Department for Energy and Mining, $110,202,000

Membership:

Hon. A. Koutsantonis substituted for Ms Cook.

Minister:

Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan, Minister for Energy and Mining.

Departmental Advisers:

Dr P. Heithersay, Chief Executive, Department for Energy and Mining.

Ms A. Blood, Executive Director, Mineral Resources, Department for Energy and Mining.

Mr S. Crafter, Executive Director, Energy Implementation, Department for Energy and Mining.

Mr V. Duffy, Executive Director, Energy and Technical Regulation, Department for Energy and Mining.

Mr B. Goldstein, Executive Director, Energy Resources, Department for Energy and Mining.

Mr P. Bradshaw, Director, Resources Infrastructure and Investment Task Force, Department for Energy and Mining.

Ms R. Knight, Director, Energy and Technical Regulation, Department for Energy and Mining.

Mr B. Adams, Manager, Financial Services, Department for Energy and Mining.

The CHAIR: Welcome back to the sitting of Estimates Committee A. From now until 5.30, we will be examining the Department for Energy and Mining. The minister appearing is the Minister for Energy and Mining, and the estimate of payments relates to the Department for Energy and Mining. I declare the proposed payments open for examination and refer members to the Agency Statements, Volume 3. I advise that the member for Hurtle Vale has requested to be discharged and has been replaced by the member for West Torrens. I call on the minister to make a statement, if he so desires, and certainly introduce his advisers.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Thank you very much, Chair. I will firstly introduce my advisers. On my right is Dr Paul Heithersay, Chief Executive, Department for Energy and Mining. On my left is Ben Adams, Manager, Financial Services. Immediately behind me is Sam Crafter, Executive Director, Energy Implementation, and Vince Duffy, Executive Director, Energy and Technical Regulation. The two people behind them are Barry Goldstein, Executive Director, Energy Resources, and Ms Alex Blood, Executive Director, Mineral Resources. Behind them are Peter Bradshaw, Director, Resources Infrastructure and Investment Task Force, and Rebecca Knight, Director, Energy and Technical Regulation. I will make a very brief statement, Chair.

First of all, I would like to thank all the people in our department for the work they have done over the last six months. The Marshall Liberal government determined well in advance of the last election that we believed that energy and mining were important enough areas within government to have their own department and that, if elected, we would create the Department for Energy and Mining. We have done that. Of course, that has come with a fair bit of additional work in the transition. People have had to move office—not everybody, but lots have.

I would like to congratulate Dr Paul Heithersay on becoming the CE of our new department. On behalf of the people of South Australia, I thank everybody who is working well in this new department. I also thank them for their work in preparing for this estimates session.

The CHAIR: Thank you, minister. Does the lead speaker for the opposition wish to make a short statement?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I do.

The CHAIR: The member for West Torrens has the call.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I wish to congratulate the minister on his ability to deliver a stand-alone agency. It is deserving of a portfolio, and I congratulate the Marshall government on delivering a stand-alone agency. I also commend you on your choice of chief executive and on bringing the agency as a stand-alone agency into being. I think that is probably the best way to serve the state, and I congratulate you on it. I will go straight into questions, if I can, sir.

I refer to Budget Paper 5, page 57. Obviously the current government made much of its election commitment to reduce power prices by $302. Given the Electoral Commission found that that was misleading, could the minister please detail for us in the budget papers exactly how he intends on delivering a $302 saving?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I think the shadow knows a lot about this, but I will certainly go through it. With regard to the issue of the Electoral Commission's finding, that was very much in regard to the way that the policy was described. The policy is sound. The policy will be delivered.

The $302 relates to the average prices for households in South Australia, from the 2016-17 financial year through to the 2021-22 financial year, as modelled by ACIL Allen independently. The modelling was done on the predicted reduction in wholesale price of electricity when all factors were considered from the starting point to the finishing point. It was always acknowledged, in fact it was in our policy documents, that some of those factors would be parts of the, at the time, Labor government's policies, which we would choose to keep or had no choice but to keep. Some of those factors would be the additional policy that we would implement; some of those factors were things that were out of control of whoever was in government. We were very straightforward about that.

Our policy is made up of several planks: interconnection with New South Wales, household battery scheme, grid-scale storage scheme, trials to look at demand management at the individual consumer perspective, demand aggregation and also supply integration. When the wholesale price that ACIL Allen predicted is worked through to the retail price, keeping the other components the same, that gets to the $302. It was based on information we received from ACIL Allen's independent assessment.

As I have said on quite a few occasions since the election, if ever we get independent advice that deviates from that, we will respond accordingly, we will look at that. But that certainly has not happened yet. It is important to point out, as the opposition has tried to characterise a few times since the election, that no one of the components of our energy policy deliver the saving to households; all of the components combined deliver the savings.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That is exactly my point. SAPN's draft determination gives a net increase in bills of $3 over the next five years. Energy retailers have announced reductions in pricing as little as 0.4 per cent, which is AGL; or none, EnergyAustralia. Your interconnector, in its draft report, is a $20 saving. I suppose my question is: where does the rest come from?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: As I have outlined, the savings come from a forecast reduction in the wholesale price flowing through to the retail price. We made the ACIL Allen report public back in October last year when we announced the policy. We put out the policy to the public and the ACIL Allen report simultaneously. It shows all the factors that ACIL Allen modelled into that reduction in the wholesale price. I think that it is misleading to grab the price change announcements that have been made so far in small components and then try to pretend that they mean that in 2021-22 the total will not have been achieved.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: SAPN's determination is for a five-year period, which is a $3 net increase. Your release report by ACIL Allen was independently assessed by the Electoral Commission as being misleading. I know that you have problems with that and that the Liberal Party stood by its report, and that is entirely appropriate for you to do so, if that is what you want, despite an independent inquiry. The question I am coming to is that retail prices this year have not decreased sufficiently for you to be on track to achieve your saving. I am asking you: within the budget papers, what measures do you have in place that will lower power prices?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I have already described the measures that we have in place. The shadow minister is already well aware of them. I have absolutely no doubt that this will be a conversation that we have, perhaps on a weekly or fortnightly basis, over the next four years, and I am very happy to engage in that. We will do our assessment and the shadow minister will do his assessment.

The only thing I would add is that over the last several years, under the previous Labor government, consumers have seen prices go up and up and up. For the first time in a long time, on 1 July this year, with the market factoring in our policy being implemented, amongst other things, retail prices stayed flat or came down a very small amount, so the tide has turned.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The government made much of its interconnector. Where in the budget papers, in the forward estimates, is the $200 million for the interconnector?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: There is $14 million in the budget—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That is not what I asked: I asked you where the $200 million is.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: There is $14 million in the budget—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Is that sufficient to build an interconnector into New South Wales?

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, we have been through this before today. You will ask a question—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am being exceptionally polite, sir, by my standards.

The CHAIR: I understand that and I appreciate it, but what happens here is that a committee member asks a question of the minister and the minister has time to respond and is heard in silence.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I repeat my question: where in the budget papers, in the forward estimates, can I find the $200 million fund for the interconnector?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The reality is that there is money in the budget for the forward works. I think the shadow minister would be well aware of the fact that we put—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order, sir: I have asked a very simple question. I am not asking about the forward works. I am asking: where in the budget papers can I find a $200 million fund for the interconnector? It is a very simple question.

The CHAIR: As I have ruled earlier today, member for West Torrens, committee members are able to ask a question of a minister and the minister responds as he or she sees fit, and the committee makes of that response what it will. The question has been asked: minister, you will respond.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Is it in Budget Measures or is it in Agency Statements, or is it in—

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, the minister is about to respond.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Perhaps it is in the Budget Overview.

Ms LUETHEN: Point of order: standing order 131, interruption not allowed.

The CHAIR: Yes, I uphold that point of order. Member for West Torrens, you have asked the question. Minister, are you ready to answer? You have the call.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I would like the shadow minister to tell which budget line he is referring to when he asks this question.

The CHAIR: He did indicate that at the outset, but you can remind us, member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Agency Statements, Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 126. Where in there can I find your $200 million fund for an interconnector?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I think the shadow minister knows very well that we had $200 million clearly earmarked in our policy. That money is still available.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Where? Which budget line?

The CHAIR: The minister is coming to that.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: That money is still available for the interconnector, should we need it, but all indications—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Should we need it!

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Did you hear what he just said?

The CHAIR: You have asked the question, the minister is responding, and he will be heard in silence. You will have the opportunity in a moment to ask another question. Minister.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Should we need the money to get the interconnector up, the money is still available, but all indications since the election have been that the interconnector will get up as a regulated asset, in which case there is not a need for taxpayers' money to go towards the building of the interconnector. The full $200 million is still available in the budget, and the vast majority of it is in Treasurer's contingency fund, so the money is in the budget.

What we have done is we have taken the advice from ElectraNet, we have taken advice from AEMO, we have taken advice from other commentators, all of which have indicated very clearly that there is a fair expectation that the interconnector between South Australia and New South Wales will get up as a regulated asset, in which case the money is not required to get it up. But what we have done is we have kept the majority of that money available in the Treasurer's contingency.

We also have some other work which we are undertaking. We have made it very clear that what we want to do is deliver an interconnector for the benefit of all South Australians, to reduce their electricity prices, to improve reliability of supply, as quickly as possible. We have entered into agreements with ElectraNet and TransGrid to start on what we are calling the early work. That includes things like route confirmation, environmental clearances, discussions with landholders.

We have entered into an agreement with ElectraNet to support their early work and the same with TransGrid. Very clearly—and this is not a revelation, but it is part of the answer to the question—what happens is that they will start that early work based on the expectation that we all have, that it will get up as a regulated asset. We will either, in one case lend them the money, and in one case underwrite the funding so that if the interconnector gets up as a regulated asset, then the underwriting will not be necessary and the loan will be repaid immediately. But what is very important about this is that if it does not get up as a regulated asset, we still have the balance of the money, the balance of the $200 million, in Treasurer's contingency.

What is equally important is that the early work which we will have invested in will not have been wasted because, while in that second scenario, which is the very unlikely scenario, if it does not get up as a regulated asset, that early work—that route confirmation, the engagement with landholders, the environmental clearances—will still have had to be done to get the same interconnector up in another way than a regulated asset. So none of that will be wasted and, if the interconnector gets up as everybody expects, then that early work will become part of the total regulated asset and this state will not have had to pay for it.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: On Budget Paper 3, page 14, net debt, of the $3.2 billion the state government is borrowing, within those borrowings, is $200 million allocated towards the interconnector?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: There is money in there in the Treasurer's contingency. If you want to know whether that is part of borrowings or part of another fund, you will need to ask the Treasurer.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So you do not have a line in the budget that has allocated the money. You have simply been told by the Treasurer that he is holding it in contingency should it be needed?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Chair, I think I have shared as much information about this as I possibly can.

The CHAIR: You have answered that question.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So you cannot point to a line in the budget where it is available. You are just saying it is in Treasurer's contingencies?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Well, I can start this all over again.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is a yes or no.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The money is in the budget.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Where? Point it to us.

Ms LUETHEN: Point of order.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: A point of order? We are asking for facts, sir. We should stop. I think that was the point of order.

Ms LUETHEN: Standing order 128: repetition.

The CHAIR: I do not know that that is really a point of order at this point in time, member for King.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sir, I think it is a poignant question. The minister has just told the committee that the money has been allocated within the budget process, that there was a cabinet submission which authorised the use of money and within that cabinet decision there was the decision taken to allocate $200 million towards the interconnector. I ask a very simple question: where in the budget papers can I find that budget line where this money has been acquitted or held in contingency? I ask again: where? Is there an agency statement or is it in the Budget Measures? It is pretty simple.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The answer is the same, but I do take issue with the shadow minister saying that I mentioned anything about a cabinet submission. That is just false. But the reality is that the money is in the budget.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Where?

The CHAIR: Could I interrupt. Member for West Torrens, the minister previously provided, as we have come to expect from this minister, a very fulsome response to the question. Make of that what you will, but I suspect he has no more to add on this particular subject.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Mr Chairperson, I point you to the infrastructure spend the government has in place. I look there and I see no line for money set aside over the forward estimates for an interconnector. I see no infrastructure spend, or any budget line anywhere that mentioned the interconnector, yet the minister is telling the committee that he has procured the money and that the money is being held in contingency by the Treasurer. All I am simply asking is: where is that line in the budget? If that is disorderly—

The CHAIR: No, I did not say it was disorderly.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Okay; well, I will ask that question: where?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: It is your time. The money is in the budget—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Mr Chair, a point of order. You have pulled me up time and time again for being disorderly in this committee. I have asked a very reasonable question of the minister: which budget line has the government allocated $200 million? $200 million! Not $200,000, but $200 million. The minister says he has answered it but cannot point me to where that line is in any of the budget papers.

The CHAIR: Unless the minister has anything further to add—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: He just will not answer it.

The CHAIR: —to his previous answer, I suggest we move on, member for West Torrens, to the next question. The member for West Torrens has the call.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The money is in the budget.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: What does it say about the government if you cannot even point me to where they are in the budget papers? What does it say about your advocacy within the cabinet if you cannot even point me to a line about the $200 million? You have faced budget cuts of $70 million—

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Chair?

The CHAIR: Yes, I am assuming that the minister is going to bring the member for West Torrens back to questions relating to the budget, as am I. It is time to move on to the next question. I am sure you have plenty, member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I do.

The CHAIR: Could you quote the budget line, please.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Of course I can: Budget Paper 5, Budget Measures Statement, page 57. Of the 40,000 households to receive battery subsidies, how many will include low-income households?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: It is not possible to give a precise answer to that question because it is largely determined by how many households apply for the scheme and how many of them are concession holders. We have put together a scheme that certainly has a greater advantage to lower income households. We have chosen to define 'lower income households' as those who already have an energy concession card.

We are offering $500 per kilowatt hour capacity of the battery purchased for the majority of households and $600 per kilowatt hour capacity of the battery purchased for lower income households, with a cap for both categories at $6,000. The question, which looks for a specific number of exactly how many there will be in each category, is not possible to answer at the moment. Let me say, though, from my perspective: as many low-income households as possible; that would be good.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So there is no amount that has been hypothecated and left aside for low-income households? Is it first in, best dressed?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: A lot of work has gone into this project in the background—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am sure it has; that is why I thought you would have this answer at your fingertips.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: A lot of work has gone into this project in the background and some assessments have been made about the range of possibilities. It is important to point out, Chair, we have also made it very clear that we are likely to adjust the subsidies as the program goes on over the four years. We have in fact kept it wide open. We might assess it every six months, or every 12 months, or whatever seems appropriate. Please also keep in mind, Chair, that we want as many lower income people to benefit as possible, because we are using taxpayers' money for this fund.

We want taxpayers' money to be used as sensibly and as wisely as possible. While we want low-income households to benefit, we also need to get a certain total cumulative capacity of the combined number of batteries into the market. This is not just about the households that get the batteries and have the solar panels. This is about them, but more importantly this is about getting 40,000 additional homes with these batteries in South Australia connected to the grid so that we can take the peak off the top demand.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, I understand what their use is.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: A small sliver off the top of the peak makes a very big difference to the wholesale price of electricity so that, importantly, not only the homes that receive the subsidy and have the equipment will get a very important benefit but so will all the rest of the homes. This is clearly crafted to benefit not only those who get the subsidy but also all other electricity consumers in the state.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Given that the government has no quota set aside for low-income earners, hypothetically it is possible that no low-income earners will receive the subsidy. I am interested to understand exactly how the difference in subsidy was arrived at. You have a difference in subsidy of $600 per kilowatt hour for low-income earners, which you define as households that are on an energy concession card, and $500 per kilowatt hour.

If I am not incorrect, during the election campaign you said that your scheme would be means tested. I would like to know how your public statements before the election about means testing have led to a system where there is no quota for low-income earners and a subsidy difference between a low-income earner, which you have now defined after the election as being someone on a concession card, on $600 per kilowatt and someone who is not on that concession on $500.

Could you please explain to me (1) why you made the statements of it being means tested before the election and (2) how you have come at the difference between the two subsidies of $600 and $500? What was the modelling or reasoning that you came up with for that difference? It is not an insignificant difference, I will give you that, but it is not as large as I thought it would have been if it was being means tested according to your public statements before the election.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Regarding question No. 1, we did say before the election that it would be means tested and we have, after the election, means tested it, without any doubt whatsoever. As I thought I clearly described before, we have assessed people with an energy concession card as being people with lower means economically and people without one as being people with higher means economically.

So we have means tested it, and we have used that determination, essentially, to decide where we would draw the line. There is no doubt that this program is means tested. People who would fairly be expected to have lower incomes because they already have an energy concession card will receive more support, and those without that card have been fairly assessed as having greater means and they will receive less support. Very importantly, we have delivered on that part of the election commitment.

With regard to how we determined the difference between the $500 and the $600 per kilowatt hour, a lot of work, including external advice, went into that; if the shadow minister would like to have the details of that, I would be happy to take that question on notice.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you very much. You have recently signed a new deal with Sonnen, which the government said was vastly different, a renegotiation, from the one arranged by the previous government. Could you please detail to the committee the nature of the subsidy in place for Sonnen?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Again, I need to correct the shadow minister. I have certainly not said that it was vastly different.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I have the press release here from the government.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I have said that the incentive required, or the liability to the government essentially, is lower, so it is better for the state under our agreement than under the previous government's agreement, which was never delivered. In terms of the second part—

The CHAIR: So it is different?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Yes, it is different. It is different. In fact, it is better for the taxpayer. What the previous government was offering was a greater liability than what the current government has offered.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: What is the liability?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: To the second part of the shadow minister's question, regarding detailing the difference, I will not do that and he knows that I should not do that. The memorandum of understanding that the previous government entered into with Sonnen was confidential. The memorandum of understanding that the current government has entered into with Sonnen is confidential.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Previously, the then shadow minister had criticised the government, along with his then shadow cabinet colleagues who now make up the cabinet, saying it should be more transparent and open. This government has entered into an arrangement with Sonnen, which I think, from reading the media release and the public statements, makes the state liable for a minimum amount of sales of Sonnen batteries. I believe the committee deserves to know what our exposure is if Sonnen does not reach its sales. The second part of my question is: have you, within your subsidy scheme, a preference or requirement for people taking up that scheme to use a Sonnen battery?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The first part was not a question; it was just the shadow minister sharing his opinion. That is his opinion, and he is entitled to it, but I do not think there is any doubt in anybody's mind that the Marshall Liberal government is far more transparent than the previous Labor government was. That does not mean that the Marshall Liberal government will divulge detailed information of memorandums of understanding that are confidential. Every government, from the beginning of time to the end of time, will have some agreements in place with private parties that will be confidential. That is just a fact. This is one of those situations—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So the $200 million—

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, order! The minister is still answering the question.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I have just listened to his transparency. There is no money for the interconnector and now—

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, order! The minister is still answering your previous question. I will allow him to finish that and then we will go to the next question. Minister.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Thank you, Chair. The second part from the member for West Torrens, which was a question, was, paraphrasing: is there any obligation or how does the Sonnen battery fit in and do people need to do something? What we have done is use a set of descriptions, if you like, that the previous government developed about local content. Broadly they talk about being manufactured locally, having local components or being assembled locally, local employment. There is a sliding scale that ranks organisations in that way.

What we have done is make it very clear that any organisation that can meet those criteria will have a nine-week exclusivity time. It is not about Sonnen; it is about any organisation that can show they either manufacture or assemble batteries here in South Australia. In fact, we have had quite a few organisations come to us to see how they could fit into that nine-week period, how they could become what we are calling 'foundation partners' for the first nine weeks. We welcome those discussions: in fact, we would like as many organisations as possible to participate in that first nine weeks.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Is that an open call through the procurement office of the government, through tenders? Can battery manufacturers or assembly partners say, 'If we come to South Australia and assemble batteries or manufacture batteries, we want a certain percentage of your 40,000 batteries scheme,' or does it simply give them a licence to participate, to allow them to meet your rankings within your subsidy, your secret liabilities that you have offered to Sonnen?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: It depends what you mean by tender and open call. Procurement, from a government perspective, has been very involved with all of this, as you would expect. We have checked with them that it is all above board and okay. There is no quota. There is no entitlement to anything linked directly to the scheme. Essentially, any provider who meets the description the previous government formulated of being assemblers or manufacturers can participate. Any company can do that. There is nothing linked to this scheme, the house battery scheme, that talks about any of them getting another advantage—other than, of course, that nine-week period when only companies that fit the description have that opportunity.

Within that nine weeks and, in fact, outside that nine weeks, consumers, South Australian householders who want to access the subsidy, make an independent and informed decision about who they want to be the battery supplier and/or installer. Yes, in the first nine weeks there is a limited number of choices. Outside the nine weeks, there is a larger number of choices. We think that is the way to go. We will be encouraging households to get as much information as possible about who they want to be their battery supplier and/or battery installer.

We have some limitations on that. To access the subsidy, a household will not be able to deal with an installer and a battery manufacturer. They will have to deal with a battery manufacturer that takes responsibility for the installation or an installer who takes responsibility for the delivery of the battery. Essentially, it will be one transaction.

Another limitation, which I think is a necessary positive, is that we are very focused on high-quality equipment and high-quality installers. It will not be possible for a household to choose any battery or any installer; they will only be able to choose from the list of batteries and installers who meet or exceed the criteria established by the Department for Energy and Mining. There is a quality limitation and there is a limitation with regard to it being one transaction but, beyond that, consumers will be entitled to engage with suppliers who can meet their needs.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So, 40,000 of the 880,000 households connected to the NEM will have nine weeks where the only battery they can buy is Sonnen and that nine-week exclusivity has been negotiated by the current government. Was that paid at a premium by Sonnen or was that given to them without any cost?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Again, the shadow minister's question starts with a fair bit of assumption. For the shadow minister to say that this agreement has been set up for Sonnen only is—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: How did they get the nine-week exclusivity?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: For the shadow minister to say that this battery subsidy agreement has been set up for Sonnen only is incorrect and I suspect deliberately incorrect. I have made it very clear—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: If I am wrong, I will withdraw it. If Sonnen does not have nine-weeks exclusivity, I will withdraw it.

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, we have had this discussion. You have asked a question and the minister—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Does Sonnen have nine-weeks exclusivity?

The CHAIR: —is answering. Member for West Torrens, when the minister has finished this answer we will go back for another question. Minister.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sure.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I have made it very clear, a couple of times I think, that any organisation that can meet the criteria for local assembly, local manufacture is entitled to participate in that nine-week period. And the last part of the shadow minister's question was about what subsidy has been given. No subsidy has been given to Sonnen. It is deliberately misleading for the shadow minister to suggest that.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I take offence at that, but I do not want to bring the committee back to deal with the minister's disruptive behaviour. The minister made public comments where he said that he wanted to get started with these battery installations to occur before summer. Of the 5,000 installations that are targeted to occur in 2018-19, how many of those installations will occur before summer? I remind the minister that in August of this year he publicly said:

We hope to get a significant number of household batteries out this summer…We will have started to mitigate the problem this summer—

Summer starts on 1 December. How many of those early 5,000 installations will you have in place by summer?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: We are optimistic that we will get more batteries out sooner than most people expect. We are working on this scheme very deliberately. The information that the shadow minister is seeking is not available right now because we are still completing the finer details of the scheme. We have made it very clear that the scheme will commence in late October. We have already had one session with industry stakeholders, a broad range of people who have an interest in this program. We shared as much information as we could with them at that stage and I think that was about a week and a half ago, maybe two weeks.

On Friday this week, we have an information session for industry participants. We have over 300 people or organisations who have registered their interest to be battery suppliers or battery installers or both and, in fact, there is interest from people who want to install solar panels to go with the batteries as well. So 300 registrations of interest, and on Friday this week we will be sharing as much information as we have—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: 300?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Over 300 registrations of interest. We will share as much information as we can with them on Friday and we will continue to share as much information as we can, but the specific number that the shadow minister asked for is not available yet because all the details of the scheme have not been completely finalised yet. Most of them have but not all of them, but it will start in late October.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Okay. It was not me who made the comment that you wanted a substantial start before summer; it was the minister—

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: And that is true.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —so I take his word for it. The Home Battery Scheme will be funded from the Green Industry Fund. The Green Industry Fund offered subsidies and grant programs for other programs as well. Will the grant lines from this fund be reduced in order to fund this application?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: With regard to the Green Industry Fund, that is a question you need to ask the Minister for Environment. I can tell you that the Home Battery Scheme is fully funded.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Budget Paper 5, Budget Measures Statement, page 57, states, and I quote:

The Home Battery Scheme and the Grid Scale Storage Fund initiatives will be funded from the Green Industry Fund.

This is the Department for Energy and Mining. Are you saying you are not administering the Home Battery Scheme and Grid Scale Storage Fund? Is that what you have just said to the house? Your budget papers say you are doing it from the Green Industry Fund. Do not look shocked. Answer the question.

The CHAIR: Minister.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am giving you plenty of time to finish your question. No, we are certainly administering the—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Why would I ask the Minister for Environment?

The CHAIR: Minister, you have the call.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: We are certainly administering the Home Battery Scheme and the Grid Scale Storage Fund. There is no doubt about that at all. Let me seek some advice on the Green Industry Fund.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I think you had better.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Shadow, my answer stands. We are not administering the Green Industries scheme and if you want to know about what may or may not have been funded out of the Green Industries scheme, I think you need to talk to the Minister for Environment.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So you are saying that, even though it is funded from the Green Industry Fund, the remainder of those funds are funded by the Minister for Environment and it is a matter for him, if there are surplus funds left, whether or not there are any other funds paid out of that fund. If I can turn to the emergency generators, the 'diesel genset' as you like to say, I refer you to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 139. You have been very critical of the reserve generators. I find it ironic that in your own budget papers, as a highlight of your budget, you have in there a description of the use of the emergency generators. Can you rule out to the committee that if this budget and the budget measures pass the parliament there are no plans to privatise or sell the generators in future budgets?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The highlight, to use the word that is in the budget and the word that you used, is a financial highlight. It is making it very clear how the money will be spent. With regard to my previous criticism of the former government for having committed over $400 million of taxpayers' money towards these generators, if the previous government had managed its own energy policy and its involvement in the South Australian energy market much better, understanding that it is not only government but industry that participates as well, it would never have been necessary to have anything to do with these generators.

I was certainly also critical of the previous government's spruiking the battery at Hornsdale, which, by the way, was delivered in response to a year or two of public suggestions by the current Premier, the then leader of the opposition, asking the government to do exactly that. We were supportive of that. The previous government spruiked that while simultaneously trying to keep the purchase of these diesel generators very quiet. So, yes, I was critical of that, no doubt whatsoever.

With regard to what will happen with them, I am not at liberty to rule in or rule out anything. That is a matter that cabinet is considering, and I have said that very clearly and publicly in the past. We will consider all options. The previous government committed the state to this purchase. We will follow through on this purchase, as any good government should, even if we have been critical in the past of how we got to this point.

The previous government committed the state and, as you probably know, there is an option for an extended lease but, one way or the other, there is an obligation to purchase these generators. We will do that because we are obliged to do that, because you obliged us to do that. Beyond that, I am not ruling in or ruling out any possibilities.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you for letting the committee know that cabinet is actively considering privatising.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: No, I did not say that. I said we are considering all options.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You are actively considering all options.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: You can characterise what you think the options you would consider are, if you like, but you cannot put those words in my mouth.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, I am just using your own words against you. It is pretty simple. Then again, that is not difficult. It is interesting to note that you may have received some advice on the AEMO report about the upcoming summit. Have you received any advice from your agency about any potential expected income you would receive if the generators are called upon to service the Victorian electricity market?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Let me check that there is not a confidentiality that applies to this and, if there is not, I will answer your question. I cannot answer that question because it is not publicly available information yet. Let me say that, with regard to the first part of your question, yes, we have received information from AEMO, as have you and as has everybody in the public who is interested about this issue, about their forecasts for supply-demand balances for this summer. That information is in the public domain.

They have said that it is roughly a one in 10 chance of a requirement for load shedding. They have said that they consider that low and within their tolerance. I have publicly said that I am not comfortable with it being that high and that we need to do better than that in South Australia. We as a government and our department are working very hard on that. The question you asked was about the money we would receive if the generators were used this summer. I am not at liberty to share that with you.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Given how open and transparent the new government is, and noting that I cannot find the $200 million that was promised for an interconnector and that you will not reveal the nature of the Sonnen agreement, would you, at the very least, now publicly release your investigator's report into the purchase of the generators? Mr Livesey QC, a respected legal mind in South Australia, conducted a report that cost the taxpayer nearly $450,000; that is nearly $20,000 a week to produce that report. When will you table it in parliament?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: With regard to the shadow's questions regarding transparency, I have made it very clear that the $200 million for the interconnector is in the budget. I have made it very clear that, just as it was for the previous government, the current government's agreement with Sonnen is a confidential document that we are legally bound to keep confidential. I have just advised that the financials about the diesel generators, should they be used, are confidential at this stage.

These are not decisions that the government has made with regard to confidentiality, apart from being willing partners in a confidentiality agreement. They are confidential pieces of information. To suggest that I am not being open or transparent is completely incorrect. As the shadow minister knows, having been a minister and a treasurer himself, some things cannot legally be divulged. The other part of the shadow's question with regard to the Livesey report is something that he needs to ask the Attorney-General because she is the one who commissioned that report.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So the agency that owns and operates the generators and conducted the procurement had absolutely no say and no involvement in the Livesey inquiry?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: What I would say is that the Marshall Liberal government is a cohesive, united and well-organised cabinet government and we discuss a wide range of things at cabinet. I have not suggested once at all that the agency responsible for the generators has had no discussion or no information. What I have said is that if the shadow minister wants to know about the public release of the Livesey report, he needs to ask the Attorney-General about that because the Attorney-General commissioned the report.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Does the minister think it should be released publicly?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The Attorney-General's opinion is the one that counts in this matter.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I have noticed that your opinion does not count for very much in cabinet, given your ban on gas.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The Attorney-General commissioned—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Do you have any influence in the cabinet?

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, that is a statement not a question.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, it is a statement.

The CHAIR: Minister, have you completed that answer?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: No.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: If we can turn to—

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, just a moment. We are almost 55 minutes in, and the member for King has been waiting patiently for her question.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Sorry, I had not finished my answer.

The CHAIR: Minister you have the call, and then we will go to the member for King.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Thank you very much, and thanks for your patience, member for King. The issue of my opinion, while it is very, very relevant in the cabinet room, is not relevant to public discussion about whether or not the Attorney-General will choose to release the report.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, I know how much clout you have in the cabinet room.

The CHAIR: Member for King.

Ms LUETHEN: I refer to Budget Paper 5, Budget Measures Statement, page 57. How do households access the grants in the government's Home Battery Scheme?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: This is a very important question. As you know, 40,000 households over four years have the opportunity to access that. There will be an average grant of $2,500 per household. We have already discussed the specific grant figures here. As to your question about how do they actually access it, the first thing to say is that they can start accessing it at the end of October. We want to make this as easy as possible to access for households who qualify. The household needs to be connected to the grid. This is not an opportunity for a stand-alone, off-grid household. That is important for people to understand.

Essentially, the household needs to accept a quote from an authorised battery provider who will take responsibility for the installation or an authorised installer who will take responsibility for the battery. We are creating a portal that householders can access. They can go online and enter the details of the quote that they have already received from the installer or the battery provider, the one that they are most interested in pursuing. They can enter that information into this online portal so that the system can ascertain that the quote comes from an organisation that is suitably qualified and high calibre.

The household can then also decide whether it wants to apply for a concessional loan for the balance of the purchase price of the battery and potentially the purchase price of solar panels. This is a truly outstanding opportunity. The household could potentially get a maximum $6,000 subsidy towards the purchase of the battery and a lower interest loan for the remaining part of the purchase price of the battery and the solar. They need to have solar on their home to qualify. That can be a household that already has solar in place and wants to retrofit the battery, understanding that, for some households, that may not be particularly attractive if they are on a very high feed-in tariff.

A household might say, 'I'm getting 50-something cents a kilowatt hour already. I don't want to lose that. I can get it for another 10 years, so I would prefer not to change.' That is terrific; that household is in great shape. Let them stay as they are and let someone else who does not already have that benefit get this new benefit. If a household wants to pursue the opportunity for this concessional loan—even just to get information about it, let alone actually accept it—then they can essentially make a fairly easy online application.

They can provide information about their financial position confidentially online. They can also get a conditional approval of that application in a relatively short space of time. 'Conditional' means that they will have to follow up to prove that the information that they have given is accurate. Essentially, the household can go online, provide the information from the quote, find out what subsidy they would receive, find out what financial loan support they would receive and then make a decision about whether or not they want to proceed.

Importantly, people who do not have access to or are not comfortable with using the internet will be supported in other ways so that they can still get the full benefit. They can still have access. We would like as many people as possible to access it online because that makes it more efficient and more expedient to operate the scheme, but we will make sure that people who have difficulty accessing it online are supported to do that.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I refer the minister to table 2.6 on page 29 of Budget Paper 3, chapter 2. There is a list of savings for Energy and Mining totalling $18 million over the forward estimates. What is the headcount reduction as a result of those savings?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The 2018-19 full-time equivalent budget for the Department for Energy and Mining is 332.9 FTEs. An upward trend in the departmental workforce reflects bringing my ministerial office resources into the new department's accounts and delivering on our election commitments, in particular the energy solution.

The 2018-19 budget includes 13 FTEs for the office of the Minister for Energy and Mining, and 319.8 FTEs transferred in from the Department of the Premier and Cabinet for the following groups: the mineral resources and energy group, water industry technical group, safety regulation, the Low Carbon Economy Unit and the energy plan implementation task force. The increase in FTEs in the 2018-19 budget, compared with previous years, is due to the realignment of the energy implementations budget in 2018-19 to more accurately reflect the positions working under the program under the Department for Energy and Mining (DEM).

While the energy implementation task force operated under DPC in 2017-18, staff were seconded from other teams within DPC to work on the task force's operations and deliverables. Positions for these staff members have been created under the DEM, with the 2018-19 budget being adjusted to match the number of required staff. I am advised that this has contributed an additional 12 FTEs to the workforce from 2018-19, when compared to 2016-17 actuals.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I did not ask about full-time equivalents: I asked for headcount. Do you understand the difference between an FTE and a headcount?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I will answer your second question first, and the answer to that is yes. The answer to your first question is: over the forward estimates the Department for Energy and Mining budgeted FTEs will reduce by approximately 10 per cent, or the equivalent of almost 30 FTEs. The reduced workforce is consistent with implementation of approved savings measures. We will continue to deliver on our commitments in a more efficient manner by delivering more with less.

My department is committed to delivering on the government's priorities and this includes creating a sustainable financial position. To this end, we will rationalise the new Department for Energy and Mining structure, which will seek to achieve $5.8 million of savings across four years by amalgamating functions and resources that deliver similar services to industry. Through the staged amalgamation of resources across the department, there will be increased collaboration of teams and functions that deliver like services, resulting in operational efficiencies—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order, sir: I really am not trying to be difficult. I want to get a headcount reduction number.

The CHAIR: And we are getting to that, minister?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I do not think we are, sir. He is talking FTEs. What is your headcount reduction?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Through the staged amalgamation of resources across the department, there will be increased collaboration of teams and functions that deliver like services, resulting in operational efficiencies that support enhanced delivery to industry. Implementation of this measure will see a reduction in the departmental workforce of up to 20 FTEs directly related to this measure.

The Department for Energy and Mining's FTE budget decreases by 32.8 FTEs, from 332.9 in 2018-19, to 300.1 in 2021-22. In 2018-19, it will be 332.9; in 2019-20, 310.7; in 2020-21, 301.6; and in 2021-22, 300.1. The reduction in budgeted FTEs represents approximately 10 per cent of the workforce, which represents a reasonable balance between delivering government priorities efficiently and delivering a sustainable budget position. I am advised that the proposed amalgamation of functions in the new department will contribute a 20-FTE reduction across the forward estimates. The residual reduction of approximately 13 FTEs relates to the continuation of efficiencies implemented by the former government combined with the staging of resources required by the government to deliver its priorities.

With regard to the reduction in departmental workforce of up to 20 FTEs directly, I will take that question on notice to give the minister the predicted headcount number—that is, individual employees—connected to that 20 FTE number.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: If I can turn now to Budget Paper 3, Budget Statement, page 31, table 2.8. It states under operating expenses that energy and mining has a $70 million reduction over the forward estimates. Can the minister explain that? No doubt this is from your clout in the cabinet.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The mineral resources and energy program represents in excess of 99 per cent of net costs of service of the department's programs. Mineral resources and energy comprises all functions of the department, with the exception of the water industry technical and safety regulation program, which is aligned to the Minister for Environment and Water.

In 2018-19, the mineral resources and energy program includes the sub-programs energy implementation and low carbon economy unit, which were reported under Program 1: Premier and Cabinet Policy and Support, in the 2017-18 budget. A decrease in the net cost of services of $45.5 million is primarily due to a reduction in PACE programs that were completed in 2017-18 relating to PACE gas and PACE copper initiatives; completion of three-year funding support to Oz Minerals; reduction in expenditure for hydrogen refuelling stations; and the commencement of additional funding from Green Industry Fund to support the implementation of the Household Storage Subsidy Scheme and the Grid Scale Storage Fund.

An increase in net cost of service of $116.1 million is primarily due to funding to deliver the former government's energy plan, comprising $83.7 million for temporary emergency generators and $9.3 million of funding for the Renewable Technology Fund, and implementation of the PACE gas program additional funding.

An increase in net cost of services of $108.2 million is primarily due to funding to deliver the former government's energy plan, comprising $83.7 million for temporary emergency generators and $9.3 million of funding for the Renewable Technology Fund; expenditure for the energy productivity program for large business customers and expenditure budget from the Green Industry Fund to support hydrogen refuelling station; and fuel cell bus trial. If the shadow minister would like more detail about the forward estimates I would be happy to take that question on notice.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That was not my question. I note that the department has been hit pretty hard, but I suppose that is a matter for the advocacy within the cabinet.

The CHAIR: Do you have a question, member of West Torrens?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I do, sir, unfortunately. I refer to Budget Measures Statement, Budget Paper 5, page 59. This minister announced the end of the new mining royalty concession, a tax increase for miners, failed to fund the PACE program, introduced a moratorium on unconventional gas legislatively in this house in the parliament. Does the minister think that he is improving the investment attractiveness of mining in South Australia?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Absolutely. We are very positive about the future of mining in South Australia. In fact, indicators from a range of sources are very positive. We are extremely supportive of the mining/petroleum industries, and we have tremendous programs in place to be able to support them. The reality is that some programs have had some financial support reduced, but that is happening as an obligation across government to get the budget back on track after 16 years of Labor.

We have chosen very carefully how we will deliver the cuts that are necessary in our department. Nobody likes to cut. Nobody in industry likes to receive a cut. No government department likes to receive a cut. But the reality is that savings measures have been given to all agencies across government by the Treasurer and the Premier and cabinet. We have accepted these responsibilities, we will deliver on these responsibilities and we have found a way to deliver on those responsibilities while simultaneously providing an enormous amount of support for the mining and petroleum industry into the future.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Can you name another industry that has received a tax increase in this budget?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Can you tell me—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Can you name another industry that has received a tax increase in this budget?

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens—

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Another industry apart from an industry connected to the Department for Energy and Mining?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Another sector of the economy that has received a tax increase other than the mining industry.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am here to answer questions about the Department for Energy and Mining.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That is right, because—

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, before you ask your next question, I might just ensure that the minister has completed his answer to your previous question?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Yes.

The CHAIR: He has. The member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Would it surprise the minister to know that the South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy made comments on the budget. They said this:

The Marshall Liberal Government is sending a clear message that resources sector investment is not supported in this State.

These policy and budget decisions create the perception that the Marshall Liberal Government do not value the economic contribution of the resources sector.

Can you name a single initiative in this budget that assists the resources sector?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The answer to the first part of the question, yes, I am aware of that public statement. I am also—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Hardly a hotbed of socialist activity, SACOME, is it?

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, you have asked your question. The minister—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Hardly a branch of the Labor Party.

The CHAIR: The minister has the call.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am also aware of another statement that SACOME put out in connection with the budget and, given that the shadow minister has shared how highly he values SACOME's opinion, as do most people connected to this industry, and I have a very high—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is pretty damning of you, isn't it?

The CHAIR: Member—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I would be upset, too, if I were you.

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, order! As we have been through before, you have asked a question, the minister is now responding and the minister has the call. You will have the opportunity in a moment to ask another question.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: And I have had a very, very positive working relationship with SACOME for many years, and I think very highly of the organisation. I am pleased that the shadow minister thinks highly of the organisation as well because then he will value as much as I do SACOME's other public statement about the budget, which from memory was jumping for joy based on our delivery of funding to duplicate or upgrade essentially the Joy Baluch Bridge. SACOME has made a very, very supportive, positive comment about the part of our budget that they like—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order, sir—

The CHAIR: Point of order, the member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: My question was: can the minister point to an initiative in his agency that supports the resources sector? Any new initiative will do. Just name one.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Mr Chair, the shadow asked two questions, in fact, and I am just answering the first one at the moment. He asked me if I was aware of this—

The CHAIR: The minister is coming to answer the question put. The minister has the call.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: There were two questions, and I am finishing my answer to the first question, which was: am I aware of the statement? It would only be appropriate for me to inform the shadow minister and the committee of both statements. Quite understandably, SACOME made an extremely positive, extremely supportive statement about the part of our budget that they like, and they made a negative statement about the part of our budget that they do not like. That is their right to do that. That is completely appropriate, and it is no different from any other industry advocacy group's behaviour: they put positive statements out about the parts they like, negative statements out about the parts that they do not like.

With regard to the shadow minister's question about whether there is anything in this budget that is good, I could talk for quite a long time—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order, sir: that is not what I asked. I asked: can he point to an initiative in the Agency Statements—

The CHAIR: I am sure, member for West Torrens, that the minister is coming to answer the second part of your question right now.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Just one. Just one new initiative.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I could talk for quite a long time about the positive things in the budget for the mining industry if he wants me to but, since he wants me to name just one, I will talk about ongoing support for the MinEx CRC.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Wow.

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens!

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I certainly could have named many more if he wanted.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I refer to Budget Paper 5, page 58. Can the minister outline why the economic benefits of the $56 million spent on PACE between 2004 and 2013, which resulted in an extra $700 million invested in private mineral exploration—a 20:1 leverage—with an extra $2.4 million in state mining revenues—a factor of 44 times—was insufficient to continue funding such an important program?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Yes, I can answer the question, but let me say right at the start that the shadow's logic that the benefits of the program being positive mean that the program automatically needs to continue is not accurate; that is not fair and reasonable. I have no hesitation in saying that the PACE program has been very positive. In fact, the program has lived under successive Liberal and Labor governments for a long time. I have spoken very publicly about my support for the PACE program, and it may well be that the PACE program is reinstated one day. In fact, I predict that it is very likely that the PACE program will be reinstated one day.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: This is like your mythical Terramin dollar fund.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The logic behind the PACE program is—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The CHAIR: Continue.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The logic behind the PACE program is that it is taxpayer funded support for the exploration industry to do work at a time when without that financial support they would not be inclined or perhaps would not be able to undertake that exploration. Wanting to support industry to undertake that exploration, essentially through the bottom of the cycle, is a very sensible and very positive thing to do. The previous government did that, and I give them credit for that.

We are not in the bottom of the cycle anymore. The very positive benefits, some of which the shadow minister alluded to in his question, are still ahead of us. We are seeing the benefits of that PACE spending, but it is not necessary to continue that PACE spending at this time in the cycle when exploration is expected to increase without that funding support. Good on the previous government for funding PACE through the bottom of the cycle—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Continue, minister.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: —as I have no doubt a Liberal government would have done also, but we are not in the bottom of the cycle any longer. The overwhelming majority of indicators are positive for the resources industry and, given that we had to make cuts somewhere, we decided that this is a place that would be an appropriate area to cut.

As I said before, nobody wants to make cuts. The government does not want to, the minister does not want to, the department does not want to and industry does not want to. But, given that we must make cuts, we decided that this was an area to make a cut. To be very clear, there is ongoing support for development of industry in excess of what was specifically the previous government's PACE funding. We have money going into the copper strategy, we have money going into the MinEx CRC. We are very supportive of the minerals and petroleum industries moving forward.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am sorry, minister, I disagree with you and I have yet to find anyone in the industry who agrees with that. They all view this as a pretty bad budget for them. On that matter, I refer to Budget Paper 5, page 59. You increased taxes on the mining industry, the only industry to receive a tax increase in this budget. You have targeted the mining industry. Did you consult with any of the representative bodies of the mining industry before you abolished the concessional new mine rate?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: For the shadow minister to talk about increased taxes on the mining industry, he could only be talking about two possible things that I can think of. One is an increase in the fees to the opal mining industry. Again, I say that nobody wants a cut, nobody wants a fee increase, and I accept that—I understand that—but they are very small fee increases in the range of $7 per year at the bottom end, going up to perhaps about $30. I cannot tell you that number exactly, but they are very small increases per year.

About two weeks ago, officials from my department had a meeting in Coober Pedy with representatives from the local opal mining industry and this topic was raised. The feedback to me from that meeting was that it was not a particularly contentious issue. I say again that nobody wants to pay more, I really do understand that, but I do not think that characterising these increases to the opal mining industry as overwhelming taxes on the mining industry—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The new mine royalty rate?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: —is anywhere near accurate. In fact, it is inaccurate. The other thing that comes to mind that the shadow minister might be thinking about is the removal of the royalties concession on new mines. Again, it is not a tax increase but a removal of a discount on a royalty. Let me be very clear about how we have implemented this. What the shadow minister is probably—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is like saying it is an excise rather than a levy.

The CHAIR: There will be no interjections. We have done very well. We are almost at the end of this committee stage. Minister, I ask you to continue.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, continue.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Thanks, Chair. What the shadow minister does not want on the record is actually very important. We removed the concession on royalties for new mines as carefully as we possibly could. The reality is any company that wants to get a new mine up still has until—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order, sir: my question was not if they had done it carefully. It was: did they consult with anyone before they did it? It is a very simple question. Did you consult with any of the industry bodies before you removed this new mine rate? That is all I am asking.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: It is important to make sure that the committee fully understands the concession that the shadow minister is talking about. It is very important to talk about the removal of it in terms of exactly how it is being removed as part of the answer to the question. The reality is that any organisation that would like to apply for a concession on the royalties for a future—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I have been pretty cooperative during this committee. You have seen what committees can be like.

The CHAIR: Yes.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is a pretty simple question.

The CHAIR: And do you have a point of order about—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Relevance.

The CHAIR: —the way this is being answered by the minister?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, debate, relevance—choose whichever one you like, sir.

The CHAIR: All of the above. I uphold the point of order. Minister, can you return to the substance of the question, which is about consultation.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Consultation has occurred before, during and after all the difficult decisions that we have had to make with regard to this budget. That is pretty standard across the board, but I will not be going into the details of that consultation.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sir, if I could just take the opportunity now to read the omnibus questions into the record?

The CHAIR: You can, absolutely, member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The omnibus questions are:

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. If the minister or anyone in his office owns, operates or controls a private email, whether he or anyone in his office has sent any emails from that private server?

3. 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?

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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?

9. 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.

10. 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?

11. 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?

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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?

With one minute to go, has the minister sent any emails relating to government business on a private email server not provided to him by the state?

Mr McBRIDE: On a point of order, Chair, what is the reference in the budget papers?

The CHAIR: I am going to allow that question; the minister can answer it.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The answer is no.

The CHAIR: It was included in the omnibus questions, anyway, I think.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That is if he had any private servers or accounts.

The CHAIR: Thank you, member for West Torrens, thank you minister and thank you committee members. Having reached the allotted time, I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the portfolio Department for Energy and Mining, and the estimate of payments for the Department for Energy and Mining to be completed.

At 17:31 the committee adjourned to Thursday 27 September 2018 at 09:00.