Estimates Vote

Legislative Council, $5,367,000

House of Assembly, $7,485,000

Joint Parliamentary Services, $12,396,000

Administered Items for Joint Parliamentary Services, $2,638,000

State Governor's Establishment, $5,271,000

Auditor-General's Department, $17,219,000

Department of the Premier and Cabinet, $260,146,000

Administered Items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, $1,976,000

Department of State Development, $683,049,000

Administered Items for the Department of State Development, $13,911,000

Minister:

Hon. J.W. Weatherill, Premier.

Departmental Advisers:

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

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

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

Mr D. Romeo, Chief of Staff, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

The CHAIR: As I welcome you today, I acknowledge that we meet in Kaurna land for the estimates committees, which are a relatively informal procedure and, as such, there is no need to stand to ask or answer questions. I understand that 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. Can the Premier and lead speaker for the opposition confirm that the timetable for today's proceedings previously distributed is accurate?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes.

Mr MARSHALL: Yes.

The CHAIR: Changes to committee membership will be notified as they occur. Members should ensure 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 27 October 2017. This year, estimates committee responses will be published during the 14 November sitting week in corrected DailyHansard over a three-day period.

I propose to allow both the Premier and the lead speaker for the opposition to make opening statements 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 or referenced at the beginning of the question. Members unable to complete their questions during the proceedings may submit them as questions on notice for inclusion in the 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 Premier, not the Premier's advisers. The Premier may refer questions to advisers for a response.

During the committee's examinations, television cameras will be permitted to film from both the northern and southern galleries.

Membership:

Hon. J.M. Rankine substituted for Hon. S.W. Key.

Mr Duluk substituted for Mr Speirs.

The CHAIR: We are now opening the estimate of payments for the Legislative Council, the House of Assembly, Joint Parliamentary Services and administered items for Joint Parliamentary Services. I declare the proposed payments open for examination and refer members to the Agency Statements in Volume 3. Premier, do you have an opening statement?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I do, Madam Chairperson, but I will make it after the Auditor-General's examination so as not to detain him at this time.

The CHAIR: So you have nothing to say on these particular payments. We can open them all if that is agreeable to the Premier and the leader, so I declare open the proposed payments for the State Governor's Establishment, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, administered items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Auditor-General's Department, the Department of State Development and administered items for the Department of State Development. Premier, do you have an opening statement?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I will defer that until after the examination of the Auditor-General, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIR: So you have nothing to say at this point?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No.

The CHAIR: Leader?

Mr MARSHALL: No.

The CHAIR: Straight to questions then. Premier, please introduce your advisers for Hansard.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: On my right is Mr Andrew Richardson, the Auditor-General. On my left is Ian McGlen, Assistant Auditor-General, and to his left is Megan Stint, Manager, Finance, Auditor-General's Department. Behind me is Daniel Romeo, my Chief of Staff.

Mr MARSHALL: My questions with regard to the Auditor-General start on Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, pages 72 and 73. At last year's estimates committee, the Auditor-General advised that supplementary reports were being prepared for the new Royal Adelaide Hospital and also the Festival Plaza. Can the Premier advise what the status of these reports is and why they have not been tabled in parliament?

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

Mr RICHARDSON: At the time of the previous estimates—in fact, prior to that—the government had issued default proceedings with the builders of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital. Right up until June this year, there was a contract dispute, which was ultimately settled, having gone to court, at the end of calendar year 2016.

Whilst those proceedings were going on, I stepped back from doing audit work because of the circumstances that were going on, that there was that contract dispute and that they were going to court to decide the next steps. Subsequently, a completion deed was entered into in March 2017, so this year. When that was completed, we took advice.

We spoke to Crown in particular about the contractual arrangements that had been entered into between the state and the providers. That was in May. Around that time, the department was very focused on meeting the commercial acceptance date of June. Because they were completely committed to doing that work, they asked us to give them the opportunity to make sure that that happened.

Whilst all of that has been going on, I ended up deferring the work that we have been doing. Now that commercial acceptance has been reached, we will be focusing on the arrangements that have been entered into, especially the completion deed, so that we can understand that. The goal is to report a summary of at least that in the forthcoming annual report. So that is the situation for that one.

Mr MARSHALL: When is that likely to be?

Mr RICHARDSON: The annual report is due on 30 September, and it will be tabled on the first sitting date after 30 September, which I believe is 17 October.

Mr MARSHALL: And that will not be the full report, that will be a partial report. And then there will be a further report?

Mr RICHARDSON: The intent is to make sure that what is presented is relevant to the situation for the new Royal Adelaide. Because of the completion deed, which is a significant arrangement in its own right, I have asked my people to be focusing on that to make sure that we do that properly first. We have been doing some work along with other work, and we have been exchanging management letters with Health.

For some of those, we will decide whether or not they can simply be incorporated as part of the agency report, which we call Part B of the Auditor-General's Report. The goal is to make sure we report as much of the work that we have been able to complete with that next annual report.

Mr MARSHALL: Just for clarity, that will come under the form of a supplementary report; is that correct—the report into the new Royal Adelaide Hospital is a supplementary report?

Mr RICHARDSON: The intent would be that it would be part of the annual report. It presents better. Simply, the annual report must be tabled by the 30^th. Some logistical things might mean that we would say it was a supplementary report, but the goal would be to table it at the same time, or at least very close to it if we were unable to meet the same date because there is significant work in publishing requirements that goes with just the annual report, which is the primary statutory report that I must have presented by 30 September.

Mr MARSHALL: I am just trying to clarify. I am just trying to work out, when it was first envisaged, whether it would be a supplementary report or a special investigation.

Mr RICHARDSON: The intent at that time was for it to be a supplementary report. The fact of it then taking until March of this year for the contract dispute to be settled meant I had to reframe how I was going to go about the work I was going to do. As I have said, completion was set at June and we stepped back to make sure that that did not impede the department to achieve that that date.

Mr MARSHALL: For clarity, what is the difference between a supplementary report and a special investigation? In answering that, we see here on page 73 of that same volume that there was no budgeted expenditure for the last two years and for this current year for special investigations. Can you clarify that there have been no special investigations and whether or not there have been requests for special investigations that you have rejected?

Mr RICHARDSON: The special investigations line is for in the Public and Finance Audit Act. Provision 32 is for the Auditor-General, either of my own volition or on request of the Treasurer or the Commissioner Against Corruption, to do an examination. In fact, I have received a request for an examination of Coober Pedy council from the Treasurer. We received that in May, and we have commenced doing that because I must do an examination that comes through a section 32 request.

Mr MARSHALL: There is no budget for that line.

Mr RICHARDSON: There is no budget on that line by tradition because they are irregular events. There has been no settled base budget annual provision for my department because we simply would not be using it, unless the event arose.

We received a request to do the Coober Pedy council examination in May. We had sufficient funds to absorb any costs that we incurred up to that point. If we find, though, that the costs of completing that examination exceed our capacity—our inbuilt capacity in the budget—again, by tradition, we would seek funding through the treasury department. I haven't got a view on whether or not I would need to do that as yet. We have a particular strategy we are going through. If we are able to complete the work in a short time then I do not think there would be any request for further funding. If we find that it takes longer to do the work, the mere fact of travelling to Coober Pedy and having people attend there might incur costs that we would not otherwise have budget provision for.

Mr MARSHALL: When is that due?

Mr RICHARDSON: That will be due as soon as I finish it. My obligation is to complete an examination as soon as I can, but the terms of the request are simply that I do an examination of the accounts of Coober Pedy council.

Mr MARSHALL: But have you reached an opinion as to when that can be provided, that Coober Pedy investigation?

Mr RICHARDSON: Coober Pedy is not an easy place to do an audit is the practical answer to that. I sent three people up to Coober Pedy some weeks ago—

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: They came back.

Mr RICHARDSON: They came back. It is a very small administrative unit, so they have very limited capacity to deal with investigations because they have many statutory obligations. So, again, we have tried to—

Mr MARSHALL: Do you have any date? Is it going to be this year or next year? I understand it is complex.

Mr RICHARDSON: I am seeking to try to complete something prior to Christmas. If I do not meet that it will not be until March next year.

Mr MARSHALL: Last year, the Auditor-General informed this estimates committee that the Festival Plaza investigation would be completed and tabled to the parliament by October last year.

Mr RICHARDSON: Yes.

Mr MARSHALL: Has that been fulfilled?

Mr RICHARDSON: No, it has not.

Mr MARSHALL: How is that one going?

Mr RICHARDSON: The circumstances there were that leading into when we were seeking to complete our work last calendar year, in fact the conditions precedent in that arrangement had not been completed and, in fact, it was possible that there would be no deal. So once again we were obliged to stop until the agreement was settled. That happened in about February of this year. We recommenced our work.

Around about that time, for a range of reasons I had been going through my statutory obligations and my relationships in particular with the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption, and around that time we started to be concerned about where the Auditor-General's powers ended and where the commissioner's powers begin.

Without getting too much into the detail, my obligation is to report on the sufficiency of controls that are in place in the public sector, and the commissioner can investigate misconduct and maladministration, but there is a reasonable amount of overlap in how you could define those two terms. We wanted to get clarity about that. That ended up with me seeking counsel on that, getting legal advice, and that took quite a long time.

Unfortunately, that ran me out of time. It affected not only the plaza audit that I was doing but it affected a number of other things because I needed to be very clear about my obligations to report work or issues that arise from audits to the commissioner. The practical effect was that ultimately that ran me out of time in getting a report in by 30 June. I now intend to do that report again with the annual report or as a supplementary to that report.

We have, in fact, now identified some work that we have not done yet and, because of those delays, that has also run me against it. The officer I have predominantly doing that work was scheduled to take extended leave, which he is currently on. He is back soon. As soon as he is back, we will complete that work. It was initially delayed to take account of the fact that, until the contract was properly executed and fulfilled, which did not occur until February, I have decided it is not appropriate for me to be reporting. Having done those other things, I have subsequently considered there is some work that we have yet to do. As soon as my officer has returned, we will finish that work and we will table that report.

Mr MARSHALL: But you are indicating to this committee that there is an ICAC investigation into the Festival Plaza project.

Mr RICHARDSON: No—

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I will take that question. That is not an appropriate question to ask or answer.

Mr MARSHALL: In the previous answer that was provided, the Attorney-General indicated to the committee—

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is the Auditor-General.

Mr MARSHALL: Sorry, the Auditor-General indicated to this committee that the reason for the delay in the Festival Plaza report that was previously envisaged to be provided by October last year had been held up because of discussions between the Auditor-General and the ICAC.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, he did not say that at all.

Mr MARSHALL: Could you clarify those—

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: He said he was seeking legal advice about the limits of his authority and the limits of the authorities of other tribunals and—

Mr MARSHALL: Prior to that statement though, the Auditor-General indicated that he had been in discussions with the ICAC regarding the Festival Plaza project.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I do not think that is the effect of his evidence. His evidence is that he sought a legal opinion about the relationship between the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption's jurisdiction and his jurisdiction, which covered this and a number of other matters, and that until he had clarified that, it caused delay to what steps he could take.

Mr MARSHALL: What was the outcome of that Crown law advice?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We are not going to share that legal opinion.

Mr MARSHALL: When does the Premier think that the Auditor-General's Report into the Festival Plaza will be tabled, given that—

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: You have just been told: in the annual report. That is the expectation and I presume, consistent with the other report, if it is not completed by then, it will be a supplementary report thereafter.

Mr MARSHALL: What was the nature of the independent legal advice sought by the Auditor-General with regard to this project?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We are not revealing legal advice. Suffice to say, it is an explanation for the delay about why the report was not prepared before 30 June.

Mr MARSHALL: My question is not regarding the outcome, but what was the nature of the legal advice.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We are not sharing the request or the nature of the advice except to say, in the broad sense, it was about the scope of the powers of the Auditor-General and the scope of the powers of the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption.

Mr MARSHALL: Is the Premier aware of any other inquiry currently underway into the Festival Plaza project?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No.

Mr MARSHALL: So the Premier would not be aware of any other inquiry into this project, for example, by the OPI or the ICAC?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: If I was, I would not be revealing it because it would be inappropriate.

Mr MARSHALL: But you just said you were not aware.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I am not aware of any particular inquiry that is being undertaken, but if I was, I would not be revealing it.

Mr MARSHALL: But for clarity, you have said you are not aware.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I am not aware of any particular inquiry that is occurring in relation to these matters, but I would not be revealing it if there was.

Mr MARSHALL: I understand your clarification that you would not if you did, but you did actually rule out that you knew of any inquiry into the Festival Plaza over and above what the Auditor-General has done.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I am not commenting on—

Mr MARSHALL: Given his earlier statements, it is almost impossible to believe that that is the case, but that is now on the public record. My next question relates to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, pages 72 and 73. It relates to the investigation which the Auditor-General is doing into the One Community transaction. Can the Auditor-General advise of the current status of this investigation?

Mr RICHARDSON: Yes. Again, that would be part of the annual report or a supplementary to the annual report. We are conducting that work with that goal to report in the next annual report cycle.

Mr MARSHALL: I am unclear of this. When you say it will be in the annual report or in a supplementary, would that supplementary come before the annual report or subsequently?

Mr RICHARDSON: The advice of my predecessor auditor-general on supplementary reports is that it has to be supplementary to an annual report. As it stands, once 30 June passes, the next report which is tabled on audits by the Auditor-General is the annual report, which is due on 30 September. If there is work which would otherwise have been included in that annual report, but which is not ready at that time, it is tabled as a supplementary report to the annual report. It will postdate the tabling of the annual report. That is the nature of a supplementary report.

Mr MARSHALL: Given that this referral was made in February of this year, is the office of the Auditor-General understaffed?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, there have been no requests for additional resources from the Auditor-General. Indeed, all the explanations for the delay that you have just received have nothing to do with staffing. They have to do with particular circumstances which have caused deferrals or delays in the investigation.

Mr MARSHALL: Given that the Auditor-General had indicated in February that he was 'a bit interested' in auditing and reporting on the State Administration Centre transaction, can the Premier indicate whether or not there is an investigation underway into the State Administration Centre, given that five settlement dates were missed for this project?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is the same answer. Until these matters are concluded, it is not an appropriate matter for audit, so each of those issues are still essentially in their negotiation and conclusion stage. At that point it would be a matter that would be considered by the Auditor-General and would form part of the annual report or some supplementary report.

Mr MARSHALL: Is the Premier indicating that matters that relate to an investigation can only be conducted after the transaction is concluded? This is quite in contrast to many of the other reports that the Auditor-General has provided over an extended period of time.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, I do not think it is at all. The Auditor-General does not provide advisory opinions; it looks at past acts. That is always what the Auditor-General's—

Mr MARSHALL: But many of those past acts occur during a project; for example, in many of the IT projects, we do not wait until the conclusion of the EPAS project, whenever that may be, for the Auditor-General to take a look at it. The Auditor-General has provided advice to this parliament regarding projects which go over multiple years.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: You are misinterpreting two things. The agreements in relation to those matters are concluded procurements or agreements. They are being implemented over a period of time. It is a different matter from a transaction that is still not concluded.

Mr MARSHALL: For clarity, there is no investigation by the Auditor-General currently underway into the sale of the State Administration Centre?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: In all of these matters, the Auditor-General takes steps to prepare themselves and makes decisions about when to conclude the audit at an appropriate stage, and if it is an appropriate stage to conclude the audit, that will find its expression in the annual report or a supplementary.

Mr MARSHALL: Yes, but the question was whether or not there was an investigation underway, not whether or not it had been tabled in an annual report or a supplementary report. Is there an investigation underway by the Auditor-General into the sale of—

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Well, the Auditor-General has already indicated he has an interest in that particular matter and—

Mr MARSHALL: And my question to this committee—

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —that he has taken preliminary steps.

Mr MARSHALL: And my question to this committee is whether there is an investigation underway, not whether or not the Auditor-General has an interest in the topic.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: As I said, that will be a matter that will be contained in the annual report.

Mr MARSHALL: Is the Premier refusing to provide this committee with any indication as to whether or not the Auditor-General is conducting an investigation into the sale of the State Administration Centre assets—

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, I just said—

Mr MARSHALL: —and if he is, can he explain why he is so sensitive about this particular transaction?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I just said to you that it will be contained in the annual report.

Mr MARSHALL: My question is whether or not the Auditor-General is conducting an investigation.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Well, you will find out in the annual report.

Mr MARSHALL: In September, the Auditor-General advised that cabinet had approved a policy that information on cabinet decision-making, including cabinet submissions and notes and comments, would not be provided to the investigating agencies. Since the government has adopted this new position, has the Auditor-General sought any exceptions to assist in any investigations that are underway?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Not that I am aware of. It is not a new position: it is the consistent position. I think what happened, as a matter of practice, is that cabinet documents were handed over I think, frankly, because it was easier and flexible. Cabinet documents often represent a summary of a lot of things that had happened before, and so they were a relatively convenient and orderly way of being able to get access to information.

They suffer from the other difficulty in that they reveal cabinet deliberations, and that undermines, essentially, cabinet government. This is not a practice that occurs anywhere around the nation or at the commonwealth level. Frankly, I do not think it is anything that your side of politics would engage in if they were in government either because it essentially undermines cabinet government.

You only need to think that through for a moment to realise that if we start handing over cabinet documents, which are only part of the cabinet deliberation—the other part of cabinet deliberation is actually what is said in cabinet. Because there is no record of what is being said in cabinet, the only way then would be to speak to individual cabinet ministers. The only way then of getting to the bottom of what was said is for different perspectives to be revealed about what was deliberated upon in cabinet. Then, essentially, you would lose the whole point of cabinet confidentiality, which is the sharing of information in a confidential setting, which permits collective decision-making.

There are some sound reasons why the Westminster system of cabinet government protects cabinet confidentially, even though, obviously, some of the documents are neither here nor there and do provide a useful summary. I think that is what had happened in the past—a practice had emerged, probably without anybody ever really deciding it, so we just essentially tightened up on the practice.

Mr MARSHALL: Nevertheless, my question was whether or not the Auditor-General had sought any exemption.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I am not aware of any request.

Mr MARSHALL: In February, the Auditor-General told the Budget and Finance Committee that there was uncertainty in some agencies with regard to the application of the policy. My question is: were those uncertainties subsequently resolved so that the Auditor-General was able to have access to the information sought by his office?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Sorry, can you repeat that?

Mr MARSHALL: Essentially, the Auditor-General told the Budget and Finance Committee that there was uncertainty regarding the application of the policy, and in fact at the time it was suggested that the Department of the Premier and Cabinet would establish a protocol to deal with circumstances with regard to the access of cabinet documents. Was that ever completed?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The general position is that cabinet documents are confidential and that access to them is not appropriate. There are some documents that are brought into cabinet that have had their generation outside of cabinet and so they might be documents which find their way to cabinet but which are not cabinet documents for the purposes of the protection. They certainly would be available for consideration by the Auditor-General.

Mr MARSHALL: The question was really whether or not the protocol, as indicated by the Auditor-General, has been established by the CEO of your department.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I will take that on notice. I am not aware of any particular protocol that—

Mr MARSHALL: The Auditor-General further told the Budget and Finance Committee that there was a need to have a second protocol put in place to deal specifically with circumstances in which his office needed to see cabinet submissions. Has that protocol been put in place?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I will take some advice on that.

Mr MARSHALL: The Auditor-General also told the Budget and Finance Committee in February that his office was doing some work on the use of coercive powers. Can you update this committee on that work that has been undertaken by the Auditor-General?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The Auditor-General has the power, under existing legislation, to do that and has prepared policies and processes for the mechanism by which they would do that and use those, if those powers were to be utilised.

Mr MARSHALL: What form do they take? Is that a new protocol that the Auditor-General now has on coercive powers?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The actual document and protocol that exists has been in place for some time, so it does exist.

Mr MARSHALL: Nevertheless, the Auditor-General spoke to the Budget and Finance Committee in February. He said that he was going to seek Crown law advice to clarify his coercive powers. I am wondering whether that advice has been sought, what was the nature of that advice and whether that advice has been put into a new documented protocol and, if so, can we see it?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We do not share legal advice, but I can say that, consistent with that advice, advice has been sought.

Mr MARSHALL: So advice was sought and has been received by the government?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It was sought by the Auditor-General and it was received by the Auditor-General.

Mr MARSHALL: Has that updated his protocol with regard to his coercive powers and, if so—

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes, it has assisted him to update his policies in relation to this matter.

Mr MARSHALL: Can the Premier indicate to this committee what the changes have been?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It does not amount to a change in the policy. It was really advice to avoid doubt about the application of the policy. It has confirmed that the policy is consistent and robust.

Mr MARSHALL: So there were no changes?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No.

Mr MARSHALL: Is the Auditor-General satisfied now that he has particular clarity with regard to this issue? He certainly was not indicating that he had clarity in February of this year.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes.

Mr MARSHALL: What were the areas he had uncertainty about in February that have now been clarified?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We are not going to go into that because that would traverse the legal advice. Suffice to say that he has coercive powers, he has a policy about how to exercise them and that policy is robust and gives him the capacity to use those powers if he sees fit.

Mr MARSHALL: Just for clarity, has that understanding been documented and is that document available?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes, it is.

Mr MARSHALL: Will you be able to table that to this committee?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I do not know whether we have a formal process for tabling it.

The CHAIR: It has to be statistical only and one page.

Mr MARSHALL: Can the Premier take on notice to provide that documentation to—

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I am here to answer questions, but if it is available it can be made—

Mr MARSHALL: I am just asking about the nature of the—

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: If it is a public document and it is appropriate to made available, it will be made available in the ordinary course.

Mr MARSHALL: If we can only ask through this committee, I would ask that you tell us what is in that document. If you do not wish to provide it to the committee or to the opposition—

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I will take the question on notice because I do not have it in front of me.

Mr MARSHALL: I have no other questions for the Auditor-General. A question to the Premier is: can he provide advice to this committee as to whether or not the Auditor-General has used those coercive powers and in what circumstances?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No.

Mr MARSHALL: Thank you. I have no further questions.

The CHAIR: We can close estimates for payments for the Auditor-General's Department. They are completed and I thank the witnesses for their time. Can I confirm that there are no questions on the Legislative Council, the House of Assembly, the Joint Parliamentary Service Committee or administered items of Joint Parliamentary Service Committee?

Mr MARSHALL: There are no questions.

The CHAIR: There being no questions for those lines, I declare the examination closed.

Departmental Advisers:

Dr D. Russell, Chief Executive, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

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

Dr T. Donaghy, Deputy Chief Executive, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Dr P. Heithersay, Deputy Chief Executive, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Mr J. Schell, Chief Operating Officer, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Ms J. Parkinson, Executive Director, Economic Development Board.

Mr D. Romeo, Chief of Staff, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Perhaps I could make my opening statement now while the Leader of the Opposition is working out what he wants to ask. In the past year, in my capacity as Premier, and especially with the assistance of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, I have continued to make efforts to pursue this overarching ambition for South Australia—to make it the place where people and business thrive. This work has been principally carried out through the lens of the South Australian 10 economic priorities, which have been in place for almost three years now.

We are supporting the industries of today and creating the jobs of tomorrow as evidenced through the budget, which sets out a number of new measures which pursue these issues. What we are trying to do is shape our destiny in a time of rapid change and uncertainty—a period characterised by extraordinary challenges but also enormous promise.

We are also continuing a theme which has emerged over the course of the life of this government, which is standing up for South Australia at every opportunity. Just as we did in the past with the River Murray, we are having to continue to do that as we have seen the revelations on Monday night through the Four Corners program about New South Wales inappropriately taking water that was due for the environment.

I would like to inform the committee this morning that I have written to the Prime Minister, urging him to establish a federal judicial inquiry to assess the allegations made in that program. The claims that New South Wales irrigators and senior officials from the state's Department of Primary Industries are involved in undermining the Murray-Darling Basin Plan are deeply concerning to me, to my government and to the people of South Australia.

Although we have been working in good faith with other governments on the basin plan, we have long held suspicions about the level of commitment by New South Wales to comply with the plan. In my letter to the Prime Minister, I say that such allegations demand rigorous, immediate and independent investigation, not merely a superficial and insufficient crosscheck, which is what the New South Wales government intends to do.

As a result, I am calling for an urgent meeting of COAG so that we can commission the judicial inquiry and consider terms of reference that will then make recommendations about a new national regime for compliance and enforcement of the basin plan. Later today, I will be publishing draft terms of reference for such a judicial inquiry.

When it comes to making South Australia a place that thrives, a key point I wish to emphasise is that we are already getting results. In the past few weeks alone, we have seen a number of very positive developments. Of course, on 5 July we saw Whyalla receive the welcome news that steel will continue to be part of that city's future, following the signing of a binding agreement between Arrium and the Liberty Group.

On 7 July, we announced that the world's biggest lithium ion battery will be built near Jamestown, following an historic agreement between Neoen, Elon Musk's Tesla and the South Australian government. The Tesla announcement followed an earlier one by AGL that it will build a power plant here, replacing their ageing Torrens Island power station. It demonstrates that the $550 million energy plan—'South Australian power for South Australians'—is working.

In recent days, we have seen further evidence that the state economy is performing extremely well despite the negativity we see in some quarters. We have now experienced 21 consecutive months of growth in jobs with 17,000 more people employed, 9,800 of them in full-time work over that period.

CommSec's State of the States quarterly report released on Monday shows that we top the nation in business investment. It says business investment on plant and equipment in South Australia increased by 19.3 per cent compared with the previous year. This was more than any other state and territory. South Australia also ranked highest when states were each compared to their average performance over the 10-year period.

Today, we see the Deloitte's Investment Monitor report, which shows that South Australia has the largest increase in investment, in both public and private sectors, of any state or territory over the last 12 months. The CommSec and Deloitte reports followed the release of the latest NAB Monthly Business Survey, which revealed business confidence improved following the announcement in the state budget of the major bank levy.

These pieces of business intelligence published by two major banks—the same banks participating in a major advertising campaign directed against South Australian is intriguing—directly contradict the continuing claims of banks that investment and confidence would be damaged or diminished by the levy. We have also seen today the confirmation by SkyCity of the building of a luxury hotel on their Casino site—so no deterrence of investment decisions made by the public and private sectors.

Despite recent good news, the government is under no illusion about the scale and complexity of the task involved in transitioning from the old to the new economy and, although our headline unemployment rate fell by 0.3 per cent of a percentage point in June, it remains too high at 6.6 per cent, especially considered in the context of the 20 October closure of Holden still needing to be absorbed.

In this environment, we need to keep pressing ahead with the measures designed to create jobs in this state. The principal means of doing this will be the $200 million Future Jobs Fund, which is the centrepiece of our 22June budget. It focuses on five areas: shipbuilding and defence; renewable energy and mining; tourism, food and wine; health and medical research; and IT and advanced manufacturing.

In other initiatives, we are providing extra funds so that Investment Attraction South Australia can build on its achievements of the past year. Since it was established in 2015, the agency has secured 16 major investments, including by big companies like Boeing and Inghams, which are expected to create 5,600 jobs and more than $1.1 billion in investment. We are expanding our highly successful Job Accelerator Grant Scheme so that firms hiring apprentices or trainees receive an extra $5,000 on top of the $10,000 already available.

In other areas, the government is putting $44 million towards construction of the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI) 2, an institution that will work on proton therapy to treat cancer and become part of the biomedical precinct; $11.4 million will be made available to the ageing well sector, which has a huge potential and is being explored by the Economic Development Board; and a further $2.9 million to the Gig City program, which will help local companies do business and make international connections through superfast broadband.

Another major area of interest for me and the department is through our ongoing efforts to better engage citizens in the democratic process. We have done this through the very popular country cabinet program, which saw us visit five regions in the past year: Tatiara, Southern Mallee and Karoonda East Murray in September of 2016; Whyalla and Central Outback in November of 2016; Port Pirie, Yorke and Mid North in April of 2017; APY lands in May of 2017; and Kangaroo Island and the Fleurieu Peninsula in June of 2017.

Almost 2,300 people attended country cabinet last financial year. One of the most innovative things the government has done in recent years is to expand its work in the field of participatory budgeting. Fund My Community has been a terrific success, providing citizens with a chance to collectively allocate $1 million in public funds to initiatives that practically improve the lives of isolated, vulnerable or disadvantaged South Australians. This scheme was recognised through a 2017 United Nations public sector award in the category promoting transparency, accountability and integrity in public service.

We have decided to build on the success of that initiative through Fund My Community by introducing in the budget a new Fund My Neighbourhood program. Under this measure, South Australians will now have the power to decide how they wish to improve their streets and suburbs. We have nominated $40 million to be allocated to this important initiative to allow people to have the chance to nominate and vote on local projects. Nobody knows their neighbourhoods better than the citizens themselves and this will allow them to make areas safer, more attractive and more livable.

When it comes to changing our system of government in order to put people at the very centre of our government, few people have been more effective in doing this than those operating the Open State program. Last year's inaugural festival exceeded expectations. The more than 25,000 attendees at the 65-plus community and business events was more than two times the target of 10,000. It generated an economic benefit of $11 million beyond the forecasted $6 million. This year's Open State will run from 28 September to 8 October with six themes: future food, future human, future enterprise, future planet, future cities and future democracy. We have every confidence that it will encourage South Australians to play an even more active role in their day-to-day governance.

I would now like to introduce the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. To my right is Don Russell, Chief Executive, DPC. To my left is Tahnya Donaghy, Deputy Chief Executive, and to her left is Steven Woolhouse, Chief Finance Officer, DPC. Behind me is Daniel Romeo, my Chief of Staff; Julianne Parkinson, Executive Director of the Office of the Economic Development Board; Jason Schell, Chief Operating and Chief Procurement Officer; and Dr Paul Heithersay, Deputy Chief Executive, Mineral Resources and Energy.

Mr MARSHALL: My question relates to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 150. Can the Premier provide the budgeted expenditure of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet for each year of the forward estimates as well as the net cost of those services?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Sorry, can you repeat that question?

Mr MARSHALL: We have the budget for this year, but it is done over the four years. Can we have the breakdown for each of the four years of the projected expenditure and the net cost of the services for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Over the forward estimates?

Mr MARSHALL: Correct.

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

Mr MARSHALL: Thank you very much. Can the Premier explain why the energy portfolio moved into the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and whose decision this was?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It was my decision and it was because of the significance of the public policy initiative associated with the energy plan. Obviously, the energy plan was the single most important public policy issue facing the state. It spanned a number of portfolios, including the portfolios of the environment and the economy in the Department of State Development. Of course, it traversed the mining and energy jurisdictions because it considered the whole question of gas exploration, the availability of gas and the importance of that in the energy plan.

It obviously was a whole-of-government issue. It required my leadership. It was appropriate that it sit within my agency. We also considered that a number of the projects that were supervised by the mining and energy section of government involved very large-scale projects that also required whole-of-government input, such as the Olympic Dam Task Force, which later also considered the Nyrstar upgrade, which also then considered the Arrium question. All these matters required my leadership, and it was convenient that they be located in my agency.

It also provided us with the opportunity to continue continuity through the changes that were happening at the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. As the new head of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Dr Don Russell, was appointed as the Chief Executive of Premier and Cabinet and had been previously responsible for the mining and energy division of government, it was appropriate and convenient for him to continue responsibility for those measures in his new role.

Mr MARSHALL: My next series of questions all relate to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, pages 151, 152 and 153, which deal with the expenditure of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. My question to the Premier is: was any of the spending in the 2016-17 year related to an assessment of options for keeping open the Northern power station?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The Northern power station option to stay open was an illusion because there was never any option offered by Alinta to continue the power station to be open for any defined period of time. In fact, all that was offered was that they would no more guarantee it to stay open than for a period of one month because they were essentially suggesting that it could be closed at a month's notice. That would put us in a ridiculously vulnerable position, especially heading into the summer months. For that reason alone, the option of it continuing was an illusion because there was never any such option offered.

In addition to that, once a capacity payment was made to a player within the market to continue generating, it would have been practically impossible for us to resist a request by another market player for a similar capacity payment. All they would have needed to do was to suggest—for some reason, which they could have confected and it would have been very difficult for us to argue with or to analyse in the lead up to summer—'We will turn up our power station unless we receive a similar capacity payment to continue operating' and, essentially, we would have ourselves over a barrel with a series of private sector players.

The third and probably most powerful reason, which is now known with the benefit of hindsight, is that the Pelican Point power station simply would not be operating if the Alinta power station had somehow been operating. Pelican Point, ENGIE, have told us they would not have opened Pelican Point if Alinta had been operating.

So we have this ridiculous situation, where we would be paying taxpayers dollars in a capacity payment to a coal-fired power station, which was running out of coal and destined to fall over at some point, which would have excluded one of the newest gas-fired generators that was sitting there, mothballed from being operated, from actually operating in this market.

We now know, with the decision by AGL to upgrade their Torrens Island power station, to rebuild a new power station on that site to essentially replace that gas capacity, that we made the correct decision. This is just another example of the Liberal opposition being addicted to the policies of the past, to the coal industry. This is entirely predictable policymaking, where the federal Liberal Party seems to have captured the state Liberal Party, forcing them to abandon their renewable energy target and getting them to fall in love with the coal industry. We now have an energy plan that is working; it represents the future, and coal is the past.

Mr MARSHALL: Just for clarity, there was no expenditure on evaluating that option in the 2016-17 year, as per my question?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes, there was expenditure.

Mr MARSHALL: The question was: how much was that expenditure?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Each year, there is a budget allocation for our energy agencies. Our energy agencies provide advice to the government about appropriate steps that should be taken on any public policy options. Consistent with their base allocation of resources, they provided that advice, so of course there was expenditure.

Mr MARSHALL: On that same page it says that there was unbudgeted expenditure of $828,000 in the 2016-17 year to support the energy function. Can the Premier provide any details to this committee as to what that massive increase was? The budget, as you will see on page 151, was just $346,000. The estimated result in that year was $1.174 million. Can the Premier provide an explanation for that unbudgeted expenditure?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Which line are we talking about?

Mr MARSHALL: We are talking about the energy investing—

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Page?

Mr MARSHALL: Page 151, in the middle, under Annual Programs—Energy, the budget for 2016-17 was $346,000. You ended up spending $1.174 million. Can you provide an explanation for that under budget expenditure or take that on notice?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes, I think that is squarely within estimates covered by the Minister for Energy, so I would invite you to ask that question of him; he is more likely to be able to give you an answer. If I take it, I will have to take it on notice.

Mr MARSHALL: How much was Frontier Economics paid to provide the report, 'Assessment of SA energy reform package', which was an appendix to the energy plan document?

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

Mr MARSHALL: Was Frontier Economics paid a daily rate for its work and, if so, what was it?

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

Mr MARSHALL: Were any further payments made to Frontier Economics in 2016-17 and, if so, what were they and for what purposes?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Of course, this is the same Frontier Economics that advised the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, when he stood up together with Danny Price to promote the emissions intensity scheme, so he is a very well-credentialed energy adviser, but I am more than happy to take those questions on notice and bring back an answer.

Mr MARSHALL: Is Frontier Economics still providing advice to the government on its energy plan and, if so, what is the nature of the government's contractual arrangements with Frontier Economics and what fees are being paid as a result?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes, Mr Price continues through Frontier Economics to provide advice to the government in relation to the energy plan, but we will bring back a response to those detailed questions.

Mr MARSHALL: In regard to the diesel generators, the 200 megawatts of short-term emergency generation contained within the energy plan, when will the location of the generators be announced?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Soon.

Mr MARSHALL: Is that envisaged in the next month, the next two months or—

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Certainly soon. It is envisaged on a time line that will permit us to have our generation capacity in place, the 200 megawatts capacity in place by 1 December. That is the objective, and so obviously to meet that we will have to make those announcements soon.

Mr MARSHALL: What form of environmental assessments will be undertaken in relation to the selection of those locations and have those applications been made?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The EPA will obviously undertake appropriate assessments for those locations to ensure that they are appropriate and the appropriate measures are in place to protect people and the environment.

Mr MARSHALL: Have submissions to the EPA been made at this stage?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We will be able to reveal more about that very soon. Obviously, the time line for developing this is upon us, so we will be saying more about that quite soon.

Mr MARSHALL: Has any assessment been made of the estimated emissions of the diesel generators?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: They are not necessarily diesel. The exploration is the potential for a hybrid energy.

Mr MARSHALL: I think that we have had clarification earlier this week that they will only be diesel, so perhaps you could—

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Well, no, we are exploring a hybrid generation capacity.

Mr MARSHALL: Are you suggesting that the Under Treasurer was wrong with his advice to the Budget and Finance Committee on Monday?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, it is consistent with the advice that they have the capacity to run on both those fuels. You were calling them diesel generators: they are simply not. We are pursuing a hybrid generation option.

Mr MARSHALL: Is the Premier suggesting that the hybrid generation model will be in place for this summer?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: What I am suggesting is that we are seeking to procure hybrid generation capacity.

Mr MARSHALL: But the Under Treasurer confirmed to Budget and Finance that—

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I know what the Under Treasurer said and it is—

Mr MARSHALL: What did he say then Premier?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is consistent with what I am saying.

Mr MARSHALL: If you are aware of what he said, can you perhaps give an indication to this committee as to what he said on Monday?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, I am telling you that what I have said is consistent with what he has said.

Mr MARSHALL: There is a finite supply of diesel imported and stored here in South Australia. Has the government modelled whether there are going to be any price impacts for diesel while these generators are in use?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We intend to bring in the extra generation to make sure there is no shortfall in generation capacity during the next few summers. That is the point of the temporary arrangements. We have also indicated a budgeted amount, which we are obviously seeking to achieve, and that includes the fuels associated with the running of these particular generators. What we are talking about is the running of generators for a relatively short period of time in circumstances where there might be some shortfall of peak demand. Obviously, they are not going to be used on a regular basis.

Mr MARSHALL: How many days would you predict that they would be in use for?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We do not know. We only have AEMO's estimates of their predicted shortfall, which are worst case scenarios based on the weather being a particular configuration and the supply being a particular configuration. Those estimates were made before any other supply or demand responses were put in place, but it is prudent for us to have the additional 200 megawatts of generation.

Mr MARSHALL: How many days did you use to budget the expenditure that you have allocated to this project?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We will bring back an answer to you, but the fuel cost is a relatively insignificant proportion of the total costs of the provision of the temporary generation.

Mr MARSHALL: Has the renewable technology fund been established and, if so, who is administering it?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Sorry?

Mr MARSHALL: As part of your energy plan, you stated that there will be a $150 million commitment to a renewable energy fund.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The actual administration of the grant will be within the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, but we are receiving some advice, in an advisory sense, from Lew Owens, who has been appointed to consider some of the unsolicited bids that have been made to that fund.

Mr MARSHALL: What is the cost of administering this fund as contained in the budget?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The Low Carbon Economy Unit within DPC forms part of the establishment funding for the department, so it is embedded within the departmental funding figures. I do not know whether it can be separated out in that fashion. There might be some small fee paid to Mr Owens.

Mr MARSHALL: So this will be administered by the low carbon unit.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes.

Mr MARSHALL: Can you tell us how many FTEs are employed within that unit?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I will have to take that on notice, or you could ask it again at the Minister for Energy's estimates.

Mr MARSHALL: Whilst you are taking that on notice, perhaps you could also tell us what the spending of the unit was in 2016-17 and what is the estimated expenditure this financial year and across the rest of the forward estimates?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Once again, we could take that on notice, or you could ask it again to the Minister for Energy later this afternoon.

Mr MARSHALL: It was contained in your department, that is all. Going back to the renewable energy fund, how much of the $75 million in grants to be available from the fund has been made already and to whom?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The only allocation at this point has been the Tesla-Neoen battery. It is the first draw on the fund in terms of its being notionally committed. I would have to take on notice whether there has been any particular expenditure, but certainly that is the first commitment that has been made to the fund.

Mr MARSHALL: Just for clarity, is that out of the $75 million in grants or the $75 million in loans?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: That would be a grant.

Mr MARSHALL: Can you tell this committee whether or not there have been any commitments to loans as part of that renewable energy fund to date?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No.

Mr MARSHALL: Can you indicate for how long this renewable energy fund will remain open?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The only commitment that has been made out of it is the 10-year commitment, which has been revealed publicly, of less than $50 million to the fund. At the very least, there is a 10-year commitment from the fund for that purpose.

Mr MARSHALL: This is 10 years: $75 million in grants and $75 million in loans over a 10-year period of which, to date, there has been no money expended and only a commitment for a grant only to Tesla.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes.

Mr MARSHALL: Are you prepared to indicate what that value of commitment to Tesla is?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think publicly it has already been revealed; it is less than $50 million over that 10-year period.

Mr MARSHALL: Thank you very much. Has the government completed the tendering of 75 per cent of its electricity needs over the next 10 years?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, not yet.

Mr MARSHALL: When is it envisaged that that will be concluded?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Soon. That also is being actively pursued, and we are well advanced in those discussions.

Mr MARSHALL: Can the Premier indicate what new level of generation capacity is likely to be delivered from that new contract?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, not yet; not until those negotiations have been concluded.

Mr MARSHALL: Can the Premier provide an explanation as to what the reason for the delay on the evaluation of those tenders is?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is a very complex process. We have had an extraordinary amount of interest. Very different and unique propositions have been advanced to us—new technologies that need to be evaluated, complex evaluation of the value-for-money proposition to taxpayers. All of those things take time to make sure we get the very best deal for our procurement.

Mr MARSHALL: Just going back to the $75 million commitment to Tesla, can the Premier indicate over what period of time that grant will be made? Will it be made in equal instalments over a 10-year period or a lump sum up-front?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: There is no commitment of $75 million.

Mr MARSHALL: Sorry, $50 million.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I had mentioned it will be less than $50 million, and it is a series of increments.

Mr MARSHALL: Can the Premier provide that detail to the committee at this stage?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is commercial-in-confidence at the moment.

Mr MARSHALL: The timing, because the value is public, but just the timing is commercial-in-confidence.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is over a 10-year period. It is not a lump sum.

Mr MARSHALL: It is not a lump sum. But no further detail can be provided because that detail is commercial-in-confidence.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes, I am advised.

Mr MARSHALL: Has the government finalised tendering of the remaining 25 per cent of its electricity load to support dispatchable renewable energy initiatives?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, that is all caught up in the procurement for all of our electricity needs. So, the 75 per cent and 25 per cent are being dealt with simultaneously.

Mr MARSHALL: But can the Premier provide any explanation as to the reason for the delay, considering this initiative is meant to kick in and be in place and operational on 1 January next year?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, there is no delay. It has to be concluded such that we have arrangements in place by 1 January and it will be concluded so that we have arrangements in place by 1 January.

Mr MARSHALL: So, the contract will be in place but the provision of the energy will not be in place. Is that a variation on the—

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, the provision of the energy will be in place by 1 January.

Mr MARSHALL: So, the Premier fully envisages to conclude all the negotiations on both of the contracts and have the new generation capacity installed in South Australia and operational in the next five months.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Contractual arrangements will be in place that permit us to have our energy needs met by 1 January.

Mr MARSHALL: Just for clarity, the only thing that is going to be in place—because this is a variation—by 1 January next year is the contract, not the actual—

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, somebody is going to have to provide us with electricity, of course.

Mr MARSHALL: So the generation will be in place by 1 January.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, of course not. How on earth could you build new generation capacity—

Mr MARSHALL: This is the point.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: New generation capacity was never going to be in place by 1 January.

Mr MARSHALL: Well, in fact, that is not correct. You have made statements on many occasions that there will be new generation capacity in place in South Australia by this Christmas.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, I have not.

Mr MARSHALL: When would you envisage this new generation—

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: What the Liberal opposition consistently does is to misrepresent the remarks that I make.

Mr MARSHALL: Here is your opportunity to clarify. When will that new generation capacity that is envisaged in the two new state-based energy contracts be in place in South Australia? Clarify it for the world right now. Hopefully, it is a bit more accurate than your previous statements on when the new gas-fired peaking plant would be in place, because you said that would be in place by this Christmas—

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, I never said that.

Mr MARSHALL: —and we have been told by the Under Treasurer that it is more likely to be in 2020.

The CHAIR: Order! Let us have an answer.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: You just keep misrepresenting the position.

Mr MARSHALL: Clarify it then.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: What I have consistently said about the gas plant is that there were some estimates that it could be in place by Christmas and that we thought that that was unlikely and that the better view was that it would be 18 months. You will see when that is revealed what we have actually achieved there. That is the first inaccuracy.

In relation to the second inaccuracy, obviously from 1 January we need to have a new set of arrangements about the provision of power for South Australia for our own energy needs and those arrangements will be in place by 1 January. As for any new generation that will be procured as a consequence of that, of course it has to be built. It was never going to be built by 1 January.

Mr MARSHALL: In what time frame do you think that would be rolled out?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: You will find that out soon, when we reveal the outcome of the negotiations.

Mr MARSHALL: Going back to the $50 million commitment that has been made to Tesla, previous comments by the Premier have indicated that it is up to $50 million, but is he clarifying to this estimates committee today that it is actually $50 million?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No.

Mr MARSHALL: What value is it?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I am advised that that is a matter of commercial-in-confidence, but it is less than $50 million.

Mr MARSHALL: In the 2016-17 state budget, you provided $500,000 towards a feasibility study to explore options for greater energy interconnection with the Eastern States. Has the feasibility study been completed, as promised?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Sorry, could you repeat that?

Mr MARSHALL: In the 2016-17 budget, you had a budgeted amount of $500,000 towards a feasibility study for interconnection. That was over a year ago. Can you provide an indication to the committee as to whether this work was completed, as promised?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think they are still working on it. We have committed $500,000. ElectraNet is doing the work on the interconnector and I understand they are part way through the process. I do not think the work has been completed and we are not sure whether we have handed over our $500,000 yet. We will get some clarity on that. That is something you might want to ask the Minister for Energy, or I can take it on notice.

Mr MARSHALL: When would you envisage that that work would be completed?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We do not know. It is not a material part of our energy plan.

Mr MARSHALL: Why have you spent $500,000 on it? It was a material part of the plan a year ago.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is an important part of the medium-term and, indeed, the long-term future for South Australia because of our abundant renewable energy resources.

The CHAIR: Do you want the Premier to take that on notice?

Mr MARSHALL: Yes, please. Has ESCOSA completed its investigation on how electricity companies can improve power reliability on Eyre Peninsula and, if so, what are the outcomes?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think you are going to have to leave that for the Minister for Energy to answer.

Mr MARSHALL: Perhaps we could move on to energy plan advertising because that certainly comes under your area of responsibility. On what date did the Premier's Communication Advisory Group (PCAG) give its approval to the communication strategy implemented in March of this year?

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

Mr MARSHALL: Will the Premier make public the following documents required to support a submission to the PCAG for approval and implementation of the energy plan, and in particular a written communications plan, any comments or recommended changes to the communications plan by PCAG and a campaign evaluation report?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I will take advice about whether it is appropriate to reveal those. Certainly, if it is, I will make them available.

Mr MARSHALL: But the Premier can confirm to this committee that, indeed, there was a submission for approval to the PCAG before any expenditure was made on the energy advertising expenditure in March of this year?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I assume it was, but I will check on that and give you an answer.

Mr MARSHALL: Who prepared the communications plan and other documentation for the PCAG?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I presume officers prepared it, from my—

Mr MARSHALL: Officers from the Department of the Premier and Cabinet?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes.

Mr MARSHALL: Who were the members of the PCAG who considered the communications plan?

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

Mr MARSHALL: Is the Premier indicating he does not know who was on the PCAG?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I do not know all the names of the people on it, but I am happy to supply the names.

Mr MARSHALL: How many people are on the committee?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I am not certain.

Mr MARSHALL: Why, in this case, was the 2015 recommendation of the Auditor-General not followed, that:

…approval and evaluation of DPC developed campaigns is convened by a marketing expert who is independent of DPC

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I am not sure that it was not. Once again I will take that—

Mr MARSHALL: I am sorry, I thought you were indicating that the PCAG did the approval.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It had the input of expert advice and certainly would have had that input in relation to its work, but I will take that on notice.

Mr MARSHALL: Can the Premier indicate to this committee who his two delegates on the PCAG are?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Chris Burford and Brent Hill.

Mr MARSHALL: Thank you. Can the Premier provide some information to the committee and indicate whether or not there was a further supplementary request for advertising expenditure made after the initial March 2017 advertising expenditure. It seems to be in two tranches. We heard about the almost $600,000 initially, and now a further $2 million is envisaged. Has a separate application been made, as per the requirements of the PCAG?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I do not know whether there have been two separate propositions. I think questions are being asked about what the expenditure was up until a point and then expenditure after a particular point in time. Obviously, the plan is still being rolled out, and as elements of it become established then they will form part of a communication strategy. I think it is all envisaged to be part of a single plan, but I will take that on notice and bring back an answer.

Mr MARSHALL: So the Premier is confirming that only one application was made, and that was for the initial expenditure made in March 2017, and no subsequent application was made in line with the process of the PCAG?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I will have to get back to you and respond to that. I will take that on notice.

Mr MARSHALL: Can the Premier indicate whether the PCAG recommended any changes to the communication plan that was presented to it?

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

Mr MARSHALL: Was any market research undertaken to support the communications plans presented to the PCAG and, if so, can the Premier indicate who undertook that research and when?

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

Mr MARSHALL: Which advertising agency is executing the communications plan?

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

Mr MARSHALL: Can the Premier indicate whether the agency that has been engaged for this has undertaken any paid work for the Australian Labor Party?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Not to my understanding, but I will find out whether the advertising agency has.

Mr MARSHALL: Can the Premier indicate whether all of the $2 million allocated to the communications strategy in the 2017-18 year is intended to be spent before the commencement of the caretaker period for the 2018 election?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I am not certain. I presume that it will be but, once again, I will bring back an answer on that.

Mr MARSHALL: Can the Premier provide any explanation to this committee as to why his personal image and voice have been included in the energy plan advertising when the Auditor-General recommended expressly in 2015 the extension of restrictions on the use of image or voice of a politician from publicly funded advertising to all forms of government marketing communications?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think, given the nature of the issue that we are talking about here, which is the future security of our energy for the state, it was appropriate that the Premier of the state make public remarks reassuring people about each of the measures contained in the plan, and encouraging them to participate in the plan, to the extent that that was part of the communication strategy. I do not know whether those opposite have fully appreciated the extent to which they, in collusion with a series of other interests, have damaged the confidence and standing of South Australia in the eyes of both the nation and, indeed, amongst its own business community.

We have people making investment decisions every day in this state. We have businesses making their own investment decisions every day in this state, and they need to be confident that they can have a secure energy supply. They need to hear the leader of this state warranting that so that they can make those investment decisions. So, this is an entirely appropriate matter in the state's interests for the state government to make authoritative statements about, warranting the future of its energy security, and doing that in terms that are persuasive and clear.

Mr MARSHALL: What was the total expenditure on advertising by all government agencies via the Master Media Agency contract during the 2016-17 year?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I will bring back an answer on that, but the overwhelming majority of that expenditure was through the Motor Accident Commission, health, community services, police and those sorts of matters. I will bring back an answer.

Mr MARSHALL: In doing so, can the Premier tell us what the top 10 government advertising campaigns by media expenditure were in 2016-17 and also what the top three Department of the Premier and Cabinet advertising campaigns were for the 2016-17 year?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes, certainly, I will take that on notice.

Mr MARSHALL: What is the cost of the advertising campaign being undertaken to promote the 2017-18 year budget?

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

Mr MARSHALL: Is it proposed to undertake any paid advertising associated with the opening of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital and, if so, at what cost?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes, I think there will be. Once again, I think it would be appropriate to direct that to the Minister for Health.

Mr MARSHALL: What will be the cost?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I do not have that, but I will take that on notice.

Mr MARSHALL: Did the company 57 Films undertake any work commissioned by the department in 2016-17 and, if so, what was the work commissioned and what was the cost?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: During the last 12 months, they have been engaged as part of our activities in China to increase Chinese visitation. I think in March 2016 they were successful in a procurement process to support our 30^th anniversary with sister state Shandong.

Their contractual arrangement, which predates this financial year, included things that occurred within this financial year. We entered into a sponsorship agreement to support the production of the second series of the Chef Exchange television program. The total contract value for the 30^th anniversary celebrations was $177,000-odd, and expenditure in 2016-17 was $70,000.

Mr MARSHALL: Is there anything in the budget for the current financial year?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I have no advice that there is, but I will have to take that on notice. There is no specific item for the 2017-18 budget for 57 Films, but that is not say that they might not be successful in a procurement for the provision of services within our usual budgeted amount. There is nothing that comes to mind at the moment as any stand-alone or specific project that we are aware they are engaged in.

Mr MARSHALL: On 6 February of this year, the Premier announced that Mr Kym Winter-Dewhirst was stepping down as CEO of the Premier's department. What was Mr Winter-Dewhirst's annual remuneration at the time he stepped down?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It was $550,000, incorporating salary and superannuation arrangements.

Mr MARSHALL: Did Mr Winter-Dewhirst receive any termination payment over and above his statutory entitlements?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: He was entitled to receive three months' pay in lieu of notice, as per the resignation clause in his chief executive contract, so beyond that, no.

Mr MARSHALL: The government did not ask him to serve out his notice period?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Obviously, we needed to have continuing support and Dr Russell immediately stepped into the role. He did provide continuing advice and support in the nature of a handover during that period and was also, at the same time, supporting his wife through her illness, which was the cause of his decision to resign.

Mr MARSHALL: Nevertheless, the Premier is clarifying that Mr Kym Winter-Dewhirst resigned, he wanted to leave straightaway, but the government saw fit to make a three-month payment to him, despite it being his decision to leave?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, he gave notice of his decision.

Mr MARSHALL: If he gave notice, why did the Premier not accept that notice period and have Mr Winter-Dewhirst work—

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Because we also needed his assistance in relation to the handover to the new chief executive. It was a very sudden matter, obviously, and Dr Russell had not previously been contemplated as being the new chief executive of DPC. We needed a seamless handover, and there was an interaction between Mr Winter-Dewhirst and Dr Russell.

Mr MARSHALL: Was that handover full time?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, because he was also engaged in caring for his wife. We made that accommodation. We thought that was appropriate in the circumstances.

Mr MARSHALL: So Mr Winter-Dewhirst has been succeeded by Dr Don Russell. What was Dr Russell's remuneration at the time he transferred from the Department of State Development to this new role?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Sorry, what was his remuneration in the new role?

Mr MARSHALL: Before he transferred to the new role.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The previous role. I will take that on notice.

Mr MARSHALL: What is Dr Russell's current remuneration?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is the same as Mr Winter-Dewhirst's remuneration.

Mr MARSHALL: Does Dr Russell still commute to Adelaide on a weekly basis from Sydney?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Except where there are responsibilities for him to perform on the weekend.

Mr MARSHALL: I have some questions to ask with regard to Brand SA. There was additional unbudgeted funding of $500,000 for Brand SA in the 2016-17 year. What was the purpose of this funding?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I will have to take that on notice, but obviously Brand SA is about promotion of the state, so no doubt it is about distributing positive stories, both inside and outside South Australia, about South Australia. It also runs an I Choose SA campaign, which is managed by the Department of Treasury and Finance, so those are matters that could be directed to the Treasurer.

Mr MARSHALL: The Department of the Premier and Cabinet told the Budget and Finance Committee last September that the 2016-17 funding allocation for Brand SA was $1.079 million. Does this mean that Brand SA ultimately received $1.6 million last financial year?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: My advice is that the total expenditure of Brand SA in 2016-17 was $1.369 million.

Mr MARSHALL: How do we come up with the $500,000 of unbudgeted funding that was provided to them given that the original budget for that line was $1.079 million?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: More was budgeted than was spent, essentially. That accounts for the difference.

Mr MARSHALL: Sorry?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: More was budgeted than was spent. You had the $1.5-odd million that you were talking about, but the actual expenditure was $1.369 million.

Mr MARSHALL: As the government's 12-month funding agreement with Brand SA expired in June of this year, is a new agreement in place and, if so, can the Premier indicate to this committee what the new value of that agreement is?

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

Mr MARSHALL: In doing so, can the Premier also indicate to us what Brand SA applied for, as distinct from what was agreed to?

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

Mr MARSHALL: In relation to trade missions, which is on the next page over, pages 153 and 154, can the Premier advise how many outbound and inbound missions are to be supported in 2017-18 and what are the destinations of the outbound missions?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: These questions are probably best directed to Mr Hamilton-Smith because the trade missions are principally led by him. If you could direct your questions to him, it might be more informative.

Mr MARSHALL: I would ask one question, as it is documented in your area. It states on page 153 that income of $3 million is expected from support for trade missions and other international engagement activities in 2017-18. What is the nature of this income?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think it is just a bit of accounting. DSD gets the budget allocation and we have to invoice DSD, so the money comes into our agency through that mechanism. That is the income. It is essentially a transfer between government agencies.

Mr MARSHALL: I have some questions on the relationship with the Northern Territory. On the same budget paper, Volume 3, page 154, it was announced in 2016 by the Premier that both jurisdictions had agreed to a pilot program to exchange public servants to share knowledge and expertise. How many such exchanges have occurred?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I am not certain, but I certainly met some public servants, when I was up there, in the tourism sector who had been exchanged, and it was very beneficial. I will bring back an answer on the precise number of people who were involved in that.

Mr MARSHALL: It was also announced last year that the South Australian and Northern Territory governments would establish a shared cross-border police team in Alice Springs to tackle issues such as illicit drugs, transit routes, road safety and alcohol, family and domestic violence. Has this team been established and, if so, how many South Australian police are participating?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Certainly we launched such a team when we were in Alice Springs, when I was there recently with the Chief Minister. I know it has been established, but I will take that on notice and bring back the answers to your questions.

Mr MARSHALL: You also indicated that task forces would be established to develop a range of remote services to boost tourism, arts and cultural opportunities. Have these task forces been established and, if not, when will they be?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes, I think they have been established, but I will bring the precise details to you.

Mr MARSHALL: And camel farming?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Camels, did you say?

Mr MARSHALL: Yes, that was one of your other—

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes, we—

Mr MARSHALL: We were going to have a camel farming-led recovery in Central Australia.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes, it could be a fleet initiative.

Mr MARSHALL: Why not? Have you made any progress?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: On camel farming? I will take that on notice. They are very fuel efficient.

Mr MARSHALL: So I hear.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: There are emissions.

Mr MARSHALL: They might be the new cabinet fleet. We will stick with the Holdens; you can move straight on to the camels. I think it would be another point of differentiation with other states in Australia. In 2015, South Australia and the Northern Territory signed an MOU for the establishment of what Premier described as 'a central Australian mining and energy province...to simplify regulation...grow the mining services sector and attract foreign investment'. What benefits has South Australia received from this MOU?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The two principal areas of cooperation at the moment are sharing data concerning the Musgrave Ranges, for the mineral prospectivity there, and also jointly exploring the opportunities for infrastructure that might travel between the Northern Territory and South Australia—open up our gas fields. There is a real opportunity for gas to be allocated through Moomba and distributed out to various export facilities.

At the moment, the Northern Territory is sending out some of their petroleum products through a mechanism, which means that they cannot capture all the resources; whereas, if it goes through Moomba, they have separation facilities that allow them to capture all the constituent elements of the petroleum products. It could add to the viability—it could assist with the viability—of the Santos operations, and that will be beneficial for South Australia.

Mr MARSHALL: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 155, the targets for this current financial year, the dot points. It envisages the establishment of a French presence. Will this involve establishing a South Australian office in Paris to support the work on the submarines project?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes.

Mr MARSHALL: What is the estimated cost and scope of this presence?

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

Mr MARSHALL: Is an officer to be permanently located in Paris?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes, I think it is envisaged to have an officer in Paris.

Mr MARSHALL: Just the one person?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I am not sure of the actual establishment, but it will be essentially supported from the Agent-General's office in London.

Mr MARSHALL: Is there is any truth in the rumour that you are going to stick the Attorney-General over—no, just joking. The Premier told the estimates committee last year that a project director was being recruited for the French Strategy group. Has that appointment now been made?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: What was the first bit?

Mr MARSHALL: You told us here at this committee last year that a project director was being recruited for the French Strategy group. Has that appointment been made? Who is it? Can you give us some details of that appointment?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes, the appointment has been made. His first name is Antoine, which is appropriate—

Mr MARSHALL: Bienvenue.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —but I am sorry, I do not know his second name.

Mr MARSHALL: What is the budget allocation for the French Strategy group for this current financial year, and who heads up that group?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is $2 million dollars.

Mr MARSHALL: Is that still being headed up by Joslene Mazel?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Jos Mazel, yes.

Mr MARSHALL: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 15. With regard to cabinet meetings, it states here that this program supports the organisation of meetings of cabinet and cabinet subcommittees. The 2015-16 annual report of DPC revealed that a budget and performance cabinet committee had been established, with the authority to approve funding requests of up to $10 million per annum and would also be responsible for monitoring that delivery of key commitments projects and achievements of the budget. On how many occasions did this committee meet in 2016-17 and how many funding requests did it approve?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We will have to take that on notice. It meets regularly with numerous funding requests, but I will bring back the answer.

Mr MARSHALL: Will the Premier provide a list of the funding requests approved by that committee?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Sorry, say again?

Mr MARSHALL: Would you be able to provide a list of the requests—

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: That would reveal, essentially, cabinet deliberations, which is something that we do not do.

Mr MARSHALL: Can the Premier indicate who the members of the Budget and Performance Cabinet Committee are?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes, I can. I think it is probably publicly available, but I will bring back the precise membership. Obviously, myself and the Treasurer are, but we will bring up the other members of the committee.

Mr MARSHALL: With regard to cabinet, can the Premier indicate how many country cabinet meetings have been budgeted for this current financial year and what their locations are?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The one we are presently in?

Mr MARSHALL: The current year.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is not the ones we are analysing at the back end?

Mr MARSHALL: You have a budget allocation under that item, page 154, and my question is: how many country cabinet meetings have been budgeted for this current financial year and in what locations?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Sorry, I only have the data for 2016-17 because the estimates are backward looking. I will have to take on notice about whether they have been settled yet.

Mr MARSHALL: Thank you. The current budget makes no reference to the State's Strategic Plan. Last year the Premier told the estimates committee that the next review of the plan would commence in January 2017. What was the outcome of the review?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is presently being finalised, and I expect it to be finalised very soon.

Mr MARSHALL: What is the cost of this review and who is undertaking it?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is internally funded within existing resources.

Mr MARSHALL: When was the last time the State's Strategic Plan was reviewed?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is routinely updated but, in terms of reviewing the targets, it has not been reviewed since these targets were established.

Mr MARSHALL: Could you say that again; I did not hear it.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It depends what you mean by 'reviewed'. It has its targets, and those targets are being pursued. It is reviewed in the sense that it is updated in terms of achievements against those targets regularly on an ongoing basis but, in terms of reviewing whether there should be new or different targets, that has not happened in recent times. The present process is the most substantial review of the actual Strategic Plan, and that is going to be published soon.

Mr MARSHALL: That will be published before the end of the year?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes.

Mr MARSHALL: Do all cabinet submissions still make specific reference to the State's Strategic Plan as required by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet Circular PC024?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: In the course of our cabinet submissions, we have a public value framework that takes into account a whole range of objectives, including the 10 economic priorities and the other policies and processes of the state. So in that context, where relevant, the South Australian Strategic Plan is referenced.

Mr MARSHALL: The Premier promised back in 2013 to establish a future fund. Last year, at this committee, the Premier indicated that this would be done when the budget surplus reached a certain level. Can the Premier advise this committee what that certain level is?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think we published at the time the rules and the mechanism by which the future fund would be triggered. We have not reached that trigger yet.

Mr MARSHALL: What is that trigger?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It was published at the time. It was a certain proportion of the state's expenditure. I do not have it in front of me at the moment, but we have not reached that trigger yet.

Mr MARSHALL: Are we close? Do you envisage that any money will be deposited into that future fund in my lifetime?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes, depending on how long you expect to live.

Mr MARSHALL: I am very healthy and I eat green vegetables every day.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Obviously, the context in which we established that fund was when there were expectations of very substantial royalties that would emerge from mining and other expanding industries in this state. Since then, we have had some very major shocks to the South Australian economy, which has meant that that has been less of an issue.

We have only recently managed to return the budget to surplus. If the trajectory of improvement in the economy continues, we can begin to think about these things again, but they really only become relevant when you have windfall gains from temporary resource opportunities.

For instance, if there were a dramatic uptick in our mineral resources—the sorts of things that we saw in Western Australia in recent decades where they would have benefited from a future fund—it would be appropriate for those proceeds to be allocated to such a fund, but we are not yet at that level. When we reach that trigger point, obviously, consideration of the future fund comes back onto the agenda. We have really been applying it to paying down debt. The surpluses have been applied to that purpose.

Mr MARSHALL: When will you bring the legislation to the parliament to establish that it was promised back in 2015 and then again in 2016?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Once again, it is not urgent because we have not reached the point at which contributions need to be made to such a fund.

Mr MARSHALL: But do people not start to doubt your commitment to it when you do not even have the enabling legislation in place?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think people are pretty sensible about the fact that there are no windfall gains at the moment in terms of the budget, and they would expect us to apply any modest surpluses we have to paying down debt in the first instance. When we do get to the situation where there are very substantial reserves, that is when they would expect us to get busy with the work of putting in place arrangements for a future fund.

Mr MARSHALL: Has the government changed its initial position and now adopted the independent advice of the Under Treasurer, who suggested that debt reduction would be more advantageous than establishing and depositing money into a future fund when high levels of debt remained?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No. We are committed to a future fund for the allocation of resources that emerge from windfall gains in our revenues and we will continue to pursue that objective, it is just that now is not an appropriate time to be advancing that agenda.

Mr MARSHALL: Did the government receive a windfall gain from the winding up of the Motor Accident Commission? Would the Premier consider the $2.7 billion from that winding up a windfall gain?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Essentially, the imperatives at the moment are for investments in public infrastructure. We have been investing proceeds of those asset sales in asset recycling where we invest in new public investments that are about growing the economy and creating jobs now and growing the economy in the future.

You have seen our record investments in infrastructure, road, rail, public infrastructure, school upgrades and hospital upgrades. These are very important investments in the long-term future of our state and we stand by them as being the appropriate investment decisions now because they create jobs and opportunities now.

Mr MARSHALL: I have some questions on the Economic Development Board, Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, pages 161 and 162. Can the Premier provide the budgeted expenditure for the Office of the Economic Development Board in each of the forward estimates, as well as the net cost of those services?

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

Mr MARSHALL: Can the Premier provide a breakdown of the major components of the budgeted expenditure of just over $3 million in the 2017-18 year on the Ageing Well project?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: On the what project?

Mr MARSHALL: Ageing Well.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The Ageing Well project, yes.

Mr MARSHALL: Three million dollars.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I can do that. This has been one of the most exciting projects that the EDB has been engaged in. The Ageing Well International Conference in Adelaide is on schedule to occur on 22 and 23 November. The program is complete and the speakers are being engaged. The marketing collateral is being created and being distributed. Our innovation challenge, the Premier's Ageing Well Innovation Challenge process, has been run and four winners have been selected.

Both the living laboratory network and the creation of an Ageing Well entity were the subject of a successful budget initiative; $11.5 million over four years was announced during the state budget. The Ageing Well budget is allocated over the next four-year period and involves the funding of the Ageing Well entity, the living laboratory network and pilot project funding. They are all the elements of the $11.3 million.

Mr MARSHALL: Is it intended that the Ageing Well project will continue to be administered by the EDB?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes, that is certainly our intention.

Mr MARSHALL: Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 162: under highlights for the 2016-17 year, it states that advice was provided to the government on the impact of utility costs on the competitiveness of South Australia. If that was written advice, can the Premier provide it to the committee?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I have to check whether or not that was prepared for cabinet and whether it is a cabinet document. Subject to that, we will bring back an answer.

Mr MARSHALL: Thank you very much. What advice has the EDB given to the government about the impact of rising electricity prices on the competitiveness of the South Australian economy?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Consistent with what is pretty obvious, like the government, the EDB is concerned about rising utility costs but has also made a range of suggestions and inputs which helped to craft Our Energy Plan, which is directed at reducing energy insecurity, creating affordability and also making sure that we have a clean energy future and the economic opportunities that flow from that. We have certainly been receiving advice from the EDB about those matters, and they support Our Energy Plan.

Mr MARSHALL: In what format has that advice been sought and provided?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: A range of one-on-one briefings. I have met with the subcommittee of the Economic Development Board which deals with questions of energy pricing. It is a subcommittee which is chaired by Mr Terry Burgess.

Mr MARSHALL: Can the Premier indicate how many times that ED Board's utilities subcommittee has met?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes, I can bring an answer to you. They have obviously been very active during this period when the energy plan has been under consideration. I know I have met them at least on two occasions.

Mr MARSHALL: The EDB submission to the Statutory Authorities Review Committee refers to the work of the utilities subcommittee and states that the subcommittee made both short-term and medium-term suggestions to the Economic Development Cabinet Committee for the purpose of minimising the cost of utility prices without compromising reliability, security or the capacity of the networks. Can the Premier say what the EDB's short-term suggestions were?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Obviously, the way you have framed the question calls for an answer about what was said at a cabinet committee meeting which we do not reveal. But can I say that we certainly had discussions with Mr Burgess and other members of the subcommittee which were directed at ensuring that there was sufficient gas that could be made available in the short term to ensure that mothballed gas-fired generators were available to essentially generate power when we needed it.

Of course, what we found out on 8 February was that, even though there were generators ready to go and had gas, the nature of the National Electricity Market meant that they were not asked to switch on their generation and so we suffered that entirely unnecessary load-shedding event on that occasion. That, of course, has led directly to the steps we have now taken to take control of our energy future with our energy plan.

Mr MARSHALL: But is the Premier suggesting to this estimates committee that the advice that flowed from the Economic Development Board's utilities subcommittee to the government was in the form of a series of one-on-one conversations and that there was no documented report or, indeed, thorough investigation of these matters by the EDB that was passed on in a documented form to the government?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, I did not say that.

Mr MARSHALL: Also, can the Premier answer the previous question then?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The chair and deputy chair of the EDB also sit on a cabinet committee, and there are obviously substantial discussions that occur about energy policy on that cabinet committee but they are cabinet-in-confidence. You have seen the outcome, though. The outcome is Our Energy Plan.

Mr MARSHALL: It is a disaster.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The energy plan sits there in stark contrast to your energy policy, which is to scrap—

Mr MARSHALL: Your prices sit in stark contrast to the rest of the nation—in fact, the rest of the world.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —the renewable energy target—

Mr MARSHALL: Anyway, can you answer the question.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —and you do not have a plan.

Mr MARSHALL: That is actually the budget, Premier; that is not your energy plan. You might want to have a look at what you are holding up.

The CHAIR: Order! I am on my feet.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is a document.

The CHAIR: Order! I am actually on my feet.

Mr MARSHALL: My question is: was there any documented—

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Where is your energy plan?

The CHAIR: No.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: My question to you is: where is your energy plan, apart from scrapping the energy target for renewable energy target?

Mr MARSHALL: This is our estimates. You can ask that next year.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I thought we were five minutes before the election.

Mr MARSHALL: My question to you is—

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Aren't we five minutes before the election?

Mr MARSHALL: —was there any independent report done by the EDB to underpin their advice to the government and was anything documented and, if so, can the Premier outline what that documentation was?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We received substantial advice from the EDB, which was an input—

Mr MARSHALL: 'Written advice' was the question.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The input that was made by the EDB, whether it was in writing or orally, occurred in the context of cabinet discussions and so therefore has been protected through that cabinet confidentiality.

Mr MARSHALL: Did the EDB advise the government to build its own gas generator?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I am not going to reveal what was advised to us in cabinet.

Mr MARSHALL: Did the EDB advise the government to establish a 100-megawatt battery?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We received advice from a range of different sources, which ultimately led to Our Energy Plan—an energy plan which is robust, which has not had any serious criticism made of it, either by you or by any commentators—

Mr MARSHALL: But that is not the question, sir. The question is whether or not there was advice provided by the EDB—

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: This is an energy plan that has stood the test of time—

Mr MARSHALL: —to the establishment of your 100-megawatt battery.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —and is being implemented and is being very successful. Don't you support the battery?

Mr MARSHALL: The Treasurer told last year's estimates committee that the EDB was undertaking a review of the Unlocking Capital for Jobs Program. Did the EDB conduct that investigation, was it documented and will the Premier—

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Don't you want to talk about the energy plan? Let's talk about the energy plan and your lack of an energy plan.

Mr MARSHALL: You do not answer any of the questions that we are asking. You can ask me that question in the bar later. That is not a question for estimates, because I am asking the questions and you seem to be avoiding answering any of the questions.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: You seem to be avoiding publishing an energy plan.

The CHAIR: We have done very well. It is nearly five past 11.

Mr MARSHALL: Can we find out whether the EDB did any documented report on the review, as promised by your government last year, of the Unlocking Capital for Jobs Program? If so, what was contained in that report?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Can you direct that question to the Treasurer because that is within his—

Mr MARSHALL: Well, it was done by the EDB, which is your area of responsibility. The question that I am asking, which you seem to be avoiding, is whether or not that work was undertaken by the EDB.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —program, so that work was done—

Mr MARSHALL: It was EDB work.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Sure, but I will take—

Mr MARSHALL: Why do you not want to answer that question?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Well, I will take it on notice because I do not have the answer here, but the work was done for the Treasurer. I can take it on notice, or you can ask him later today and you can get the answer then.

Mr MARSHALL: I would like to ask some questions on the nuclear royal commission and any current expenditure on that. In the 2016-17 year, $4.6 million was allocated under program 1 for dealing with the outcomes of the nuclear fuel royal commission final report.

The information provided for DPC program 1 in this year's budget gives no commentary about the outcome of that work. It is necessary to go to pages 162 and 171 of Budget Paper 3 to find that out. It reveals that spending by CARA was $7.6 million, $3 million above the budget that was set. Will the Premier explain the reason for the overspending?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The answer is that it was started off by DPC and then the agency was set up as a separate agency, and then it received the funding; that is really the explanation. The total budget allocated to CARA was $8.2 million, and a total of $7.5 million was spent.

Mr MARSHALL: Has the—

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It was sort of under budget.

Mr MARSHALL: Has CARA now been abolished and, if so, when did that occur?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It was abolished as an attached office on 30 June 2017.

Mr MARSHALL: Was that 2013?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, 2017.

Mr MARSHALL: This year?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes.

Mr MARSHALL: A few days ago?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes.

Mr MARSHALL: Did it continue to expend money through the first half of this calendar year?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Very little, I think. Most of the spending was around the time of the consultation, so there was very little additional expenditure. There might have been some existing commitments that were met, but there was very new little expenditure incurred and its total spend was under the allocated budget.

Mr MARSHALL: Are you able to confirm that there is no funding or expenditure on the response to the nuclear fuel royal commission or related activities in the forward estimates?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, all there is is the budget allocation to DSD in 2017-18 to maintain access to existing information, respond to community and stakeholder inquiries and ensure the DSD is adequately resourced to meet community needs.

It has closed down, but obviously people still ask questions and so there needs to be some capacity to be able to respond to those questions that are made of it.

Mr MARSHALL: What department is that via?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: DSD.

Mr MARSHALL: Do you know what the allocation of money to that is?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I just said: $450,000.

Mr MARSHALL: When did the CEO of CARA, Madeline Richardson, transfer to the position of Group Executive Director, Delivery and Engagement, in the Department of State Development?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I will take that on notice. I understand that it was before the agency was abolished.

Mr MARSHALL: Are the staff and executives, other than Ms Richardson, previously employed through CARA, still employed within the Public Service; if so, what functions are they fulfilling?

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

Mr MARSHALL: Can the Premier indicate to this committee what the cost of the citizens' jury process was?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Sorry? How much did the jury process cost?

Mr MARSHALL: Yes.

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

Mr MARSHALL: Was it higher than the budget of $1.5 million?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It was within the overall budget, but I will get an answer on how it performed against the subset, if you like, of that budget.

Mr MARSHALL: What was the cost of CARA's statewide consultation program and when did the program cease?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Once again, I will bring back an answer on that question.

Mr MARSHALL: What was the cost of communications to raise awareness and encourage participation in the consultation process?

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

Mr KNOLL: The omnibus questions are:

1. Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of expenditure on consultants and contractors above $10,000 in 2016-17 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 2016-17 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 2017-18?

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 2015-16 and 2016-17.

4. For each agency for which the minister has responsibility:

(a) How many FTEs were employed to provide communication and promotion activities in 2016-17 and what was their employment expense?

(b) How many FTEs are budgeted to provide communication and promotion activities in 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, and what is their estimated employment expense?

(c) The total cost of government-paid advertising, including campaigns, across all mediums, in 2016-17, and budgeted cost for 2017-18.

5. For each agency for which the minister has responsibility:

(a) What was the cost of electricity in 2016-17?

(b) What is the budgeted cost of electricity in 2017-18?

(c) What is the provisioned cost of electricity in 2018-19, 2019-20 and, 2020-21?

6. For each grant program or fund the minister is responsible for please provide the following information for the 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 financial years:

(a) Balance of the grant program or fund;

(b) Budgeted (or actual) expenditure from the program or fund;

(c) Budgeted (or actual) payments into the program or fund;

(d) Carryovers into or from the program or fund; and

(e) Details, including the value and beneficiary, of any commitments already made to be funded from the program or fund.

Mr DULUK: I have a question in regard to citizens' juries. Can you let us know how much has been budgeted for this year and across the forward estimates as well?

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

Mr MARSHALL: I would like to ask a question regarding the State Coordinator-General, Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, pages 158 and 159. Will the Premier provide a list of the 76 private sector projects of economic significance referred to the Development Assessment Commission during 2016-17?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I will if it does not offend some commercial confidence but, subject to that, I can provide that information.

Mr MARSHALL: Is the Premier suggesting that referrals to the Development Assessment Commission might be subject to some commercial confidentiality?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I do not know. I am just saying subject to that. I have not directed my mind to it, but it may will be that several people have approached the Coordinator-General making a request, and they may not necessarily want that matter revealed. If it has been referred to the Development Assessment Commission, I presume it is a public matter anyway, so it should not present a problem.

Mr MARSHALL: Can the Premier provide a list of the 178 unsolicited proposals administered by the Coordinator-General?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think that might cause the problem I was probably alluding to earlier, but I will take that on notice.

Mr MARSHALL: Is the Coordinator-General currently dealing with any proposals in relation to the proposed Lipson industrial estate at Gillman?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Once again, subject to the commercial-in-confidence matters, I will bring back an answer. I understand that matter is presently the subject of a procurement exercise that is nearing its completion.

Mr MARSHALL: When does the Premier envisage a response to that, given that tenders closed in January this year?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Soon, I understand.

Mr MARSHALL: Is the State Coordinator-General involved in—

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I did not understand that he was. I think that was a process that was being dealt with by a combination of Renewal SA and cabinet.

Mr MARSHALL: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 157, which states that, for the 2017-18 year, the Agent-General's Office will 'Support visits by the Premier and ministers to the United Kingdom and Europe.' When is the Premier planning to visit the United Kingdom and Europe this financial year?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I have not yet finalised the travel plans for this year. They are obviously always subject to change, due to circumstances such as COAG meetings, etc., so they have not yet been settled.

Mr MARSHALL: How many ministers are planning to visit the United Kingdom and Europe this financial year?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I am not certain about that. I have not approved any—

Mr MARSHALL: I think the Deputy Speaker would be happy to go on a fact-finding mission for you with regard to—

The CHAIR: We will be looking at Muriel Matters things in light of the 100^th anniversary of voting for women in the UK.

Mr MARSHALL: They did it a long time after we did it in this state.

The CHAIR: They did, very much so. There being no further questions, I declare the examination of the proposed payment, State Governor's Establishment, $5,271,000, closed. I look to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, and administered items of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, and declare the examination of the proposed payments adjourned and referred to committee B.

There being no further questions on the Department of State Development and administered items of the Department of State Development, I declare the examination of the proposed payments adjourned until later today and thank the Premier and his advisers for a sterling effort.

Sitting suspended from 11:16 to 11:31.