitals. There has never been any suggestion we would centralise all our paper-based records.

Mr MARSHALL: So we are going to maintain the paper-based repository on a hospital by hospital basis. The new Royal Adelaide Hospital paper-based system is not going to be based at the new Royal Adelaide Hospital; it is a place yet to be determined.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: We are going to have a mixed system at the new Royal Adelaide Hospital for several months before the complete rollout of EPAS. Yes, that will be a combination of electronic and paper-based records. Some of those paper-based records will be at the new Royal Adelaide Hospital; other paper-based records will be off site and need to be extracted, as currently happens.

Mr MARSHALL: What is the net estimated cost to develop EPAS and operate it for 10 years as per—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: $430 million, was that it?

Mr MARSHALL: $438 million, did you say?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: That sounds about right. I am just checking. Give me a moment and I will check. I do not want to mislead the committee or be accused of misleading the committee.

Mr MARSHALL: I am sure you can update us if that is incorrect. That sounds about right. Previously—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Sorry, I am just getting an answer. It is $421.5 million, the total cost of ownership over 10 years.

Mr MARSHALL: $421 million?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes, over 10 years.

Mr MARSHALL: When did that 10 years start and when does it finish?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I think it is 2011 to 2021, from the 2011-12 financial year.

Mr MARSHALL: So, to 2021-22. $421 million is the total estimated cost. Is it the cabinet submission or is it the Auditor-General who does the cost-benefit analysis on these projects?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: There is the business case that is done as part of the cabinet submission; is that what you are referring to?

Mr MARSHALL: Yes. We had it presented to us only a few weeks ago, the Auditor-General did a net cost benefit. Who does that determination?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: That is our data, and the Auditor-General has formed a view based upon that.

Mr MARSHALL: Do you have an update of the cost versus savings and benefits for the project?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: We would have to take that on notice, but it is no secret that it has taken us much longer to roll out EPAS to our hospitals than originally was envisaged. So, what that has meant is that the original business case made assumptions about how long it would take to roll out and, flowing from that, the costs and benefits associated with the rollout. Obviously, the longer it takes to roll out, the fewer the benefits that are accrued and the higher the cost. Really, all that is saying is that it has taken us longer to roll it out and therefore the benefits have diminished because of the length of rollout, and the costs have increased because of the time taken to roll out. That is what the Auditor-General is getting at.

Mr MARSHALL: You will provide us with that detail?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes, sure.

Mr MARSHALL: As at 30 June, what has been the actual spend on the EPAS project of the total $421 million? You can take this on notice, if you want.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: We can get back to the committee with that figure, but I should say, as I have said repeatedly with regard to EPAS—no secret—that we expect that over the next 10 years we will have to go back to budget for supplementary funding. We do not think we are going to be able to do it within the $421 million envelope that has been provided, so we will have to go back to budget, but to date that has not been necessary; we are still operating within budget.

Having said that, though, given that The Queen Elizabeth Hospital rollout has gone so well, it may well be that we are able now to accelerate the rollout to other hospitals. The Royal Adelaide Hospital obviously is our next biggest project, but I think after that, our next two big hospitals will be Flinders Medical Centre and the Lyell McEwin Hospital, both of which, once we have done The QEH and the Royal Adelaide Hospital, I think would probably go pretty smoothly. This is just a snapshot in time, but we may well find out, if subsequent rollouts go well, we will not have to go back to budget, but at the moment it is a bit of an unknown.

Mr MARSHALL: It is an unknown, but you have said that of the original budget of $421 million you are still within the $421 million. It has gone slower, but you envisage that you will be going back to cabinet at some stage. Can you update the committee as to when you are likely to go back?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Over coming years, we will probably have to go—at this stage it looks like we will probably have to go back to budget but, no, at this stage we are within budget. We have not had to go back to cabinet, and we have not had to go back to budget for additional funding but it is no secret, and I have said in this committee previously, that we will probably have to go back to budget for additional funding at some stage. Having said that, at this moment in time, you are talking about a project that goes over 10 years, and it may well turn out that, if the rollouts go as well as they have at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, it might not be necessary.

Membership:

Mr Duluk substituted for Mr Knoll.

Mr MARSHALL: What is the budget spend for EPAS for this current financial year?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The estimated results for 2015-16 for investing is $12,107,000 and for operating is $13,757,000.

Mr MARSHALL: Given that there was no projected expenditure in this line in the 2015-16 budget, how did we come to spend $12 million in the 2015-16 year and what was it spent on?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The process that we have put in place in regard to EPAS is that Treasury holds a contingency for EPAS and, as we roll EPAS out site by site, I would go to cabinet and take a cabinet submission to draw down on that contingency Treasury holds for the rollout of EPAS to a particular site. We are doing that on a site-by-site basis.

Mr MARSHALL: That would make sense because you say that you are going to roll it out to the new Royal Adelaide Hospital this year, but there is only $214,000 predicted expenditure.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes, that is right because as of yet there has been no approval for us to spend that money. That will not happen until I go back to cabinet. That said, most of the infrastructure has already been done.

Mr MARSHALL: What is the total—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: For the 2016-17 budget, the investing expenditure is $214,000 and the operating budget is $30,685,000.

Mr MARSHALL: By the end of this, there will be $214 million worth of capital expenditure?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No, $214,000 operating.

Mr MARSHALL: Thousand?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes, and $30,685,000 capital expenditure.

Mr MARSHALL: That is not a lot of money.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Just to rephrase it, investing is $214,000.

Mr MARSHALL: That is a couple of tablets.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: That is because most of it has already been done. The operating is $30,685,000. We are talking about 2016-17.

Mr MARSHALL: That is not a huge amount of money—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No.

Mr MARSHALL: —out of a $421 million project, so clearly there is not a lot of action.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: That is just a ridiculous thing to say.

Mr MARSHALL: It is a couple of computers.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It is $30 million in operating expenditure.

Mr MARSHALL: Sorry, I thought that you said $214,000.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No. Do you want me to repeat it? I will go through it again: investing expenditure, which is capital, $214,000.

Mr MARSHALL: A couple of computers.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Operating expenditure for 2016-17 is $30,685,000. I think that is a bit of activity.

Mr MARSHALL: No, that is good to hear. It was very difficult because you were leaning back a long way and it sounded like there was $365,000 worth of operating expenditure for the entire year.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No.

Mr MARSHALL: What is the total size of the contingency that you are accessing for this project?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Over the 10 years, it is the $421 million. That is the total budget.

Mr MARSHALL: How much of that $421 million remains in the contingency, and how much is included for this year?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It is $162,621,000.

Mr MARSHALL: Remaining?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I think it is about $180 million, but I will just double-check that figure.

Mr MARSHALL: $185 million remaining?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: About $180 million left, but I will just double-check that figure.

Mr MARSHALL: I am happy for you to double-check. So, $180 million remaining, and what do you envisage of that $180 million would be spent this current financial year?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: As we said, the $30 million—roughly $30 million.

Mr MARSHALL: The $30,365,000?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It is just under $31 million.

Mr MARSHALL: According to the original project plan, what IT systems should have been retired by now because let's not forget that it was meant to be rolled out by June 2014.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Under the original plan, it was meant to have been rolled out at all our sites by now. That has been reprofiled, but in the original cabinet submission.

Mr MARSHALL: Yes, but the question was: which of the current IT systems should have been retired?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I imagine pretty much all of them.

Mr MARSHALL: Are we incurring additional licence fees for the continuity of those existing systems?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes, we are.

Mr MARSHALL: Can you provide detail of how much we are paying in those?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes, we are—

Mr MARSHALL: How much we have and how much we envisage?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: We can get that figure for you, but that is part of the benefits realisation that has not been achieved. That is what the Auditor-General is talking about in the report.

Mr MARSHALL: Can you provide us with the detail.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes.

Mr MARSHALL: I presume that is funded out of the contingencies; is that correct?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: At the moment, that is being funded out of the EPAS budget, but it is essentially savings that we have not achieved.

Mr MARSHALL: Does the EPAS allow the religion of a patient to be recorded?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I am chasing that up. I have heard that, and I am finding out about that, but certainly as minister I think it is very important that that is something people are able to put on their record. If it is not, we will work to see how it can be rectified.

Mr MARSHALL: Does EPAS allow a veteran's status as a patient to be recorded?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes, I am almost certain that that is the case. I will double-check, but I am pretty certain that that is the case.

Mr MARSHALL: I refer to Budget Paper 5, page 52. I have some questions regarding country EPAS. I note that the budget provided $500,000 in the 2016-17 budget for, and I quote, 'the development of an implementation plan for the replacement of the existing Patient Administration System in country hospitals'. Is the government planning to engage an external party to develop this plan?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Half a million dollars has been provided to start the preparatory work for the rollout of EPAS across country South Australia sites. We would expect that that work would either be done by an external consultant or, if done by us, we would at least get quality assurance from an external consultant.

Mr MARSHALL: So the half a million dollars is a payment to a contractor to either do the work or—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It is just the budget for that. Part of it will be for a contractor, but part of it would be for engaging our own staff to do that body of work.

Mr MARSHALL: But at this stage it is the government's position, it is the cabinet's position, that the EPAS system will roll out across Country Health in South Australia?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: In the long term, yes, but there has been no budget provided for that. The only budget is provided for the existing scope. Yes, obviously we have an existing legacy system, called CHIRON, and that is going to need to be replaced and, yes, we will be replacing that with EPAS.

Mr MARSHALL: But that is a decision that has been made? Some other people have replaced CHIRON with other—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It is certainly the view, but we do not have any authority yet from cabinet. I have not taken in a submission or anything like that to undertake this work, but we are just doing the preparatory work. I would envisage that, yes, that would be the case. I certainly do not think it would make sense for us to have something different from EPAS across our country hospitals.

Mr MARSHALL: When will that go to cabinet?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Once that body of work is done. We do not have a particular time line at the moment.

Mr MARSHALL: This financial year?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes, towards the end of this financial year.

Mr MARSHALL: Do you have any—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It is a big job.

Mr MARSHALL: It is a big job?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes.

Mr MARSHALL: How many hospitals are we talking about?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Well, 70-odd.

Mr MARSHALL: Another 70 hospitals?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: All of our country hospitals.

Mr MARSHALL: But it has been implemented in some country hospitals already?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Just Port Augusta.

Mr MARSHALL: Is it still operational in Port Augusta?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes.

Mr MARSHALL: Do we have an estimated cost for the rollout of EPAS across Country Health?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: That is why we are doing this work, to determine what that cost will be.

Mr MARSHALL: Just for clarity, it is not included in the $421 million?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No, it is not. That is not part of the original scope.

Mr MARSHALL: Was it not the original scope for country hospitals?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No.

Mr MARSHALL: Just for two country hospitals?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Just Port Augusta, that is right.

Mr MARSHALL: So, we do not have an estimated cost, we do not have an estimated time. Currently, the PAS system, if you like, in country hospitals is the CHIRON system?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes.

Mr MARSHALL: That is now out of licence?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: We are in dispute with the provider. It looks like it is going towards a court case. SA Health and Global Health Limited, the supplier of CHIRON and working system software, have failed to reach agreement on the extension of software licenses beyond 31 March 2015. Global Health has commenced legal proceedings in the Federal Court against the Crown in respect of SA Health's continued use of the software. As this is the subject of legal proceedings currently before the court, no further public comment can be made on SA Health's position regarding Global Health. Sorry, that is all I can say.

Mr MARSHALL: For clarity, it has been out of licence since March 2015?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: That is correct, it has been out of licence, yes. We are in dispute.

Mr MARSHALL: No licence payments have been made during that period?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: We do not have any agreement, no.

Mr MARSHALL: When do you think that will be—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: In the meantime, we are using CHIRON in our country hospitals. There are no issues. We are continuing to use CHIRON in our country hospitals. I am not going to say any more about the dispute between the government. I have advice not to say any more.

Mr MARSHALL: The CHIRON project has been morphed in other states that use CHIRON, because it was a very popular program across Australia, into a new product called MasterCare. Was there any consideration given to, instead of moving to the EPAS system for Country Health SA, just moving to MasterCare?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: When EPAS was decided upon, it was long before I became Minister for Health, but there was a procurement process for EPAS, and we had clinical advice as well as any number of advice about what was the best product available. Any company could submit proposals for a patient-wide electronic health record. I do not know whether that company did, but they certainly would have had the opportunity to submit a product. The tender process went through and the EPAS product was the product that was decided upon. I do not think it would be sensible for us to have different products, one for metropolitan Adelaide and one for country South Australia.

Mr MARSHALL: Well, that is what you have at the moment.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Indeed. It is not something you would want to have in the long-term. It would flow on from having chosen EPAS for our metropolitan hospitals, and that is what you would roll out to country hospitals as well.

Mr MARSHALL: For clarity, you have not made a cabinet decision to go with EPAS across country health, so there is still an opportunity for you to look at other systems, and it is quite possible the CHIRON system which they are used to, the extension of that system—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I do not think so.

Mr MARSHALL: So, you rule out that.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I am not going to rule anything out, but I think it would be very unlikely that we would go to a different product for country South Australia.

Mr MARSHALL: How many years could it be that we continue to use the unlicensed CHIRON? I mean, it has to be more than a year.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: CHIRON is working fine. There is no compromise or anything like that, but obviously we acknowledge it is going to have to be replaced as a legacy system. My first priority is to make sure that we successfully roll EPAS out to our metropolitan hospitals, so our current scope, to get that completed. In the meantime, we are starting the initial body of work that we need to do to get ourselves in a position where I can go to cabinet with a proposal to replace CHIRON with EPAS. That is not something cabinet has authorised as of yet, but in the medium to long term I would say it would be something which we would be doing. At this stage, we are working very hard to make sure that EPAS is safely rolled out to our metropolitan hospitals.

Mr MARSHALL: Just for clarity, does the government have any contingency or risk management strategy if, for example, they are precluded from the—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes, we do.

Mr MARSHALL: And what is that?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I am not going to go into that, but we certainly have. I specifically asked the question about what would happen, and we have strategies in place to deal with it if, for some reason, we were not able to continue to use the CHIRON product.

Mr MARSHALL: Back to patient activity assumptions, in last year's estimates you told this committee that the department was working on a 2 per cent increase in activity level, but earlier you told this committee that it was significantly higher. Can you run us through how you determine the projections for increased activity and, therefore, presumably increased cost moving forward? Is it this 2 per cent, is it the 4 per cent, is it the 7.8 per cent that is in the Transforming Health? Could you run us through what indices you use and who determines them?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I will let David Swan take that question.

Mr SWAN: Essentially, we have done a lot of work over the last eight or nine years to determine projections, and we bring in a company that assists us to determine trends both here and interstate to forecast, and then we work through Treasury what we believe is a reasonable figure to allocate to an additional funding component of which 2 per cent has been the figure that we have used for past years.

From year to year, it varies. Some years we achieve below the 2 per cent which is different from this year where we are higher, but it fluctuates, and it depends on a lot of things. We can have a bad flu season, which we have had over the past 12 months, and other factors about our activity that we are meeting that influence that number. It is an indicative number we use and it is an agreement with Treasury as part of our budget setting process.

Mr MARSHALL: So, you used 2 per cent last year and you have used it again this year.

Mr SWAN: Yes, 2 per cent is the current policy position that we have had for several years.

Mr MARSHALL: What was the actual last year, then?

Mr SWAN: Our separations, which are admissions, were 4 per cent above our activity, but the acuity of patients was 2 per cent above last year. So, it is not too inconsistent with activity.

Mr MARSHALL: You have put in a factor this year. Is that 2 per cent above last year's performance or 2 per cent above that baseline, which was not achieved last year?

Mr SWAN: No; the 2 per cent in the acuity, volume of activity that we undertake, was based over the previous financial year.

Mr MARSHALL: Can you state that again, sorry?

Mr SWAN: In other words, the 2015-16 acuity of activity for our hospitals was 2 per cent above the 2014-15 result.

Mr MARSHALL: So, 2016-17 will be 2 per cent above the 2015-16 actual?

Mr SWAN: That will be the target that we use in 2016-17.

Mr MARSHALL: Then presumably 2 per cent the year after?

Mr SWAN: That is correct.

Mr MARSHALL: So, you are working on that 2 per cent. How accurate has that 2 per cent been?

Mr SWAN: It has been reliably accurate. As I have mentioned before, some years we have results that are a bit less than the 2 per cent, we have had around 1.5, 1.6 per cent, other years they may be slightly over, but there is influence by both activity and also issues such as flu seasons that we might have from the Northern Hemisphere.

Mr MARSHALL: If you are suggesting that you are planning for increased activity, why is it that in Budget Paper 3, page 24, the budget for the Department for Health and Ageing for next year is lower than this year and the year after that is lower again?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It is because of a range of factors. Those budget numbers are not just driven by anticipated activity, there would be a whole range of things that would be factored into figures. We would have various programs, commonwealth NPAs, that would be wrapping up.

Mr MARSHALL: Commonwealth?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: NPAs, national partnership agreements, that would be concluding. Included in that figure would be a significant amount of money that would be coming from the commonwealth government through to Health that we would then be expending. When those programs wrap up we are not able to continue that expenditure. I think there would be a significant number of those national partnership agreements the commonwealth would be wrapping up. So, that figure is not driven just by activity, it is driven by any number of factors.

Mr MARSHALL: But you do not dispute the fact that next year you plan to spend less on health in South Australia than you are spending this year, and the year after you are spending less again?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: If we get less money from the commonwealth government for national partnership agreements then, yes, that would be what the cut is. The areas where we would be spending less are any number. I can give you some examples: all the mental health national partnership agreements, the mental health unit in Mount Gambier, the NGO funding that we are not getting anymore from the commonwealth, the dental program from the commonwealth. So, there would be—

Mr MARSHALL: What you are saying is that there is no plan—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: There would be tens of millions of dollars less that we are getting from the commonwealth government. If we are not getting that money from the commonwealth government we will not be spending those commonwealth government funds for specific programs.

Mr MARSHALL: I accept that point.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes, I agree, it is a disgrace and I invite the Leader of the Opposition to take that up with his federal colleagues.

Mr MARSHALL: What you are suggesting to this committee is that that pretty significant reduction in projected health expenditure in South Australia over the next three—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Can you tell us what you are referring to?

Mr MARSHALL: Yes, Budget Paper 3, page 24. This provides, as you will appreciate, the forward estimates for your own department.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I am sorry, Chair, I cannot see any figures on that page. What exactly are you referring to?

The CHAIR: Budget Paper 4, Volume 3.

Mr MARSHALL: No, it is Budget Paper 3, page 24.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Yes, where?

Mr MARSHALL: You have a schedule.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: No, there is no schedule on there.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Commonwealth funding to the state would be having the biggest impact on those reductions.

Mr MARSHALL: The minister is suggesting that there will be no cut in state-based expenditure and in fact the state-based expenditure is, essentially, projected to increase, based upon increased activity of 2 per cent per year, but these very significant cuts in the overall forward estimates for your own department are borne out by cuts in federal government programs.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: That figure is a different treatment, but if you look at Budget Paper 4, Agency Statements, Volume 3, page 59, we can tell you how much the state is spending on health. Total expenditure for 2016-17 is $5.8 billion. That compares to an estimated result for 2015-16 of $5.5 billion, an increase from around $5.5 billion to $5.8 billion.

Mr MARSHALL: Can you explain why the operating expenses in your own state budget have a lower figure on page 24?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I can refer you to the correct figure, the figure you should be talking about. That is a GFS number. If you look at Agency Statements in Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, total expenses for the Department for Health and Ageing, there is an estimated result in 2015-16 of $5.571 billion. In the 2016-17 budget, total expenses are $5.8 billion. Last time I checked, that was an increase.

Mr MARSHALL: Correct, and that is why I said the decrease, which is contained within the—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: As I said, there would be a number of factors resulting from that, but largely it would be because of the reduction in funding—

Mr MARSHALL: Sorry, can I just finish the question?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes, sure.

Mr MARSHALL: The question is—because we are not disputing that there is an increase this year—as I have stated multiple times, the budget provides the decrease next year over this year and the year after again quite significantly.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I have put to the committee one of the significant reasons for why that would be reduction in commonwealth funding—

Mr MARSHALL: But can you rule out that there are—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: —and there would be other factors as well. But, as always, we get funded by Treasury for activity, and a large part of what our budget is will depend upon the number of presentations. We get funded by Treasury for the amount of activity, and these are just projections. If we get additional activity through the door and more patients we have to accommodate in our hospitals, we get funded for that accordingly.

Mr MARSHALL: Nevertheless, the plan at this stage is to spend less money in health next year than this year.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The only planned reductions in expenditure are from the commonwealth government because the commonwealth government is not coughing up the national partnership agreements that they previously agreed to.

Mr MARSHALL: So the only budget cut—they are all federal government—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Of course—

The CHAIR: Order! Let's hear the question.

Mr MARSHALL: I am just trying to get some clarity. I am not trying to be overtly political at all.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Never.

Mr MARSHALL: It is just that I am trying to get clarity that your budget provides for a decrease in health expenditure not this year, but next year and the year after. The minister has provided evidence to the committee that those cuts are all derived from federal government program cuts and that there will be no diminution of services or no budget cuts on state-provided services next year or the year after. It is a pretty simple question.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Largely, yes—

Mr MARSHALL: No, not largely. You said completely.

The CHAIR: Order! It is the minister's turn to hold the talking stick.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Thank you. Largely, these reductions are because of ending of commonwealth national partnership agreements that they have either unilaterally cut—

Mr MARSHALL: Which ones?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: —or that they have not renewed. Well, there is any number of them. I went through them before: dental funding, subacute funding, mental health funding—

Mr MARSHALL: What do they add up to?

The CHAIR: Just a second. The minister is answering your question.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: We can get that. Can we get those figures for the national partnership agreements? There would also be other things to take into account. For example, obviously we do not need to continue the project team around the new Royal Adelaide Hospital after we have made the transition, and there would be some other discrete projects like that that would no longer be budgeted to go throughout the forward estimates because those programs wrap up. Do we have any information about the size of those commonwealth agreements? We are getting them now if the committee wants to bear with me. I am happy to get the exact dollar figures for that.

Mr MARSHALL: Thank you. Whilst we are on the Transforming Health transition team, how much do you expect to spend on the Transforming Health subprogram for the other three years of the forward estimates, i.e. 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Just under $42 million for 2016-17. I think the leader was after the other years of the forward estimates.

Mr MARSHALL: Yes.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I do not have that at the moment, but just under $42 million for 2016-17.

Mr MARSHALL: That is the budget and I have that number, but I am looking for the forward estimates to get a picture.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I do not have that. I am happy to get it for you if it is available; it is probably something we are still working on.

Mr MARSHALL: Can you provide to the committee what the total spend related to Transforming Health is in terms of consultancies, advertising and promotion, and in terms of market research?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Are you talking total or just Transforming Health?

Mr MARSHALL: Transforming Health.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It was $30 million over the last two financial years in consultants that we have spent.

Mr MARSHALL: That is $30 million in total over the last two years.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: That is right.

Mr MARSHALL: That is the Deloitte report.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: That is for engaging Deloitte and McKinsey. There might have been some smaller consultants as well, but they would be the two big ones.

Mr MARSHALL: That reference to an independent project management office—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: That would be included in that $30 million figure.

Mr MARSHALL: Who did that work?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Ernst & Young.

Mr MARSHALL: So it is $30 million. What do you envisage that it is going to be going forward?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: As I said, I do not have that figure at the moment but we have a figure for this financial year, for 2016-17. After that it will depend; I suspect it will be significantly less.

Mr MARSHALL: What about advertising, promotion and market research? Were they included in that $30 million figure?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: My advice is they are included in the $30 million figure.

Mr MARSHALL: Can you provide details of who did the consulting work in terms of advertising, promotion and market research and how much?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I will get some advice about whether we can provide that, but I make no apologies for advertising when we have people putting out false information to the public: people saying that the Modbury Hospital emergency department is about to close or has closed. I make no apology whatsoever in advertising and making sure people understand that those services are still there. When people go out peddling lies, those lies have to be corrected because it is simply dangerous to allow those sorts of lies to go unanswered. In terms of the money that we have spent on advertising, that is something I make absolutely no apology for.

Mr MARSHALL: Now that you have brought up Modbury, I think it is opportune to take a look at it: Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 44. Does the government stand by its commitment and in fact the commitment of the minister that no bed will be removed until the need for the bed has been shown to no longer exist?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes.

Mr MARSHALL: Can the minister confirm that this year the number of general base beds at the Modbury Hospital has been cut from 72 to 36?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: When we made the shift of services from Modbury Hospital to the Lyell McEwin Hospital, the Lyell McEwin Hospital for those particular services had a demonstrated reduced length of stay and there was no reason that we needed those additional beds. Modbury had more beds because it had a longer length of stay. When you move that cohort of patients from Modbury to the Lyell McEwin Hospital, you would not need as many beds because the Lyell McEwin was able to do exactly the same work with a lower length of stay. So, yes, we did have a small reduction associated with those moves and the number of beds because they were not required.

Mr MARSHALL: For general base beds at Modbury, you agree with the dashboard, that it basically was cut from 72 down to 36 beds?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I do not know exactly, but we are moving new services into the Modbury Hospital and those are still happening. A significant number of rehab beds will move to the Modbury Hospital and with further changes as part of Transforming Health we expect more rehab beds to go into the Modbury Hospital. In fact, there are renovations happening at the moment, so what you might be looking at is the fact that we have a ward that is closed for renovations.

The CHAIR: We have a question about Modbury Hospital from the member for Wright.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Just on that line, minister, can you give us an update on the new rehabilitation centre that is being constructed at Modbury Hospital?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I can. The construction has started—I was there not long ago—and that will be a wonderful ambulatory facility which is very badly needed for people living in the north-eastern suburbs. The project is on time and on budget. I am looking forward to opening it and being there, no doubt with the member for Wright and the member for Florey, at the opening of this fantastic new facility. We will just check, but I think it is probably scheduled for opening in early 2017.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: In relation to some of the concerns that had been pedalled around the potential closure of Modbury Hospital, there was also concern about people being able to access the Lyell McEwin. Can the minister update the committee on an initiative that he spoke about at a public meeting—that is, a shuttle bus service to get visitors from Modbury Hospital to the Lyell McEwin Hospital—and the request that I put to him that there might be a stop at the Golden Grove Village shopping centre?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes, I can. I will just go back: March 2017 is the completion date for the new ambulatory rehabilitation building at Modbury Hospital. Yes, of course there were some concerns from people, particularly with inpatient admissions being moved from the Modbury Hospital to the Lyell McEwin Hospital. There was concern about access to the Lyell McEwin Hospital and people having to drive a little bit extra to get to the Lyell McEwin Hospital. There is a shuttle bus operating between those two sites. It is very well frequented.

The member for Wright made quite strong representations, as is her wont, that it would be a good idea for this shuttle bus to go through the Golden Grove shopping centre because she had constituents for whom this would be very convenient. Golden Grove of course is very central to the region, and en route to the Lyell McEwin Hospital.

Yes, I can announce that the shuttle service is now going through the Golden Grove shopping centre so that people who need to go between sites—that also includes people from Lyell McEwin who might have to go to the Modbury Hospital; they are able to access that shuttle service. I would like to thank the member for Wright. She does a very good job advocating on behalf of her constituents. It was a very good idea and that shuttle service is now operating and going through Golden Grove Village.

Mr MARSHALL: Can you please take on notice how many of the general base beds have been cut at Modbury? Can you also confirm that the total number of inpatient beds at Modbury has recently been cut from 180 to 120 beds?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: From 180 to 120? That does not sound right.

Mr MARSHALL: Well, it is your dashboard.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: All I can say is that there would be wards at the moment that are closed while there are renovations being undertaken. I suspect what the Leader of the Opposition might be referring to is simply wards that are shut on a temporary basis while renovations are being undertaken. I am happy to check that, but we certainly do have additional activity going into Modbury Hospital, in particular rehabilitation that is going from Hampstead into the Modbury Hospital as well. To the extent that there has been a reduction, it would only be a temporary reduction while we are doing renovation work in a number of wards.

Mr MARSHALL: Could you perhaps come back to the committee with the total number of beds before Transforming Health and after Transforming Health for the Modbury Hospital so that we can know the net loss, if any?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes, I am more than happy to do that.

Mr MARSHALL: Can you also confirm, consistent with the revamped SA Health inpatient dashboard, that Modbury Hospital has lost specialised streams including critical care, emergency surgery and paediatrics?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: That is no secret. Yes, we made the decision to move the paediatric inpatient ward a long time ago. That does not mean children are not seen. In fact, I took my 13-year-old son to the Modbury Hospital emergency department only a few weeks ago, and he was very well looked after. We do have a very good system for transferring paediatric patients who do need to be admitted up to the Lyell McEwin Hospital. They bypass the emergency department and are admitted straight into the paediatric ward. That is a system that works very well. It is a very small number of patients who are transferred but, when it does happen, it happens seamlessly.

Emergency surgery, we have been public about. There is nothing new about that. I have put on record many times the reasons for that happening. We do want Modbury Hospital to be able to operate as a specialist elective surgery site. Elective surgery is not something we do as well as we should here in South Australia. People wait too long for elective surgery and there are too many cancellations. Modbury Hospital will be given the freedom to run as an elective surgery specialist site. We are very confident that it will do that very well and really chew through those waiting lists of people waiting for elective surgery. With regard to intensive care, or critical care, that was taken away from Modbury Hospital a long time ago, from memory.

Mr MARSHALL: If we could turn our attention now to The Queen Elizabeth Hospital—

The CHAIR: Before we go on, member for Fisher, are your questions about Modbury, or general?

Mr MARSHALL: Why do you not just ask him privately? Why do you have to waste the time of this committee?

Ms Cook interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! The leader has the call.

Mr MARSHALL: We have 2¼ hours.

The CHAIR: Order! The leader has the call.

Mr MARSHALL: Less than a half an hour for 54 pages, and we are up to page 10.

The CHAIR: I am on my feet. If the leader cannot observe—I have asked you to ask your question.

Mr MARSHALL: The government wants to ask Dorothy Dixer questions to itself.

The CHAIR: I cannot control—

Ms Cook interjecting:

Mr MARSHALL: Well, ask him yourself in the cabinet room or the—

Ms COOK: You do not need to shout, Steven.

Mr MARSHALL: Why do you waste the time of this committee?

The CHAIR: We are going to have to suspend the committee if you cannot control yourself. Do you want a question about TQEH or not?

Mr MARSHALL: Absolutely.

The CHAIR: Then let's move on.

Mr MARSHALL: I had the call.

The CHAIR: You would not know it, would you?

Mr MARSHALL: I refer to Budget paper 4, Volume 3, page 27. Why has the capital project for TQEH, Transforming Health, been over budget and running nine months late? Can you give an update on that project?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Can you repeat what you are referring to?

Mr MARSHALL: You have The Queen Elizabeth Hospital's Transforming Health capital works project. It has slipped by nine months and it has gone over budget by $2 million. If you could just provide an update on why the project—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: At the moment, we are consulting with clinicians about the shape of that, how that is going to look. It is no secret that there have been issues with that. We are working very closely with the submissions.

Mr MARSHALL: Has the government awarded a contract for the $15 million of capital works it expects to complete this year?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I am still completing the answer. There was some additional budget approval to address some of the issues that the clinicians had raised with us, so that is why there is the extra $2 million, but we are still working with our clinicians through those particular issues. What was the next question?

Mr MARSHALL: What issues are they? What issues were those that were raised by the clinicians?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It required a considerable reconfiguration at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, the moves of a number of inpatient areas from one part of the hospital to the other. Various clinicians had concerns about that, but we are in the process of addressing those issues.

Mr MARSHALL: Why was that consultation not undertaken before the plan was approved?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: We actually have not got to consultation yet. These are just the initial discussions we have had with clinicians from a planning perspective.

Mr MARSHALL: Has the government awarded a contract for the $15 million of capital works it expects to complete this year at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The contractor had been appointed, but that has been basically suspended while we undertake further consultation with clinicians.

Mr MARSHALL: So the contract was awarded, but it has now been suspended?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Pending further consultation with the clinicians.

Mr MARSHALL: Will any services or programs currently provided at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital need to be relocated to other parts of the hospital or other sites in advance of this year's scheduled works?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes, I think so; it would be possible. It does depend on what our final landing is with the clinicians, but I suspect that would be the case.

Mr MARSHALL: What steps have been taken to dispose of the Hampstead Rehabilitation Centre and whose responsibility is that?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: None that I am aware of. I imagine it would ultimately be Renewal SA's responsibility should we completely vacate that site.

Mr MARSHALL: Does the government have an estimate of the value of the site?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Not that I am aware of. I imagine there would be a Valuer-General's valuation floating around somewhere, but certainly we have not commissioned any specific valuation of the site.

Mr MARSHALL: With regard to The QEH inpatient cardiac services, what healthcare assessment and what cost-benefit assessment was undertaken to determine that The QEH, cardiology and cardiology research should be integrated into the new Royal Adelaide Hospital and who were the officers and/or consultants who undertook this work?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I will take that on notice.

Mr MARSHALL: Why has SA Health refused to consult with clinicians at The QEH cardiology unit over its closure, or even go down and inspect the work of the unit, or explain to clinicians reasons for closing the unit?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: That is untrue. I have been down there, I know Julia Squire, the chief executive of Central Adelaide Local Health Network has been down there, and Vickie Kaminski, the Chief Transformation Officer has been down there as well.

Mr MARSHALL: When did you last visit and speak to clinicians about the plan to move cardiology services from that site?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: A couple of months ago, I think. I can get the exact date.

Mr MARSHALL: Who did you meet with?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I had a whole morning and I visited with a whole number of areas in The Queen Elizabeth Hospital. I spoke to a number of clinicians who had concerns, and the cardiology area was part of it. In fact, I spoke to Professor Horowitz. He introduced me to a number of his colleagues and we had a discussion. I think it was two or three months ago, but I can get the exact date.

Mr MARSHALL: It was following that meeting that you formed the opinion that it was still correct to move those cardiac services to the—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes.

Mr MARSHALL: So you reject the advice and the proposals put forward by that group?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I do not want to put words in their mouth, but they had views and I have taken into account what they had to say. But in terms of our plans and what we need to do, and the plans to move the cath lab up to the Lyell McEwin Hospital, that is a very important piece of work that has to happen. While I would never be dismissive of issues raised by clinicians, I have certainly taken their views into account, as has, I am sure, the Chief Transformation Officer and Julia Squire the chief executive of the Central Adelaide Local Health Network. Taking into account what people say does not mean you necessarily completely change course. It means you listen to what they have to say and acknowledge the points they have raised.

Mr MARSHALL: Does the minister accept that this has to have adverse health outcomes for people living on Lefevre Peninsula?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No, I do not and, in fact, quite the opposite. I know that this will lead to far better health outcomes. Too many people are having to travel from the northern suburbs. They are not able to get coronary care that they need at the Lyell McEwin Hospital because the coronary unit there only has one cath lab. Best practice is for there to be two cath labs when you have two side by side, and this will lead to far better patient outcomes, particularly for the people of the north, people who live on the Lefevre Peninsula who need access to a cath lab will be able to access that cath lab at the Royal Adelaide Hospital.

Mr MARSHALL: Sure, but do you accept that every 15 minutes of delay translates into a definite increase in mortality rates?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: That would be the case for people who live in the northern suburbs at the moment who are not able to access coronary care at the Lyell McEwin Hospital, and are having to travel to The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, and for whom delays would be far greater than the little extra distance between The Queen Elizabeth Hospital and the Royal Adelaide Hospital. It is a long way from Elizabeth to Woodville, much farther than it is from Woodville to the city, so we have to make decisions, but it is not safe nor is it practical, nor is it the best use of money to have multiple cath labs at every hospital in the state.

The best practice is to identify key hospitals in particular regions where you have access to that technology and, speaking with clinicians there, their strong advice is the place to have those three cath labs is the Royal Adelaide Hospital for central patients, the Lyell McEwin Hospital for patients in the north, and Flinders Medical Centre for patients in the south. That is the best configuration of cath labs around metropolitan Adelaide that will lead to best health outcomes for the people of South Australia and that is the basis on which we are proceeding.

Mr MARSHALL: Whilst you might be able to claim that overall in South Australia, it is certainly going to be a massive disadvantage—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: So, you are prepared to sacrifice the health outcomes of people who live in the northern suburbs—

Mr MARSHALL: I am not.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: —for people who live in another part of Adelaide.

Mr MARSHALL: I am not suggesting that at all. But simply—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I am not prepared to do that. My decision is not just for the people who live on Lefevre Peninsula. I have to make decisions about what is best for the entire population of this state, and I am not prepared to any longer compromise the health care of people who live in the northern suburbs.

We have previously shown the statistics that almost half the people who live in the northern suburbs are not able to access the hospital health care that they need. They have to travel outside of the northern area, the Northern Adelaide Local Health Network, to access the hospital care they need, whereas it is only 20 per cent for people living in central and southern Adelaide. We need to redress that balance, and we redress that balance by moving and putting additional services into the Lyell McEwin Hospital, and I do not make an apology for that for a moment.

Mr MARSHALL: Do you accept the VLAD data, which for the past three years unequivocally shows that The QEH mortality rate is consistently 5 to 7 per cent lower than the Royal Adelaide Hospital?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Absolutely, and this is not in any way a criticism of the health care, or the quality of care, at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, which is excellent. That is not what is driving this, and it is completely—

Mr MARSHALL: Budget related?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It is appalling to suggest that that is in any way a motivation for the changes. This is not a reflection upon the health care that is provided at any of our hospitals.

We are simply moving services to where the population needs them, and the population in the northern suburbs needs a second cath lab. The population of the western suburbs can safely access a cath lab at the Royal Adelaide Hospital. This is in no way—and I am pretty appalled that the Leader of the Opposition would suggest otherwise—a reflection upon the quality of health care that is being provided by doctors and nurses at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, which is excellent.

Mr MARSHALL: But there will be a massive diminution of services to people living in the western suburbs—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No, there will not.

Mr MARSHALL: —as a result.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No, there will not because people in the western suburbs—

Mr MARSHALL: There is going to be an improvement for the people in the north, but there will be a massive diminution of services to the people living in the western suburbs of South Australia because they have much farther to travel, and the services which are currently provided at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital actually have much lower mortality rates at the hospital to which you are proposing to send them.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No, that is completely untrue. It is not a massive distance, and it is ridiculous to suggest that there is a massive distance between The Queen Elizabeth Hospital and the Royal Adelaide Hospital. They are relatively close together—they are 10 minutes to each other. In contrast, the Lyell McEwin Hospital to The Queen Elizabeth Hospital would probably be about 40 to 45 minutes, depending on traffic. To suggest that this is some massive reduction in services to the people in the western suburbs is completely erroneous and, I would suggest, mischievous.

Mr MARSHALL: Why can we not have both?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Because it is not safe. It is not best practice to have highly specialised areas, such as interventional cardiology, spread across too many sites. Best practice is to have them at a certain number of locations consistent with population needs. What the population requires is a cath lab in the northern suburbs to look after the growing population in the north; a cath lab in the central area, at the Royal Adelaide Hospital; and a cath lab (or cath labs), that facility, in the southern suburbs as well.

Ms COOK: I just want to get a couple of minutes in for the south, minister, and refer to Volume 3, page 26. Are you able to inform the committee about any changes being made to support access for patients, relatives and staff for car parking at Flinders Medical Centre under Transforming Health?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Thank you very much and, yes, we are. We are doing building works, which have already begun to significantly increase the number of car parks at Flinders Medical Centre. We acknowledge that car parking is an issue, for both patients and staff, at Flinders Medical Centre, and the new car park will provide about 500 additional car parks on the site. I have also given instruction for palliative care that free 24-hour car parking be provided, particularly for the relatives of patients who are in palliative care, so that they have quick and easy access to the site.

Of course, into the future we will have a train link into the Flinders Medical Centre. One of the issues we have is that public transport links are not great into the Flinders Medical Centre, but that will be a significant improvement with that train link coming across. It will also enable enormous connectivity between Tonsley and the Flinders Medical Centre.

We have been working through these issues. Obviously, while site works are being undertaken, it is a bit disruptive. I would like to acknowledge the member for Fisher's advocacy on behalf of nurses, her former colleagues, at the Flinders Medical Centre, in making sure that they have adequate access to safe and convenient car parking. We are confident that with building works being undertaken we will see some significant improvements.

Ms COOK: On the same Volume 3, page 26, are you able to inform the committee about the works also being undertaken to improve the neonatal service at Flinders?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes, the government made an election commitment to revamp the neonatal facility in the Flinders Medical Centre. The existing neonatal level 6 intensive care service will undergo a $17½ million upgrade. FMC remains the major site for maternity services; indeed, I acknowledge that they had their 100,000^th birth. I will have a completion date for those works, but, yes, they will happen, and we will make sure that they are certainly completed before the next election.

Mr MARSHALL: How many cardiology beds will there be at the new Royal Adelaide Hospital?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: We will have to take that on notice.

Mr MARSHALL: Is it not correct that currently we have 30 beds at The QEH, 48 beds at the existing Royal Adelaide Hospital, and proposed, from the most recent numbers I have seen, for the new Royal Adelaide Hospital there will be only 30 cardiac beds? We are going to go essentially from 78 cardiac bed capacity to only 30 cardiac beds.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Because a significant amount of activity will go to the Lyell McEwin Hospital. At the moment, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital looks after coronary care for a significant number of people from the northern suburbs, and that activity will be moved to the Lyell McEwin Hospital. There will be, in fact, extra capacity at the Lyell McEwin Hospital to deal with that increased activity.

Mr MARSHALL: Well, in fact, when we look at the statistics on that, only 5 per cent of presentations at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital's cardiology department come from the Lyell McEwin Hospital catchment, so there is going to be a reduction from 78 beds down to 30. Yes, there will be a reduction of 5 per cent in The Queen Elizabeth Hospital capacity, and we are ending up with a lot fewer beds.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: My advice is that a significant amount of activity at the moment is going from the northern suburbs to The Queen Elizabeth Hospital. I do not have the exact breakdown, but we are significantly increasing the amount of activity that will be going through the Lyell McEwin Hospital. So, while, yes, there might be fewer beds in central Adelaide, that is because the activity no longer will be going to central Adelaide; it will be going to the Lyell McEwin Hospital. The Royal Adelaide Hospital also will be pushing work out north. There are patients at the moment going to the Royal Adelaide Hospital, too, from the northern suburbs. Likewise, the Royal Adelaide Hospital activity will be shifted to the Lyell McEwin.

Mr MARSHALL: How many additional beds will there be at the Lyell McEwin Hospital?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I will take that on notice, but I will say that we have invested significantly in the Lyell McEwin Hospital. It was only several years ago, I think, that the first cath lab was established at the Lyell McEwin Hospital. Previously, the northern suburbs did not have a cath lab at all and, hopefully, very soon we will have a second cath lab. There is already the space provided for it. Like all these things, what we will do is make sure that there are the beds that are required for the activity that presents itself. Beds are never a static number. We increase and decrease beds according to what the activity needs are for the presentations that come to the hospital. We will always make sure we have sufficient beds for the activity.

Mr MARSHALL: Nevertheless, can the minister confirm that there will be more cardiac beds once Transforming Health has been implemented, when you add up the additional beds at the Lyell McEwin Hospital together with the reduction at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital and the new Royal Adelaide Hospital?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: That will depend on what the needs are. It depends upon the number of presentations, but what we will do is have enough beds for the presentations that come through the hospital, whether that be at the Royal Adelaide Hospital or the Lyell McEwin Hospital.

Mr MARSHALL: But that will be an increase in bed capacity.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It will certainly—

Mr MARSHALL: The increase is an increase in capacity for the people of South Australia.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It will be what is required. I am not in the business of just having beds for the sake of having beds.

Mr MARSHALL: How many are required?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: That will change over time. If we have—

Mr MARSHALL: How many will it be?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: He is interrupting me, Madam Chair. We will have enough beds for the activity it presents. That will change over time and, indeed, technology will change over time. I am confident with improvements in care at the Lyell McEwin Hospital that people will be able to be discharged far sooner from hospital because they will be getting the intervention they need, their disabilities and so on, damage done to their heart will be less, and so the requirement for let for beds will be less because we will be treating better than we currently are.

Mr MARSHALL: The minister has repeatedly said we are going to have the number of beds that are required. How many beds are required at the date that the new Royal Adelaide Hospital is open? We do not want to have these continual answers that it varies on a time frame. We are going to be closing beds—30 beds at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital. We are going to be closing the net between the existing Royal Adelaide Hospital, currently 48, down to a predicted 30 when the new Royal Adelaide Hospital opens. There is a very significant cut from 78 beds down to 30; that is 48 beds that are going here. How many bed increases are there going to be at the Lyell McEwin Hospital? Can we get any indication from you? When you say we will have as many as we need, how many is that?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The chief executive is just pointing out to me, while the interventional work is going up to the Royal Adelaide Hospital, there will still be cardiology beds at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital. We are not moving every cardiology bed from The Queen Elizabeth Hospital up to the Royal Adelaide Hospital. It would just be the interventional work that is going. Cardiology is more than just the interventional work that goes through a cath lab, so there will still be cardiology beds at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital.

Mr MARSHALL: When precisely will The QEH cardiology and the cardiology research team be moved to the Royal Adelaide Hospital?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: We do not have a date yet. We are working on that. It is something that is still subject to consultation.

Mr MARSHALL: Will the unit have to move twice?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: At this stage it will be moved to the existing Royal Adelaide Hospital and then from there, with the rest of the unit, will go to the new Royal Adelaide Hospital where it will be a consolidated unit.

Mr MARSHALL: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 41. Can the minister advise whether the public hospital fees levied on compensable return-to-work patients are the same as those levied on non-compensable patients?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Could you please repeat the question?

Mr MARSHALL: If you have a look at the table on page 41, it shows a fairly significant increase in the compensable public hospital fees which are paid by return-to-work patients. Can you indicate to the committee whether we charge return-to-work patients the same as non-compensable patients?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: When you say 'non-compensable', do you mean patients from overseas? Normal patients who come in, we do not charge at all. They do not get charged. Our public hospitals are free. There are patients from overseas who get charged, obviously through their travel insurance. Compensable patients would be patients who have a motor vehicle accident claim or a WorkCover claim, and there would be different schedules for all of those things. They would be different.

Mr MARSHALL: Sure, but there has been a 14 per cent increase in those fees. The compensable return-to-work patients fees for 2016-17—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Do you mean an increase in fees or an increase in the amount we receive?

Mr MARSHALL: An increase in fees, an annual increase, and then there is a compound increase of 47.9 per cent over the past five years.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: What that is referring to is that the government has been very keen to make sure that we maximise revenue from private patients, so we have made a concerted effort that when private patients present we give them an opportunity of being in the hospital as a private patient. I think what that is referring to is the efforts we have made to a concerted campaign, as have other states, to get more from—

Mr MARSHALL: I have read that part as well, but this is really asking the question why there has been a 14 per cent increase in the compensable return-to-work fees for this year and 47 (almost 50) per cent of the last five years.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: There has been discussion between SA Health and ReturnToWorkSA about what the fees are that are charged for patients who are under WorkCover. We have now come to a settlement on that that has been agreed to by both parties. It is probably not reflected in the budget because it has been since the budget.

Mr MARSHALL: What is SA Health's annual revenue from return to work?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: We would need to get that for you.

Mr MARSHALL: Can you explain the methodology for setting the fee for compensable patients in public hospitals?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: On a cost recovery basis?

Mr MARSHALL: Just a straight cost recovery. So, the cost increased by 50 per cent in the last five years.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It is done on a cost recovery basis, so any increase to the fees would reflect the increasing costs of providing these services.

Mr MARSHALL: The opposition has been made aware of a case of a compensable patient who went into a country hospital for observation overnight, they were given morphine injections and X-rays were taken. The fee levied for the overnight stay was over $9,000. An SA Health document suggested that the price for the services was a little over $5,000 but the cost weight of 1.758 was applied. Are compensable patients charged a higher fee?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Without knowing the specifics of the individual it is pretty hard for me to comment. There is a methodology that is in place to work out how much is charged and this patient would have been charged according to that methodology.

Mr MARSHALL: Would a self-funded private patient pay the price plus the cost weight?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No, because the private health funds have their own schedule with regard to what they recompense public hospitals for particular services, and that would be different from that.

Mr MARSHALL: Eye services: what reports has the government commissioned and received on the future of eye services at the new Royal Adelaide Hospital, in particular the plan to establish an eye hospital?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I will give that to the chief executive.

Mr SWAN: A few months ago, we engaged a consulting firm to consult and explore options about the future service provision of ophthalmic surgery. We have received that report and are currently working through the various recommendations of it, but we have not formed a view. We believe there would still be a little bit of work that we need to do to form a position to have discussions with the ophthalmic surgeons about what models would be available to move forward with.

Mr MARSHALL: Who did this work?

Mr SWAN: Ernst & Young, a consulting firm, was engaged to undertake this work and particularly consult with the industry and look at what other options are used around Australia to try to provide us with advice on what innovation we can put into this area that responds to the treating clinicians' needs.

Mr MARSHALL: Is it still the government's position to establish a dedicated eye hospital, now that the Modbury option has fallen through?

Mr SWAN: We are working through that. We have not formed a particular view. We are working out which is the best option for SA Health and the clinicians involved and their patients.

Mr MARSHALL: I have a question regarding breast screening in South Australia, Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 41. Why is the target for breast cancer screening not currently being met?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I would just point out that our estimated result for 2015-16 is 65.7 per cent, which exceeds the target of 65.6 per cent. In 2014-15, it was 56.8. Obviously, women present voluntarily. We do everything we can to promote the service. Sorry, the target for 2015-16 was 66.3 per cent, so we are very close to reaching that target. Our estimated result for 2015-16 is 65.7 per cent. Obviously, we will do everything we can. It is a very important service. We advertise extensively. We put information out to GPs and other areas wherever we can to promote it because obviously it is a very important health measure.

Mr MARSHALL: In reality, there were 12,000 fewer breast cancer screenings in South Australia than had been the target. The target was 102,000 and you got to 90,000. Are you suggesting that the reason is that women did not present or that are there other reasons? We have heard that radiologists have been flown in from Sydney. Are we still flying radiologists in from Sydney?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I do not know what the leader is referring to, but I am looking at Budget Paper 4, Agency Statements, Volume 3, page 41, breast screening participation rate for women aged 50 to 74 years. There, the 2015-16 estimated result is 65.7 per cent and the target was 66.3 per cent. So, yes, we have not reached the target, but by 0.6 of a per cent, which I think is not a bad result.

The CHAIR: There being no further questions on this particular line, I declare the examination of proposed payments for the Department for Health and Ageing adjourned and referred to committee B.

Sitting suspended from 11:16 to 11:30.

Membership:

Mr Gardner substituted for Mr Marshall.

Ms Redmond substituted for Dr McFetridge.

Departmental Advisers:

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

Ms A. Reid, Deputy Chief Executive, Department of State Development.

Mr P. Louca, Executive Director, Arts South Australia, Department of State Development.

Ms H. Schultz, Director, Cultural Heritage and Assets, Arts South Australia, Department of State Development.

Ms J. Layther, Director, Arts Programs, Organisations and Initiatives, Arts South Australia, Department of State Development.

Mr J. Andary, Director, Arts Industry and Finance, Arts South Australia, Department of State Development.

Ms S. McDonnell, Ministerial Adviser.

The CHAIR: We welcome everyone back to committee A. The estimates committees are a relatively informal procedure and, as such, there is no need to stand to ask or answer questions. I understand the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition have agreed an approximate time for the consideration of the proposed payments, which may facilitate a change of advisers. Can the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition confirm that the timetable for today's proceedings on arts, as distributed, is accurate.

Mr GARDNER: Yes.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes.

The CHAIR: Changes to the committee membership will be notified as they occur. Members should ensure that the Chair is provided with a completed request to be discharged form. If a minister undertakes to supply information at a later date, it must be submitted to the committee secretary by no later than Friday 28 October 2016. This year, estimate committees responses will be published during the 15 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 an opening statement of about 10 minutes each, should they wish. There will be a flexible approach to giving the call for asking questions based on about three questions per member, alternating each side. Supplementary questions will be the exception rather than the rule.

A member who is not part of the committee may ask a question at the discretion of the Chair. Questions must be based on lines of expenditure in the budget papers and must be identifiable and referenced at the beginning of each question. Members unable to complete their questions during the proceedings may submit them as questions on notice for inclusion in the Assembly Notice Paper.

There is no formal facility for the tabling of documents before the committee; however, documents can be supplied to the Chair for distribution to the committee. The incorporation of material in Hansard is permitted on the same basis as applies in the house, that is, that it is purely statistical and limited to one page in length. All questions are to be directed to the minister and not the minister's advisers. The minister may refer questions should he wish.

During the committee's examinations, television cameras will be permitted to film from both the northern and southern galleries, and we do ask for noise to be kept to a minimum. I call the Minister for the Arts to make an opening statement if he wishes.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Just very briefly, and I will introduce advisers here at the table. The arts, obviously, are very important to our state. Increasingly, we have tried to shift the emphasis in the portfolio towards its potential to build economic activity in our state. A lot of the reason for the shift from where the arts portfolio had traditionally been located, in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, into the Department of State Development under the leadership of Dr Don Russell, is to give it that sharp economic focus that is so important.

I think if you look at the combined economic impact of the Adelaide Festival, the Fringe and WOMAD, our most recent combined economic impact of those three festivals is $158 million, so these festivals are bringing people into South Australia, creating economic activity and putting dinner on the table of hundreds, if not thousands, of South Australian families.

We are also keen, obviously, to develop the arts industry in itself and develop new opportunities for our artists to develop their skills and take their skills around the world. We did extremely well, as I said previously in the house, in the Helpmann Awards, with a number of South Australians picking up key awards. WOMAD in particular picked up the award for the best festival in Australia, which we are very proud of. I think that award had historically always gone to Byron Bay, so it was very good to see WOMAD being acknowledged as one of Australia's leading festivals.

The government has made the biggest investment into our arts infrastructure, I think, than at any time since the 1970s, with significant upgrades to the Festival Centre and of course the redevelopment of the Plaza area, and significant investments within the Festival Centre itself. A significant investment at Her Majesty's Theatre will really provide new opportunities to bring shows through Adelaide and take a lot of pressure off the Festival Centre. At the moment, some of our home companies are feeling a little bit squeezed out because the Festival Centre has been so successful in attracting commercial productions, so having that additional expanded capacity at Her Majesty's will make a significant difference.

Of course, in last year's budget we made significant investments to our regional theatres. The government has also provided funding for a business case to begin development of a potential new art gallery in this state under the leadership of Nick Mitzevich, the director of the South Australian Art Gallery. We are very proud of our sector here and I am very keen to promote it. I continue to work with our arts industry to develop it in this state and provide new economic opportunities for our state. That concludes my statement but I will briefly introduce Dr Don Russell, who is the chief executive of the Department of State Development; Alex Reid, who is the deputy chief executive of the Department of State Development; and Mr Peter Louca, who is the executive director of Arts SA.

The CHAIR: So nothing extra for Parliament: The Musical then?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No, I am afraid not—put in a grant application.

The CHAIR: I remind the committee that estimates of payments for the Department of State Development and Administered Items for the Department of State Development are still open.

Mr GARDNER: I think Peter Louca is the executive director of Arts South Australia as a result of the government's branding change, not Arts SA any more.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Absolutely. I am corrected. I did get a kick under the table.

Mr GARDNER: I will go to questions. I refer to page 74 of Budget Paper 4, Volume 4. There are significant funds in grants and subsidies and intergovernment transfers, which is the bulk of this budget, which is through grants to the Museum, Art Gallery, Festival and so forth. Can we please have a list, either today or taken on notice, of the total grants for each of those bodies for 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: We have it. Do you really want me to read it out?

Mr GARDNER: Can I have the 2016-17 ones?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes, sure. For the Adelaide Festival Centre Trust, $20,566,000; for the Adelaide Festival Corporation, $8.3 million; for the Adelaide Film Festival, $1.05 million; for the Adelaide Fringe, $1.412 million; for the Adelaide Symphony Orchestra, $2.566 million; for the Art Gallery of South Australia, $10.605 million; for Artlab Australia, $2.113 million; for the Australian Dance Theatre, $1.196 million; for Carclew Youth Arts Board, $2.518 million; for Carrick Hill, $907,000; for Country Arts SA, $4.712 million; for History SA, $5.308 million; for JamFactory Contemporary Craft and Design, $1.13 million; for South Australian Film Corporation, $4.768; for South Australian Museum, $10.539 million; for the State Library of South Australia, $33.482 million; for State Opera of South Australia, $1.571 million; for the State Theatre Company, $2.5 million; for Tandanya, $1.099 million; and Windmill, $1.057 million.

Mr GARDNER: Thank you. On the same page, I am interested in the FTEs. The actual in 2014-15 was 101. It was budgeted for a cut of seven, but the estimated result is an increase of four. Has that estimated result proved to be accurate?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Essentially, the bulk of that 100-odd is an estimate based upon the overall budget allocation. It is an estimate that Treasury comes up with based upon that. The reason for the increase would be because there has been an allocation to Arts SA as part of its management of the Festival Plaza redevelopment project. That would be the reason for the increase. We have not actually employed four extra people as part of that. Treasury plugs the numbers in and it spits out this FTE count, and that would be the reason for the increase.

Mr GARDNER: The FTE count and a number of these figures throughout costs and so forth in last year's corresponding budget paper were significantly less than it is in this year's. In the identification of what as in the 2015-16 budget, for example, was 76.9 FTEs last year but this budget paper identifies it as 94. Can you explain that difference?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It would just reflect the fact that we are spending more in the arts portfolio.

Mr GARDNER: We are not comparing apples with apples, because last year it identified that the 2015-16 budget was 76.9. This year, it identifies that the 2015-16 budget was 94. Is there a restructure within the department that is incorporating extra people?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No, there has been no restructure and no job cuts. We would need to get back to you to account for that difference.

Mr GARDNER: While you are doing that, there are significant changes between last year's budget papers and what this year's budget papers say last year's budgets were down the list. So, if you can fulfil that answer, that would be great.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I just refer the member for Morialta to footnote (a) on that page:

(a) The 2015–16 Budget amounts contained in the 2016–17 Agency Statements differs from those amounts contained in the 2015–16 Agency Statements to reflect internal resource allocations for each program. The 2015–16 Budget amounts in these statements have been amended for comparative purposes.

Basically, as has been explained to me, what has happened is Treasury, in the way that they allocate these things within Department of State Development, have obviously changed the allocation to provide more to Arts SA. That is why there has been in the change in the numbers. We would have to get back to with the exact reasons for that and why the change in methodology.

Mr GARDNER: The last question just in this fiddly bit. The FTEs are listed as then dropping to 92. Could we have perhaps the actual number of FTEs working in this area in 30 June 2015 and 30 June 2016 as well? Is there going to be a cut, as these papers would suggest?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The 2016-17 cap for the state budget for the Art Centre of South Australia was 30.3, and Artlab, which is included in this number, was 24.5. Then there is a corporate overhead allocation, so that is basically a figure that Treasury come up with across DSD into that division, which is 37.2. That leaves a total of 92.

Mr GARDNER: We will go to page 77. The description is:

Provision of museum…and preservation services that enable the state's cultural, heritage and arts assets to be maintained and kept accessible to the community.

Minister, we have previously had some discussions in this chamber about the storage facilities for the Aboriginal cultural collection at the Museum which you have described as unacceptable at the moment. You previously said:

…in the current facility we cannot protect against issues regarding insect infestation, but we are certainly looking at what might be other options, and we certainly recognise that, in the medium term, the continued keeping of that collection at the present site is unacceptable.

We have also identified water damage on at least one occasion. What is the government doing about this?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Within our existing budget allocation, we made about $200,000 available to the Museum to take some remediation action to protect the collection as far as we can within the current facility. More money, no doubt, is going to need to be spent there. I make no secret of the fact that long-term storage at the Netley facility is not going to be able to continue. The government is going to have to invest or find a new solution to the storage of those cultural artefacts because the Netley facility is just not up to it, but we are spending $200,000 to take some remediation work and to develop a business case as well around the long-term storage of those cultural artefacts.

Mr GARDNER: When was that $200,000 allocated, and when was the work carried out or is the work being carried out?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Some maintenance work has been carried out by DPTI. Basically, the works are a continuing program and, as I say, we are also doing the preliminary work so that we might be able to present a case for the budget for long-term storage of those important cultural artefacts. There is work that is happening as we speak and will continue to happen to make sure that we protect those artefacts as much as we possibly can within the confines of the Netley facility.

Mr GARDNER: It is important that we do this, as it is the world's largest collection of Australian Indigenous artefacts. Who owns the building at the moment that it is stored in? Is it a government building, or a privately owned building being rented?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The government sold the building a few years ago, so it is now privately owned and the government rents the building off the private owner.

Mr GARDNER: Minister, can you identify how many incidents there have been where there have been reports to Arts SA, or indeed to the Museum board, of water getting into the area where the collection is stored?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: There have been five incidents of water ingress at the Netley storage facility during 2016. One occasion in January and three in July were the result of extremely heavy rain conditions. The remaining incident was the result of a break-in during March, in which the fire sprinklers were tampered with. Artlab Australia reported the damage to the Museum collection's items from the January incident to be in the vicinity of $50,000. Despite reports to the contrary there has been no damage to collections from the other incidents. This can be attributed to the responsive actions of staff.

Heavy rains increase the risk of further water ingress. The Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure's site manager has increased the cleaning of the gutters from seven times per annum to monthly. However, heavy rains continue to reveal roof leaks, and the government is investigating options to address this. So that should answer your question. There have been five, only one of which has resulted in damage to the collection.

Mr GARDNER: How many artefacts were damaged on that one occasion?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I do not have the figure, but Artlab estimated the damage to be $50,000.

Mr GARDNER: What are the insurance arrangements for the collection?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Through SAICORP.

Mr GARDNER: Can we go to the next page, page 78. I am interested in the History SA Adelaidia app, which I notice was identified last year. Last year, there was a highlight of having doubled the content of the app; this year, the highlight is listed as having expanded the online content in the app. How is this app run? Is it contracted out to a private company? Do you have somebody in History SA whose job it is to manage this piece of tech, and at what cost?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I think it is a combination. They would be engaging some outside expertise, but mainly I think doing it in-house, but I will find out from History SA.

Mr GARDNER: While you are finding out, can we also get some information about how many users have currently downloaded the app and how it has been marketed. Is it advised by Tourism SA?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The app currently showcases 730 sites to explore across the city and has been downloaded 1,960 times. The website continues to see strong usage with a 54 per cent growth in users over the past 12 months.

Mr GARDNER: Some of these tech things will give you the opportunity to find some analytics and identify whether it has been downloaded by people within South Australia or by tourists and people from overseas; if there is any information that can be provided there, it would be good.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes, we will be able to provide that.

Mr GARDNER: Is there a policy on data collection by the app? Is there a restriction across government of apps of the use of data collected in those apps?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: There would just be the general privacy provisions, but nothing else. We will find out if there is anything specific. There is certainly nothing in the regulations of the History Trust.

Mr GARDNER: No, I would not imagine so. Can we go to page 56, and I imagine that at some stage in this one of my colleagues might also have some interest in this area. Can I start with the Adelaide Festival Centre remediation works. I want to identify that last year's corresponding budget papers also showed some costs in the remediation works from the 2014-15 budget, but I remember that in last year's estimates, minister, you identified that it appeared this part was going to come in under budget because there had been some favourable tender considerations. Can I clarify, given that the 2015-16 estimated result is $3.1 million (which seems to be $400,000 more than was expected in the budget), whether this part of the Festival Centre, this remediation works line, is now completed, and has it come in under budget?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Since last year, when we thought the project would come in under budget, we discovered a bit of asbestos which had to be remediated, so we now expect the project to come in on budget. There is a bit of extra cost associated with that, but it is still on budget.

Mr GARDNER: So that $500,000 fat in the budget, as it was, has come in handy?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: There would still be a normal contingency anyway in the budget for these sorts of things but, yes, the estimate is that it would come in on budget.

Mr GARDNER: In the same manner, the Festival Centre Precinct, a $63 million project—and we are all hoping that it comes up as excellent—is it on time and on budget at the moment?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: On our works it is. In the 2015-16 state budget, the government announced that it has committed $109.6 million to the Festival Plaza Centre Precinct. Of this, $6 million to $7 million will be invested to upgrade areas of the Festival Centre. The remaining funding is being delivered by the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure for the redevelopment of the car park, and the Festival Plaza contributes $200,000 for annual plaza maintenance.

Design and documentation is well underway for the delivery of new entries from the north face of the Festival Centre. Refurbishment of the foyers to the Festival Theatre and Dunstan Playhouse, the upgrade to the Elder Park kiosk and toilets, the new transition area from the Festival Centre to Elder Park on the site of the current amphitheatre, and construction works to the north face and northern entries are due to commence in late 2016, with the upgrade of the Festival Theatre foyer to follow in 2017.

In addition, $5.14 million is being committed within this project to complete remediation works around the Adelaide Festival Centre, including the replacement of the membrane to the Festival Theatre roof shells, and repairing all concrete elements across the exterior of the centre. Of the $11.122 million dedicated to the upgrade of technical equipment within the theatres, $2.2 million is being contractually committed, which includes a new sound desk, microphones, the upgrade of microphones and radio microphones, follow spots, lighting equipment, lighting control desk, sound desk, headset communications and theatre drapes. It is forecast that the project will be completed in 2017-18, and I think it is all on time.

Mr GARDNER: What is happening to the Hajek sculptures?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I will let the Executive Director of Arts SA take that question. I think the member for Davenport wants them for his front yard.

Mr GARDNER: I think he was thinking for his electorate office.

Mr LOUCA: The engineering reports presented to Arts SA, and to the project management team, have indicated that the concrete degradation also affects the sculptures. The removal of the sculptures commenced last Friday, with the removal of a plinth, one of the rhomboid elements of the Hajek installation. The government has consulted extensively with the Hajek estate, which contrasts with the original intent of Otto Hajek, who wrote to the government while he was still alive stating that if there was any interference or removal or changes to the artwork his preference was that the entire work be decommissioned. The estate took a different view from that after his passing.

After extensive negotiations, which articulated the way the work would be recorded—including 3D laser scans of the environmental sculpture (high definition photography)—the resolution was that an element of the Hajek original installation would be preserved and reinstalled in the redesigned plaza, with a commemorative plaque reflecting that this was the site of Otto Hajek's largest installation.

Ms REDMOND: Before I ask the question I was intending to ask, could I perhaps first of all ask about the car park and the new arrangements. Does the Festival Theatre get the benefit of any of the money generated from parking once the new car park is established, or does that all go to the Walker Corporation?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: There is an allocation of car parks, so overall there would be an allocation of a certain number of car parks, and I am just trying to find out what that is. Yes, they would get the revenue from the allocation they have. Treasury are managing that, apparently, at the moment.

Ms REDMOND: So, there will be an allocation for the Festival Theatre.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: That is right, yes.

Ms REDMOND: That means that they will get the money from those?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: That is my expectation. The bottom line is that they will not be disadvantaged.

Ms REDMOND: How many levels will the new car park have? Does anyone know yet?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It is about five levels. It goes down quite deep.

Ms REDMOND: The question I want to ask on that is still on page 56, new projects, Her Majesty's Theatre redevelopment. I notice the budget for this year is a bit over $1½ million, and the overall project cost is close to $35½ million, and I imagine that those costs will blow out. That seems a fairly minimal amount. To what extent is the fundraising that Barry Humphries is heading going to accommodate the costs of that overall redevelopment?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Of the $35 million, the government has committed $32 million, and $3.2 million is expected to be raised through fundraising efforts.

Mr GARDNER: While we are on Her Majesty's, who is in charge of running this project? Is it Arts SA or the Festival Centre?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I will give that to Peter Louca.

Mr LOUCA: Under the cabinet guidelines, this is an Arts South Australia project and the builder is DPTI. Clearly, this is a project that we are working on hand in glove with the Festival Centre Trust. We are still working through the governance arrangements around that project.

Mr GARDNER: When will building work commence?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: We expect it to be next financial year, January 2018.

Mr DULUK: I refer to page 77 and the list of targets for 2016-17. In the 2015-16 Agency Statement, you list that the target was to commence planning on the Shandong Provisional Library for implementation by 2020. I just notice that it is not included in the 2015-16 highlights in this year's budget papers or 2015-16 targets. Is this project still ongoing?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: On pages 76 and 77, there is a reference to it. One of the highlights 2015-16 is, 'Hosted two interns form the Shandong Provincial Library for 10 weeks.'

Mr DULUK: What is the cost of that one?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It would be pretty minimal.

Mr DULUK: Is hosting those two interns part of the One Card library network program?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No, they are different things. My advice is that the intern is focused on two key projects: one was the proposed development of the One Card system and the other was the State Library and the University of South Australia industry partnership, which provides library archive and record management courses, both on site and online, as well as expertise and lecturers.

Mr DULUK: So we are still going down this One Card path?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It is still ongoing, but it has been slow going because of circumstances in China.

Mr DULUK: Do you see it being completed?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes, indeed, I think it will be continued. Certainly, the Library is very keen and the relationship overall is very good.

Mr GARDNER: I refer to page 79. Looking at all these estimated results, can we have the actual results, please—either provided on notice or here, I do not mind.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The actuals get published in MYBR in any case, but, yes, we can make them available as soon as we can, but they are normally published as part of MYBR.

Mr GARDNER: In terms of History SA, I notice that in 2014-15 we went from $2.4 million actual to $1.2 million target the following year, which was vastly exceeded. Why are we not optimistic that we will again be over $2 million next year? Why do we have such a low target? Is there any particular reason? What is the basis behind those fluctuations?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Are you talking about the revenue target?

Mr GARDNER: Yes.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It was a one-off, and the increase in the 2015-16 estimated result compared to the target is mainly due to the amalgamation of separate funds from the History SA foundation into the general ledger in accordance with changes to the Australian Accounting Standards. There were funds off balance sheet held in the History SA foundation and the accounting standards changed and they were brought onto the balance sheet, and that is why there is an increase in revenue. So, that is the reason; it was a one-off increase for that reason.

Mr GARDNER: That is fine. On page 80, in the financial commentary there is reference to the provision of funding to the Hans Heysen Foundation's Heritage Appeal to secure The Cedars for public access of $1 million. I understand the commonwealth Catalyst fund put in $1 million and Mount Barker council $1.5 million. My understanding is that the next stage of what they are hoping to do at The Cedars will require some further support from the three levels of government, or at least they are asking for the support from the three levels of government. Is the government open to that?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Probably not. I have had discussions with Peter Heysen about that. From the government's point of view, the most important thing was to secure the future of the site and to prevent it being broken up and sold off, so the government and the commonwealth both committed funding to that. I know that the foundation has further plans to develop the site. They have not put a formal proposal to us, but I made very clear to them that from my point of view my first priority was to ensure the security of the site. If they come to us in the future about any further work they want to do or further development they want to do on the site, we will give it due consideration.

Mr GARDNER: I understand your answer. It would have been about $3.5 million from the three levels of government at this stage, plus funds raised by the foundation. Is it your understanding that that amount has been sufficient to secure the site for the Hans Heysen Foundation rather than have a risk that it be potentially broken up?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I do not think it is. I cannot remember the exact amount of money that they needed to secure it, but the government was prepared to make a significant contribution towards that. I know it is similar, or I think exactly the same, as what the commonwealth has made. I think the balance, if indeed there is a need, will be raised through their financial appeal. They have a structure set up to raise those funds.

Ms REDMOND: Just on that, given that it is in my electorate—and once again thanks to Barry Humphries who is also involved in that particular appeal—has that $1 million actually been paid over, or is it to be paid over on the occurrence of a certain contingency? What is the arrangement?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: We are drawing up the grant agreement at the moment. We expect it to be paid by September.

Ms REDMOND: I have a couple of others on this page, if I may. Firstly, on that same area of financial commentary, the second dot point on page 80 concerns the provision of a grant to the City of Mount Gambier to enable the purchase of the Riddoch Art Gallery collection from Country Arts SA for $2.1 million. I wanted to get my head around what is actually going on there because it reads to me as though the government is giving the council money to purchase something from the government. Is that correct?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes, that is correct. The collection of the Riddoch Gallery is held by Country Arts SA, and we have been in discussions with the Mount Gambier council about the future of that collection. We came to an agreement to transfer that collection from Country Arts SA into the care of the City of Mount Gambier. The collection has a book value of $1.976 million and is worth $2,058,855, and the facility for that transfer is to provide a grant to the Mount Gambier council for them to purchase the collection back off the government.

Ms REDMOND: What is the reason for that, rather than simply gifting it?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I think it is just an accounting treatment of it. It is an accounting treatment because we cannot gift a thing. We have to make a transfer of money, apparently; we cannot make a gift of an object. We actually have to provide a grant to purchase whatever it is and that is then paid back to us. They balance each other out.

Ms REDMOND: I just wanted to be sure I was not misreading it, that you were in fact giving the money for them to purchase something from us.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes.

Ms REDMOND: The original dot point above that, 'additional funding in 2016-17 to maintain arts activities and sustain jobs growth and economic benefits for the state ($3.0 million)', which is the largest single figure in that list of the financial commentary. What specifically is that $3 million going to be spent on, and when you say 'sustain jobs growth' is that to say that there is a trend already apparent that there has been jobs growth in the arts area?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The extra money basically has the effect of offsetting savings that were required of the agency. Otherwise, it would have had to have been allocated to all the institutions. So, it offsets that, so it will go back into the institutions. Obviously, while the whole area of arts will still be expected to make some efficiencies, this does enable us to ensure that we do not make any cuts to any of the programs or anything like that that otherwise would have been necessary.

Ms REDMOND: Sorry, minister, I am dumb, obviously. I do not understand how that explanation fits with spending an additional $3 million.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It is money that otherwise was not there. It is money that was being taken out and put estimates at a decrease.

Mr DULUK: Staying on that line of questioning of the member for Heysen, has any modelling been done around what $3 million of new investment will do to sustain jobs growth? Has Treasury done any modelling on behalf of—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: We do have a fair idea of what $3 million worth of savings would have looked like. It would have had a significant impact on our agencies, on the institutions and on our festivals. It would mean, particularly with the festivals, significant reductions in programming across all festivals such as, obviously, the Adelaide Festival, the Guitar Festival, and the Film Festival. Those savings would have had a significant impact across all of those institutions and festivals that we have.

Mr DULUK: Going back to page 76, second to last dot point on the page around the installation of radio frequency. What percentage of this project was completed in 2015-16?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The project is over 75 per cent completed, with three million of the total four million items tagged, and is on track to be completed by January 2017.

Mr DULUK: So, it is four million to be tagged, is it?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Three million out of a total of four million, so it is three-quarters complete.

Mr DULUK: In last year's statement, it was stated that there were two million to be tagged. So, it is four million?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: So, they have been able to do more.

Mr GARDNER: If we can go back to page 74. Minister, at the beginning of this session you were kind enough to give us the list of the grants to all of the institutions for the current financial year. Do we have a budget for what we expect those grants to be in the 2017-18 financial year?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: We would not set that until next budget.

Mr GARDNER: So, that is for next budget. When are the institutions informed?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Normally, the day after the budget.

Mr GARDNER: As to the institutions that are potentially to receive less funding next year than they do this year, perhaps I will ask you about the ones this year. Is it your intention to let them know in advance if they are to have any haircuts to make?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: We are constantly in contact with Arts SA and constantly in contact with the institutions and other agencies about their funding. It is never the case that they are presented with a shock. Obviously, if there is to be a significant cut, we do not leave that until the day after budget day to tell them. We work with them very closely and it goes through the normal budget process and the argy-bargy between Arts SA and Treasury about what might be able to be accommodated and what might not and what the implications might be of certain decisions taken.

We are certainly in constant contact with those institutions about what they anticipate but, with the extra money as part of this year's budget, it does mean that it does give far more certainty to those institutions than there otherwise would have been.

Mr GARDNER: On pages 81 and 82, there are a vast number of estimated results that make for fascinating reading, but last year's estimated results did not always have that much of an association with the actuals, so when you are getting those other actuals, potentially prior to the Mid-Year Budget Review can I ask that we are provided with these actuals as they become available as well?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Sure. We will take that on notice.

Mr GARDNER: Thank you. Just while we are here, in relation to the State Theatre, has legislation been prepared that will set it free from the shackles of being a part of the state government? Is that going to be presented this year? That is the characterisation somebody else used, lest anyone think that was mine.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: We are waiting on advice from crown before we can progress that particular matter. I have to also say that the board has been a bit distracted with other issues, such as the transfer of its office from the Railway Station to the Lion Arts Centre, so there have been other issues. Following analysis of the legal governance, financial, operational and compliance issues and risk, Arts South Australia is now awaiting advice from the Office for the Public Sector around the implementation of the proposed changes in structure and ownership.

Mr GARDNER: Can I ask about page 78. You have identified:

Continue the heritage restoration works along the North Terrace cultural precinct including the commencement of stonework restorations on the Mortlock building.

How much is being spent in that area this year and are there any other items apart from the Mortlock building that you will be dealing with?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Are you particularly interested in the Mortlock building or more generally?

Mr GARDNER: The Mortlock is the one you have identified, and I am wondering if there are any others.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The total cost of the precinct is estimated to be over $5 million, which includes the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure's contribution to the heritage works components. Works are being staged over four or five budget periods. In 2015-16, the capital grant funded heritage restorations, external paning and installation of high-level safe work access on the east wing of the South Australian Museum. The total project cost was $1.157 million, with Arts South Australia providing $747,000 and the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure providing the balance of $410,000.

In 2016-17, the heritage restorations and external paning will commence on the Mortlock building of the State Library of South Australia. Arts South Australia and the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure will contribute $255,000 and $300,000 respectively for a total initial investment of $555,000. It is expected the Mortlock building project will continue into 2017-18 once the initial works identify the full extent of restorations required.

Mr GARDNER: Page 57 identifies a range of investments within the Department of State Development, including small programs, which I think are programs under $300,000 possibly. I am wondering if any of those small programs are within the arts portfolio, or the small projects on the previous page, page 56?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: My advice is that Arts SA would have some component of that. We will have to get advice back to you about what that would be.

Mr GARDNER: I am happy to have that come back and also the ones on page 56, which is the coming year rather than the annual programs.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes.

Mr GARDNER: Thank you. Let me jump back to page 82, which talks about the State Opera. It is identified that the number of paid seats at performances has come down. I think the 2016-17 projection is 12,500, which is 2,000 fewer than last year due to the availability of the Festival Theatre, or the non-availability, for State Opera as the case may be. I think this year only one of State Opera's performances—I stand to be corrected—is at the Festival Theatre. Can the minister provide some advice as to what the government's plan is in relation to how State Opera might be supported in this way, particularly when I would imagine that one key criteria of people who are enthusiastic participants of opera would be the quality of the audio and other facilities may or may not be up to scratch.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: My advice is that audience numbers will bounce around quite a bit for State Opera because it will depend on how many productions they do. It will also depend on the type of production they do and the location where they have the production. Obviously, while the redevelopment is happening at the Festival Centre, we expect that will have issues with regard to State Opera's ability to access the Festival Centre and that will have an impact.

However, one of the main reasons I was very supportive of the investment we are making at Her Majesty's is that State Opera and Adelaide Symphony Orchestra are the two cultural organisations that are most affected by ability to gain access to the Festival Centre. By having an alternative venue, that will certainly do a lot to free up access. Over the next couple of years I think it is still going to be a bit difficult for State Opera, but we would expect that once those works are completed at Her Majesty's you will see additional opportunities for State Opera.

Arts South Australia is in discussion with State Opera about what their needs are going to be. The last significant production they did of Cloudstreet was at Her Majesty's, which obviously at the moment is a far smaller venue than the Festival Centre. As I say, I expect those numbers will be down for a little while but then, with this investment we are making, they will have far greater opportunities to access the Festival Centre.

Ms REDMOND: Following on from that answer, I have a couple of things. On Cloudstreet, which was obviously hugely successful, is there any plan and does the government need to financially support in any way the touring of that particular production around the country or even internationally?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: If we did fund it, it would be co-funding with—

Ms REDMOND: Another opera company from interstate?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: —probably with the other arts funding bodies. Generally, the opera has access to its own various buckets of money, so I would expect potentially through Catalyst or through Australia Council funding. That might be something they would consider. No approach has been made so far from State Opera for a touring program.

Ms REDMOND: I am just going on the fact that there was an enormously positive reception to it, particularly from interstate people I spoke to on opening night who were thrilled that little South Australia was able to do that production. Opera Australia had announced that day that Julie Andrews was going to direct The King and I.

More importantly, on that point, obviously the reason that Cloudstreet, being Australian, could be produced in Her Majesty's is that there is no need for surtitles. My recollection is that the surtitles we have in the Festival Theatre were funded by the James and Diana Ramsay Trust, I think. In any event, are the discussions in relation to the redevelopment of Her Majesty's incorporating discussions about the provision of surtitling to enable things—perhaps smaller opera, but nevertheless needing surtitles—to be held there?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I am not sure it is being considered, but I am more than happy to have a look at it and see what considerations are being made. I think it is a good point. Because opera is so expensive, in terms of the orchestra—

Ms REDMOND: Yes, there is an orchestra and lots of singers.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Indeed—and sets and everything like that, for those large-scale operas you do need that large Festival Centre. Of course, operas can only play alternate nights as well, because the singers have to rest their voice, so you do need those big venues to do it. I would expect, once these works are completed and once the Festival Centre works are completed, generally speaking that opera would be there. It might be that there would be a few niche productions perhaps that they might do offsite, but it would generally be at the Festival Centre. I think you raise a good point about the availability of surtitles at the redeveloped Her Maj. I would be happy to have a look at it.

Ms REDMOND: Given the comment in here about the lack of availability of the Festival Theatre, to what extent because we are being blessed with getting Tim Minchin's Matilda?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Not just that production, but any number of productions. The trust have been very successful in making a strong commercial drive to make the centre commercially viable. The flipside of that is access into the centre for our home companies. That is one of the principle drivers for our decision to invest in Her Majesty's. With an increased capacity at Her Majesty's a lot of those big, commercial Disney-type productions will be able to be done there and that will free up time at the Festival Centre for home companies (principally the State Opera and the ASO).

The CHAIR: We have not read in the omnibus questions for Health, so we need to do that now. Member for Davenport.

Mr DULUK: These are the omnibus questions:

1. Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of expenditure on consultants and contractors above $10,000 in 2015-16 for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, listing the name of the consultant, contractor or service supplier, cost, work undertaken and method of appointment?

2. In financial year 2015-16 for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, what underspending on projects and programs (1) was and (2) was not approved by cabinet for carryover expenditure in 2016-17?

3. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, please provide a breakdown of attraction, retention and performance allowances, as well as non-salary benefits, paid to public servants and contractors in the years 2014-15 and 2015-16.

4. For each year of the forward estimates, please provide the name and budget of all grant programs administered by all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, and for 2015-16 provide a breakdown of expenditure on all grants administered by all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, listing the name of the grant recipient, the amount of the grant, the purpose of the grant and whether the grant was subject to a grant agreement as required by Treasurer's Instruction 15.

5. For each year of the forward estimates, please provide the corporate overhead costs allocated to each individual program and subprogram administered by or on behalf of all departments and agencies reporting to the minister.

6. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, could you detail:

(a) How much was spent on targeted voluntary separation packages in 2015-16?

(b) Which department funded these TVSPs?

(c) What number of TVSPs was funded?

(d) What is the budget for targeted voluntary separation packages for financial years included in the forward estimates (by year), and how these packages are to be funded?

7. What is the title and total employment cost of each individual staff member in the minister's office as at 30 June 2016, including all departmental employees seconded to ministerial offices and ministerial liaison officers?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I will take that on notice.

The CHAIR: There being no further time for questions, I declare the examination of the proposed payments of adjourned and referred to committee B, the omnibus referred to both Health and Arts.

Sitting suspended from 12:30 to 13:31.