Estimates Vote

Auditor-General's Department, $17,622,000

Legislative Council, $5,476,000

House of Assembly, $7,637,000

Joint Parliamentary Services, $12,607,000

Administered Items for Joint Parliamentary Services, $2,756,000

Minister:

Hon. S.S. Marshall, Premier.

Departmental Advisers:

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

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

Mr R. Crump, Clerk, House of Assembly.

The CHAIR: The estimates committees are a relatively informal procedure and as such there is no need to stand to ask or answer questions. However, having said that, I will ask for an amount of decorum and order in this process. I understand that the Premier and the lead speaker of the opposition have agreed to an approximate time for the consideration of proposed payments, which will facilitate a change of departmental advisers. Can the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition confirm that the timetable for today's proceedings previously distributed is accurate. You are happy with that?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Yes.

The CHAIR: Thank you. Changes to the committee membership will be notified as they occur. Members should ensure the Chair is provided with a complete request to be discharged form. If the Premier undertakes to supply information at a later date, it must be submitted to the committee secretary by no later than Friday 26 October 2018. I propose to allow both the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition to make opening statements of about 10 minutes each, should they wish.

There will be a flexible approach to giving the call for asking questions, based on about three questions per member, alternating each side. Supplementary questions will be the exception, rather than the rule. A member who is not part of the committee may ask a question at the discretion of the Chair. Questions must be based on lines of expenditure in the budget papers and must be identifiable or referenced. 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, it is purely statistical and limited to one page in length. All questions are to be directed to the Premier, not his advisers. The Premier may refer questions to advisers for a response.

The committee's examinations will be broadcast in the same manner as the sittings of the house are broadcast, through the IPTV system within Parliament House and via the web stream link to the internet. I will now proceed to open the following lines for examination: the portfolio is the Department of the Premier of Cabinet. The minister appearing is the Premier. As the committee would be aware, these items are not necessarily contained in the budget papers. I declare the proposed payments open for examination. I call on the Premier to make a statement, if he wishes to. Also, please Premier, introduce your advisers.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. There will not be any opening statement. I introduce to my right, Andrew Richardson, the Auditor-General, and to my left, Ian McGlen, the Deputy Auditor-General. Directly behind me is Mr Rick Crump, Clerk of the House of Assembly and Secretary of the Joint Parliamentary Services.

The CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition, do you wish to make an opening statement?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: In light of the fact that the Premier has graciously allowed more time for questions, then that is something we will take up, too. We will not be making an opening statement.

The CHAIR: Then I call on members for questions. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Congratulations on your election. Good morning, Premier and your officials. I would like to start by asking a question regarding the Auditor-General. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 70, and more specifically I refer to sub-program 1.2. I am more than happy to wait until you get the relevant documents. Sub-program 1.2 details additional resources for special investigations. Other than the $300,000 that has been allocated for the investigation of the Coober Pedy council, can the Premier advise if the Auditor-General has sought any further funds for special investigations?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Not that I am aware of.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Can the Premier advise, outside the Coober Pedy council investigation, if the Auditor-General is undertaking any other special investigations?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am advised that the answer to that question is no.

The CHAIR: Leader, that particular budget line is not open at the moment. We have opened the Legislative Council, the House of Assembly, JPS and administered items for the JPSC.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: My advice is that the Auditor-General is part of the first part of proceedings this morning between 9am and 11.15am.

The CHAIR: We have confirmation from the Clerk that we will open that as well, so continue.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. In regard to investigations by the Auditor-General, is the Auditor-General pursuing or considering pursuing an investigation into the payment of $2.5 million or thereabouts to the accused murderer Henry Keogh?

Mr RICHARDSON: I am not. There is a select committee looking at the payment arrangements there. We have had a look at the authorities that were given to make the payment and we will report on that in the coming annual report, which is due in the next—I think it will be tabled when parliament resumes on 16 October. There is a description about that authority process at that point. My reasons for not going much further than that were to wait to see—if there is a select committee going through the process in the first place—whether or not that would deal with the matter.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: For the sake of clarity, putting aside the select committee exercise, which is clearly an important one, when you are considering the relevant authorities that the payment was made under is that something that you are actively looking at or paying attention to during the course of your work in the lead-up to the annual report?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The Auditor-General conducts an annual audit of every single agency of government. I think he has just provided you with an answer, that there is no supplementary report or focus specifically on the matter that you have raised.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Sure. I appreciate the ordinary work that is undertaken by the Auditor-General, and I am well aware that you do as well, but I just want to understand. In the Auditor-General's answer, he referred to an analysis or a piece of work looking at the authority under which those payments are made. I want to understand what that work entails and what specifically is being looked at.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That is the Auditor-General's responsibility, which is provided to this parliament each year with the annual report. He looks at the authority of all payments. That is the role of the Auditor-General.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: But does the Auditor-General have queries about the authorities of that payment?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I will allow the Auditor-General perhaps to answer that question directly himself.

Mr RICHARDSON: As I said, the report will be tabled on 16 October. Just to explain, when a payment is made, there are levels of authority that can be given, depending on the amount of the transaction and the nature of the transaction. We look to the criteria that apply for the particular transactions and we see whether or not the right people with authority have signed off before a payment is made.

If we have queries about that—that would be in the sense of perhaps someone exceeding delegation—we would raise questions like that. Where something has gone through ministers, through cabinet, then they are the highest level of authority. I am just explaining to you a process; I am not saying what has happened with the particular payment that you are interested in. That payment will be described and covered in the report that is coming.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Will the annual report that you are producing specifically refer to the payment made to Mr Keogh?

Mr RICHARDSON: Yes, it will. There is clearly a public interest in that, so we have made sure that there is a section—it is a small section—that deals with that. As I say, our main interest was then to see what would happen through the select committee.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So the select committee, in your mind, performs an important function in ascertaining information that could be useful in the conduct of your work when looking into that payment?

Mr RICHARDSON: Yes, and for us that is relatively routine. Select committees occur quite frequently. One of the issues for us with our timetable compared to a select committee is that sometimes we just want to finish off and the select committee often goes at least over the course of a year or across financial years. Sometimes we will do the work that we think we need to do to cover our responsibilities, which is the case with this particular payment, but when you do an examination you do change the nature of the work that you are doing.

Most audits are quite straightforward—dare I describe them as 'tick bash', if people are familiar with that. That is how you get through the bulk of it. They are not strictly examinations: they are really just in-depth audits that we do because of the nature of some transactions. That is where we tend to do our individual reports, like we have done in the past on the Royal Adelaide Hospital and the plaza and those sorts of things. But they are not typical audits: they are very in-depth engagements that we go through. Technically, the examinations are things that are referred to me or that I do, and mostly only for local government. That is technically under the Public Finance and Audit Act.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: This is probably an important point because something I am conscious of is that the select committee timing is beyond your control and even beyond mine or the Premier's. In the event that the select committee was not able to conclude prior to your annual report being produced, would you still continue with your examination of the Keogh payment and refer to that outcome in the annual report?

Mr RICHARDSON: As I said, I am not doing an examination of the Keogh payment. I have done an audit of the authority for the payment and will report on that in the report. In most cases, we do not report on individual transactions like that. Because of the profile of the particular payment, it will be quite easily found in the report. I have not planned to do an examination, and I would wait and see what came of the select committee to see whether I ought to. When I make those decisions, I am also making those against the other priorities that are about what we think we ought to be reporting to the parliament on.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: You are doing an audit, though, into the authorities around that payment?

Mr RICHARDSON: We have done that.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: You have done that.

Mr RICHARDSON: Yes.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: And that will be referred to in the annual report.

Mr RICHARDSON: Yes.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Okay.

The CHAIR: Leader, can I just interrupt for a moment. We have actually opened the Auditor-General's Department for questioning as a result of your indicating that you would like to do that. We should really be referring this to a budget line. I have given you a bit of latitude thus far. Also, could I remind you please to direct your questions to the Premier, not the Auditor-General.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: My pleasure. You can take it as given that all my questions are directed through the Premier. Thank you, Premier, for those candid responses. In regard to the Auditor-General's work generally, I think it is fair to say that the payment of $2.5 million to an accused murderer has—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Do you have a question? This is not an opportunity to make speeches in the committee. You have to have a question to a budget line.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I do have a question. Because of the extraordinary, peculiar nature of a payment of $2.5 million to an accused murderer, I think all of us will be relieved to hear that the Auditor-General was looking at the authorities under which that payment is being made.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Is that a question?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Sorry?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Was that a question?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am getting to the question. In regard to the same budget line, has the Auditor-General received any request to examine or investigate transitional arrangements arising from the machinery of government changes made since the 2018 election?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not know whether he has received any request but, if he has, I presume it will be contained in the annual report, which will be tabled in the parliament next month.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So we do not know if he has received any requests. Are we able to establish whether or not he has received any requests?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think there is only a month to wait until you see the annual report, but the Auditor-General has already made it very clear to the committee that he is not conducting any supplementary investigations at the moment. If there have been any requests and he has seen fit to make an investigation, that will be reported in the annual report, which will be tabled in the parliament next month.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Sure, and we look forward to the annual report, but we are here today to answer questions. I am just wondering, Premier, whether the Auditor-General has received—and I am not talking about specific or special investigations into the payments to accused murderers now: I am talking about there obviously being, as one would expect post an election—

The CHAIR: Leader, can I interrupt. Can you refer your questions to particular budget lines.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Yes. I am talking about the same budget line. I will also note, Mr Chairman, that during the Premier's questions in previous estimates he referred to a budget line once and then was not repeatedly called back to it. I am still referring to the same budget line. As one would expect post an election, transitional arrangements are made in terms of machinery of government. What I am asking is whether or not the Auditor-General has received any requests to examine the arrangements that occurred, or changes that occurred, since the 2018 election.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am advised that no request has been made.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: On the same budget line, Premier, last year the Auditor-General stated in estimates that he had been concerned about where the Auditor-General's powers ended and where the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption's powers began. Have those issues of overlap been resolved or addressed?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Sorry, can you just repeat the question?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Of course. Again with regard to the same budget line, last year the Auditor-General stated in estimates that he was concerned about where the Auditor-General powers ended and where the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption's powers began. I was just wondering if any of those issues have been addressed or resolved.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think the comments by the Auditor-General last year through the Premier were related to an investigation into the Festival Plaza. He said that there were some issues with where his investigation and other investigations might be, so it was specific to an area. I do not think there was a confusion regarding the powers of the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption and the Auditor-General's—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: No, I appreciate the context. I guess what we are wondering is that, because it has arisen in one instance, surely there is the potential that it could be raised again. I am just wondering whether or not those concerns have been addressed or looked at.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: With regard to the Festival Plaza?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: No, with regard generally.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: But I do not think—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: It is a question of the powers.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Well, I was at the committee last year. There was no confusion, a general confusion. There was an issue raised and reported to the committee regarding a specific investigation, which was the Festival Plaza. I can ask the Auditor-General to make it clear to the committee whether the resolution of those issues between the ICAC and the Auditor-General were resolved with regard to the Festival Plaza.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The context of the Festival Plaza is noted. What I guess we are interested in is the general issue because—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: There was not a general issue raised.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Well, if it has happened once before, it has the propensity to happen again, so we are just wanting to make sure that we are looking to the future about preventing that from occurring.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am not aware of any issue apart from the Festival Plaza, and I ask the Auditor-General perhaps to refer to the issue of the Festival Plaza and clarify any confusion that may have existed at that time and whether it has been resolved.

Mr RICHARDSON: What we did was we naturally related with the commissioner at the time. Having done that—and we do that now on a relatively continuing basis—I do not think there are going to be any issues about misinterpreting our respective roles. We have a good, constructive relationship that came out of the plaza experience, which has helped us understand where we each take a role in particular matters that might arise. We do, naturally, have overlaps, so it is important that we have a process where we can delineate what the situation might be for our respective mandates. I just do audits, and the commissioner has a different role.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I might move on to a question regarding Budget Paper 3, page 11. In that section a reference is made to the Land Services commercialisation transaction and how it is treated in the budget. On page 11, it states that discussions with the Auditor-General following submission of draft 2017-18 financial statements on 13 August this year expressed concerns that the accounting treatment for the $1.6 billion transaction might not be correct. It also states:

In most recent discussions at the time of printing the budget papers the Auditor-General has indicated that the transaction may need to be treated as revenue in 2017-18.

Premier, I was just wondering, through you, if the Auditor-General can advise whether this matter has been settled and how it impacts on the 2017-18 operating balance?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: My understanding is that this is another matter that will be addressed in the annual report; would that be correct?

Mr RICHARDSON: Yes.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I appreciate that, but I guess I am wondering, the report being some time away, whether or not the Auditor-General has arrived at a conclusion regarding the question.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think he has because it is in the annual report.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Okay, what is it?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Auditor-General, would you like perhaps to advise the committee?

Mr RICHARDSON: Again, the position is that of course the account preparers, which in this case is the Treasury department, have to do the work behind deciding and proposing an accounting policy. The position at the time of the budget was that we simply did not have a final paper on what the accounting ought to be. The disclosure that was made in the budget papers, as I understand, was to reflect that the matter had not been resolved, as you say. Treasury have now put a paper to us. I understand that perhaps the Treasurer might be explaining the detail of the particular accounting standard that has been referred to here. I will not go through that detail.

There is a new accounting standard that deals with this sort of arrangement on concessions. What it results in is that the proceeds will be carried forward essentially as a liability, which will be brought to account over the 40 years of the term of the transaction. Each year, there will be a small amount of revenue, one-fortieth of the initial proceeds, adjusted for various things that will be brought to account as revenue. I am just going to, if I might through the Premier, check with my colleague that I have described that correctly.

The CHAIR: I might just ask you if you have any questions at all on the lines we opened originally: the Legislative Council, House of Assembly, Joint Parliamentary Services or Administered Items for Joint Parliamentary Services. Do you have any questions at all on those lines?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Yes.

The CHAIR: You do, okay. If you did not, I was going to close those lines, but you are indicating that you do have them.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: We intend to deal with the Auditor-General's items first, then move on to the other subjects. Just to be clear about that, your expectation in the annual report is that you confirm the formula or format which Treasury applied at the time of the printing of the budget papers?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: What was in the budget papers was the information that we had to the best of our knowledge at the time.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Yes.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: There is a change in accounting standards, which will come into effect soon. There has been some negotiation with the Auditor-General, and the full details of that will be provided by the Treasurer and, of course, in the annual report from the Auditor-General.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I appreciate that the budget was printed with information available to you at the time but, having ascertained additional information since the printing of the budget papers, as was outlined would occur at the time of the print, do you expect the numbers to change?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Sorry, just to be clear about that, you do not expect there to be any change?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No. I think that is the point, that the Auditor-General was raising a question with the way it was presented at the time, but Treasury had formed the opinion that, because there was a change of accounting standards that was coming into effect, we would adopt that. There was a genuine concern, which was raised by the Auditor-General. There was some negotiation in regard to that, and I think it has been agreed.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So you do not expect the annual report to call for any change to the way—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That is my understanding.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: What was the date of printing of the budget papers?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not have the information with me.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Are you able to take that on notice?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Sure.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Thanks, Mr Chairman. I am happy to move on to Joint Parliamentary Services now, if you like. Thank you, Mr Auditor-General, and your team.

The CHAIR: Thank you, gentlemen, for your contribution. There being no further questions, I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the portfolio of the Auditor-General's Department to be completed.

We will go straight to Legislative Council, House of Assembly, Joint Parliamentary Services and Administered Items for Joint Parliamentary Services. Mr Rick Crump needs no introduction in this chamber.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Premier, what was the cost of the renovations and alterations to the Premier's office on the ground floor of parliament?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not have that detail with me at the moment, but I am happy to provide that to you.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: You are happy to take that on notice?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes.

Mr PEDERICK: Excuse me, Chair, I am interested in what budget line we are working on.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Sure. Budget Paper 3, page 160, line items 29, 31, 32 and 33. Sorry, I neglected to mention that. Premier, who asked for the amendments to the Premier's office in the parliament?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not know directly, but certainly we conveyed to Mr Crump that we wanted a different configuration. The previous premier had a working office with three or four people in a sort of anteroom of the then premier's office. We did not think that was appropriate. We did not think it really conformed with occupational health and safety requirements and we effected those changes. All of those changes and alterations were done within the existing budget.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Did you ask for that to take place?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not know whether I specifically instructed Mr Crump. I think it probably came from—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: No, I am not asking whether you instructed Mr Crump. I am asking: did someone in your office go off and ask for that to take place independently of you, or did you play a role in asking for that to occur?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I cannot recall, but it is a substantial improvement to the working environment in the Premier's office.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I have no doubt. I just want to be clear about this. Were you aware of the changes that were being proposed to the Premier's office?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Absolutely aware.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Excellent. Did you ask questions about how much it would cost?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No; I did not receive that detail, no.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Did you ask for it?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So you were happy for a refurbishment of your office in the parliament without any reference to what the potential costs would be?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have absolute confidence in the people who were effecting the changes that were required.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So you have no idea how much it cost and you had no interest in how much it would cost?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have no further answer to provide to the committee over and above what I have already provided.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Do you think it would be prudent that, in the event of the refurbishment of your office, it might be a good idea for you to take notice of how much that might cost?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have nothing further to add.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I will take that as a no. When was the last time renovations were made to the Premier's office here in Parliament House?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Considering I have been the Premier for only six months, I am not privy to all the previous adjustments that may or may not have been made. As I said, on coming to government we formed the opinion that the concept of having multiple people working within that environment was completely inappropriate, so we relocated them to other parts of the building and had to create an additional space for meetings in the room adjacent to the Premier's office.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Okay. Again, I will just ask: how much did that cost?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am advised that the payment for that was made through Treasury and Finance. It did not come through this line, so it will be a question better directed to the Treasurer.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So that payment did not come through JPSC or the parliament?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have just indicated that.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: If you do not know how much your office cost to upgrade, who does?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have just answered that as well.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Well, just remind me.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Treasury.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Thank you. Do you intend to undertake any other refurbishments to your office without your paying any reference to the cost?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Look, I have dealt with this issue in some detail. I have nothing further to contribute to answers regarding the office refurbishment. I have made it very clear what has occurred. I am very satisfied with the outcome.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Do you think it is reasonable to expect that the Premier would pay attention to the cost of refurbishing the Premiers office?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As I said, I have nothing further to contribute.

The CHAIR: Leader, perhaps we could move to the next line of questioning.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Sure. What is the total number of staff employed within the agencies of the Parliament of South Australia, and how many of these staff are employed within each of the House of Assembly, the Legislative Council and the Joint Parliamentary Services?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Maybe I could ask Mr Crump to answer that question.

Mr CRUMP: The established FTEs for the legislature totals 114.1. This number relates to fully funded full-time equivalents in respect of each office or division within the parliament. The establishment for catering is 15.4, reporting is 25.3, joint services is 15.5, the library is 9.9, the House of Assembly is 29 and the Legislative Council is 19.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: On the same budget line, the increase from the 2017-18 estimated results to the 2018-19 budgeted payments across the four line items range from 1.67 per cent to 3.23 per cent. Other than an increase in line with CPI, what other factors have resulted in these increases, and why were they not uniform across the parliamentary agencies?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am advised that there has been no change to the established FTEs for this line.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I do not know if that is what I was getting at. Do you want me to repeat that?

Mr CRUMP: Yes.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The increase from the 2017-18 estimated results to the 2018-19 budgeted payments across the four line items that I referred to earlier—29, 31, 32 and 33—range from 1.67 per cent to 3.23 per cent. Outside CPI, what were the other factors that resulted in these increases, and why the disparity between them in terms of the size of percentage?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am advised that for Joint Parliamentary Services the variance is $118,000, and the $118,000 is for supplementation for members' on-costs. I have been provided with some further detail breaking that down. The variance for the House of Assembly is a total of $152,000. This is the result of $48,000 for the supplementation of salaries and wages across the forward estimates of 1.3 per cent and $104,000 for the increase of supplies and services, which is a total of 3 per cent.

For the Legislative Council, between the 2017-18 budget and the 2018-19 budget it is a variance of $109,000. That is a variance of $35,000 for the supplementation of salaries and wages across the forward estimates of 1.4 per cent and $74,000 for the increase of supplies and services, making it a total of 2.8 per cent.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am not sure that answers exactly what I was after but, nevertheless, we will move on.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That is the breakdown of the areas of cost in those lines that you have asked about. Splitting up Joint Parliamentary Services between the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly basically falls into two areas: salaries and wages and supplies and services. I have actually given you both the dollar value increase between the 2017-18 budget and the 2018-19 budget and the percentage increases in all those areas. I cannot imagine what else you could require, but if there is another question I am happy to answer it.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: In regard to the same items, the amounts that have gone up are relatively modest in terms of the estimated payments for the South Australian parliament line items which talks to a lack of major new spending initiatives for the parliament in the budget papers. That is not problematic, except what I am wondering is: does this mean that the modernisation proposals outlined by the new Speaker, Speaker Tarzia, still include the electronic petitions, a greater online presence, Facebook live broadcasting? Does that mean that these things have not been funded in the budget?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am advised that we are working to a range of reforms. They will be prioritised and, as work on those is completed, we will look to find the funding for that within the budget which has been provided.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Is there a specific budget line item that contains contingency for those costs?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Is there a budget line item that provides a contingency?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Has the money been allocated to those costs? Let me rephrase the question. Has there been any progress in regard to the planning regarding the broadcasting of live parliamentary sessions on social media?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not have that detail, but I am happy to ask the Speaker to come back to you with an answer on that.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Is the Clerk in his capacity able to provide some detail?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As I said, the Speaker is handling that issue and we are looking at that at the moment, but there is no specific cost that has been determined at the moment that I am aware of.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Has any money been allocated for a new parliament website?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I did not hear.

The CHAIR: Leader, could you repeat the question?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Sure. I was asking has any money been allocated for the new parliamentary website and, if so, what is the time frame associated with that?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: My understanding is that progress has been made and the rollout of the new website will be incorporated and dealt with within the existing budget allocation.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Do we know when it is likely to be in place?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not have that information.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Can you take that on notice?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: You could ask the Speaker, who is handling the matter. It is not really a matter for the Premier.

Mr BROWN: Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, program 3: it is not related to the parliament but it is about the State Coordinator-General. There has been an increase in expenses. Could you expand on what that is related to?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Sorry, what was the page reference?

Mr BROWN: Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, program 3, page 50.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Just for clarity, are we dealing with the State Coordinator-General in this session or is that in the next session? I obviously do not have advisers for that yet.

The CHAIR: That is a fair question, Premier. It is under the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, which we have not actually got to yet. We can open it. Are you happy to complete the Legislative Council and so on?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Unless there are other questions, sure.

The CHAIR: Any questions from the government to the Premier? In that case, there being no further questions, I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the Legislative Council, the House of Assembly, the Joint Parliamentary Services and Administered Items for Joint Parliamentary Services to be completed.