State Governor's Establishment, $3,781,000

Department of the Premier and Cabinet, $299,804,000

Administered Items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, $11,796,000

Minister:

Hon. S.S. Marshall, Premier.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr J. McDowell, Chief Executive, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

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

Ms R. Ambler, Executive Director, Cabinet Office, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Ms J. Mazel, Assisting the Chief Executive, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

The CHAIR: We are jumping around a bit, on the timetable that I was given at least. I have in this morning's session also, under the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, the State Governor's Establishment of $3,781,000.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: We do not have any questions.

The CHAIR: If there are no questions, I declare the examination of the proposed payments on the State Governor's Establishment to be completed. Premier, we have opened the budget lines relating to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. Would you like to introduce your advisers?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I would be delighted to introduce to you and the committee Mr Jim McDowell, the Chief Executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, who is sitting on my right-hand side; Steven Woolhouse, the Chief Finance Officer for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet on my left; sitting behind me is Joslene Mazel, who is assisting the chief executive, and Ruth Ambler, the Executive Director of the Cabinet Office.

The CHAIR:. Are there any questions?

Mr BROWN: I have a question regarding Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, Program 3: State Coordinator-General, page 50. There has been a significant increase in total expenses and I was hoping that the Premier might expand on why that is.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am going to ask Mr Woolhouse if he would explain the accounting treatment that has effected the change that you have outlined to the committee.

Mr WOOLHOUSE: The increase that you are seeing in 2018-19 is just a result of corporate overhead allocations within the department. Because we had machinery of government changes we have had a number of programs that have left and a number of programs that have come in, so corporate overheads is expenditure within the department that covers corporate services, in particular finance, administration, human resources, procurement, ICT, accommodation and insurance.

So all the costs of running the department, in accordance with instructions from Treasury and Finance, for publication in the budget papers, these expenditure and income items that relate to your corporate areas are allocated across agency programs. In this case, the allocations are done for us on the basis of the program's FTE weightings. Each year, depending on the programs that you have and what FTEs are in those programs, determines how much corporate overhead is allocated. For example, in 2017-18, we had programs such as Shared Services and Service SA that had lots of FTEs in them, which meant that the overheads allocated to them were proportionately higher, and areas such as these which are quite small therefore have less.

As a result of machinery of government changes, quite a large number of units with lots of FTEs have now left DPC and our overall FTE count is a lot smaller. Overheads also left the department as part of machinery of government, but the overheads that are remaining—the dollars in terms of expenditure, revenue and FTE to some degree—then get reallocated. This is done each year and that has resulted in that increase around the $100,000 that I think you are referring to, like employee expenses and so forth. It is not actually the budget related to the State Coordinator-General's staffing; that is consistent and the budget is in accordance with indexation, as per normal, but it is the allocation of the corporate overheads to go with that.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: My question is in regard to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4. I am referring to page 46 initially. Premier, what economic modelling or analysis did you undertake or did the government undertake regarding the tax cut measures in the budget?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That would probably be a question you could direct to the Treasurer, who is in the other estimates committee.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am directing it to you.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As I said, I am happy for you to ask the Treasurer that question. I do not have any information at hand.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: You do not recall seeing any economic modelling regarding—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Let's be very clear. We made a commitment in the lead-up to the election and we effected that change in our first budget.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I know that. I was just asking whether you undertook any economic modelling regarding some of those significant policy decisions?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: There was an economic modelling unit within the Premier's department under the previous premier, but it is not in the department since the changes have been effected, so I just ask that you direct that question to the Treasurer.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: You will have to forgive me for my perseverance on this line of questioning because—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It is just not a relevant question when the unit does not sit within the Premier's department.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I have referred to an appropriate budget line item. I would have thought that, considering the significance of some of the economic decisions surrounding some of these tax measures, you would be at pains to reveal and talk to the economic modelling that has been undertaken by the government regarding these decisions.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As I said, all the economic modelling, and any impact that that would have, is done in a completely separate department and I just do not have visibility—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Let me ask you more specifically: did you look at any economic modelling regarding those decisions?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have nothing further to contribute to my previous answers.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I will take that as a no. Maybe I will try to be a bit more specific in regard to a specific measure to assist. In regard to the $95 million or thereabouts of land tax cuts, did the government undertake any economic modelling about what that would do for jobs growth?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I refer the honourable member to my previous answer.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The answer where you said that you did not look at any economic modelling before making a $95 million decision.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That is not a question: that is a statement. I am answering any questions that you have.

The CHAIR: I think, leader, that what the Premier is trying to indicate is that the budget lines that are open relate to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Yes.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Not the Department of Treasury and Finance. I understand the—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: But they speak to the budget line—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —leader's confusion because, in the previous government, the economic modelling unit was taken from Treasury and put in the Department for the Premier and Cabinet. When we came to government on 17 March, we transferred those functions to the Department of Treasury and Finance, so the relevant minister for this line of questioning is actually in the other committee being held at the moment. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition can flick a text to whoever sits on the opposition benches in that committee and ask the Treasurer that question.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Premier, I am sorry, but I understand that the coordination and leadership of strategic economic and policy priorities for the state does fall within DPC.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: You are asking specifically about economic modelling, and I am just providing an accurate answer to this committee that any detailed questions regarding that will need to be directed to the Treasurer.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Is there any organisation within DPC that is responsible for the coordination and leadership of the strategic economic and policy priorities of the state because, to the best of my knowledge, that particular reference in the budget papers does sit within an organisation within DPC? If you are telling me that the Premier has acquiesced all responsibility to strategic and economic policy priorities, then that is fine—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have not said that at all.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: —but I find it extraordinary—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have not said that at all.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So let's be clear about this. There is an organisation within DPC according to the budget papers—

The CHAIR: What is the question?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The question is: to what extent were the organisations or the people within DPC, who are responsible for the coordination and leadership of strategic and economic policy priorities of the state, aware of the economic modelling—if any economic modelling has been undertaken—regarding, for instance, a $95 million cut in land tax?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: What we know is that they made a $50,000 landholdings benefit from the tax—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Of course they did. They are going to get a tax cut, but what is the consequence of that economically? Did the people within DPC, who are responsible for the strategic and economic policy priorities of the state, get access to economic modelling regarding, for instance, a land tax cut?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As I said, I am more than happy for you to direct any detailed questions regarding economic modelling to Treasury. We have maintained the economic modelling unit. Cabinet consider the budget in total, but the specific questions regarding the modelling that was done should be directed to the Treasurer.

I do not really understand why you do not get the answer. You are consuming a lot of your allocated time on a pointless question and I will not be changing my answer. In relation to all future questions on this line, I refer you to my previous answer that has already been provided to the committee.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Forgive me for my impertinence, Premier, but I do not think that the Premier having some consciousness of economic modelling regarding multimillion-dollar tax cuts is a waste of anyone's time.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Your question was whether we did economic modelling. I have told you the economic modelling unit is within Treasury and Finance.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: No, my question was whether or not you have looked at that economic modelling before passing on a $95 million tax cut.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The budget is considered by cabinet as a whole, and, of course—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Have you looked at economic modelling?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We consider a whole pile of inputs when we frame the budget, but most importantly—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Does it include economic modelling?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: One of the most important things that we had regard to were the commitments that we made to the people of South Australia before the election. That is what they elected us to do: to implement our strong plan for real change, and that is precisely what was contained within the budget.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Premier, I refer to other references within the budget that refer to jobs growth being at 1 per cent per annum, which is obviously substantially less than it is currently. I am wondering whether or not the economic modelling that you would have access to would explain why a $96 million tax cut in this instance is not delivering the jobs growth that one would have hoped for when making tax policy decisions.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: In fact, the information contained within the budget papers regarding employment growth show that there was an increase. From the Mid-Year Budget Review, we saw that the forecast for jobs growth for this current financial year was predicted to be 1 per cent. In the budget that was handed down, that increased by 50 per cent, to 1½ per cent. I do not really understand the point that the leader is making. If he has another question, I am happy to answer it.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am sorry, Premier, but the budget refers to jobs growth being at 1 per cent, which is less than it is currently. I am wondering why do we have in the last two years of the budget a collective $95 million in tax cuts not delivering in forecast jobs growth?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That is a different question. The payroll tax cut comes into effect on 1 January next year. There has been a substantial uplift for this financial year in jobs growth compared with what was handed down in the final forecast of the previous government for this financial year. The Mid-Year Budget Review was handed down just weeks before Christmas. It provided for a 1 per cent jobs growth this financial year. When there was a change in government, that estimate for this year was increased to 1½ per cent.

I cannot speak to the out years. I suppose when people are doing this modelling, which is independent of the political process, they are prudent, and so they should be.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Good. You would acknowledge then that, despite a very significant policy decision to provide $96 million worth of tax cuts in the last two years of the budget, that is not resulting in an uplifting of jobs growth?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have nothing further to add to my previous answer. I refer the honourable member to my previous answer regarding this, which I thought was comprehensive.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Was any economic modelling undertaken or analysis done regarding the economic benefit of the 34 programs listed on page 10 of the budget speech that were axed by the government?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: And what was that?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Some of it was contained in the budget speech. In fact, the Treasurer went to some extent to point out that with many of the grants that had been recently approved by the previous government, in fact, Treasury had recommended against it. So their own department said that this would not offer value for money but, as the Treasurer outlined to this house when he came to provide the budget speech, the previous government ignored that advice and continued to provide that money. In fact, in one instance, I think the cost per job was something like $360,000—not offering an advantage—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So you conducted economic modelling and you are happy to talk to economic modelling on items that have been axed from the budget, but you are not willing to talk to economic modelling regarding long-term strategic decisions regarding revenue for the state—for instance, particularly in the area of land tax? I am trying to understand the consistency there.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We can keep talking around it. It is a fixed time. It is really, quite frankly, your time, not my time, but you are conflating two issues here. I have been very reasonable, pointing out that economic modelling does continue to occur. It has been transferred from my department to Treasury and Finance at the change of government, so any detailed questions regarding economic modelling should be put to the Treasurer. You then asked a question whether any modelling was done, and I provided an example which, quite frankly, I thought you might have already picked up on because the budget speech was only here 2½ weeks ago.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I think your answer, Premier, makes it clear that you are happy to talk about economic modelling in one instance, but not in another instance. It speaks of the fact, Premier, that your focus is entirely on the previous administration, rather than on the future administration. Nevertheless, let's try to focus on the future for a moment. In Budget Paper 3, page 110, table 7.1, there is a reference to the employment growth forecast. Was every Liberal policy implemented in the budget taken into consideration in the formulation of that jobs growth forecast table?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As I have already pointed out to the committee, I am not responsible for the jobs growth forecast. All I do point the committee to, though, is that, at the change of government, for the current financial year there was a very substantial increase in the projection that was independently derived.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So you accept then that the employment growth figures, which are more than halving from 2019-20 onwards, are a product of the policy decisions that you have implemented?

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

Mr MALINAUSKAS: You can see my confusion, though, can you not?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No, I can see you have run out of questions. Having sat in this exact committee myself—this is the sixth time that I have actually sat in this committee—every time I have sat in this committee quite frankly I have run out of time. An hour in, the Leader of the Opposition has run out of questions.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Well, let's get it—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: He asks the same question nine times, nine different ways. That is very obviously because he has no questions to ask.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Premier, with all due respect, I am very happy for you to repeatedly put on the record that you are making extraordinarily significant economic decisions regarding the future of our state without any reference to economic modelling and without any reference to the consequence on jobs growth. I have plenty of questions. When you start answering them, we will start getting through them.

The CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition, I remind you that this is not the opportunity to give commentary: it is the opportunity to ask questions of the Premier.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Well, the Premier might be reminded of the same thing, Chair. I refer you to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 46, program 1. I will just give you a moment to get that out.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I can look it up while you speak. Do not chew up any more time.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Has the Department of Treasury and Finance or the Department of the Premier and Cabinet undertaken any analysis as to whether the reduction in payroll tax will create a certain volume of jobs? This is something that I think you and I have unanimity of opinion on, so I am wondering what analysis you hope to rely upon in terms of the jobs growth that is created.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We clearly took this policy to the election. I would point out that, despite your now support of this measure, it was not received with much acclaim from the previous government, who said that we were putting money into the pockets of businesses that would not flow through to economic benefits.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Is this commentary or answering the question?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am very pleased with the change in attitude that the opposition has to providing some relief to businesses that go out and employ South Australians. With regard to specific modelling, as I have repeatedly pointed out, all economic modelling now does not occur in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet: it occurs within the Department of Treasury and Finance.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: How about any analysis?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Sorry?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Not necessarily specific modelling, but how about any analysis?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Any analysis?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Or any work.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That would be the work of the modelling unit.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I read your budget in reply speech post the 2014 election.

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

Mr MALINAUSKAS: It is a response to one of your remarks.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: You do not have an opportunity to provide responses. I can provide responses: you ask questions.

The CHAIR: Which is exactly what I said a moment ago, leader. Could you ask questions, please.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Sure. I would be grateful if the Premier was expeditious in getting to the answer. Does the economic adviser to the Premier expect that cutting the top marginal land tax rate from 3.7 per cent to 2.9 per cent for land ownerships valued between $1.2 million and $5 million will create jobs and, if so, how many?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We do not have that specific information at this committee.

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

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No. It does not relate to my area.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So the Premier's economic adviser does not relate to the Premier's area?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The Premier's economic adviser does not provide that level of detail. That work is done via the economic modelling unit, which is in a different department.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Does the Premier's economic adviser provide a view about multimillion-dollar tax cuts and the employment implications of that?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Those decisions are made by cabinet. I have outlined that. The economic modelling information that is provided to cabinet is provided via the Treasurer because the modelling unit has been transferred from the Department of the Premier and Cabinet into the Department of Treasury and Finance. It was originally in the Department of Treasury and Finance. My understanding is that it moved to the Premier's department about six years ago, so it was originally in Treasury and Finance.

There was a change of policy, probably when the former premier was acting as the treasurer as well. It remained in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. You would have to ask your own side as to what their rationale for that was. We formed the opinion that it should go back to where it was historically, which was in the Department of Treasury and Finance. This is why there is nothing sinister in the movement of it from the Department of the Premier and Cabinet to Treasury and Finance. It is perfectly logical. It is where it belongs. It is where it sits in most jurisdictions, and it is where it sat from 2002 to 2012, a decade of the previous government.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am not too sure if that answers the question. I understand the Premier's repeated reference to the fact that the economic modelling unit has been moved. What I am asking, though, is whether or not your economic advisers, whom you employ and who are answerable to you, provide you with any advice regarding what job outcomes we expect from the cutting of the top marginal tax rate for land tax.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As I said, that information is provided from the modelling unit via the Treasurer to the cabinet.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: What economic advice do you receive from your economic adviser if not about very substantial strategic policy decisions of the government?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: A range, but we do not duplicate. If there is one unit of government that is charged with the responsibility of providing that—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So why do you have an economic adviser?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: There are a lot of things other than economic modelling. I am trying to be as obvious as I possibly can. Economic modelling has transferred. It does not mean that the only advice we regard regarding economic matters comes from the modelling department. There is a very small unit, in fact, a very small—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am not asking about economic modelling anymore, though. That is the thing, Premier. I am asking about massive and very substantial tax decisions for the state, which I think everyone in public policy cares about. I want to understand your thoughts on what the implications will be of the decisions regarding jobs growth in the state.

I am not referring at all to economic modelling in this question. I am referring to very substantial strategic policy decisions, for which you have a unit within your government, and one of those strategic policy decisions is a $95 million land tax cut. Can you outline to the committee what the forecast job implications of that will be, because at the moment all we have to rely upon is a jobs growth figure of 1 per cent, which is less than what is occurring at the moment.

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

Mr MALINAUSKAS: That is pretty extraordinary, to say the least. You have economic advisers, you have a unit within the DPC, you are the Premier of the state, you are making massive tax-related decisions and you have no answer to provide regarding what the implications of that will be on jobs growth—not even an attempt at a spirited defence of this decision.

The CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That was not a question.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: That was a question.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No, that was not a question. It was a statement.

The CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Okay, let me ask a specific question. Have you received any—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: You are continuing to completely disregard the rules of this committee. The reality is that you can ask questions and I can provide the responses. You continue to make speeches and statements—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am asking questions, Premier—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —in this committee, which is not actually the role of this committee.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am asking questions, Premier, about the economic advice you receive before making decisions, like—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: What is your question?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: —a $95 million tax cut. How many jobs will be created by that decision?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That is a matter for the economic modelling unit, which is in a different department.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So the economic modelling unit is responsible for policy decisions of the government?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: They provide advice to cabinet. The new government operates in a completely different way from the previous government. I do not want to reflect on the previous government, but—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: You have been doing a lot of it lately.

The CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition, this particular department has a large budget. You have pursued that line of questioning for some time now. If you have queries on other budget lines, it would be appropriate now to move to them.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I will stick to the same budget line but ask a different line of questioning. On the same budget line, what economic impact assessments have been relied upon for the government's position of the total deregulation of shop trading hours?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As the honourable member would be aware, this was the subject of an Australian Productivity Commission report. The Productivity Commission was very specific about the benefits. But more than just the economic benefits, we want to provide choice, choice for consumers and choice for businesses in this state. At the moment, there is a very heavy set of regulations about when and where people can shop. These are very confusing regulations that have an economic impact. Our commitment was to do all that we could to free up those restrictions because we want to create more jobs in this state.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: When you say it will create more jobs in this state, what economic analysis do you have to demonstrate that point?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As I said, there is an Australian Productivity Commission report, to which I refer the honourable member. As he would be aware, we are also out talking to people every single day, and the vast—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So am I.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The Leader of the Opposition interjects and says that he is out listening to people every single day, yet every single published poll on the issue of deregulation shows unequivocally that the people of South Australia want further liberalisation—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Is that your economic analysis?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —of shop trading hours. He says that he is listening to people, but the reality is—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am listening to small businesses.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —he might be listening, but he is certainly not acting on the will of the people.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: We will move on. That does not strike me as a particularly robust policy response. With regard to Budget Paper 3, page 11, table 1.3, you will see there, Premier, that net debt is expected to blow out from $5.3 billion in 2017-18 to $8.7 billion. Can the Premier explain the financial implications of this in terms of increased lending costs to the state?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No; that would be a question better directed to the Treasurer.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Let me rephrase my question, then, rather than being on a specific lending cost question. Can you explain why net debt is blowing out from $5.3 billion to $8.7 billion?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Good; can you explain.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Clearly outlined in the remainder of the budget, we have a very significant increase in investment activities for the new government. They have all been highlighted in the budget papers. We are proud of every one of the investment decisions that we are making.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Do you think that the size of the debt increase is any reason for concern?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The debt to revenue ratio increases up to 41 per cent over the course of the budget, which is a very high level in comparison to more recent history. Is that any reason for concern for you?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Why not?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I just do not have a concern about it. We are investing to improve the productive capacity of our state. We are investing in important projects right across our state. The cost of that capital is significantly lower than it has been in recent times. We think now is a good time to make that investment.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Premier, I share your view that debt, where it is in regard to investment in productive infrastructure, is not a bad thing. What I am wondering about, though, is in terms of our capacity to repay, hence the concern around the debt to revenue levels. Does the government have a metric in regard to an objective in terms what it would like to keep debt to revenue ratio below?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Again, that would be a question that you could direct to the other committee, which is currently occurring. This is not a matter that I would be ideal to address. It is very specific to Treasury.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am referring to a specific table within the budget papers.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Sure, but let's be quite clear: if you want to ask detailed questions about debt to equity ratios, you would be better directing those questions to the Treasurer.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Do you have an interest in the debt to revenue ratio?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Absolutely. I have just outlined to this committee in some detail that we are very proud of the investment decisions that we are making. Because we were left an enormous black hole by the previous government, we are not going to be able to service that entire investment strategy or agenda from surpluses, so we will have to debt-finance that very significant investment agenda that we have put forward in the budget.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So if you do take an interest in the debt to revenue ratio as a measure of the capacity for the state to repay the debt that you are increasing, what do you think is a reasonable level at which to have the debt to revenue ratio?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: What that exact number should be is not an issue to which I have turned my mind. I am happy to take that question on notice and come back to you with an answer as to what I think it should be.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I would be very grateful for you to let the people of the state know, when you get around to it, what you think the debt to revenue ratio should be.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It is contained in the budget. Obviously, we just published this less than three weeks ago. It is quite obviously something that I endorsed.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: You endorsed the debt to revenue ratio going up?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I endorsed the budget that was brought down less than three weeks ago. It is an excellent budget. It delivers on all the issues that we spoke about in the lead-up to the election. It also increases—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: At a very substantial cost.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Well, it would be a lot lower debt to equity ratio if the previous government's forecast in the Mid-Year Budget Review of a $12 million surplus last financial year was accurate. It was not accurate.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So the debt to revenue ratio going up so dramatically is someone else's fault and not because of the decisions that your government is making?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Let's be clear: $400 million is $400 million. That was the size in round terms of the deficit last financial year. What we do know—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I think the accounting tricks—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —is that Treasury had provided advice that showed that the surplus projected by the previous government was not going to be achieved. That work was done prior to the election. That was not conveyed to the people of South Australia. We, of course, relied on the most up-to-date information in framing what we took to the election, which was the Mid-Year Budget Review handed down only a few weeks before the election. Despite Treasury producing advice available to the government, which would have clearly showed that there was a multi-hundred million dollar deficit on its way, that information was not revealed.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: We will leave the dark art of bringing forward dramatic expenditure to the other committee.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The only thing that was dramatic was the redress payment. I am happy to admit that that was of the order of $140 million, so, yes, you could take that off. But I am very proud of the fact that, on coming to government, the new government dealt with this issue, which, quite frankly, should have been dealt with prior to the last election.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So you are happy to acknowledge that a deficit figure for the 2017-18 financial year was affected to the tune of $140 million to $150 million as a result of a decision that you made?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Can you just outline that again?

The CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition, I am going to remind you again that this is an estimates committee and that it is not the opportunity for debate or making speeches. It is the opportunity for asking questions, which the Premier has the opportunity then to answer.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I was just asking a question on the back of information that the Premier provided. So, again, the Premier acknowledges then that the deficit figure for the 2017-18 financial year would be to the tune of $140 million to $150 million less if not for a decision that your government made.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We have made it very clear that one of the issues that we dealt with immediately on coming to government was the issue of providing for the payments in accordance with the national push for redress, and we are very proud of that decision.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: That is a yes. Just back to the debt to revenue ratio, in light of the fact that debt is going up quite significantly I want to understand your view of the debt to revenue ratio. You said that you would contemplate what you think the figure should be and come back to us.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Well, if there is any variance to what is provided in the budget, then I am more than happy to address that. Quite frankly, what is contained there is something that I am not only satisfied with but I am extraordinarily proud of. It was only weeks before the budget was brought down that we heard squeals from the opposition worrying about the fact that we would not have a significant investment component to the budget, and they were concerns which we shared.

We were not in a position to halt our investment here in South Australia. That would have had an adverse effect on employment and on growth in the economy, and we took the action, and that is contained in the budget, but the opposition cannot have it both ways. They cannot say, 'We want you to be investing more. We don't want you to be having efficiency dividends within the government, and we want you to be keeping the general government debt levels down.' Those three things do not go together.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I have a question regarding Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 46, program 1. Why did the Premier sack the Chief Executive of the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Well, I would not refer to it as 'sacking'. A new government comes to power and it has a different direction and it is completely entitled under the act to have the chief executives we require to implement the government's agenda. I formed the opinion that we would need some changes to the existing chief executives that were in place.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I absolutely understand and respect that. I just want to know why you sacked this one. Maybe I should be a bit clearer. Was the decision to dismiss the former chief executive of DPTI a function of the fact that you could? If it is more than just because you could, and we absolutely respect that you have the right to do that, I assume there is a greater reason and I would like to know what that is.

The CHAIR: Premier, I would fully understand if you decided not to answer that question, but I will leave it up to you.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The Premier is responsible for the appointment of chief executives.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Thank you, Chair. I do not have anything to add to my previous answer. A new government comes in and they set a new direction. Senior management is critical. We looked at senior management, and we just felt that some changes needed to be made. We minimised those as much as possible, but we thought that some changes were required. We effected that change, as has already received plenty of media attention.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: What has been done in the last six months to find a replacement for the DPTI CEO?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We have been working with an acting chief executive in that role, so there has been no diminution in the capacity of that department to deliver on the requirements of the government. We have gone out to the market. My understanding is that interviews have been conducted, and we will be in a position to update the people of South Australia on the appointment for the head of the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure in the coming weeks.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Just so I understand your answer, you do not think that the functioning of the department, or the capacity of the department to deliver upon your election promises or the policy agenda of the government, has been undermined by having an acting chief executive. Why would it have been undermined by retaining the former chief executive?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I just refer the honourable member to my previous answers with regard to this.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Has anyone been approached or offered the job of the DPTI CEO?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As I said, interviews have taken place and we will be in a position to update the parliament and the people of South Australia in the coming weeks.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: How much longer do you think they will have to wait? It has been six months.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Honestly, if you did not understand the last two answers—'in the coming weeks'—then I do not think there is anything else that I can add to that answer.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Has anyone been approached and offered the job and then declined it?

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

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Premier, what was your involvement or that of your Chief of Staff in decisions made to terminate senior executives in this agency during the first 30 days of taking office?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Can you be more specific?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: In regard to this department, what was your involvement or that of your Chief of Staff in the decisions made to terminate senior executives within the agency?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Which agency?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: DPTI.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: My Chief of Staff and I had nothing to do with that, whatsoever, apart from the chief executive, which is already on the public record.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: What was the process for making the decisions regarding chief executives? To make this less painful, was the logic that you applied to other CEs being sacked largely the same as the logic you applied to the DPTI CEO?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As I said—new government, new direction. Senior management is obviously critical. We formed an opinion that some changes needed to be made, and we effected those changes.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: What was the cost of those terminations and the separations?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We can provide that information.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So you will take that on notice. Are you able to break down each of the various departments when you provide that information?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No, I do not think that is appropriate. We can provide the total amount of the four separations. They are all done in accordance with the contracts that were actually signed by the previous premier so, quite frankly, you could easily do it yourself. I do not think that there would be any advantage in those numbers being disclosed.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Were there any additional payments that were made to the former CE of DPTI in light of the fact that he also had the role as Rail Commissioner?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not have any detail of that, but I am happy to take that question on notice and come back to you.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Likewise with his role as highways commissioner?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Again, these questions would be better directed to the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, which would have accounted for those issues.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: You can understand why I am asking you, though, because they are appointments by you.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Sure, but we do not handle the accounting treatments of those matters. All I would say is that I am happy to take the question on notice.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Okay, thank you.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: But you could find out far quicker if you had a real interest in this by asking the relevant minister.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: You have taken it on notice; that is all I am after. In regard to Budget Paper 4, Agency Statements, Volume 4, page 41, why has the Premier's allocation for ministerial resources increased from 41.4 FTEs in 2017-18 to 45 in 2018-19?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think that is just because of change of classification.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Sorry, you might forgive me here.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am happy to ask Mr Woolhouse if he can perhaps walk us through that.

Mr WOOLHOUSE: As per the budget papers, you mentioned on page 41 the Premier's office FTE budget is 45. This actually is a reduction of 10.4 FTEs compared with 2017-18, so the current number comprises 36 FTE in the Premier's office and nine FTE in our media monitoring unit. Following the change of government, the total FTE cap for the Premier's office now includes both ministerial appointments and Public Sector Act appointments.

Previously the Public Sector Act appointments were not included in the Premier's office FTE budget, so in the 2017-18 budget papers the Premier's office budget was 41.4 FTEs as disclosed, and this was made up of 32.4 FTEs in ministerial appointments and nine FTEs in the media monitoring unit. In addition, in 2017-18 the Department of the Premier and Cabinet also funded a further 14 FTEs for Public Sector Act appointments working in the Premier's office, bringing it to a total of 55.4 FTEs. As a result of combining all those into the one, we have actually had an overall reduction of 10.4. What is actually disclosed is different from what was being disclosed in previous years.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So it is not an apples with apples comparison.

Mr WOOLHOUSE: It is not. Correct.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Like for like, it would be 55.4 under the previous premier and 45, so a 20 per cent reduction under the new government.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: But does that like for like take into account that the Premier has divested a range of responsibilities as detailed on pages 41 and 42?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am not sure what you mean. You are asking about ministerial staff in the Premier's office.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Correct.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have divested some areas and picked up other areas.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am just trying to understand. What I am trying to get a sense of is an apples-for-apples comparison which may not be possible.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The apples with apples comparison is 55.4 to 45.

Mr BROWN: Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 46, program 1: I want to know whether there has been any restructure in the Cabinet Office since the election.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: A restructure in the Cabinet Office?

Mr BROWN: Yes. Any changing of roles?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I could ask Ruth, who is sitting back there not answering any questions so far, to come forward and answer a question. Can I say, while Ruth is coming forward, how delighted we have been as a new government to adopt a very great concentration on advice from the Cabinet Office. I am very impressed by the people in the office. Cabinet is now meeting twice per week. We are trying to minimise the number of lates. We do not always get there, but we are improving, and we are really trying to significantly rule out walk-ins.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: As a former minister, I wholeheartedly endorse that approach.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Good, excellent! Now, the question was regarding whether there had been any restructure to the Cabinet Office.

Ms AMBLERN: Yes, there has since the election. As part of the Cabinet Office, we have an economic advice function. The Premier mentioned earlier that the modelling side of that had gone to Treasury and Finance. There is an economic advice part of Cabinet Office now that supports the cabinet, so we have reorganised ourselves around the five cabinet committees: social affairs cabinet committee, the justice and legislative reform, economic and infrastructure, emergency management and the budget cabinet committee.

We have essentially pulled the economic advice function and those other social affairs and legislative reform functions into Cabinet Office, so we both support the cabinet and the cabinet committees.

Mr BROWN: On the same budget line, how have the analysis procedures changed for cabinet submissions since the change of government?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: What was the question?

Mr BROWN: How have the analysis procedures for cabinet submissions changed since the election? Are there additional procedures now in place or have they been reduced since the election?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It is hard for me to answer that question because I was not really fully aware of what the cabinet procedures were previously.

Mr BROWN: Your agency was.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: But the question is to me. So making a comparison with the previous regime is, as far as I am concerned, not particularly relevant. What we are doing now, though, is cabinet is meeting twice weekly. We have our Monday cabinet meeting and then we have a cabinet meeting, Executive Council, on Thursday when His Excellency the Hon. Hieu Van Le, Governor of South Australia, comes to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, into the Cabinet Office, to conduct the Executive Council, followed by a shorter cabinet meeting then on Monday.

One of the other reforms that we have had is to re-establish, if you like, a set of cabinet committees and also to appoint a cabinet secretary. I am not sure whether a cabinet secretary existed in the previous government, but David Speirs, Minister for Environment and Water, is also the cabinet secretary.

Mr BROWN: This new economic analysis function that is being provided by Cabinet Office, what new input does it have in cabinet decision-making?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We want to make sure that all policies that are considered by the cabinet have access to a complete set of inputs from across government. What we are trying to do in the new arrangement is for cabinet to make decisions rather than individual ministers making decisions, late walk-ins, individual agencies not having input into what can be sometimes perverse outcomes of decisions in one area of government on other parts of government. The concept is to really have a robust, rigorous approach. That is why we think that it is important for Treasury and Finance not only to look at every cabinet submission but to have a capability within the Cabinet Office.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I refer to Budget Paper 5, page 144, regarding the Economic Development Board (EDB). The line shows savings from the axing of the EDB. Premier, did you seek the advice of the board chair or its senior members before discontinuing it and replacing it with a similar structure, albeit with a different name?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Did I speak to the chair?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Or any of its senior members.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: What advice did you receive from them regarding that decision?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I was not seeking advice. I was really outlining that, as they were all more than aware, we had announced a policy before the election to disband the Economic Development Board. I spoke with the chair and said that we would be effecting that change in the budget, so that the budget would, if you like, come to an end for the EDB at the end of the financial year. He understood this. Everybody was more than aware of it. I asked whether or not we could have a final meeting, if you like, of the EDB to essentially round out projects and inform the cabinet of what progress was still underway on a range of projects they had in place.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: On the same line item, regarding the savings from the cessation of funding of the Ageing Well program that was administered by the EDB, did you meet with program proponents or seek a business case to assess what benefits the Ageing Well program provided for and what the downside would be of its ending, including the Living Laboratory and also the pilot project funding?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That has not been cut. That still exists.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: There are savings regarding the Ageing Well program?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: My understanding is that the savings are to do with the Economic Development Board, and the Ageing Well project is still continuing.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So there have been no savings associated with the Ageing Well program?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am advised that the Ageing Well program, which was initiated by the EDB, will continue and is contained within the budget to the end of its existing funding agreement.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: At the end of the existing funding agreement, will it continue or conclude?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Obviously, the government needs to assess the performance. We are not announcing new funding agreements here today at estimates. We are considering what is contained within—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: But does the budget provide for it to continue?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No, the budget provides the existing contract.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Beyond the contract's completion, there is not a budgeted amount for it to continue in the event that you determine that it is a success?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That is correct.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Moving on to Budget Paper 3, operating expenses, table 2.0, page 31, I was just wondering if you could outline the roles and responsibilities that your consultant Wayne Eagleson has been engaged to undertake?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The roles and responsibilities?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Yes.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not have that detail in front of me, but I think it is fair to say that, on coming to government, we decided, as I have already outlined to the committee, that there would be some significant changes to the way that we were operating. We wanted to move towards a cabinet government decision-making framework. We obviously had high regard for the New Zealand government, their success over a decade and their cabinet orientation. On coming to government, we formed the opinion that we could seek some advice on that transition to government and the setting up and organisation of a new methodology for operating. We were delighted that Wayne Eagleson decided to accept that offer.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: An offer to what?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: To provide advice to the new government about the establishment of a cabinet government.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Has Mr Eagleson at any point provided instructions regarding cabinet processes and procedures?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Instructions? No, it would be completely inappropriate for him to provide instructions, but it is fair to say that you employ people to provide advice so that you do receive that advice. I am grateful for the advice that we have received. Mr Eagleson has excellent experience in this area. I think we have been very fortunate to have his services here in South Australia.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: He is not providing instructions, but can you outline the process around how his advice is passed on? Who is his advice provided to? Presumably to you, or is it to public servants?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Sorry?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: When Mr Eagleson provides his advice, who does he provide it to?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: He provides it to the government.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: To you, to DPC?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: He is in touch with a range of people who exist within the new government, whether they be public servants or elected members. He is not there as a crutch to the elected members but as an adviser to the government. The previous government had a large number of people who came in to provide advice. Some of them were individuals and some of them were global companies. I think it is very reasonable from time to time for the government to seek external advice, and that is precisely what we did.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I do not think there is any argument there, but I am just trying to understand the process because it is important. As you said, it would be completely inappropriate for Mr Eagleson to be providing instructions to public servants. If Mr Eagleson provides advice, what I am trying to understand is, if that advice is accepted by the government, how that translates in terms of being conveyed to public servants. Does Mr Eagleson provide advice to the cabinet or to your office, or is he providing advice to DPC and its employees?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It is general advice, which is provided to the government. As I outlined before, the government is made up of the Premier's office, the cabinet, elected members, senior public servants. We have a good working relationship with him. His contract was entered into by the previous acting chief executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. A process was followed for that appointment, and I am satisfied that the taxpayers of South Australia are getting value for money.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: In terms of value for money, what are the KPIs or metrics associated to Mr Eagleson's performance to ensure that taxpayers are getting that value for money that you referred to?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am not aware that there is a requirement to provide KPIs on every contract that the government enters into. I doubt there were KPIs provided for every contract that the previous government entered into.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: What metric are you using to measure the value for money for South Australian taxpayers in terms of Mr Eagleson's performance?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Well, it is subjective and I form that opinion.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So it is a subjective conclusion arrived at by you?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: There is no mathematical equation, if that is what you are looking for.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: What procurement process did you or cabinet undertake prior to Mr Eagleson's engagement?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I just outlined that to the committee about a minute ago.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The procurement process?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Correct.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: What was it again?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That work was undertaken by the Acting Chief Executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, and it followed the practices that have been in place for an extended period of time.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: When does Mr Eagleson's contract conclude?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not have the details of that.

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

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: My understanding is that we can terminate that agreement at any point in time. I do not think there is a fixed end date. If I have that incorrect in any way, I will come back to you with an answer.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Thank you. The total cost of that contract?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As I said, there is no contract with an end date on it, so it is not a specific fee.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Is there a per annum cost?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Is there a per week cost?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes, and I understand that has already been provided to your office. If you are not satisfied with the answers that you have sought and received on that previously, I am happy to provide an update if there is any aspect of that you did not understand.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Thank you. Does the Premier consider that any of the advice provided by Mr Eagleson during the course of Mr Eagleson's engagement directly with the public sector political in nature?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Can you ask that question again, please?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: When Mr Eagleson engages with the public sector, as distinct from you or your office, which you have outlined takes place because he is providing general advice, is any of that advice ever political in nature?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No, I do not think so. That has never been the intent.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Will the better Public Service targets be made publicly available?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Will the better—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Will the Public Service targets be made publicly available?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Can you provide some further detail on your question? I am not familiar with it. Is there a reference to that? What are you referring to when you say that and use your parentheses?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am happy to be corrected, but I understand that Mr Eagleson has referred to a document or a philosophy around better Public Service targets and I am wondering whether that is the case. That might be wrong, but, if it is the case, will it be made publicly available?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have no knowledge of anything that you are referring to, but if you want to provide further details to the committee, I am happy to consider it.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Is the engagement of Mr Eagleson included in the government's commitment to cut the cost of external consultants and contractors by $75 million over three years?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 43. Premier, you stated earlier that responsibility for the cost of the renovations and refurbishments of your office in the parliament were not handled by the parliament or DPC but, rather, by Treasury. I am advised that in Estimates Committee B, where you suggested we ask questions, the Treasurer has said that he is not aware of the renovations.

If the Treasurer in the other place has said that he is not aware of the renovations and you are saying that they are responsible for the costs of the renovations and you have not had any interest in that, can we get some additional advice on whether or not DPC was involved in that?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No; I stand by my previous answer.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Who oversaw the costs or assessed these costs if it was not made known to the Treasurer?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not think that is what the Treasurer said in the other committee. The Treasurer took the question on notice. I think you are just conflating things that he did not know about it. He took the question on notice. I think it is a reasonable thing to do, to take questions on notice when people do not know.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: He said he was not aware of the renovations, which implies that no-one is aware of the costs of the renovations.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It is a big line item. Treasury is a huge area. I think it would be unlikely that he would have detail of every single transaction that had occurred, and he has taken that question on notice. I stand by the advice that I have received and that is that that was not a cost that was incurred here at Parliament House: it was a cost that was paid for from Treasury and Finance.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: You referred earlier to one of the reasons that the decision was made to refurbish the office here in Parliament House was because of OHS issues. Do you know who conducted the occupational health and safety assessment that resulted in that judgement?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I did not indicate to the committee that there was an audit: I just said that there were occupational health and safety issues.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: What were they?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: There were too many people working in a cramped Victorian office, which I did not think was appropriate.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Functionality is a different question from occupational health and safety, which implies an issue.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I formed that opinion.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: You formed an opinion that there was an occupational health and safety risk?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Correct.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: On what basis?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Over a long period of time in many organisations I have been the responsible officer for occupational health and safety. I have extensive experience in this.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Before proceedings conclude, I would like to read in an omnibus question.

The CHAIR: We are due to take a break at quarter past 11.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I just want to make sure that we do not miss that opportunity. Regarding the same budget paper and questions, what consideration was made regarding the movement of the Energy Plan Implementation Taskforce?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The reason for that move was that we wanted to put the energy unit together with the minister who was responsible. As you would be aware, the previous government had that unit within the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, and the minister was the Treasurer. We thought that, as part of the machinery of government changes, it would be logical to put energy in with mining because they were the two portfolios that the minister had responsibility for. The advantage of that, of course, is that the chief executive of that area has total coverage of the two areas that the minister he reports to is responsible for.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Why did you consider it necessary to move Shared Services from DPC to the Department of Treasury and Finance?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I just thought it was a more logical place for it to be.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Why?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As I said, this unit has been in multiple areas of government. I see the Department of the Premier and Cabinet as better focused on areas other than service delivery to other government departments, which is essentially Shared Services' function. I had formed the opinion that it would be better placed within the Department of Treasury and Finance.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Was that a view that you developed post coming to government?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I cannot remember the exact moment when I had that light bulb of enlightenment, but I am reliably informed that, of course, it came from Treasury and Finance about six years ago. It was transferred by the former government into the Premier's department and then transferred out by the new government. Perhaps it was originally in the most logical place. Perhaps with the change of Premier—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I was not so much interested in speculation as to why rather than what informed that judgement call by yourself. We can move on. How about the movement of the office of public sector performance to DTF?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: My understanding is that is simply an attachment to the Department of Treasury and Finance, but those functions still exist within the commissioner's office.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: How about electorate services? I understand that was moved as well. Why was that the case?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Again, we formed the opinion that those sorts of service areas were better served by Treasury and Finance. We have also moved chauffeured cars and a range of other issues that were in the Premier's department.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: He is creating quite the empire, isn't he?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Well, in fact, we have taken a lot more in to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. We have now taken in arts, veterans' affairs, defence and space industries and multicultural affairs. We have taken responsibility for the old Royal Adelaide Hospital site development. To be quite honest, as I have tried to outline repeatedly to the committee, this is a cabinet government.

Decisions are made by cabinet, but we will put the functions where we think they are best served or where they best serve the people of South Australia. We have gone for far more logical groupings, for each minister to have logical areas of responsibility, not split areas of responsibility. Where possible, we have had the one chief executive reporting to the minister. We believe that this creates a more logical reporting framework than what existed when we came to government.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Regarding those ones that I have just mentioned, do we know what costs were incurred associated with making those changes?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No. I do not have that detail with me, but they were all handled within existing budgets. I am advised that they were all met within the department budgets. There were no significant costs.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Are you able to take on notice what the costs were and get some information to us?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We did not collate them like that. There is not a logical way of arriving at that. They were all met within the existing budgets, and there were no significant costs of transfer.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: In regard to progress and ICT transformation, I understand that has moved to Treasury and Finance, but do you know what policy considerations were made regarding that from your election until July?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Can you just outline what the specific question is again?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: In terms of ICT transformation, I understand that, like some of those other things, it has been moved to Treasury and Finance. I was just wondering—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Just for clarity, though, ICT transformation is an item which is now administered by the Treasurer so again, not wanting to be pedantic, it is difficult for you to ask questions of me regarding an area, a line of expenditure, which is actually not in my area—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Yes, sure.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —so I do not have any advisers from the Department of Treasury and Finance to assist me, and I do not want to in any way mislead the committee. I just do not have that answer.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: That is okay. I guess that is why I asked specifically in the context of from March until July, when that transfer took place. But there are other things we can move on to if you are not in a position to be able to provide answers on that now. Would you prefer to do that?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not have anything further to add to my previous answer.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Okay. I acknowledge that your new chief executive has only been in the job for a few weeks, but I was just wondering whether you have put in place KPIs for the new chief executive and other metrics in terms of how they are going to go about their task.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No, there is nothing which is outlined specifically in the contract. All the contracts have been effected in the same format as for the previous government.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: With regard to chief executives generally, you would appreciate that it is reasonable to assume that there are ways in which you, as the person to whom the chief executives are responsible, will be measuring their performance generally. What processes in place do you have to do that?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That is something that I am currently dealing with with the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment. I am looking at performance management overall. You would recall that when we announced the appointment of Mr McDowell as the Chief Executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet we also spoke specifically about the new role for the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment. IR was taken from that role and put into Treasury, and we have a new and expanded role for the commissioner to focus on long-range public sector workforce development, performance management and leadership development. So the question you ask is something that is being addressed at the moment.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: When do you expect that particular piece of work to conclude?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not have a date for that.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: When did it start?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As I said, I just do not have anything further to update the committee with. The work is underway at the moment. As you would appreciate, the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment has only gone back to her substantive role as of 1 September this year.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: While I acknowledge that, I guess what I am trying to get a sense of is this. In terms of monitoring the performance of your chief executives—and that is obviously incredibly important in terms of the strategic direction of the state and the public sector generally—I am trying to get a sense of your intent about how you are going to undertake that piece of work. I understand that you have the commissioner now doing some work to provide some guidance on that, but it is now six months in from your election. I just want to get a sense of whether you expect that work to conclude within the first year of your becoming Premier.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not have an exact date, but it is not to say that there is not ongoing evaluation of all the members in the senior management team. I have regular contact with each and every one of them. The senior management council meets twice weekly, is my understanding. It is a very effective and important group for this state.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Does DPC play a role in across-government performance setting?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Does DPC play a role?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Yes.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Well, of course. The Chief Executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet is the chair of the senior management council.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Do you personally take responsibility for assessing the performance of chief executives, or is that something that you will be guided on or getting assistance on from the CE of DPC or, in turn, the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As I said, we are just formulating the final performance management framework for the chief executives going forward. That is a key role that the Chief Executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment and myself are working on at the moment.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I take an interest in this because I believe it to be fundamentally important, as I am sure you do, too. When that work is concluded by the commissioner, do you intend to release it publicly?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Why not?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I just do not know that I think it would be appropriate.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Why not?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That is the position that I have formed.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Why would you not make public—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Will you make public what your performance indicators are for you and your front bench, your entire team, the members who work within the Leader of the Opposition's office? I think it would be inappropriate. I would not be calling for it, and I find your question—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am not talking about political appointments. I am talking about appointments made in the public sector. I am not asking whether you are going to make public a particular analysis of a particular CE in terms of their performance or a view about their performance that you have come to as their employer. I am asking about the overarching philosophy or overarching system that you intend to apply to monitoring the CE's performance. Will you release the piece of work that is being undertaken by the commissioner now?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am happy to consider it, but I doubt that we would. I have never been asked, stopped by anybody in the street and asked, 'What are the key performance indicators for your chief executive within the Public Service?' I just think this is not an issue that is of interest to the public. What they want to see is a competent government that is getting on with the job they have been given by the people of South Australia, and that is what we will be doing.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I do not think there would be anyone stopping you on the street regarding a whole range of questions that we have asked you today, but it does not make them any less important.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: You would be surprised.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Well, there you go—you should not assume that people are not interested in the performance of your CEs.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Can I just inform the committee, Mr Chairman, that we have now received advice that the cost of the fit-out for the refurbishment of the Premier's office in total is $3,000.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: It is $3,000?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Correct.

Mr BROWN: I refer to Agency Statements, Volume 4, page 54, Program 6: Information and Communication Technology Services. Has there been any a cross-government view to moving more government services away from face-to-face contact, such as in Service SA centres, to being performed on the internet?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We do have a new strategy with regard to ICT, which is presided over centrally, but that strategy has not informed any decisions regarding Service SA centres.

Mr BROWN: I refer to the same page. As a target for 2018-19, the growth of local cybersecurity industry by taking part in the cybersecurity innovation node of the commonwealth government, has the government prepared any economic analysis of potential job impacts of taking part in that program?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Not that I am aware of, but it is fair to say that the federal government, through the Australian Cyber Security Growth Network, has money available that state governments can tap into to expand cybersecurity services in their state, in particular to work with industry sectors.

Each state, as I understand it, has taken, if you like, a separate node so that across the entire country we have areas of expertise in different states. Our focus in South Australia, to the best of my understanding, is defence and small business, and so the state government has applied some small funding, matched with the commonwealth, to advance this node in South Australia.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I thank the Premier for the office cost figure. Where did that figure come from? Is it Treasury or is it DPC?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not have that. I have just received information. Sorry, my latest information, that second, is that it was, indeed, a parliamentary cost. So the advice I provided to the committee earlier (that is, the advice I relied on from the officer) was that it was DTF, but on checking that it was found that there was no DTF charge and that in fact all charges were paid for by the parliament, and that total cost was $3,000.

The CHAIR: Thank you, Premier. I might ask the opposition to take the opportunity now to read the omnibus questions.

Ms WORTLEY: Thank you, Chair.

1. Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of expenditure on consultants and contractors with a total estimated cost above $10,000, engaged between 17 March 2018 and 30 June 2018 by all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, listing the name of the consultant, contractor or service supplier, the estimated total cost of the work, the work undertaken and the method of appointment?

2. Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of the forecast expenditure on consultants and contractors with a total estimated cost above $10,000 for the 2018-19 financial year to be engaged by 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?

3. For each department and agency for which the minister has responsibility:

(a) How many FTEs were employed to provide communication and promotion activities in 2017-18 and what was their employment expense?

(b) How many FTEs are budgeted to provide communication and promotion activities in 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22, and what is their estimated employment expense?

(c) The total cost of government-paid advertising, including campaigns, across all mediums in 2017-18 and budgeted cost for 2018-19.

4. For each grant program or fund the minister is responsible for please provide the following information for the 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 financial years:

(a) The name of the program or fund;

(b) The purpose of the program or fund;

(c) Balance of the grant program or fund;

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

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

(f) Carryovers into or from the program or fund;

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

(h) Whether the grant was subject to a grant agreement as required by Treasurer's Instructions 15.

5. For the period of 17 March 2018 and 30 June 2018, provide a breakdown of all grants paid by the department/agency that report to the minister, including when the payment was made to the recipient, and when the grant agreement was signed by both parties.

6. For each department and agency reporting to the minister:

(a) The total number of FTEs in that department or agency;

(b) The number of FTEs by division and/or business unit within the department or agency; and

(c) The number of FTEs by classification in each division and/or business unit within the department or agency.

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

(a) How much is allocated to be spent on targeted voluntary separation packages in 2018-19?

(b) How many of the TVSPs are estimated to be funded?

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

8. For each department or agency reporting to the minister in 2018-19 please provide the number of public servants broken down into headcount and FTE's that are (1) tenured and (2) on contract and, for each category, provide a breakdown of the number of (1) executives and (2) non-executives.

9. Between 30 June 2017 and 17 March 2018, will the minister list the job title and total employment cost of SA executive positions—(1) which has been abolished and (2) which has been created?

10. Between 17 March 2018 and 30 June 2018, will the minister list the job title and total employment cost of SA executive positions—(1) which has been abolished and (2) which has been created?

11. For each year of the forward estimates, please provide the name and budget for each individual program administered by or on behalf of all departments and agencies reporting to the minister.

12. For each year of the forward estimates, please provide the name and budgeted expenditure across the 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 financial years for each individual investing expenditure project administered by or on behalf of all departments and agencies reporting to the minister.

13. For each department or agency reporting to the minister how many surplus employees are there at 30 June 2018 and for each surplus employee, what is the title or classification of employee and the total cost of the employee?

The CHAIR: Thank you, member for Torrens. Well done. I might ask you to table those questions as well. We are going to take a break now in accordance with the agreed timetable. We will suspend until 11.30. I will just remind members that the bells will ring for only two minutes when calling us back.

Sitting suspended from 11:15 to 11:31.