Department of State Development, $683,049,000

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

Membership:

Mr Goldsworthy substituted for Mr Duluk.

Mr Tarzia substituted for Ms Redmond.

Mr Whetstone substituted for Mr Gardner.

Minister:

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

Departmental Advisers:

Mr M. Duffy, Chief Executive, Department of State Development.

Mr L. Strangis, Executive Director, International Engagement, Trade, Immigration and Higher Education, Department of State Development.

Mr M. Hnyda, Chief Executive, Investment Attraction South Australia.

Mr A. Gerace, Manager, Finance, Investment Attraction South Australia.

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

Ms P. Chau, Director, Finance, Department of State Development.

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

Mr P. Klar, Director, International and Higher Education, Department of State Development.

The CHAIR: Welcome to Estimates Committee A as we gather on Kaurna land for 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 the proposed payments, which will facilitate a change of departmental advisers. Can the minister and lead speaker for the opposition confirm that the timetable for today's proceedings as previously distributed is accurate?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Yes, I understand that is so, from 1.30pm to 3pm. I have suggested that we start with trade and DSD and then move on to investment attraction as it suits the opposition. I am happy to answer questions from wherever they want.

The CHAIR: You want to start with trade?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: We are here to discuss trade and investment; one is Department of State Development (DSD) and the other is the Investment Attraction agency, which is a stand-alone agency attached to DSD.

The CHAIR: Changes to the committee membership will be notified as they occur. Members should ensure that the Chair is provided with a completed request to be discharged form. If the minister undertakes to supply information at a later date, it must be submitted to the committee secretary by no later than Friday 27 October 2017. This year, estimate committee responses will be published during the 14 November sitting week in the corrected Daily Hansard over a three-day period.

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

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

There is no formal facility for the tabling of documents before the committee; however, documents can be supplied to the Chair for distribution to the committee. The incorporation of material in Hansard is permitted on the same basis as applies in the house, that is, that it is purely statistical and limited to one page in length. All questions are to be directed to the minister, not the minister's advisers. The minister 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. I declare the estimate payments, Department of State Development and administered items for the Department of State Development, open for examination, and I refer members to the portfolio statements in Volume 4. I call on the minister to make a statement, if he wishes, and introduce his advisers.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I would like to introduce my advisers and then make a few opening remarks, if I may. First of all, on my extreme left is the Chief Executive of the Department of State Development, Mr Mark Duffy; on my immediate left is Mr Lino Strangis, the Executive Director, International Engagement, Trade, Immigration and Higher Education, having just filled the role in the last few weeks; on my right is the Chief Executive of Investment Attraction South Australia; behind us are Phuong Chau, Director, Finance; Narelle Slivak, Director, International; Mr Rick Janssan, Executive Director, Strategy and Business Services; Mr Peter Klar, Director International and Higher Education; and Albert Gerace from the Investment Attraction agency.

If I could make some opening remarks, I thank the committee for its work. South Australia is facing some significant challenges at the moment. Everything we do in this portfolio is focused on jobs and investment. I ask all my agencies regularly, with every budget line, 'How is this going to create jobs or investment in South Australia?' and we target everything accordingly. We do not have the gas, the oil, the iron ore or the mineral resources that certain other states have. As a consequence, while their trade performances have bounded in the last 20 years on the back of the mining boom, South Australia's have been more modest.

To give you a tangible example of that, in 2002 Western Australia exported a little over $30 billion per annum. In 2017, Western Australia exported almost $120 billion per annum, mostly in minerals and resources. That is almost a 300 per cent increase. During the same period, South Australia's exports grew from around $9.1 billion per annum to a bit over $15 billion per annum ($15.12 billion), which is about a 50 per cent increase, and that is largely a consequence of the mining boom. There were similar figures in Queensland and New South Wales with coal.

A frequent statement is, 'Our percentage of exports appears to have declined,' but that is not quite right; it is the fact that the percentage of exports in other states has increased. For example, Western Australia now exports nearly 42 per cent of Australia's total exports, mainly minerals, oil, gas and iron ore. So there are some interesting dynamics that we face. To respond to that, we have run a fairly active program of international engagement.

We see the 3.5 billion customers to our north as being a great opportunity compared with the 25 million customers in Australia. Hence, 28 outbound missions were undertaken to support greater engagement with target markets, underpinning continued growth in South Australia's trade and job-related exports. An estimated 1,030 jobs will be created by South Australia achieving targets for skilled and business migrants as well. We have exceeded the skilled migration target of 2,400 for skilled migrants and more than doubled the target for business migrants, with 564 nominations expected to bring at least $440 million of investment into the state.

We have achieved growth of around 6.6 per cent in international students to reach 34,177 enrolments in December 2016. We have delivered the International Education Action Plan and established the ministerial advisory council. We have delivered 19 business education sessions, an increase on the agency statement estimation, further assisting South Australian businesses to achieve international export success. We have continued to deliver TradeStart, in partnership with Austrade, through the Export Partnership Program to support businesses and to develop export markets.

I will talk later about the Investment Attraction agency's achievements, but overall we sustain around 72,000 jobs in South Australia from selling our goods and services to the world, so that is 72,000 meals on the table every night. If that were one company and we called it ABC Pty Ltd, it would probably be the biggest employer in the nation, so it is very, very important to us. With those few opening remarks, I am happy to go straight to questions.

The CHAIR: Do you want to make a statement, member for Chaffey?

Mr WHETSTONE: No, I will go straight to questions. We will go to the grants and subsidies under the Export Partnership Program.

The CHAIR: Which book are you in?

Mr WHETSTONE: Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 91. Is the significant drop in grants and subsidies from the 2016-17 estimated result to the 2017-18 budget solely related to the reduction in the Export Partnership Program?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I will just ask the member to repeat the question while I get the budget page in front of me.

Mr WHETSTONE: On Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 91, under grants and subsidies, there is a significant drop in grants and subsidies from the 2016-17 estimated result to the 2017-18 budget. Is this solely related to the reduction in the Export Partnership Program?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: There is a decrease in grants and subsidies, as pointed out, of $1.7 million primarily due to the following: reduced expenditure in 2017-18 for the Export Partnership Program, resulting in once-off additional funding in 2016-17 of $1 million, and the carryover of $0.9 million from 2015-16 to 2016-17, $1.9 million, partially offset by additional expenditure commencing in 2017-18 for the International Research Corporation to expand higher education participation in Shandong. That is the answer to that. If you would like me to talk further about the Export Partnership Program, I can do so.

Mr WHETSTONE: In relation to the Export Partnership Program, what is the budget for 2017-18 and is it a continual program over the forward estimates?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: The budget for 2016-17 is $2.6 million, and that budget comprises carryover from the 2015-16 year of $1 million. As at 31 May 2017, $1.05 million has been provided to grant recipients. The budget for 2017-18 is $744,000. DSD will be seeking to carry over from 2016-17 unspent budget to supplement the 2017-18 budget.

On these grants, they are grants of up to around $50,000. Since its inception, there have been eight funding rounds and 328 applications have been received. Following assessment of these applications against grant guidelines, 164 companies have been awarded a total of approximately $3,600,000 in grant funding. Twelve months after receiving funding, grant recipients must submit an annual report. An analysis of the annual report data to the end of May 2017 across 56 grant recipients has shown an increase in jobs directly attributed to the EPP funding by an average of 0.7 FTE per grant.

Additionally, the average percentage of sales directly attributed to grant funding was 10.6 per cent, or $9.8 million, and forecast at 23 per cent, or $26.1 million, for the forthcoming 12 months. In other words, the companies have to establish, as part of their application, that they are serious, that they have an export product on offer, that they have a plan to get it to markets and that the money is going to be appropriately spent. We monitor that and hold them to account.

By the way, I recently extended the scope of the EPP to include industry associations. One of the challenges with exports is motivating companies to export. They have a very good product, they are selling it to Coles and Woolworths and local customers, but they do not realise how valued this product would be in an international market. We have to educate, encourage and persuade them to look at the opportunity of international markets, and the Export Partnership Program is one way to do that. That is a grant directly from the government on behalf of the people of South Australia to individual companies.

By extending it to associations, we have really brought the associations into the network with a view to them encouraging their members through information, through workshops and through attendance on missions to get their products overseas. To give you examples, we have extended a grant to Cherry Growers Australia of $34,500; the Barossa Grape and Wine Association, $50,000; AUSVEG, $49,496; Potatoes SA, $30,000; the SA Dairyfarmers' Association, $30,000; the SA Wine Industry Association, $22,593; the Water Industry Alliance, $49,600; and there are others. It has been well received and it is getting results.

Mr WHETSTONE: Minister, why is it that the grants were given to the executive bodies rather than to individual businesses?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: They have actually been given to individual businesses. To be exact, $4.112 million has been expensed to individual businesses. I mentioned that there were eight rounds. Applications were received and then certain applications were approved. For example, in round 8, 20 applications were received from individual companies and 16 were approved at a value of $471,779. There were 176 successful applicants in total. The vast majority of what we have dispensed has gone to individual companies, that is, $4,112,587.

Just recently, we extended it to the associations at a value of $471,000, so less than 10 per cent. The reason is that these associations represent individual companies and they are often funded by their individual members. I have been the national secretary and state president of an industry association, and I know how difficult it is to fund your association to proactively encourage them to export. You are running on a shoestring. The idea is to help industries, for example the potato industry, the dairy industry, the wine industry, the cherry industry, the grape and wine industry, AUSVEG—

Mr WHETSTONE: That is what their members pay membership for, is it not?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Well, not always. They are comprised of small businesses. They struggle for funding. Small businesses often do not have a surplus of funding to fund their association. They rely on their association for advocacy, for member support on a host of functions, for doing a lot of things. Exports and promoting exports may not be the first priority of the association. For example, advocating to government on behalf of their association in regard to regulatory matters, taxation matters or industry concerns might be priority number one, so they do not have a lot of resource. What we try to do is give them that extra bit of resource so that they can promote exports to their members to help their members engage.

Mr WHETSTONE: Firstly, you said that 164 businesses were successfully funded and now you say that there were 176. How many businesses applied for the funding?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: That is correct: there were 164 companies that received the grant plus 12 associations, making 176. In addition, as I mentioned, since 2015, of the eight funding rounds 328 applications were received and 164 companies and 12 associations have been awarded funding.

Mr WHETSTONE: Did you lobby cabinet or the Treasurer for more funds for the program, given $1.7 million extra was committed over the past two financial years? Are we going to see a reduction in funding for this program? Are we going to see a reduction in the capacity to support new export businesses that are looking for that funding? What is the impact?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: This is for the Export Partnership Program?

Mr WHETSTONE: Yes.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I went in to bat for more funding for the Export Partnership Program because it has been very successful. In the context of preparing that submission, it became clear to me that we had money that we would be carrying over from the previous year because, as I mentioned, not every applicant successfully receives the grant.

In light of the fact that I had money to carry over, I had enough to meet the expected take-up from applicants in the coming year. I was satisfied by Treasury and my department that we would have more than enough money to meet whatever applications we received. I would like more applications. That is the challenge: I need more applications from companies for the grant, and if I get them I am sure I can get the money.

Mr WHETSTONE: My question was: how many applications did you have? A total of 176 were successful. How many did you receive?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: As I mentioned, in the eight rounds so far we have had 344 applications of which 164 companies and 12 associations have been successful. That means around 168 companies were not successful in their application. They are free to reapply, but we do have to make sure that taxpayers' money is prudently deployed. Often, we help those unsuccessful applicants with their next application.

Mr WHETSTONE: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 92, highlights of MOUs. What was the total number of MOUs and agreements signed on outbound trade missions in 2016-17?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I will have to take on notice an exact figure. It is quite a large number of MOUs in the case of China and fewer in the case of each of our South-East Asian partners and North-East Asian partners, but it is quite a long list. I am happy to provide it to you. What I have done is require the department to use the MOUs as a management tool to monitor progress. We monitor each MOU. About every six months, I ask the department to find out what has been achieved both in Australia and with our overseas partners on each MOU. We then have a process for reporting that.

If the MOU has achieved its goals, we strike it off the list; if a new MOU is signed, we put it on the list. It has proven to be a very valuable tool because one of the things that concerns me is that there is no point signing MOUs if nothing is done with them; they have to have actions. I strongly encourage the department and everyone striking an MOU to make sure it is an action-focused MOU with tangible KPIs so that we can measure progress. I am more than happy to get back to you with a complete list of the number of MOUs with each country separately, but I do not have that list here with me and it will take a while to put it together.

Mr WHETSTONE: You have a list, you take action, and if an MOU is realised you scratch it off the list; those that are not achieved, you then pursue. During an outbound—

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: If I can just respond to that, not all MOUs are signed by the government, by the way. For example, a university in South Australia may sign an MOU with a university in another country, or a private business sometimes signs an MOU. They are not all within our control, but we monitor them all anyway. For example, in the case of China, I have a senior management council that manages the relationship, and the CEs of each department attend. For example, if it is an MOU between a food-producing company in the Riverland with a similar company, or a scientific establishment in China, I asked the CE of Primary Industries to report back and monitor that. So, yes, we do just that.

Mr WHETSTONE: During an outbound trade mission in 2015, an MOU was signed by South Australia and a Shandong consortium for a $70 million agricultural consolidation park in Adelaide, and you and the Premier issued a press release on 9 September. It was a $70 million ag park. Do you have a status on that MOU or that project?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: First of all, that is 2015. I am not sure what budget line in the current budget that refers to, but I will take the question in good spirit. I will have to get back to you, though, because—

Mr WHETSTONE: You must have it on your action list, though?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I am sure it is, but I will need to get back to you. You are asking me a question about a specific MOU that was signed in 2015, so I will need to get advice on exactly where that is and get back to you.

Mr WHETSTONE: There was another trade mission to India that was signed between Heliostat SA and Global Wind Power Ltd. and meant to create 1,000 jobs. I am just wondering if that MOU has been realised to create the jobs and that partnership through an MOU?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Going back to your earlier question about the China MOU, I am advised that was an MOU signed between two commercial parties and not by the government of South Australia. I will have to look into that, consult the commercial parties and find out where it is. The other one, Heliostat, again that is a commercial party. I will contact them and find out where that is and get back to you on notice because that will require us to talk to them about how they are progressing.

Mr WHETSTONE: It was just that you and the Premier put out media releases, yet there is no knowledge of where it is. Anyway, moving on, trade representation—

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: No, there is knowledge. Hang on, just to pick that up, there is knowledge of where it is; it is just that I do not have the information here right now. I will get back to you on notice.

Mr WHETSTONE: Thank you. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 92, under financial commentary, trade representation. In relation to an ongoing additional expenditure commencing 2016-17 to advance the South Australia China Engagement Strategy, mentioned in last year's budget was a $160,000 fit-out of the relocated Jinan office from one side of the road to the other. What is the total spend for that fit-out now that the office is now open and operating? Did it come under budget? How much of that funding was transferred from the closure of the SinoSA office?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: First of all, our presence in China largely hinges around our sister-state relationship with Shandong Province, which is going absolutely gangbusters and delivering fantastic results. In fact, China stands out as our number one trading partner and 20.4 per cent of all we sell: $2.335 billion. We headquarter, if you like, our China operations out of Jinan, the capital of Shandong Province. We have a person embedded with Austrade in Shanghai and also in Hong Kong, but our head office, if you like, is in Jinan. I will start with a bit of history here.

When I came into this portfolio we had Fion Jia located in Jinan, an excellent advocate for this state, and we had nothing in Qingdao, which is the second largest city in Shandong and, as I mentioned, we had someone in Shanghai. Decisions made a long time ago before my arrival had seen our office in Shanghai close, and we had someone in Hong Kong. We got a very clear signal from the Shandong government that, as Jinan was the capital, they really wanted our representative office in Jinan. That was point number one.

Outside my portfolio, an initiative was launched by Bio Innovation SA, which reports to a different minister and a different agency, to open an office called SinoSA House in Qingdao. That was an initiative of Bio Innovation SA, and it was a pretty good initiative, I have to say. I visited SinoSA House. I thought it was a very small office, but it was raised as a commercial office, not as an office of the government of South Australia, and it was done on a commercial basis; that is to say, it had no approval or licence to have registration as an official office of the government of South Australia.

It was more of a commercial collaboration between Bio Innovation and this commercial entity, the private company. I inquired and took advice on whether or not we could give that office in Qingdao official government status, and I made inquiries not only with Crown law here but also with the Chinese government. The messaging we got back from the Shandong government was that they preferred to have just one official office in Shandong, not two.

There are some diplomatic sensitivities. As a nation, China controls the number of official offices that any country or state can have in their own country, and they prefer not to have uncontrolled growth in this area. The messaging we got back was that they preferred to have one office and that they would prefer if it was in Jinan because that was where the head of government was and that was the capital of Shandong.

Because I manage resources fairly prudently, I had the choice of continuing to fund this commercial collaboration as a commercial office in Qingdao. I did see a media report recently where the commercial partner that Bio Innovation had in that office was having a bit of a grumble in the paper. He has obviously spoken to you. I am not sure whether or not that office, in effect, subsidised what he was doing in China, but my concern is for the best interests of South Australia and the South Australian government.

We decided that we would set up our main office in Jinan and not continue to fund this commercial office, which had no official recognition. I decided not to apply for funding to continue it on. The commercial partner we had there is more than happy to fund it himself if he wishes. If he is using it for his own personal commercial purposes, he is happy to continue funding it.

The new budget allocations for 2016-17 total about $825,000, including a single payment of $160,000 to support the fit-out costs of the new office, which include project design, office refurbishment, office equipment and furniture, and $315,000 to support the expansion of the Jinan office in terms of ongoing staff salaries and office expenses.

Due to Chinese business licence restrictions, the functions of the former SinoSA office located in Qingdao ceased on 1 October 2016 and have now been incorporated into the relocation of the South Australian government office in Jinan. The budget of $350,000 was reallocated to support activities in Shandong and Qingdao. In other words, the money that had previously been allocated by Bio Innovation SA for this Qingdao office we have deployed into other prospective activities.

I have kept a part-time person in Qingdao. We have three people now in the Jinan office. It was not actually moved across the road, as the member said. It was actually moved to a different part of the city and into much better premises. I visited the Jinan office that had been set up under previous arrangements and I was very unhappy with it. It was in the wrong location. It was in a high-rise building that I would have to say was rundown.

The paint was literally peeling off the walls. It was in very poor condition. There was no storage. Occupational health and safety was a concern. Frankly, it was an embarrassment to the state, in my opinion, that it had been allowed to be run down, so I changed it. I have moved them into a very good office and it has been done on a shoestring budget.

The other concern I had was that Fion Jia, who is an outstanding representative for the state, had very little backup and support. We really needed a deputy for Fion, who could help her out, and a third person who could help with a range of things, including business development, international students, interpretation of documents and preparation of materials. We did not have a viable show with just one person.

We now do have a viable show very affordably placed with our three people in Jinan and our part-time person in Qingdao. I think that more than adequately deals with the demands that are put on us from taking anything up to 300 people to Qingdao and to Jinan once a year and then organising an inbound mission to Australia of around 200 people from Shandong, which is very, very demanding on those staff.

Mr WHETSTONE: When was the original Jinan office set up? How long has South Australia had presence in that office?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I cannot give you an exact date. I am happy to get back to you on that, but I think it would have been about 10 or 11 years ago. I think we have had Fion Jia for at least that time. It was really a one-person office and it was a huge responsibility for one person. It is now a very professional show, and I would invite the shadow minister, if he is going to China, to visit it and I am happy to arrange a briefing and whatever else he may want.

Mr WHETSTONE: I have been to many Australian trade offices—some are better than others; it is just a matter of the commitment of the government. The 2017 Annual Investment and Trade Statement mentions further South Australian embedded Austrade representation in the Philippines and Vietnam in 2017. Has this been budgeted for in the current year and can you guarantee that these offices will be embedded this year?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: In making these remarks and answering the question, I just want to make a general point. The South Australian government maintains a full office in London through the Office of the Agent-General. As I mentioned a moment ago, we have a full office in Jinan. We stand in stark contrast to some other state governments—notably, Victoria and, to a lesser extent, New South Wales, Queensland and WA, although some of the latter states I mention are now moving away from full-time offices and taking up our model of embedding with Austrade.

I can assure the members of the committee that the best way to waste money in this portfolio is to set up mini Taj Mahal embassies around the world on expensive leases, chewing up overheads with lots of staff out there operating on their own, disconnected from the efforts of DFAT, Austrade and the federal government. If you have a budget the size of the Victorian government, it might help, but even then you come up against whether the money is better spent supporting companies to trade.

You really have to do a business case and ask yourself what benefit is achieved from having a full-time office. It might be nice for meeting ministers and whisking them away from the airport to an office where they can sit somewhere feeling important. It might be nice to host meetings there, but my experience is that it is very easy for these offices to become disconnected from the real world. That is exactly the experience that this government found in Shanghai and it closed its office in Shanghai as a consequence. It was also in Chennai, where it closed its office.

Mr TARZIA: It had no staff.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: It did. It had Mr Ken Zhu. You need to do some research, because it had quite a few staff. When I visited as a shadow minister it had quite a few staff; in fact, I wondered what some of them did. In Chennai, it was the same thing. It was very expensive and it dragged resources away from the real thing.

The other thing is that being with Austrade and DFAT you not only find out what they are doing. That is very important because we had a concern that Austrade and DFAT might be favouring the biggest states, particularly in the area of tourism and trade generally. Everyone knows about Sydney and Melbourne but often, overseas, they have not heard about Adelaide. We would find out what they were doing and our person could constantly elbow their way around the table and make sure that South Australia and Adelaide were getting a mention. So we favour placing people with Austrade. It is cheaper; it delivers better results. Except in China and the UK, where we felt the need to set up a full office, we find it is simply better all round.

To get down to specifics, in 2016-17 four new staff were embedded in Austrade offices in Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia. In September 2016, international representatives, including the Office of the Agent-General, were in South Australia to participate in a training and development program meeting key stakeholders. We bring them out to South Australia to do things and to brief up on South Australia each year and take the good word back to their target countries.

The budget allocated by DSD to support the overseas posts is around $1.5 million. Some other states would be spending that in one country alone. For example, I understand that the Victorians have an office in Jakarta with 17 people in it and probably a budget of around $1.5 million. It is very easy to churn money, setting up your own office, and it is then a question of whether the people you put in it are connected to the government of the day—because governments change—and whether they are able to deliver the outcomes you seek.

As at 31 May 2017, the actual net cost has been approximately only $1 million, however, not that $1.5 million. The breakdown is as follows:

Shanghai (embedded) with a 2016-17 budget of $246,000—that is not salary, we pay Austrade and we have to buy equipment, etc.;

Hong Kong was $215,250;

in Jinan (the office I mentioned) $415,000 and there are three people there;

Mumbai is $205,000;

in Singapore we contributed about $86,000 in 2016-17 and the Investment Attraction agency makes a co-contribution;

in Malaysia it is $127,500 and an embedded officer;

Thailand is $82,000 invested there; and

in Indonesia we have a person in Jakarta now, and that is $75,000.

That is the sum total of our spread. We do not have anyone in the Philippines; however, we are doing some work on that because Vietnam is a very prospective market. The Department of State Development is considering the financial options of putting someone in there in 2017-18. There is no budget yet for the Philippines or Vietnam, but we are giving it some thought.

We are also looking at options to redeploy some of our people. For example, we have just returned from last week's mission to Singapore and Malaysia and, on this occasion, for the first time we reached out to East Malaysia and went to Sarawak and Saba. We also added Myanmar to the mission for the first time. It was in our South-East Asia strategy. We used our embedded officer with Austrade in Singapore, Abby Chan, to come to Myanmar and she will pick up responsibility for Myanmar. That saves us money and makes the best use of the people we have.

I am sure the Department of State Development will consider all those options as we review the pathway forward. I would just re-emphasise that, if members of the committee were considering how we might invest more in this portfolio, my advice would certainly be not to spend it on bricks and mortar or Taj Mahals but to look at other ways to get results, because it is all about jobs and investment back in SA, not building structures overseas.

Mr WHETSTONE: We are not talking about building structures. With regard to all these embedded officers in Austrade offices, there seem to be a lot of offices with a single person representing the state. What are their KPIs?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Each of them is given a contract, which includes a job description and a duty statement that specify what is expected of them in terms of support. For example, they need to support inbound missions, which can be quite demanding. For example, we just took 60 traders to Singapore and Malaysia, and that requires an awful lot of work. That is just the trade mission. Of those 60 companies, a lot of them will then go back one or two months later. When they go back, they often need support from our embedded person with Austrade. It is not just one trade mission a year we are doing. Individual companies are back there all the time needing support.

That embedded Austrade officer then needs to organise the inbound mission. We encourage them to come during OzAsia, but we are receiving groups all the time from overseas, so that person is generally flat chat. They are dedicated to South Australian work. They are part of the Austrade network, but the other thing they do is build relationships, because they get to share information with all the other Austrade officers in that office, and help to promote South Australia at a host of other events that are going on in country, so they give us market intelligence.

I think it is fair to say that they are on the phone or emailing South Australia on pretty much a daily basis, so the Department of State Development is flat out dealing with those officers every day of the week. They do a terrific job for us.

Mr WHETSTONE: I am interested in whether they have KPIs for getting deals done. It is not about phone calls, it is not about hosting inbound and outbound trade missions: it is about deals. It is about numbers, it is about dollar value and it is about the economy for South Australia. Are they accountable for their role?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Of course they are accountable, but these people are not salespeople. They are not door-to-door salespeople with a target to sell 20 vacuum cleaners a week. The Department of State Development and this agency have KPIs, and they are part of the team. The way government works is not by giving every individual public servant a KPI with a dollar sign alongside it, in which they are told to bring in a certain number of jobs or do certain things. That is just not the way that we work.

The embedded Austrade officers in South-East Asia report to the South-East Asia desk. The South-East Asia desk has KPIs, and they are all listed in the budget paper in terms of dollar value. For example, our trade with South-East Asia at the moment, ASEAN, is $2.26 billion. It is nearly 19.8 per cent of everything we do. All those embedded officers in the South-East Asian Austrade offices contribute to achieving that result.

I am happy to ask the department to look at that and get back to you if there is anything further to add. They do have targets, and they do have KPIs, if you like. They are managed by Mr Strangis and his team and report through Mr Duffy, and are set out there to achieve our targets for job creation and investment.

Mr WHETSTONE: Do you know how many businesses these officers service?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Yes, we do. I am happy to ask the department to report back, and we will send that to you.

Mr WHETSTONE: Okay, thank you.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: What do you mean when you say 'service'?

Mr WHETSTONE: The business will go to a country and, if they need a point of contact, they will make an appointment to go to the Austrade office, the consulate or wherever it may be. If they need help, if they need contacts, if they need any form of business acumen, that is what these officers are there for, I presume.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Service takes many forms. They are dealing with companies both in Australia, through DSD, and in country, on an ongoing basis. I will send you whatever information we can about that upon notice.

Mr WHETSTONE: I want to move on to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, pages 94 to 96, Investment Attraction.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Are we moving on from trade, because we will need to change some advisers at the back?

Mr WHETSTONE: Investment Attraction, international education and trade missions.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: International education is part of trade and the officers are with me, so perhaps you could ask those questions first. Migration is also part of the DSD offering. Then, at your discretion, when you want to switch over to the investment agency I will change the officers behind me.

Mr WHETSTONE: We will stick with inbound and outbound trade missions then. Regarding income from outbound missions, the state government has a $200 non-refundable administration fee for each trade mission that a business takes with you. What sort of revenue are you getting from business? While you are there, do government departments, ministerial staffers and local government also pay that fee?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: This is an interesting point. We wanted to make sure that the companies coming on our missions were serious and were fair dinkum. That is why we carefully manage each company and each business wanting to come. We decided to implement a fee for service for the mission. There were two reasons for that; one was to ensure that they made a commitment with their own money.

Mr WHETSTONE: $200.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: It was $200, yes—not a lot. It was an affordable commitment, but at least a commitment and a co-contribution so they were a partner with us. Secondly, during the course of the mission we provided a number of meals and a number of things for them, and it was an offset. The exact amount we raised from those fees is in the budget paper. We received approximately $33,000 in registration fees as at 31 May 2017 for the 2016-17 outbound missions. Payment was sought from those participants who have yet to provide invoices, etc.

The division's current estimated budget for a target of eight outbound missions is around $1.34 million. That enables us to recoup some of the cost, which is fair considering that the taxpayers of South Australia are providing a service to people, but it also makes sure that the companies themselves have made a small contribution to the mission.

Some other states have chosen to take people overseas, pay for the airfare and pay for everything really. They have stopped doing that because I think they found that people were going on the trade missions without necessarily having a serious plan to do something with that opportunity. We have avoided that through this device and most companies have been very happy to pay it.

You asked about public servants. I cannot see why we would charge ourselves $200 to go on a trade mission to work. The public servants I take with me are working. We have not charged local government either, and local government has been quite helpful.

Mr WHETSTONE: Local government is over there doing business deals, so why do they not pay?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Do you really think that is sensible, charging ourselves for something we are doing? Have a think about it for a minute. I would underline the point that in a lot of the countries we go to, if the government to government side is not right forget the business to business, and China is a notable example. As well as that, a lot of our senior public servants are involved in a lot of the MOUs we have struck. A lot of what we are doing is institution to institution, all focused, though, on creating jobs.

A lot of our government agencies are selling things. Everyone, from the arts through to the education sector, is selling a product. For example, we generate quite a lot of revenue from selling fully funded high school places to overseas students. In fact, that sector is doing extremely well. We obviously need the education people who are running that business offering to promote that business offering. Another example is StudyAdelaide, which is public servants funded jointly by the university sector and the government to promote Adelaide as a destination for international students. Obviously, they need to be there.

When you hear comments like, 'Any single public servant who is on a trade mission is superfluous to requirements and should not be there and is on a junket,' stop and think about it for a minute. If the primary industries department is not there alongside our food producers, helping to back them in, it makes it very difficult for them. For example, there are huge problems with trade involved in quarantine, disease, fruit fly, regulatory arrangements, all these things, and often they need to consult and get advice from senior public servants in country as they attempt to do deals. Everything is very work focused but, no, we do not charge public servants $200 out of their own pocket to go on a trade mission to do their job.

Mr WHETSTONE: Can you provide a total cost for DSD in the 2016-17 year for the cost of outbound missions?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Yes, I think I can do that. Estimated expenditure on the seven major outbound missions, as well as on the two ministerial planning missions in 2016-17 for the International Engagement, Trade, Immigration and Higher Education division, is approximately $1.6 million. I think if you compared that with any other state, you would find it quite a remarkable value-for-money proposition, noting that the division's costs for business missions in South-East Asia (that is, Indonesia and the Philippines) in April 2017 and China (Guangzhou, Shandong and Shanghai) in May 2017 are yet to be finalised.

To be more specific, South-East Asia, Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand, $304,000; Europe, the UK, France, $209,000; North-East Asia, Japan, Korea and Taiwan, $292,000; India, $399,000; the Middle East and North Africa, $99,000; and South-East Asia, Indonesia and the Philippines, $143,000. I could give you a complete breakdown of how that was structured if you need it.

Mr WHETSTONE: What I would like to know is whether anyone within government keeps a tally of what the taxpayer is spending as a total government spend in outbound missions.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I have just given you the information on what each mission costs, so the answer to that is yes. The Department of State Development does that. These trade missions are not all we do. I will just give the committee a bit of history. Under previous arrangements—and I know this to be so in the Liberal government that was in office until 2002 and the first three terms of the current government—trade missions would often be set up at short notice, based on the availability of the Premier or a particular trade minister and a gap in their calendar.

I saw examples both in a Liberal government and a Labor government of companies being asked to attend trade missions with a few weeks or a few months' notice. Often there was no system in place and therefore things were put together in haste. Often trade missions did not involve companies attending at all. When they did, I think the biggest mission we had ever run previously was something like about 20 companies going with the Premier on a mission, and it was very much high-level and, if you like, relationship-development focused.

When I took this portfolio back in 2014, the Premier indicated to me that he wanted a much more professional approach from the state government, one with coordination between ministers and departments so that we could have a plan that could be budgeted a year ahead and everyone knew what was going on and things were not done on an ad hoc basis. The other thing he wanted was not to have ministers paddling their own canoes, if I can say that—that is, the primary industries minister swanning off on a trade mission to China one month—

Mr WHETSTONE: He is doing that.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: —the health minister going the next month and the education minister going the next month and no-one talking to each other about what they did and what they achieved. He wanted continuity. What we have endeavoured to do—and I think we have saved money in doing it—is, instead of having departments and ministers go up individually, we have focused it all into a single annual principal tour.

We get all those departments going together now, everyone synchronised. Thanks to the good work of the Department of State Development, whenever we go up we know what happened before and there is continuity in our attending and what we are doing. Everyone tells us—DFAT, Austrade, our receiving countries—that we are the only state approaching this in this professional way. Go and ask them yourself, member for Chaffey.

Mr WHETSTONE: I have asked them. I have been to every state and asked every minister.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Go and ask them yourself—

Mr WHETSTONE: I have asked them, do not worry.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: —because when the former chief executive of Austrade tells you that South Australia is first of class in its international engagement program, you are hearing it from someone who knows what they are talking about. Every single ambassador I have spoken to, and every single Austrade chief of mission I have spoken to, puts us pretty much at the top of the pack. Victoria is there as well, but they have a much bigger budget. If you would now like to name for me any ambassador or Austrade chief of station who you claim has not, I would like to hear of it. Perhaps you could name them.

Mr WHETSTONE: I think you should get a brief from Queensland. I have a brief from Queensland. I already have it.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: We do not go on trade missions to Queensland.

Mr WHETSTONE: I have seen their model: it works. They use both, but it works. Minister, do you give any assistance, or do you charge any businesses that are on inbound missions to South Australia? You charge businesses in South Australia that go overseas.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I am not sure what budget line this is referring to, but I am fairly relaxed, Madam Chair. I do not think we charge anyone who comes here.

Mr WHETSTONE: It is just a simple question.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: In fact, we spend money on them when they are here. Again, this is how busy the state government is with our international partners. We are hosting inbound missions all the time.

Mr WHETSTONE: By the way, I just want to put on the record that I am not critical of the inbound and I am not critical of the outbound. I just want to know the detail.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: We do not charge companies when they come here. In fact, we spend money supporting inbound missions. It was about $176,000 in 2016-17—for example, the China inbound in September 2016, $115,500; Rajasthan, $12,000; the Netherlands, $7,700; West Java, $21,300 in October 2016 and $4,500 in December 2016; Malaysia, $4,800 in December 2016; and other various inbound missions, $9,900, for a total of $175,000. We actually support those inbound missions. We do not charge people to come here, we encourage them to come and we do everything we can to support them when they are here.

Mr WHETSTONE: I will move on to international education, StudyAdelaide, highlights on Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 92. In relation to the international education action plan, what was the cost to set up the international education office and the ongoing costs?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: The Premier asked me to take on this responsibility because the government concluded that, rather than being an education matter, it was an economic development matter. We have almost 35,000 young people walking around Adelaide every weekend. They rent apartments, they buy food and they invest in the state. They are spending money and their relatives come out and visit. It is a huge economic story.

The member might know the size of Mount Barker; I think it is 35,000. It is probably twice the size of Mount Barker in terms of the core town. It is a lot of people and it is very important to us. I am trying to grow it. We have set up an action plan, which you referred to. By the way, it is our number one services export. It increased by 12.5 per cent in 2016 to a value of $1.13 billion.

As a result of that action plan, we set up an office using existing resources. We simply redeployed people from elsewhere in government, so it was not a net new cost. I am advised that the total budget—and these resources were reallocated from elsewhere in government—was $1.632 million. Employee expenses are $1.999 million. For staffing, we have one SAES, two ASO8s, ASO5, 8.5 FTEs. The operating budget for Destination Adelaide is $433,000.

Essentially, that money was not new money per se. For example, we moved a couple of people over from the education department into DSD, so there was a saving there and it switched across. I always try to look for ways to do things for nothing, if I can put it that way, by redeploying resources rather than by going to the Treasurer and asking for more; that is what we did. If there is anything further I can provide, I will.

Mr WHETSTONE: You had a revised target of 35,500 students to reach by the end of this year; you are not quite there yet. Will you set yourself a target for next year?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: First of all, I am confident that we will get to the 35,500 target that we set for ourselves. We will consider next year and make very clear what target we will set for the next three years. In order to set a more ambitious target, we need the support of our three universities. I am pleased to say that each one of them has plans to grow the number of international students they have at the moment.

Some of our universities are overweight in certain areas of study. For example, there is no shortage of young people from overseas wanting to do MBAs or business degrees, but there is also the capacity to do physiotherapy, nursing, health-related sciences, and so on, so we are trying to get that balance right. It also includes the high school system ELICOS, which is English-language training, which is the vocational educational training sector.

The action plan has everyone pulling on the same rope, but we cannot do enough in this area. This is great business, great for export, and I would love to see us be more ambitious, and that is certainly where I would like to take it next year. It is a collaboration between us and our partners.

Mr WHETSTONE: On page 93, activity indicators, 17 Business Education Program sessions were expected to be delivered in 2016-17. Why are you providing fewer education export programs in 2017-18?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Education programs?

Mr WHETSTONE: Export education programs.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: As at 30 June 2017, 19 sessions were delivered, attracting over 1,000 participants, with a cost of $26,000. Further invoices are being processed. The budget allocation for the financial year 2016-17 is $75,000. The Business Education Program continues its focus on key markets that are the subject of our international engagement strategies: China, India, the Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam and Thailand.

In 2016-17, new regions were targeted, with sessions pertaining to the Middle East and Europe attracting over 150 participants. The Business Education Program is well supported by the state government's strategic advisers for China and India, TradeStart advisers and Austrade chambers of commerce. We will continue to deliver a competency business education program in 2017-18, with an allocated budget of $77,000, targeting new regions such as North-East Asia.

Your specific question was about a decrease. I am advised we are increasing the number of education programs. Is there a budget line that suggests otherwise?

Mr WHETSTONE: No, this was Business SA, so I am sorry if I have jumped a page. Within an international education, what will the budget be for StudyAdelaide in the 2017-18 year?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: StudyAdelaide had a budget in 2015-16 of $5.7 million over four years for a new campaign to market SA as the destination of choice to international students, $3.8 million of which was allocated to StudyAdelaide. StudyAdelaide activities have included the announcement of student ambassadors in China and India. The Student Ambassador programs are fantastic, and some of the work they do is simply brilliant.

StudyAdelaide also implemented a number of digital campaigns across several international markets resulting in 1.5 million visitors to the StudyAdelaide site. The efforts of StudyAdelaide have contributed to the growth in South Australia's international student enrolments of 6.7 per cent in 2016-17. Just to give an example, StudyAdelaide has undertaken a number of successful digital campaigns to achieve 520,000 Facebook likes (a 100,000 increase on last year), 17 million video views and 1.5 million visitors to the StudyAdelaide website, which converted to 1,126 course inquiries.

One brilliant thing I saw them do in Vietnam was run a student competition in one of its premier high schools in Ho Chi Minh City. Everyone had to compete to come out to Adelaide for a week to do a familiarisation, and hundreds and hundreds of kids took part. They had to get up and give a five-minute talk on Adelaide, and the two who won were just sensational. It is really good work, so that is money well spent. Of course, that money is then complemented by additional funding, which comes in from the universities and partners. Our funding represents about 60 per cent, and the other 40 per cent comes from membership fees, sponsorships and grant funding with significant contributions from South Australia's three public universities and the Adelaide city council.

To be very specific, core funding per financial year was $923,000 in 2016, $945,000 in 2017-18, $973,000 in 2018-19 and $1,006,000 in 2019-20, with $1,031,000 planned for 2020-21. It is money well spent.

Mr WHETSTONE: I would like to move on to investment attraction. You have said that the cost and resources to set up the Investment Attraction agency would come from transfers from other departments. Where was the extra almost $2.5 million in employee benefit expenses in the 2015-16 actuals transferred from, to 2016-17?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Your question is about the operational budget of the agency?

Mr WHETSTONE: Yes.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: The Investment Attraction agency's operational budget for 2017-18 is $9.118 million. The budget is expected to fund 41 FTEs and advisory board fees, although I think only 38.2 people are presently on post. An important point I want to make here is that this organisation has more than one purpose. Its sole purpose is not to administer a fund as has been claimed; that is just not what it does. It does far more than that. In fact, administering the fund is its last option.

Business development includes travel both overseas and interstate developing and marketing suitable projects with the aim of attracting new interstate and overseas investors to the state, predominantly through case management and facilitating reinvestment from firms with an existing presence in the state. A lot of these are referred to other departments, but they are out there hunting for investment and it is a huge effort. Operational costs include state training and development and travel for the board.

Market support includes South Australian representation through established offices, such as Singapore that I have mentioned—they co-fund the Singapore office, and Singapore is our third or fourth biggest source of investment—and key representation on the eastern seaboard and overseas. They conduct market research and analysis that include access to key market information across the world, economic impacts, due diligence and foreign direct investment tracking and reporting to make sound decisions. They are involved in state promotion and marketing to promote South Australia as the number one business destination of choice.

The operational budget reported in the Agency Statements for 2017-18 is $8.9 million, made up of employee benefits ($6.2 million) and supplies and services ($2.7 million). The difference between the $9.118 million operational budget and the $8.9 million reported in the 2017-18 Agency Statements is a budget reduction relating to the contribution of funding to seven international development and trade migration and international education programs.

The point is that the agency does far more than manage a fund. I think the results are pretty much in with 19 company investments made, just short of 6,000 jobs to date, around 3,100 direct jobs, 2,700 construction jobs, around $1.12 billion of capital investment and $5.5 billion of economic benefit for the state, so it has been an extraordinarily productive 18 months to two years.

Ms WORTLEY: I am just wondering, minister, if you can elaborate on the creation of new jobs in the 2016-17 period with regard to the Investment Attraction agency and some of the successes that the agency has had in supporting and securing the new investment? You just touched on that, and the rest is on the creation of new jobs.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I thank the member for her question. The 19 projects have included Boeing, NEC, Babcock, Datacom and Ingham's. The investments I have mentioned are just short of $6,000 jobs and generate $1.2 billion of capital expenditure. In 2016-17 alone, IASA has secured nine company investments that will result in $151 million worth of capital investments for the state, equating to more than 2,000 direct and associated jobs for South Australia.

Some of those, by the way, are the new base for Boeing, in partnership with Defence SA, that was 250 jobs; the Datacom IT hub, 684 jobs; and Big River Pork, a $14 million expansion with 140 new jobs. That was interesting to see. I had not quite seen how they do that with pigs, but it is quite sobering going to a pig abattoir. Tic Toc, in partnership with Bendigo Bank, brought in 196 jobs to South Australia, and we are securing investments in a range of industries and creating ecosystems for additional investment and innovation.

Of course, our focus in the Investment Attraction agency is shipbuilding, defence, renewable energy, mining, tourism, food, wine, health, biomedical research, IT and advanced manufacturing.

Mr WHETSTONE: Minister, there was $2.6 million of intragovernmental transfers out of the agency in the 2016-17 year. Where was that funding transferred to and what was the purpose of the transfer?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: The net cost of services increased by $5.2 million, primarily due to movements in the Economic Investment Fund; employee benefit expenses increased $0.5 million, primarily due to reclassification of expenditure to supplies and services 2016-17; grants and subsidies—was that your question?

Mr WHETSTONE: No, the question was: there was a $2.6 million intragovernmental transfer out of the department—

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Intragovernmental transfers, yes. The $1.2 million decrease in intragovernmental transfers expenses is primarily due to reduced expenditure for the Economic Investment Fund. Once-off grant payments were made in 2016-17 to PIRSA for the Ingham's Yumali project of $0.9 million and to Defence SA for the early capture strategy of $0.2 million.

Mr WHETSTONE: In September last year, you announced a Datacom project, with $5.35 million committed from the agency. Can you give me an update on the status of that project, and has a lease been signed by Datacom to rent the space at Tea Tree Gully TAFE?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Datacom is a good company with a turnover of approximately $NZ1 billion per year and a staff pool of over 4,700. We worked with them for 12 months. We were in direct competition with New South Wales for the 684 jobs they are to establish. It requires an investment of $22 million at the Datacom customer care centre. Datacom has been granted a total of $4.85 million from the fund. Ultimately, this investment will deliver the 684 jobs within the first 24 months of its operations.

In addition, the project will generate up to 111 FTEs in construction jobs during the construction phase. IASA has facilitated an innovative co-location training model between Datacom and TAFE, meaning that these new jobs will mostly be secured from South Australia's existing unemployed pool of workers and largely from Northern Adelaide. Datacom has reiterated a commitment to South Australia and has provided the documentation to complete the first milestone. The status is on track.

The project has been slightly delayed while commercial contracts are being finalised. Apparently they are having some issues signing commercial contracts of their own to get the work done. The company is undertaking negotiations regarding a substantial refurbishment of buildings at Tea Tree Gully campus. A major project of this nature is subject to schedules of suppliers, builders and commercial imperatives of the market. These partnerships and requirements need to be balanced and negotiated if all parties are to work cohesively on the project.

IASA has renegotiated milestones with the company to take into account development delays. A letter of variation has been signed and takes into account the negotiated milestones. While Datacom requested changes to the milestone dates, the company has stated that it will work actively on strategies to meet requirements well before the milestone dates.

In summary, they are having some issues with their own subcontracting arrangements that may result in a small delay, but they continue to reiterate their commitment to establishing a contact centre in northern Adelaide broadly on the terms agreed.

Mr WHETSTONE: Did you mention how much money the agency has provided to Datacom to date?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Nothing to date. The $1.455 million that was budgeted to be provided to them in 2016-17 is going to be carried over into the following financial year. They will only get paid when they trigger their milestone. It is a pretty big project, this one, with some layers of complexity, so they have to go ahead and get themselves organised.

Mr WHETSTONE: I know it well, being on the Public Works Committee. What I am interested to know is whether there has been a lease signed.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I will have to get back to you on that. My advice is that I have to take that on notice; we would have to check with Datacom.

Mr WHETSTONE: Can you tell me how many times the Investment Attraction agency's board has met?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: The board is chaired by Rob Chapman to lead investment opportunities, provide independent advice to the South Australian government and oversee performance. The first advisory board meeting took place on 26 May 2017. On 2 August 2017, I announced the reappointment of Mr Chapman for a further two years. The second advisory board meeting took place on 3 August 2016 in Adelaide.

The third advisory board meeting took place on 19 October 2016 in Paris to capitalise on the announcement of the DCNS submarine build and to coincide with the global ship-building expo Euronaval. Coincidently, I think we worked out that because it is an international board it was cheaper to do it in Paris than in Adelaide; it is actually more expensive to bring them here than it is to take them to Paris. The fourth advisory board meeting took place on 16 February 2017 in Adelaide.

The board members' terms were extended from 1 July for a period of one or two years so that the expiry dates are staggered. The fifth advisory board meeting took place on 6 June 2017 via teleconference. So I think the answer to your question is five.

Mr WHETSTONE: So we have had five board meetings: one was in France and one was a teleconference, so that would leave three here in Adelaide. What is the cost to host a board meeting here in Adelaide?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: The total budget for the board for 2016-17 was $408,348, including board fees, on-costs, travel and ancillary. This is broken down as follows: remuneration costs, $308,348; board fees, $280,000; payroll tax, $10,298; superannuation, $18,050; and operating costs, $100,000. In regard to actuals paid and accrued in 2016-17, remuneration to the board at the end of June was $248,493. Operating costs of the board to the end of June were $128,963. Total costs attributable to the board to the end of May were $377,456.

In giving those figures, can I make a couple of points. The board does not only work when it is meeting. The board members are regularly contacted by the chairman and the CE for various reasons. The board approves each of the investment applications that are taken forward, and there is quite a lot of work done by the board on strategy and planning.

The day-to-day arrangement and relationship that is critical to the operation of the board is between the chief executive and me. The board is not there to manage the day-to-day affairs of the agency but, rather, to provide us with strategic advice and connections as to where we should be going and looking for future investment, and where the state should be heading in its investment attraction strategy. So we get good value out of this very high-quality group of people that we have put together.

Mr WHETSTONE: My last question is on trade figures. In relation to growing the value and volume of South Australia's exports, the Budget Statement at page 103 refers to the volume of South Australia's goods and services exports being 1.6 per cent higher in the year to March 2017 compared with the year to March 2016, and the goods and services values were 2.7 per cent lower over the same period. Minister, do you agree with those stats?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Can you repeat where you have drawn these stats from?

Mr WHETSTONE: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, under targets. In relation to growing the value and volume of South Australia's exports, the Budget Statement at page 103 refers to the volume of SA's goods and services exports being 1.6 per cent higher in the year to March 2017 compared to the year to March 2016, and the goods and services values were 2.7 per cent lower over the same period. I am asking if you agree with those statistics—that is half the question.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I will need to look at the exact budget references that you have made, and I can come back to you with a considered response, but I will offer this. In regard to exporter numbers, the most recent ABS figures are for 2015-16, which show that South Australia has 202 more exporters than in the previous 12 months, an increase of 8.6 per cent. This is the highest percentage increase in exporter numbers in any state jurisdiction, by the way. More recent figures from the state's TradeStart program show that, during the period from 1 July 2016 to 31 May, 80 new clients of TradeStart were signed up.

In regard to the actual figures you have mentioned, the value of total exports, goods and services in chain volume terms was $15.117 billion—a record total. In the 12 months to March 2017, chain volume measures the quantity of exports in constant price terms, smoothing out the impacts of exchange rates and commodity price swings beyond the control of the state government and South Australian exporters, and it is the only figure that the ABS encourage people to use that is reliable. So, it is quite a significant increase. I could go through it category by category and provide some detail of the increases in each measure.

There has been a strong recent performance in a number of highly valued exports. Services, for example, are up 11 per cent in 2016. I think we led the nation. The national average was 9 per cent. Wine is up 9 per cent, seafood is up 6 per cent, and fruit and vegetables are up 36 per cent. In the 12 months to April 2017, these are the sectors on which government assistance programs are focused.

Also important, of course, are copper, lead and commodities, but we have a lessened ability to influence those larger commodity exports that dominate our figures. We have to work where we can make a difference. I will get the agency to look at the question specifically and come back with further information. In regard to an earlier question—

The CHAIR: No, we are five minutes into the break already. Your answers are very full. There being no further time for questions, I declare the examination of the Minister for Investment and Trade completed.

Sitting suspended from 15:05 to 15:16.

Membership:

Mr Wingard substituted for Mr Tarzia.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr M. Duffy, Chief Executive, Department of State Development.

Mr J. Chapman, Small Business Commissioner, Department of State Development.

Mr I. Nightingale, Industry Participation Advocate, Office of the Industry Advocate, Department of State Development.

Mr A. Reid, Executive Director, Industry, Innovation, Science and Small Business, Department of State Development.

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

Ms P. Chau, Director, Finance, Department of State Development.

Mr P. Goiak, Director, Industry Development, Department of State Development.

The CHAIR: I remind everyone that the lines for the Department of State Development and administered items for the Department of State Development remain open. Do you want to go straight to questions?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Yes.

Mr WINGARD: Chair, can I ask that you let me know when there are two minutes to go so I can get the good member for Kavel to do the omnibus?

The CHAIR: No problem.

Mr WINGARD: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 86. Of the Small Business Development Fund of $3.3 million, how much was spent in 2016-17, how much is planned to be spent in 2017-18, how much is planned to be spent in the forward estimates years and when does the program end?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Before I answer that question, can I introduce my new advisers: Mr Duffy, the CE of the Department of State Development; Mr John Chapman, the Small Business Commissioner; Mr Adam Reid, who heads up the small business function within the Department of State Development. Behind me I have Mr Ian Nightingale, the Industry Participation Advocate; Ms Phuong Chau, Director, Finance, who is the most important person in the room; Rick Janssan, who is the Executive Director, Strategy and Business Services; and Paul Goiak, Director, Industry Development.

The government announced the establishment of the Small Business Development Fund as a $10.5 million initiative to assist small businesses in northern Adelaide to grow and create jobs. The fund targeted the small business and start-up end of business in Playford, Port Adelaide Enfield and Salisbury councils and will offer two competitive grant programs over the three years from 1 July 2016.

Start Up Business Grant Program grants are up to $20,000 for new businesses and Business Expansion Grant Program grants are between $10,000 and $100,000 to support existing businesses to expand and create jobs. Six assessment rounds have been held to 31 May 2017 and 42 start-up grants, totalling $705,000, and 50 expansion grants, totalling $3.348 million, have been approved. The total grant funding approved through the fund to 31 May 2017 is $4.05 million for 92 small businesses, which are expected to create over 300 FTE positions. Are you happy with that?

Mr WINGARD: I will break it down, if I can. Just to rephrase the question, what is the breakdown on Start Up Business Grants, from the start-up component: how much last year, how much next year and how much for the forward estimates and when does it end? Likewise for the Business Expansion Grants: how much last year, how much this year and how much going forward until it ends, please?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I might have mentioned that 42 start-up grants, totalling $705,000, and 50 expansion grants, totalling $3.348 million, have been approved.

Mr WINGARD: That was last year?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: The budget for next year is $5.8 million in 2017-18 and $1.4 million in 2018-19. We will obviously have to look at the applications to determine the breakup when they come in.

Mr WINGARD: So it ends at the end of 2018-19? There is no more funding for this program beyond 2018-19?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: That is the plan, yes. It will be reviewed, obviously, as part of the normal budget process and I will have to decide whether I am going to rebid for that program or whether there is some other initiative at the time that is considered to be more important. That is a call we will make later.

Mr WINGARD: On that same page, you mentioned the Innovyz program. Again, can I ask the same question: how much funding went towards that program from the state government for 2016-17, how much is planned for 2017-18 and for the forward estimates? Is that a program also that ends in 2018-19 or at a later date?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Can I ask the member for the budget line again?

Mr WINGARD: Under 6.1 on page 86, opportunities for small business, net cost of sub-program. In 2016-17, it was $7.4 million and in 2017-18, it was $9.7 million. The Innovyz program is part of that funding. I am just looking for the breakdown of where that fits in that funding line for the 2016-17 year, the 2017-18 year and then for the years in forward estimates.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: That is on page 86?

Mr WINGARD: Yes.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Which dot point is that?

Mr WINGARD: Sub-program 6.1: Opportunities for small business. This is the total funding for the small business operation.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: The reason I mention that is that I do not think the Innovyz funding is in sub-program 6.1. I think you will find it is with a funding program managed by minister Maher. I am not responsible for managing that program.

Mr WINGARD: So it sits on the small business website as a grant application, but it goes under innovation, or whatever it might be.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: There is a bit of crossover between the innovation—

Mr WINGARD: That is a crossover one. I understand, thank you. I will follow that through with him. I am told that UniSA's Business Growth Centre now comes under sub-program 6.1. Again, how much was spent on it in 2016-17, how much in 2017-18 and then how far into the forward estimates and when does it end? It is the last dot point on that same page, page 86.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Sorry to give you a similar answer, but it does again come under minister Maher's area. However, I have the information here so I am sure you will not mind me passing it on.

Mr WINGARD: Thank you.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: The South Australian government committed $4.186 million over four years in 2019 to the University of SA's Centre for Business Growth. That is broken up as follows: $698,000 in 2015-16, $1.395 million in 2016-17, $1.395 million again in 2017-18, and $698,000 in 2018-19.

Mr WINGARD: Does it end then?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: The final year is 2018-19. Again, what tends to happen is not so much that they end but that these programs are announced for a period within the budget purview and then they are reconsidered in subsequent budgets and extended on. It is not usual to go much beyond three years or so with any program.

Mr WINGARD: Can I ask for clarification. I may be reading this wrong but, in regard to the 2016-17 estimated result, page 86 states:

additional expenditure in 2016-17 in line with the forward strategy for support to the University of South Australia (UniSA) Centre for Business Growth ($0.6 million)

Can you explain why that is not in small business?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Poor Mr Reid on my right has to deal with more than one minister, including minister Maher and the Treasurer.

Mr WINGARD: Does he have a favourite?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: It is whichever one he is with at the time. At the moment, I am his favourite. You are quite right; it is listed there because the same team of people in the small business unit manage it but, believe it or not, the actual reporting line for that particular matter is to minister Maher rather than to me.

Mr WINGARD: Thank you for explaining that confusion because minister Maher was far less cordial when we had problems dealing with that yesterday. I appreciate that. If we can move on to page 87, you have already mentioned the 300 jobs in the first dot point under small business opportunities. There were 300 new jobs in the first year of the Small Business Development Fund. Can you tell me how many of those are full-time jobs, how many are in place now and how many are waiting to be taken up?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I am advised that the figure the department is working to in regard to measuring results from the grant funding it has approved up to 31 May 2017, which is $4.05 million for 92 businesses, is 300 full-time equivalents. The end of the first year of reporting on this is 1 August, which is today. That is the line. There will be reassessment and contact with each of those people. That will lead us to a breakdown of how many of those are full-time or part-time. I am happy to receive that question again in a few weeks' time when we have done that work.

Mr WINGARD: Would you be willing to take that on notice and bring back to the committee a breakdown of full-time and part-time?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Yes, sure.

Mr WINGARD: Also, how many of those 300 have been committed to? Speaking to minister Maher yesterday, there were often jobs figures, but some of them were promised into the future as opposed to being—

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Yes, no worries. I will ask the agency and we will reply to that.

Mr WINGARD: The fourth dot point states:

Supported 56 small businesses to become export ready by participating in workshop training programs in metropolitan and regional South Australia.

How many of those 56 small businesses that are export ready have actually exported goods out of South Australia?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Again, I will have to take that on notice. The reason is that that particular part of the program is managed by the same department but a different agency within it, which we had on just before afternoon tea—the trade agency which has supported those 56 businesses to become export ready by participating in workshop training. I suspect it is TradeStart. I will take that question on notice to make sure that I give you an accurate answer after Mr Reid has consulted with the other agency.

There is a bit of overlap. What happens is that, although we have a small business agency within the Department of State Development, almost every other part of the Department of State Development also deals with small business. For example, Mines and Energy are dealing with them, and trade and engagement are dealing with small business. Everyone is dealing with small business.

Small business is a centre point, but it does not manage all the budget lines and activities that the government is undertaking for small business. In fact, you will notice from the budget paper that one change I made in the last 12 months was to bring the work of the Small Business Commissioner, the Industry Advocate and the Department of State Development into the one section of the budget so there could be better visibility. Previously, they were all in different parts of the budget. I have been able to do that, but there are other parts of it that cannot all be compressed into the one area.

Mr WINGARD: With the greatest respect, minister, you have done it as best you can, but there are still some glitches in the system, as we are pointing out. For clarification, the fourth dot point really has nothing to do with the Small Business Commissioner and/or minister in that sense: it is more to do with the Department of Trade.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: It is broadly so, that all the agencies that we are dealing with are dealing with companies that export. I am sure that from time to time the Industry Advocate, the Small Business Commissioner, and Mr Reid, and Mr Strangis, who was here earlier, are all dealing with people who export. Most of that work is being done by international trade and engagement. For example, some of the grants given out through the fund that Mr Reid is managing will be to companies that are exporting, so there is overlap. Small business touches almost every area of government—even in Health and Education there are myriads of small businesses.

The Department of State Development runs a small business workshop program. The total expenditure for 2016-17 was expected to be $67,000, net cost revenue. On the delivery of small business workshops in 2016-17 across South Australia on key topics—such as business planning, digital business, cashflow marketing and staffing—39 workshops were held, and 79 per cent of the workshops were held in regional SA. Attendee feedback was positive and most would recommend the workshops to others.

Mr WINGARD: What is the average number of attendees at those workshops?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I am advised, on average about 12. A lot of them are in regional South Australia. We run a series of workshops, not just these. I have attended a range of events with the Industry Advocate and the Small Business Commissioner. They are running services for small business in various areas.

Ms DIGANCE: I have a question about the sessions you run. In the regions, how do people access those workshops, particularly those held by the Office of the Small Business Commissioner? What is expected in the regions and how do they adequately assess that adequately? I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 87, Office of the Small Business Commissioner. It runs into workshop training, which you were talking about. It is the last dot point, Opportunities for Small Business.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: The Small Business Commissioner has undertaken a number of regional visits in 2016-17 as part of the office's program of events in conjunction with other agencies and associations. The office travelled to Port Lincoln, Whyalla, Port Pirie, Victor Harbor, Murray Bridge, Mount Barker and Mount Gambier to present their BizLink seminars. The office also presented various events in other regional locations and called in at Gawler and McLaren Vale.

The commissioner travelled to Whyalla nine times to engage with the small business community on a number of matters. The commissioner also travelled to Wallaroo, Port Pirie, Port Augusta, Kangaroo Island, Strathalbyn, Mount Gambier and Cleve—have you been in Adelaide at all?—with the Minister for Regional Development in company for the Regions in Focus roadshows. What a good government for the regions this is! I am just reading this and I am incredibly impressed.

The office of the Small Business Commissioner has partnered with Business SA to support its Regional Voice program. This involves the Small Business Commissioner and Business SA CEO, Nigel McBride, meeting with local business owners in Whyalla, Port Pirie, Victor Harbor, Barossa, Wallaroo and Port Lincoln. This program will continue through the next financial year. The office also continues to support the Meet the Buyer events, facilitated by the Office of the Industry Advocate—another well-known country traveller—held in the CBD and in regional areas, and they are fantastic events.

The Small Business Commissioner has also attended community cabinet meetings in Coober Pedy, the South-East, Port Pirie, Victor Harbor and Kangaroo Island. The Small Business Commissioner also attends events in Hahndorf and Mount Lofty, and I have been to a couple of those. The Small Business Commissioner advises me that he did not go to Coober Pedy. I am putting that on his list for the second half of the year, and I will expect to know why if he has not been before Christmas. The Small Business Commissioner, the Industry Advocate and, I know, DSD are very active in the regions.

Mr WINGARD: On the back of that, and I know I asked for the average before, do you have the total of people who attended those BizLink seminars in the regions?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I am advised by the Small Business Commissioner that around 630 people have attended various meetings and information sessions that he has held. BizLink sessions were attended by 15 in Port Lincoln, 15 in Whyalla, 10 in Port Pirie, 47 in Mount Gambier and so it goes on; it is variable.

Mr WINGARD: If you would not mind, could you put those together and report back to the committee.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Yes. While I am on that one, can I mention the work of the Industry Advocate and the Connecting with Business Program. July's event alone attracted 370 attendees, and then there are the five Meet the Buyer events. These are particularly innovative because one of the problems we have had is how subcontractors get access to government work, how they get to the decision-makers—whether it is a road project, a sewage plant or some other works—so the Meet the Buyer events are incredibly impressive. There were five between July 2016 and May 2017, including two events specifically for northern Adelaide, with a total attendance number of 1,286.

In 2017-18, the projection is conservatively set at 1,000, as the coordinator for the Meet the Buyer events was to be on maternity leave. Because it is such a small team, the Office of the Industry Advocate decided to cut back the events planned in 2017-18. Thanks to the marketing, communications and stakeholder engagement group of DSD, we are going to step this up with further Meet the Buyer events in 2017-18. That means that five events will be run in 2017-18, including in July, September and November 2017, with events also planned for February and April 2018 where we expect 1,300 attendees. The Meet the Buyer events are particularly well attended.

Ms DIGANCE: It sounds like there has been a lot of travelling to the country, a lot of engagement with various groups, face-to-face meetings and workshops. I imagine the Office of the Small Business Commissioner has many modes of communication. Can you tell us how social media is used to engage with the small business community? I imagine that it is one of the many modes you might use.

Mr WINGARD: Which line?

Ms DIGANCE: Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 87.

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

Ms DIGANCE: It relates to the opportunities for small business.

The CHAIR: 'Implement webinar and video facilities to allow greater access to information—

Mr WINGARD: We were just talking about the industry commissioner.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I am happy to go ahead and answer it.

Ms DIGANCE: Thank you.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: The Office of the Small Business Commissioner continues to connect with small business through the monthly e-newsletter. A message from the minister is included in the e-newsletter. The Small Business Commissioner has been successfully utilising Facebook to increase the profile. I am told that likes on its Facebook page have more than doubled since this time last year; it is now at 1,195. The OSBC has been using Facebook marketing campaigns to reach a greater community to engage with more people. The commissioner has developed a LinkedIn profile and is working on increasing that audience. Updates have been made to the OSBC website to make it more user-friendly and mobile.

The OSBC has expanded its range of publications and reference documents available at the shopfront. Through engagement with local, state and federal government departments that provide small business services, the office has sourced many useful resources for the public to access. During the year, the OSBC continued to review and update their key publications, including the Retail and Commercial Leasing Guide, the We Are Here to Help Small Business A4 brochure and various other things.

Print media presence continues in the Business Journal and the Stock Journal. The commissioner spoke on radio a number of times. The commissioner has also sponsored a number of publications, including the Hair and Beauty SA magazine (I will not be needing that one, commissioner), the Mawson Lakes Living magazine and the Polaris Centre's Connector. A number of associations have supported the OSBC through articles and delivery. Essentially, they are pretty active in both social media and print media.

Mr WINGARD: You mentioned before that the Industry Advocate was involved with Meet the Buyer. Can I just confirm that you said there was an increasing number of those Meet the Buyer events?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Yes.

Mr WINGARD: Given that, in Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 90, activity indicators, Meet the Buyer events, the projection for 2016-17 was 1,800 Meet the Buyer events, the estimated result was only 1,286 and the projection for 2017-18 is only 1,000. The projection for next financial year is less than the estimated result last year, which was less than the projection for 2016-17. Can you explain that number? It is on page 90, activity indicators, number 1.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I am advised that, at the time that 1,800 people were attending the Meet the Buyer events in 2016-17, the agency decided it would run a second series of events separately to that, called Supplying to Government Workshops. They were specific to an interest group that was attending Meet the Buyer events and went into a bit more detail.

In effect, while it is correct that the number attending the Meet the Buyer events has decreased during 2016-17 to an estimated result of around 1,300, and we have put 1,000 in there for next year to be conservative, the Industry Advocate advises me that he is actually expecting 1,300. In addition to that, there will be this further run of events. Sixteen Supplying to Government Workshops were held in 2016 and June 2017, with a total attendance of 243. That will continue in the next year, so there is a separate series of events that, if you like, give people a chance to dig down into more detail.

Mr WINGARD: Thank you for that, minister, but I will seek further clarification because those figures are outlined here and, again the projection for Meet the Buyer and Supplying the Government is 1,800 and 180, so that makes it nearly 2,000. In fact, 1,980 was the projection and the estimate was over 1,500. Going forward, next year the estimated projection, when you add the two together, is only 1,250, so again it is a decrease in output of those two workshops that you talk about.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Yes, okay, fair enough. I will ask the Industry Advocate to consider that question carefully and come back to you on notice.

Mr WINGARD: Can I also get the budgeted costs for running those two projects, both the Meet the Buyer and the Supplying to Government workshops, that is, the cost of running those as it was projected in 2016-17 and then the cost that has been allocated to running those projects in 2017-18. I presume that, with the drop, there will be a drop in charges or costs for those two programs.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Thank you for that. I will ask him to include that information in the answer.

Mr WINGARD: Whilst we are on the Industry Advocate, can we go to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 89. The second dot point under targets for 2017-18 states:

Assist local businesses to win tenders through the connecting with business program, meet the buyer events, and supplying to government workshops.

We have just been discussing that. Does this require the Industry Advocate to travel overseas?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I have required the Industry Advocate to travel overseas and I will explain why. First of all, there are activity indicators for industry participation through which we measure the Industry Advocate's performance. In 2016-17, the public projects and participation division reviewed 105 acquisition plans and provided agency staff with advice on the appropriate application of the South Australian Industry Participation Policy. This represents an 81 per cent increase in 2015-16 activity. For the same period, the division assessed a total of 640 industry participation plans and tenders.

I talked about the Meet the Buyer events. Over a period of time, we have gone up from around 50 to 60 per cent to around 85 to 90 per cent, the amount of government work that is going to local South Australian companies instead of interstate companies. I remember going to the Northern Expressway once and noting, at the direction of the civil contractors, that four out of every five items of plant had an interstate licence plate on it. That has changed.

As a consequence of that success in South Australia, which has been the subject of considerable interest in other states, they are trying to find out how it is that we have managed to lift the number of jobs and the amount of activity that is going to local contractors without transgressing any constitutional constraints. For example, over the last three years the average value of South Australian goods and services awarded to suppliers with a predominant workforce within the state has grown from 65 per cent to almost 80 per cent.

On the average reported levels of procurement spending, this income raises the economic contribution to the state by over $230 million. In major infrastructure projects awarded in 2016-17, subcontracting of $480 million out of $528 million was to South Australian-based businesses. As an example, the Northern Connector has more than $350 million in subcontracting benefits to the state economy, which is over 90 per cent of the costs of the subcontracted work.

Other states are looking at us and saying, 'How have you managed to do that? We want to copy that.' I am also saying to the Industry Advocate, 'Now that we have it working in South Australia so well, can you help our companies to get that access to interstate contracts? So Melbourne, Sydney, Perth. How can we get into their contracts, because their systems are similar?' I have tasked the Industry Advocate to do that.

I then said, 'What about international contracts?' My focus is particularly on the Asian Development Bank, based in the Philippines, and the World Bank. These two banks administer tens of billions of dollars worth of aid work in the region, and South Australian companies are up there doing work in the Third World. For example, I just visited a South Australian company in Myanmar on Sunday morning that has built a 30-megawatt diesel electric power plant in Myanmar as a result of a Myanmar-government contract partly funded by the World Bank. They are employing dozens of South Australians, and they have constructed over $2.5 million worth of infrastructure here in Adelaide using South Australians, largely from the South-East, and exported it up to Myanmar. This is good business.

I asked the Industry Advocate to go to the Philippines to meet with the East Asia Bank to better understand their tender system and their supply chain. We also hosted a seminar here in Adelaide for the Asian Development Bank, attended by a lot of businesses, where they briefed local businesses on how they do things. I also asked him to connect with the World Bank. So to finish the Philippines, I understand that we have had one trip by the Industry Advocate to the Philippines and I can get back to you with the cost of that.

Mr WINGARD: Is there more than one trip? How many in total?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I sent the advocate to the Philippines to attend the 2017 Australian Consulting Services Mission to the Asian Development Bank, an opportunities fair to investigate opportunities with potential World Bank and Asian Development Bank projects. However, I am advised that the cost of that was only $275, and I am wondering if he paddled a canoe. Anyway, I will get back to the member about the cost of that trip.

There was a second trip. I asked the Industry Advocate to talk to the World Bank to investigate SA-based companies' opportunities to have interaction with that bank in some of its work. There was an event held in Sri Lanka with the World Bank, and I understand that the World Bank paid for that. The costs of that were covered by the bank and they moved Mr Nightingale to Colombo and back.

I will get back with the cost of the Philippines trip, but I think that having had this level of success at the state level we now need to help South Australian companies get a slice of the action in other states and overseas. That segues into the international exports and trade agenda, because we have to diversify the amount of goods and services we are selling overseas, and getting into these two banks' extensive programs is a start.

Mr WINGARD: I appreciate that. So just the two trips is what you are reporting? Thank you. Just to clarify it, on page 88 of the same budget paper and the same volume, the description objective states:

The Office of the Industry Advocate investigates, monitors and ensures compliance with the South Australian Industry Participation Policy (IPP), investigates complaints about industry participation in government contracts, oversees supplier commitments in industry participation plans and assists small to medium enterprises (SMEs) to participate in government procurement processes.

Is the description of the objective being changed to incorporate this overseas commitment you are talking about?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: We have an Industry Advocate Bill before the parliament at the moment. I will not go into the details of that because it is before the house, but one of the objects in bringing that bill forward is to refocus the efforts of the Office of the Industry Advocate, including a focus on interstate and overseas industry participation opportunities for South Australian business. It is a focus of mine, and I would hope that next year's budget might give it some more attention because I think we can create a lot of jobs in enterprise not only by giving South Australian companies a crack at our own contracts but by better understanding interstate and overseas tendering opportunities as well so that they get into as much of this work as they can.

Mr WINGARD: On page 89 then, does this push into the trade area explain the growth in FTEs in the Office of the Industry Advocate? We see that the actual number for 2015-16 was 11, and the estimated result for 2016-17 is 15, so there are four more FTEs and quite a significant jump in the expenses for the running of the Office of the Industry Advocate. The estimated result is $2.8 million for 2016-17, and the actual result was $1.8 million for 2015-16.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I am advised that the Industry Advocate has been given resources for two additional FTEs commencing in 2016-17, whose task is procurement category managers. They are positions within the Office of the Industry Advocate to assist with understanding South Australian business capabilities in line with government procurement processes. There has also been an additional FTE for communications and marketing staff for the steelmaking support program. I am advised there is no FTE linked to international engagement, but rather he is using the existing resources, if you like, to look at that extension.

Mr WINGARD: Looking through the performance indicators, I am just trying to clarify what the focus of the Industry Advocate is. Two more FTEs have come on, as you have said, to look after procurement, which I thought was the prime objective of the Industry Advocate, from the description I read, yet we are hearing about trade missions to Sri Lanka and Malaysia. There is also the policing of businesses, so could you give us a breakdown of what the role is, given the performance indicators do not point to this trade mission process that you are describing?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I did not say that the Industry Advocate was running trade missions. A trade mission is something quite different from researching and better understanding the tendering processes used by the Asian Development Bank and the World Bank. The Industry Advocate is not involved in trade missions. He does not normally attend trade missions, but what the Industry Advocate can do is give advice to companies about how to get business out of government or, in the case of the World Bank and Asian Development Bank, international governments' tendering processes. So he regularly provides advice to trade and international engagement, and other parts of DSD.

I have asked him to provide advice and work with Defence SA as well on the issue of industry participation. For example, we have focused a lot in the past on winning government contracts in defence, but I think we have overlooked the day-to-day bread and butter of supporting defence. Can local companies in Whyalla support defence activities in Whyalla, for example? We are looking more and more at that. It is a matter of using his skills to better inform other parts of government and then business in how to get into this other government work.

For example, most of our trade occurs with other states; some of it occurs overseas. I am trying to replicate the success of better access to state government contracts by giving South Australian companies information they can use to better access interstate and overseas contracts where appropriate. The knowledge that the Industry Advocate has acquired about how tendering and government processes work has been instructive in that regard.

Mr WINGARD: Given the expansion of the requirements of the Office of the Industry Advocate and the Industry Advocate himself, how large do you anticipate this office is going to get?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I do not think there are any plans to expand any further than has been achieved so far. The Industry Advocate Bill will raise a couple of issues, but I do not think there is any projection for additional FTEs. If I did a dollar cost valuation on the performance of the Industry Advocate in terms of delivering jobs and investment outcomes in South Australia, it would look pretty favourable, but there are no plans, as I understand it, to move beyond the current staffing level at this point.

Mr WINGARD: Looking at the performance indicators on page 90, it talks about registration of South Australian businesses on South Australia's online register of Aboriginal business, Aboriginal Business Connect. Does the Industry Advocate have any plans to create registers for other groups, or are there any other registers for other groups?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: The Office of the Industry Advocate assumed responsibility for the Aboriginal Economic Participation Initiative in April 2016 and the funding of this program was used to appoint two industry participation consultants, as I have just mentioned, for Aboriginal businesses. From April 2017, one Industry Advocate consultant continued in this role to further develop the capacity and capability of Aboriginal businesses to quote and tender for state government procurement.

As at 1 July 2017, there were 68 Aboriginal-owned businesses capable of providing goods and services to state government agencies that are actively account managed by the office. This will increase with further outreach into the regions by the state of the office in 2017-18. Thirty-six businesses have been referred for assistance to other state or federally-funded government programs. These programs provide business development advice on SME funding opportunities, workforce development, assistance through Jobs First Employment Projects, and tender writing and procurement ready skills through tailored workshops.

The South Australian government's online portal, Aboriginal Business Connect, and Supply Nation's Indigenous Business Direct will continue to provide an online platform to promote South Australian Aboriginal-owned businesses. I think we are fulsomely engaged in that particular area. I think you asked whether there are any further outreaches.

Mr WINGARD: Whether there are any other registered groups or whether it is planned that there be any other registered groups.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Other than Aboriginal groups?

Mr WINGARD: Yes.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Apart from some additional outreach to Aboriginal businesses, I am advised that there is no other specific targeted outreach to particular community groups.

Mr WINGARD: Can we go back to the Small Business Commissioner on page 88 again, activity indicators and the number of firms supported to build business capacity. Given that the estimated result for the number of firms provided with base-level business information resources was 14,373 and the projection for next year is just 14,000, down on the estimated result, and the number of firms supported to build business capacity is 1,252 and the projection for next year comes down to 1,200, is the minister confident that they can deliver those same services on the projection figure that was forecast for 2016-17, or will more funds be needed?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: This area actually is managed through Mr Reid. I am advised that he is quite confident that the projection of 14,000 for the number of firms provided with base-level business information resources will be achieved. The Department of State Development will support the provision of base-level services to those 14,000 in 2017-18 through services such as the Small Business Contact Service, the Australian Businesses Licensing Information Service (ABLIS) and the department's online and printed resources.

Mr WINGARD: Just looking at those activity statements, I understand that Mr Reid looks after the opportunities for small business with business information and building business capability and the Small Business Commissioner looks after—the projection is 1,344 inquiries under the Small Business Commissioner Act, 1,300 under the Retail and Commercial Leases Act, an anticipated 80 under the security of payments act and then 728 under other jurisdictions. Those numbers are significantly different from the stuff Mr Reid was talking about and the stuff the Small Business Commissioner does. I just want to get clarification. Is the focus of the Small Business Commissioner more on handling complaints or growing business opportunities?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I might ask the Small Business Commissioner to tell you what he does in general terms so that there is clarity on that.

Mr CHAPMAN: Thank you, minister. In terms of our office, the inquiries for the Small Business Commissioner Act, the Retail and Commercial Leases Act and the security of payment act in the other jurisdictions are direct contacts that are made with us by small businesses, and that can cover a very large range of areas in terms of the small business. As you can see, about half of our work does relate to the Retail and Commercial Leases Act in terms of inquiries, and that can be anything from a bond issue through to calculations about going through to clarification of lease clauses, for example.

As I mentioned, the inquiries that we get from a business are usually very specific. We record those on our salesforce system. Generally, out of that a number then gravitate to formal cases which we can open and start the discussions with the other parties involved, be it another business, local government or indeed state government.

Mr WINGARD: Given the jump in FTEs under this sub-program—8, 9, and 12 estimated result—do you see any reason for the FTE numbers in this sub-program to rise in the future? This is page 86, and I presume they are the FTEs for the Office of the Small Business Commissioner.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I will just get some clarity on these figures. Those FTE numbers belong to DSD, not to the advocate or the Small Business Commissioner.

Mr WINGARD: Do the advocate's numbers, or the Small Business Commissioner's FTE numbers get reported in a budget line somewhere?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: The advocate's figures are reported on page 89. The table at the top is where his figures are listed. The Small Business Commissioner's figures are on page 119 in the table on the top half of the page.

Mr WINGARD: You have no reason to think that they will increase. I have a question that potentially you could take on notice. I know that we went through this a little before and I got sidetracked when the member for Elder jumped in with a very good question. We talked about the grants and programs that run under sub-program 6.1 and sub-program 6.2, and I asked about a couple I know about. Can you come back with details of the funding of any grant programs that run under Program 6: Growing Small Businesses for last year, for this financial year and for the forward estimates and when and if they end, as we discussed for a couple of them? I will not get you to list them all now.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Can you clarify exactly what information you are seeking? The total number of grant programs, how much money is allocated—

Mr WINGARD: Last year, this year and going forward in the forward estimates and if and when they end.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Do you want to know who has received the grants for the year past?

Mr WINGARD: It would be great if you could do that, too.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I am more than happy to provide that. By the way, while we are at it, if you would like to write to me or contact my office to make a briefing available from any of these offices to you or to a group from the opposition who might want to seek a briefing on what the agencies do—

Mr WINGARD: Thank you. I have chatted with the Small Business Commissioner a number of times and I appreciate his help and assistance. Just before the good member for Kavel reads the omnibus questions, I have a question regarding the Small Business Development Fund in northern Adelaide that we talked about and the number of staff involved. Are any of the people working on the small business development project based out of the northern suburbs?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I am advised that we have only one person managing the fund from the CBD and that they work through the business development managers in each of the councils involved. I know that the seminars and workshops promoting the grant funding—I have attended a few—are held out in the north.

Before we go into the omnibus questions, I want to clarify on the record something that was stated in the last session just to make sure that the record is clear. I was asked whether local government paid to come on overseas trade missions. I thought that was not the case, but I am advised that they have been charged $200 per council and that they have made a payment. So we have charged the councils, and I just wanted to clarify the record.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: 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.

The CHAIR: There being no further time for questions, I declare the examination of the proposed payments completed.

Sitting suspended from 16:16 to 16:30.