Department of the Premier and Cabinet, $270,551,000

Administered Items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, $9,061,000

Minister:

Hon. S.S. Marshall, Premier.

Departmental Advisers:

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

Mr S. Woolhouse, Executive Director, Communities and Corporate, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Ms E. Balan-Vnuk, Executive Director, ICT and Digital Government, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

The CHAIR: I declare the proposed payments open for examination. Premier, we are examining the estimate of payments in relation to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and also Administered Items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. I invite you to introduce your advisers and make a statement if you wish.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. The advisers who join me now are Mr Jim McDowell, who is the Chief Executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet; Steven Woolhouse, who is the Executive Director, Communities and Corporate; and Eva Balan-Vnuk, who is the Executive Director, ICT and Digital Government.

The CHAIR: Premier, are you happy to take questions now?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes, thank you.

The CHAIR: The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: My questions start with Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 18, under program 1, and I will stick with that theme for some time. Premier, the system for approving government advertising was previously, as you described, PCAG. It was a committee that had an overall majority of public servants; in fact, my advice is that it had one political appointee. Why was that scrapped in favour of a system where the final decision on a major advertising campaign is now taken by a committee made up of the Treasurer and a majority of political appointees?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We formed the opinion that that was the best methodology to determine what government advertising was going forward. As you would be more than aware, we have a significantly lower budget for government advertising. We have new guidelines that we have put in place, and we are satisfied that we have the appropriate governance structure in place.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Who is on GCAC?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not have those details with me, but I am more than happy to provide them.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Are you able to seek advice from your staff present about who is on GCAC, or do they not know either?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It is actually an item administered by the Treasurer, not by the Premier. This is a good question for you to ask in the other chamber. As I said, I am happy to ask that question of the Treasurer, but it is not my responsibility.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Is DPC responsible for Premier and Cabinet communications?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Is DPC responsible for government advertising?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We have just outlined that. I could go through it again if you would like. We have a budget line that coordinates government advertising, which is coordinated within DPC, but the governing body, which is the GCAC, is chaired by the Treasurer. It is the Treasurer's responsibility. If you have questions regarding that, it would be good to direct them to him.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So DPC has a budget line that is responsible for government communications, but it has no responsibility for government communications; is that what you are trying to explain?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: What I am advised is that DPC has a communications budget that really is a fraction of what it was previously under the previous government's arrangement. Those government communications were centralised within DPC. Under the current arrangements, that is quite different. Although there is a communications budget within DPC, it is mainly used to run DPC's own communications website, and so on and so forth. We do also provide the secretarial services to the GCAC, but that is actually chaired by the Treasurer and he takes responsibility for overall government advertising.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: It sounds a little inconsistent with your previous answer if DPC is providing secretarial services for something that you do not have responsibility for, nevertheless. Has the government conducted any evaluation or research regarding the performance of the state government?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Sorry?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Has the government, your government, conducted any research regarding the performance of the state government in terms of any opinions of South Australians?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am certainly not aware of any research that has been conducted.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: But has any been conducted?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Well, if I am not aware of it, it is difficult to report it.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Can you avail yourself of that information today?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am not aware of any instances where that has occurred. If you have some information, perhaps you could provide it to the committee.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am asking questions; I am hoping that you have the answers to them.

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

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Has there been any evaluation of how South Australians have received last month's state budget?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No, not that we are aware of.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Has the government conducted any polling regarding this year's state budget?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am happy to make an investigation if the department has done any work in that area, but I am certainly not aware of it whatsoever.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Have you done any focus group research regarding this year's state budget?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I just refer you to my previous answer—whether it is a focus group or research, I am not aware of any.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: With respect to DPC providing and overseeing the work of GCAC, would you expect DPC and yourself being aware of what is being approved in GCAC regarding research on the government's performance or, more specifically, this year's state budget?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Well, the GCAC might have done some research looking at the effectiveness of individual campaigns, but that would be a matter for the Treasurer, not for me.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Why not for you?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It is not something that we have done within DPC. We do not have a budget line for it, and it is just not something I am aware about.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So you do not have a budget line for communications and research?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: For DPC, but that is for the overall DPC communication. I presume GCAC will have a methodology for determining the effectiveness of individual advertising campaigns. I would hope that they would, but that is not something that is administered by DPC.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Do you employ Ashton Hurn?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: She is employed within my office, yes.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Do you employ Paul Armanas?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes, he is an employee of my ministerial office.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Do you employ Belinda Heggen?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Are those three people on GCAC?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not have that information. I could find out. We can find out.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: That would be good.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We are just looking at it now. It is on the website.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Thank you. As soon as that information comes to light, I would be interested in hearing it.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I find it difficult to understand that you would not have access to that information already.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Well, I am astounded that you do not. They are your employees. I do not employ them: you do. You are surprised that I do not know. In fact, you employ them and you do not know.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Let's be very—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: That is extraordinary.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Let's be quite clear—

The CHAIR: Order! The Premier actually has the call at the moment.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Let's be very clear: the GCAC is not my responsibility.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: But you employ these people. They are your staff—

The CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: —and you are suggesting that I should know what your staff are doing.

The CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition, order!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I will let you know what they are having for lunch.

The CHAIR: Leader, order! I would like to keep this process civil.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So would I.

The CHAIR: We ask a question and we receive an answer; that is the way it works. Premier, have you finished your answer to that previous question?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Absolutely.

The CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Well, he has not because he has said that he is going to get the answer for us.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Mr Chairman, I am informed that Belinda Heggen, Paul Armanas, Ashton Hurn, Jehad Ali and Rachel Walsh are on the GCAC.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Who employs Jehad—sorry, I did not catch his last name.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Ali.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: And someone Walsh?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Rachel Walsh.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Who employs both of those people?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: This is all generally available information, but Jehad Ali is employed by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Rachel Walsh is employed within Renewal SA.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So there are five members of GCAC and four out of five are employed by either you or DPC, and you are telling me that GCAC is not the responsibility of DPC.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Sorry?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Four out of five people on DPC are either your direct employees or an employee of DPC, and you are telling me that you do not think they are the responsibility of DPC.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We provide the secretarial services. I have been through this and I have nothing further to add.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Are you aware of what those four people, who are your employees, approve on GCAC or get information for?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Again, I just suggest that you actually direct these questions to the Treasurer, who has responsibility for the GCAC.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: But why would I ask the Treasurer when the Treasurer does not employ anybody on GCAC?

The CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition, there is a point of order from the member for Heysen.

Mr TEAGUE: Standing order 268, paragraph 2, allows for examination of proposed line items of expenditure. The leader has referred to program 1 on page 18 and he has then proceeded to go down a path. I am starting to struggle with the particular proposed item of spending to which he has referred, particularly in the last run of questions. I would be grateful for some greater level of precision around what line item he has proceeded to.

The CHAIR: I understand the point of order you are making, member for Heysen. However, I am not going to uphold it at this stage because program 1 relates to Premier and Cabinet policy and support, so I think at this stage at least the questions are within that scope.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Indeed.

The CHAIR: But I am going to remind the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier to try to keep this discourse civil.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am keen to.

The CHAIR: Excellent. Your call.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Thanks, Mr Chair. Does the Premier receive any reports from GCAC or his department regarding any evaluation or research that is conducted regarding the performance of the state government, more specifically in regard to the state budget?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have not sought or received that information, but the GCAC themselves could do that evaluation. I am informed that evaluation of government campaigns has occurred in the past and is likely to be occurring on all government advertising expenditure.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Just for the sake of clarity, I am going to ask about the focus groups again. Have focus groups been conducted over the past 12 months, or are there plans for focus groups to be conducted over the coming 12 months?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As I have said in my previous answers, there is nothing that I am aware of and, if GCAC is doing some, that is a question for the Treasurer.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Are you able to take on notice whether or not focus groups have been conducted by the government over the last 12 months?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have provided an answer. That is something you can direct to the Treasurer. He may have done that via his chairmanship of the GCAC.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: But I am directing it to you as the employer, as the agency that I am advised is responsible for GCAC and certainly is indeed the agency that employs four out of five people who are on GCAC.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I refer the Leader of the Opposition to my previous answer on this.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So you are not willing to let us know whether or not focus groups are being conducted?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I refer the Leader of the Opposition to previous answers I have provided.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Okay, so you are not. Did the Premier or his office work with the Liberal Party regarding the coordination or the organisation of the robocalls that South Australians received at 5.30 this morning and other obscure times, inquiring about the direction of the state government?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am not sure what you are referring to.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: You are not aware that robocalls went out by the Liberal Party at obscure hours of the morning regarding the performance of the state government?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am not sure what that has to do with the office of the Premier. I am not sure what line item you are referring to. If there is a question regarding a Liberal Party or a Labor Party or a Greens matter, that is a matter for those parties, not for me.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: You have nothing to do with that?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have provided my answer to the committee.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Has the Premier or his office had any communications with the South Australian Liberal Party regarding the robocalls that went out at obscure hours of the morning asking people about the performance of the state government?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I refer you to my previous answer.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: What was that again?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: This is a matter for a political party. If they are doing research, it has nothing to do with the office of the Premier.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: That is what I am asking you, though. Did you or your office have any communications with the Liberal Party regarding those robocalls?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have certainly had no discussions. As I said, this is a matter for a political party. It is not a matter for me. There is no budget line. I have no idea how you think this would be relevant and within scope for the state budget examination.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Because you are responsible for Department of the Premier and Cabinet communications and communications regarding the government. If there are robocalls going out to the South Australian community at obscure hours of the day asking questions about the performance of the state government, it is entirely reasonable to assume that those questions are being organised in concert with you and your staff.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I just make the very clear point that we do not run the Liberal Party out of the Premier's office, unlike what we have seen recently with the Leader of the Opposition using state taxpayer dollars to fund campaigns that were essentially authorised by the Labor Party in South Australia. That is not something we would do, and I think the questioning really indicates more about the way the opposition operates than the way the government operates.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Again, I ask the question: does anyone in your office—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have provided my answer to the committee.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: You have not answered the question, though.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have provided my answer to the committee.

The CHAIR: Leader and all committee members, when ministers or the Premier are asked a question, they answer it the way they see fit. If you are not able to get the answer you want, then it is probably time to move on.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: It is not so much about the answer I want as distinct from an answer.

The CHAIR: Well, the answer you are looking for—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I will ask a different question then, Chair. Did anyone in the Premier's office view or review or approve the script for the robocalls that were conducted at obscure hours of the day?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: This is not a matter for examination here. It is not a matter that is run out of the Premier's office—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: That is not for you to determine.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It is not a matter that is run out of the Premier's office. If the leader has specific questions regarding individual political parties' research or expenditure in any way, then I suggest the Leader of the Opposition directs those questions to the relevant organisation and not to me during the state budget examination in the South Australian parliament.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Was the decision to undertake the robocalls driven by the results of evaluations carried out on the government's budget, in particular the backlash regarding privatisation or land tax?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have no further comment regarding this current line of questioning. I have made it very clear this is not an issue for examination here within this committee.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I will move on because clearly the Premier knows nothing about anything to do with the Liberal Party.

The CHAIR: Just move on, leader.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I might start with the objectives of your agency outlined on page 12 of Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, where it states:

The Department of the Premier and Cabinet delivers specialist policy advice to the Premier and ministers and supports the Cabinet process.

Premier, when you were leader of the Liberal Party in opposition, you stated that your government would not have a privatisation agenda. When you decided to abandon that position and embrace the privatisation of essential services, such as the trains and the trams, did you seek advice from your agency regarding that?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I completely reject the premise of the question. It is not an issue which is related to expenditure in my area. The issue regarding the train and tram network is a matter for another minister and has nothing to do with me. It has nothing to do with the expenditure that sits within the Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The largest privatisation that has been embarked upon by this state, by some estimations since the sale of ETSA, has nothing to do with you? Are you not the Premier of the state?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am the Premier of the state. Let's make it very clear: we stand by decisions that have been made in cabinet, but it is not a matter that is discussed within DPC.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Has DPC provided any advice to the cabinet or you regarding the privatisation of trains and trams?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The cabinet processes that exist provide that all cabinet decisions are subject to comments by individual departments that are sent to the cabinet for ultimate consideration.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: In my experience, DPC does have the capacity to formulate its own opinions, often informed by the advice of other departments, and does indeed formulate strategic advice, as is outlined in the budget paper. Did that occur in regard to what is, I think, undoubtedly a very significant policy decision regarding privatisation?

Mr TEAGUE: For the benefit of the committee—

The CHAIR: Do you have a point of order, member for Heysen?

Mr TEAGUE: For the benefit of the committee—I might be the slowest one in the room—I have heard a reference to page 12, I think, of Budget Paper 4, Volume 4. I cannot see a line item. I am as interested as anyone else on the committee to consider line items in this series of schedules. I would be assisted if the leader might identify the line item and direct with some greater precision a question to that line item.

The CHAIR: Member for Heysen, we are discussing the objectives listed on page 12. The second paragraph of that page suggests:

The department leads the implementation of South Australia's strategic priorities and policy commitments in the areas of economic and social development…

And it goes on. I guess the questions relate in a broad sense to that context. I take your point about individual budget lines. We seem to be having questions about policy rather than expenditure, which ultimately is the role of this committee.

Mr TEAGUE: I am guessing, too. I share your sentiment. I am left guessing, so I maintain the previous point of order.

The CHAIR: Is the point of order relevance? I am putting words in your mouth. Member for Heysen, I appreciate your concern as to the function of this committee, but I am happy with the leader's questions at this stage, bearing in mind that ultimately he will get back to individual expenditure lines, I am sure.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I asked the Premier a question about the strategic advice that DPC provided in regard to its view on the privatisation of trains and trams—as I said, what is universally accepted as a significant policy decision.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As I have already provided to the committee, each government agency is afforded the opportunity to have input into all cabinet papers. This is submitted via the Cabinet Office, and that information and advice are made available to all cabinet ministers as they make their deliberations regarding government decisions. However, we will not be talking about individual advice from departments that go through the cabinet process, and I cannot imagine that the Leader of the Opposition, as a former cabinet minister, would think that we would provide that information to this committee.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: No, but that is not what I am asking. That was a useful statement of what is well known. What am asking the Premier is: what advice was provided by DPC, an agency for which he is responsible, regarding the very significant strategic policy decision to privatise the trains and trams?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The point that I just made was that that advice, like every other government department's advice, is received by cabinet in confidence.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Has DPC provided you advice regarding the privatisation of trains and trams?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As I said, if advice was provided, it was provided to cabinet and it was provided in confidence, in accordance with the practices of the South Australian government.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Did DPC conduct its own analysis outside of the cabinet process for the purposes of providing you, personally, with strategic advice regarding the train and tram privatisation experience, when looking at other jurisdictions globally?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We make cabinet decisions, and that advice would have been provided to cabinet, if there was advice. It would have been exactly the same process for all government departments that would have input into all cabinet decisions.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: On Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 19, regarding the agency's allocation for supplies and services, is that the allocation from which the consultancy fees were paid to Mr Wayne Eagleson?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That is most likely. We can check, but we think that is most likely.

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

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes, we will take that on notice.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Did Mr Eagleson provide any advice regarding the privatisation of key public services, such as trains and trams?

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

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Did Mr Eagleson provide any advice regarding privatising?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No, not that I am aware of.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Did Mr Eagleson provide any advice regarding outsourcing?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No, not that I am aware of.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Did the Premier seek any advice from the former Victorian premier, Jeff Kennett, regarding the privatisation of trams and trains?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Did DPC conduct or develop any advice, whether it be through Mr Eagleson or through another source, regarding the changes to land tax that have been proposed in this year's state budget?

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

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Did DPC conduct any analysis at all regarding land tax changes?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Only as per my previous answers. The DPC, like all government departments, has input into cabinet deliberations. Obviously, there was a Budget Cabinet Committee. Like every department, DPC has input, but that is obviously confidential.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: How did the Premier formulate his view on the decision regarding land tax?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That is a consideration that was made within my role as a member of the Budget Cabinet Committee and as a member of the cabinet. As such, it remains confidential.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I might move on to another line, Mr Chairman, as I am conscious of the time.

The CHAIR: The session is due to go until 10.45, but probably somewhere in that last 10 minutes we will look to read the omnibus questions.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: In that context, Mr Chair, I might just skip over a few things. On Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 18, highlights, point 5 in respect of the Economic Advisory Council, which provides strategic advice on policy designed to stimulate the economy and jobs growth, could the Premier explain his understanding of what the Economic Advisory Council does?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The Economic Advisory Council provides confidential advice to me as the Premier on the direction of the state and on various opportunities that come up for our consideration. It has now been operating pretty much since we formed government and I have been very satisfied with the six members we have on that council.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Excellent. Was the Economic Advisory Council's view sought on the proposal to privatise a key public service in regard specifically to trams and trains?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Why not?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Well, the Economic Advisory Council is mainly focused on economic growth in South Australia, not with the provision of individual government services and whether or not we are getting best taxpayer bang for buck. That is not really within the scope of the Economic Advisory Council.

That said, individual members can feel free to contact me if they have opinions on issues that are outside scope; sometimes that may occur. I cannot think of any specific instances at the moment. Certainly none contacted me on the issue that you raise. They certainly would not be prevented from doing that. That sort of issue or decision of government would seem to me to be outside the scope of the Economic Advisory Council.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Does the Premier think that public transport is actually important in terms of the economy?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Absolutely.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Why would the Premier not seek the advice of the Economic Advisory Council?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I provided an answer to that and I have nothing further to add.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: But if public transport can be an important driver in terms of the economy, why would such a very significant decision not necessarily be improved if it had the advice of an esteemed council like the Economic Advisory Council?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have provided an answer. I can provide further detail if the leader requires it. Public transport is important for our economy, but how the service is actually provided is just outside the scope of the Economic Advisory Council.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: How often does the Economic Advisory Council meet?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not have the exact schedule in front of me, but I think it would probably be around every six weeks.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Are decisions that are being made by the government or being contemplated by the government ever referred to the Economic Advisory Council?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I cannot think of a specific example, but in our confidential discussions I canvass various issues of economic growth with them. As I said, I have been extraordinarily satisfied with the responses that I have received. It is a confidential environment. The members of the Economic Advisory Council do not receive any remuneration for the work they do; there are no board sitting fees paid to these members. It is a six-person group. I have just been advised that it meets between eight and 10 times per year.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Thank you. I would like to acknowledge the work that the Economic Advisory Council does on an unremunerated basis. There are some good people on that council.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I would point out, though, that we do give them breakfast at 7 o'clock in the morning, so it is not without some benefits. Sometimes those croissants are quite welcome at 7am.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: On the decision of the government to dramatically accelerate the growth in state debt to unprecedented record levels, was any advice sought or given by the Economic Advisory Council about that long-term economic decision?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: There was nothing that was specifically sought.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Why not? Would a group as esteemed as that not be a good place to seek a view about such a significant long-term state decision?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It is just a different format from the previous government, where they might have sent a referral to the Economic Advisory Board, and then the Economic Advisory Board would have resources to conduct an investigation or commission research and that would come back via the Economic Development Board to the government. It is just a different make-up, a different scope.

It meets eight to 10 times per year for two hours, seven to nine. I do contact members between meetings, but again it is more advice of a general nature, rather than specific investigations. I must say, though, that I have discussed the budget with the Economic Advisory Council. Certainly, nobody raised with me any concern whatsoever with regard to the increased debt level. I do appreciate that it is an increase.

As I have outlined to the parliament before, I think it is an investment to develop the productive infrastructure and other infrastructure of our state, and we are doing it at a time when we have lowest interest rate environments for an extraordinarily long period of time. We got the most recent debt that the state government signed up for at a cost of 1.66 per cent, and since then I think there has been a 50 basis point reduction, so if there is ever a time to invest in productive infrastructure now is the time.

I note that the rating agencies have looked at this. Their initial feedback to the government has certainly not raised any concerns. Ultimately, they will determine a final position sometime later this year or early next year, but if they do have concerns, often rating agencies will put a rating that they have on watch, and this was not the case after the budget was handed down. Quite frankly, the debt increase that we put in place was pretty much mirrored in most other jurisdictions in Australia for budgets that had been handed down in the last six months.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I remain conscious of time, Mr Chairman, so I may come back to that in due course if time permits. Regarding Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 18, and referring to DPC and the Premier's responsibility for leading the development of Lot Fourteen and associated areas, how much physical space has been set aside at Lot Fourteen for the resoundingly good news that the Australian Space Agency is going to be headquartered in Adelaide?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The Australian Space Agency will be incorporated into the McEwin Building redevelopment, I think at level 2. With regard to the exact square metreage, I am happy to take that question on notice and come back. The McEwin Building will also house the SmartSat Cooperative Research Centre, as well as other tenants.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Excellent, thank you for that. When will the Australian Space Agency move in, if they have not already?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The Australian Space Agency has been established, and my understanding is that they do have offices now in South Australia and that they are proceeding to recruit key staff. My understanding is that the new premises within the McEwin Building will be ready before the end of this year.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: A media release from December last year states: 'The Australian Space Agency will be located in Adelaide by mid-2019 and is set to employ 20 full-time equivalent staff.' Has that not occurred?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Of course, this is not the responsibility of DPC. This is a federal government agency. As I previously advised, they opened an office in Adelaide, which is currently in Franklin Street. Once the refurbishment of the McEwin Building is complete, which I am advised will be before the end of this year, they will relocate into that new facility. As to how many people are currently employed, I am not sure, but currently the Director, Dr Megan Clark, is in Adelaide on a very regular basis. My understanding is that the Deputy Director, Anthony Murfett, now lives in Adelaide and that other staff have been recruited.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Have you been advised whether or not the commonwealth still intends to meet its commitment to move or have 20 full-time equivalent staff and the office being headquartered here?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have outlined the position regarding the headquartering; there is no movement in that. As to the existing number of staff, are you asking how many currently exist or whether the budget has been provided for that?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Both.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The budget has certainly been provided; that was in the most recent commonwealth budget. As to how they are going with their recruitment, I am not aware of that situation at the moment.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: When would you expect those people to be employed and based in Adelaide?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I would like them to be employed and based in Adelaide as soon as possible, but it is not really my responsibility, nor that of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. The budget has been allocated. In addition to what I have already reported with regard to the McEwin Building, subsequent to the original announcement that the headquarters would be based in South Australia, we have also been able to secure mission control and the Space Discovery Centre for South Australia. I am informed that in the initial phase, the Space Discovery Centre will also be housed within the McEwin Building on North Terrace.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Will the chief executive, Dr Megan Clark, be based full-time in Adelaide?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not know that. As you can appreciate, despite the fact that the headquarters will be here, there is still a huge amount of work in other jurisdictions. It is not as though the entire space program will be based in South Australia. The headquarters will be based here, but there are very significant nodes in all states, and obviously the minister response is based in Canberra. I have virtually weekly interactions with Dr Clark, but as to where she is ultimately going to be based I am not sure.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Would the CEO not be headquartered at the headquarters?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As I said, I just do not have information on where she will be residing, but she is here on a very regular basis.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Sorry, I am just trying to understand that—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I know that the Leader of the Opposition is trying to look for a negative in South Australia being awarded the headquarters for the Australian Space Agency—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Absolutely not. I am just trying to understand that—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —but if he had been following this issue, he would understand that the space program the federal government has put in place has significant nodes right around the entire country. The entire program is not based in South Australia—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: It is headquartered here.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not know who is answering this question, sir. Usually—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Not you.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —there is some courtesy afforded to the Premier when he is addressing the committee Chair. I would like to proceed without being interrupted, if possible.

The CHAIR: Certainly, Premier. Continue.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have tried to provide very short answers, compared to any of the previous formations of this committee I had to endure over five years, when the premier would tee off for a 17-minute answer to a simple question. I have tried to provide very short answers to give the Leader of the Opposition the maximum time to ask any questions, but this is actually a really important issue.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I agree.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Winning the ability to host the headquarters in South Australia was extraordinarily important for us in terms of international positioning. We are already seeing some of the benefits, but it does not mean that the entire space operation of the federal government will be located in South Australia. That is understood by everybody who has been following this issue. We will of course be augmenting what the Australian Space Agency does here in South Australia with the continuation of programs offered by Defence SA and SASIC, the South Australian space industry council, as I think it is referred to. I will find out the exact name and correct it if I have it wrong.

We are providing a huge amount of support to augment what the Australian Space Agency is doing in South Australia. As I said, that is already being picked up internationally. On a recent trip overseas, I had the opportunity to meet with people and talk to them about what we are doing in space, and it is garnering so much international interest, which is no doubt going to translate into increased investment in South Australia.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Has the Premier ever sought to establish whether or not the Chief Executive of the Australian Space Agency will be headquartered at the headquarters?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Sorry, what was the question? I did not hear the question; I was talking to the chief executive.

The CHAIR: Could you repeat the question, please.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Sure. It is a straight-up, simple question. Has the Premier ever established whether or not the Chief Executive of the Australian Space Agency will be based at the headquarters?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No, I have not sought that.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: That is extraordinary. Let's go on to a separate matter regarding the next budget line in Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 18, program 1, regarding the coordination of cross-government policy. My question relates to DPC's tender No. DPC043234, titled Travel Management Services, released in April 2018, resulting in a change of provider from early 2019.

When asked about the tender in this house on 27 February this year and whether he was aware that Helloworld subsidiary QBT travel had lodged a bid for the contract when the Premier opened the Helloworld conference on 11 May, the Premier said that he 'wasn't aware that there was a link between Helloworld and QBT' and, further, that he was 'not even aware that there was a process underway at that point in time'. Did the Premier meet with QBT and Helloworld's chief executive officer, Mr Andrew Burnes, prior to the 11 May event?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: What was the 11 May event, sorry?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am advised that the 11 May event was a conference that the Premier himself attended.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Your question is whether I had ever met Andrew Burnes prior to opening the conference in Adelaide. The answer to that is yes, but I do not recall when.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: In your time as Premier?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Again, I do not recall. I just do not recall when.

Mr TEAGUE: Mr Chair, I seek the call. It seems as though the Leader of the Opposition has shifted to a new topic. I wonder whether I might ask a question on the previous topic of communications.

The CHAIR: You have a question. We are still on the Office for Digital Government, so I am sure that is in order. Are you seeking the call now?

Mr TEAGUE: No rush, but it seems that we are perhaps moving to another broad area.

The CHAIR: The portfolio is open, so you are able to ask the question at any time. Do you want to do it now?

Mr TEAGUE: I am happy to.

The CHAIR: Go for it.

Mr TEAGUE: Thank you, Mr Chair. Premier, we have had a number of questions about government communication activities. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, pages 19 and 20, where there is an explanation of significant movements and a note about the decrease in the 2018-19 estimated result. There is a reference to government communication activities and $10 million, which I understand to be a reduction. How is that possible, and is that sustainable? Does it indicate any change of approach in terms of government spending on communications?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am advised that under the previous government's arrangement an additional $10 million was provided in the 2017-18 year, which just happened to coincide with the lead-up to the state election. In years prior to that, it was pretty much at reduced levels. We are very satisfied that the budget line we have for this will allow us to deliver on our requirements in this area. We do not see the need for anything like the money that the previous government spent on this area of so-called communications.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I refer back to the line of questions I was taking previously.

The CHAIR: Just for my benefit, can you refer to the page and budget line, please.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 18, program 1.

The CHAIR: Is there a dot point on there somewhere?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Sorry?

The CHAIR: Is there a dot point that you are referring to particularly?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: No. I am just talking under the general umbrella of the objective of cross-government policy in respect of specific procurement undertaken by DPC. I referred earlier to the Premier's speaking at an 11 May conference, and the Premier's statement in this place when asked about that conference. Does the Premier recall meeting Mr Burnes on 18 April sometime prior to the conference on 11 May?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not recall that, but I am happy to make inquiries. I am advised, though, that the procurement process was one which was actually underway under the previous government.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Does the Premier recall, though, meeting Mr Burnes prior to the conference?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As I have stated previously, I had met him, but I do not recall when. I just do not have those dates available to me at the moment, but I am happy to make an inquiry.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Our FOI documents indicate that the Premier met Mr Burnes on 18 April at 3.45pm and similarly received advice in the lead-up to that meeting. Does that ring any recollection with the Premier?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am certainly not denying it, but you asked me what date I had met him, and I said that I did not recall. However, you already have that information, so I do not think I will ask my department to go and find out what the date was; you already have it.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I was just asking whether you recall it. In another document obtained through freedom of information, dated 9 May 2018, a briefing prepared by the SATC in the lead-up to your speech, or your attendance—and, indeed, my advice is a speech—at an 11 May conference, states, 'I am advised that QBT is a subsidiary of Helloworld.' Did the Premier read and note that briefing?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It is quite possible that I did, but I just do not have that information in front of me. To be clear, I get asked to speak at a lot of conferences in Adelaide, a lot of events in Adelaide. Departments present me with comprehensive briefings, as well as speeches. Whilst I do thank the public servants for preparing all that information, I would not like to swear on oath that I read every single paragraph in those comprehensive briefings.

From my recollection, it was an Australia-wide conference of employees and partners of Helloworld. It was a very large group. They came into Adelaide. They were here for two or three days. It had quite an impact upon our local economy—lots of famils—and my understanding or recollection from what I received from SATC is that it was important for me to be there because not only was this group going to make an impact whilst they were here but, of course, we wanted to showcase what we had to offer in South Australia so that, when they went back to their work, they would advocate for their clients to come to South Australia. This is why it was presented to me as something that I should attend. As I said, this is something I do on a pretty regular basis.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I might move on, Mr Chairman, to another set of questions, as I am conscious that I am running out of time. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 18, program 1, under the same heading. Who in DPC monitors compliance with the Premier and Cabinet Circular 35 regarding the proactive disclosure of regularly requested information?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am advised that that monitoring is done by State Records, which sits within the Attorney-General's Department.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: State Records might record that information, but who monitors compliance?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have the circular in front of me. The reference that I have is that this is the responsibility of State Records and it is the Attorney-General's Department.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Are there any audits, regular or otherwise, to ensure that agencies are appropriately complying with proactive disclosure or do you just sort of let agencies monitor that themselves?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am not aware of any specific audit that is undertaken.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Does that imply that agencies are largely left to their own devices to ensure compliance with the circular?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am not aware of anybody not complying. There is a circular on this matter that was published in November 2016. I am not aware of any noncompliance. I am sure if there were noncompliance it would be reported and, if it was, it would be addressed.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Premier, in a recent FOI disclosure from your agency the table in a document received by the opposition provides totals for all agency budget lines for a particular trip; that was marked 'not for disclosure'. Why would that happen?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: You have not provided enough information. You have not mentioned what the FOI reference was and you have not mentioned what the trip was, so it is difficult to answer the question.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: That is okay; I will provide a bit of detail. The trip related to travel to the USA by you as the Premier, your chief of staff and an agency representative as part of G'Day USA events. There was a document marked 'not for disclosure' that was subsequently obtained by the opposition through FOI. Why would that be marked 'not for disclosure'?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Again, I just do not have the information in front of me. I am happy to make inquiries, but obviously you have it, so it was disclosed. We take all our reporting responsibilities very seriously and, to the best of my knowledge, we adhere with all the guidelines.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I will move on to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, program 1, page 18, regarding targets. What was the total cost of the Joyce review into international engagement?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I will have to take that on notice, but I am very happy to provide it.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Thank you. When three FTEs attached to the China strategy transferred from DPC to DTTI, how many of those individuals themselves actually remained in DPC? I am referring to page 14 of Budget Paper 4, Volume 4.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: My understanding is that the three members of that team were transferred to the Department for Trade, Tourism and Investment in accordance with the recommendations from Joyce, but it was thought that some capability needed to be retained, and that was retained within intergovernmental affairs within DPC.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: My last question in this area: is the French strategy team still part of DPC or has it moved?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No, that is also in intergovernmental relations.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Regarding the same budget paper, my question relates to a statement made by the Premier on 31 January this year when he released the SA royal commission report into the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin plan. Premier, you stated:

I will [also] write to the Prime Minister today to convene a meeting so that we can get the Chief Minister from the ACT, the premiers along the basin and the Prime Minister to consider the content of this report.

Has that meeting yet been held?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Did you get a response from the Prime Minister?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: What did it say?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: A meeting has now been scheduled.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: When is it?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: From memory, I think it is 9 August.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Is that as part of a general COAG meeting or is that a very specific meeting, as you sought?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No, it will not be part of COAG because COAG includes the Northern Territory, Tasmania, and Western Australia, which are not subject to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So we have a meeting in August that is consistent with the request you made of the Prime Minister?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes. I wrote to the Prime Minister, as you would recall, when we received the royal commission report. I then wrote to the Prime Minister again when he was confirmed as the continuing Prime Minister of Australia, I received correspondence back to suggest that the meeting would be convened, and 9 August is the date that it will be held.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Since the release of the royal commission report, have you followed up with any other premiers along the Murray-Darling Basin to discuss the issues contained within that report or are you waiting for the August meeting?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: There are conversations that you have with other premiers and the Chief Minister of the ACT, but nothing formal. There have been informal discussions. This is a very important issue, and I am looking forward to the meeting that is going to be held on 9 August.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: On 31 January, you also stated that there was commentary within the report regarding the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and its adequacy and referred to conflicting legal opinions regarding the legality of the plan. Have you taken any steps to resolve that legal question from the perspective of the South Australian government?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We are currently formulating a response to the royal commission report; this will be considered in cabinet and we will be publishing a response to that. Obviously there are multiple departments involved in this: my department, the Department for Environment and Water, and ultimately the royal commission is a responsibility in the budget line of the Attorney-General. Our response will be a response on behalf of the government, and that will be something considered by cabinet.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Apart from taking the action of writing a letter for a meeting in excess of six months after release of the report, have you done anything following the royal commission's report?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: What?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think I just outlined it in my previous answer; that is, at the moment we are formulating a whole-of-government response to the royal commission report. We are also taking into account many of the other reports, or some of the other reports, including the Australian Productivity Commission report and other reports into the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and its performance.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: When do you anticipate we will have the response to the royal commission report?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think that is something that the Cabinet Office is working on at the moment. I can provide an update, but I do not think it will be too long.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Because it has already been pretty long.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Well, it is a very important issue. It is not something that you just give a response to without careful consideration. This is a very important issue for our state and we will take the time to get the right response. We are looking forward to the meeting of the basin states and the ACT, which will be held on 9 August.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: What are you going to advocate for at that meeting?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: First of all, we will be advocating for adherence to the plan. This is something that we have felt very strongly about for an extended period of time. As I have stated in this place, the problem with the original plan is that there was a lot of carrot and not much stick. We have to do everything we can to keep everybody at the table. We have to have everybody working towards delivery against the commitments they have made. I feel confident that we will meet our obligations. We have to make sure that all the other jurisdictions stay at the table.

Mr BROWN: I might read the omnibus questions now, Mr Chairman.

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

What is the actual FTE count at 30 June 2019 and the projected actual FTE count for each year of the forward estimates?

What is the total employment cost for each year of the forward estimates?

What is the notional FTE job reduction target that has been agreed with Treasury for each year of the forward estimates?

Does the agency or department expect to meet the target in each year of the forward estimates?

How many TVSPs are estimated to be required to meet FTE reductions over the forward estimates?

2. Between 1 July 2018 and 30 June 2019, will the minister list the job title and total employment cost of each position with a total estimated cost of $100,000 or more which has either (1) been abolished and (2) which has been created.

3. Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of expenditure on consultants and contractors above $10,000 between 1 July 2018 and 30 June 2019 for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, listing:

the name of the consultant, contractor or service supplier;

cost;

work undertaken;

reason for engaging the contractor, and

method of appointment?

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

How many FTEs were employed to provide communication and promotion activities in 2018-19 and what was their employment expense?

How many FTEs are budgeted to provide communication and promotion activities in 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 and what is their estimated employment expense?

The total cost of government-paid advertising, including campaigns, across all mediums in 2018-19 and budgeted cost for 2019-20.

5. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, please provide a full itemised breakdown of attraction and retention allowances as well as non-salary benefits paid to public servants and contracts between 1 July 2018 and 30 June 2019.

6. What is the title and total employment cost of each individual staff member in the minister's office as at 30 June 2019, including all departmental employees seconded to ministerial offices?

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

(a) How much was spent on targeted voluntary separation packages in 2018-19?

(b) What department funded these TVSPs? (except for DTF Estimates)

(c) What number of TVSPs were funded?

(d) What is the budget for targeted voluntary separation packages for financial years included in the forward estimates (by year), and how are these packages funded?

(e) What is the breakdown per agency/branch of targeted voluntary separation packages for financial years included in the forward estimates (by year) by FTEs?

8. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how many executive terminations have occurred since 1 July 2018 and what is the value of executive termination payments made?

9. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what new executive appointments have been made since 1 July 2018, and what is the annual salary, and total employment cost for each position?

10. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how many employees have been declared excess, how long has each employee been declared excess, and what is the salary of each excess employee?

11. In the 2018-19 financial year, for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, what underspending on operating programs (1) was and (2) was not approved by cabinet for carryover expenditure in 2019-20?

12. In the 2018-19 financial year, for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, what underspending on investing or capital projects or programs (1) was and (2) was not approved by cabinet for carryover expenditure in 2019-20? How was much sought and how much was approved?

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

(a) 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; and

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

14. For the period of 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2019, 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.

15. For each year of the forward estimates, please provide the name and budgeted expenditure across the 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 financial years for each individual investing expenditure project administered by or on behalf of all departments and agencies reporting to the minister.

16. 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.

17. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what is the total cost of machinery of government changes since 1 July 2018 and please provide a breakdown of those costs?

18. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what new sections of your department or agency have been established since 1 July 2018 and what is their purpose?

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

What savings targets have been set for each year of the forward estimates?

What measures are you implementing to meet your savings target?

What is the estimated FTE impact of these measures?

The CHAIR: Thank you, member for Playford. For the committee's benefit, the Premier is appearing all day today and, if the Premier is happy, there is no need to read those omnibus questions in the next session or the one after. Are you happy with that, Premier?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes, I am happy with that.

The CHAIR: Excellent. We are still within the Office of Digital Government, so if the opposition or the government have one or two further questions I am happy to take those, or we move on to the Productivity Commission or Infrastructure SA.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I would like to use the allocated time we have in this area, if that is alright, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIR: Yes, certainly. You have the call.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I would like to go back to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 18, regarding Lot Fourteen. Premier, the news of MIT is good news, but is there a written agreement with MIT regarding its positioning at Lot Fourteen?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: What does that written agreement with MIT reference?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It is an MOU that exists between the various stakeholders—the universities, MIT itself, Optus and BankSA. It is an MOU that is commercial in-confidence, but, as I have publicly stated, the commercial partners have been very generous in providing support to enable MIT to establish the Living Lab in South Australia.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Apart from the MOU, is there anything more substantive at this point with MIT—that is, a lease or any documents or contracts that refer to other issues around IP and so forth—or is it just, at this point in time, an MOU?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am advised that there are provisions in regard to IP in the MOU. I do not recall those specifically, without rereading that document. In regard to a lease, though, that would be something dealt with by Renewal SA. Again, I do not have that information, that Renewal SA report through to the Minister for Planning, Transport and Infrastructure.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Was the company Stone and Chalk appointed by DPC?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No, that contract was entered into by the Office of the Chief Entrepreneur, which sits within the Department for Innovation and Skills.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Sticking with Lot Fourteen—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: This is one of the reasons why I took the coordination for Lot Fourteen into DPC—because so many different government departments had individual programs and they are funding them separately. It seemed more logical to have the coordination within my department.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: In that context, are you able to inform the committee of the number of tenants we currently have at Lot Fourteen?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have some information that somebody prepared.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: While you are looking, I might just add a second component to that question. In terms of any of those leases that have been entered into, are any of them in any way, shape or form subsidised by the state, whether it be through incentives or rent reductions, that are inconsistent with what would be seen as a market rate?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am advised that there are currently 19 tenants at Lot Fourteen. There are another 12 leases that are currently being finalised and there are many dozens more that are currently prospective. I am also advised that all current tenants are paying market rent.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: How about incentives and other arrangements associated with those leases?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not have any information on that. As I have stated, this is really an issue that sits within Renewal SA. But the advice that I have received, because I asked that question myself, is that all current tenants are paying market rent.

The CHAIR: Leader, I might just interrupt here. You are at liberty to continue, but my timetable suggests that we should close this one off and move to the Productivity Commission and Infrastructure SA.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: There are so many questions, Mr Chair.

The CHAIR: Of course, but we have limited time. One last question?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: No, I am happy to move on to the Productivity Commission and Infrastructure SA.

The CHAIR: There being no further questions, I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the Office for Digital Government to be completed.

Membership:

Hon. A. Koutsantonis substituted for Mr Brown.

Hon. Z.L. Bettison substituted for Mr Szakacs.

Departmental Advisers:

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

Dr M. Butlin, Chair and Chief Executive, Office of the South Australian Productivity Commission.

Ms C. Bierbaum, Deputy Chief Executive, Office of the South Australian Productivity Commission.

Mr J. Conway, Chief Executive, Infrastructure SA.

The CHAIR: Premier, we are examining the Productivity Commission and Infrastructure SA. I invite you to introduce your advisers and make a statement if you wish.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I would like to introduce to the committee Dr Matthew Butlin, who is the Chair and Chief Executive of the South Australian Productivity Commission, and Christine Bierbaum, who is the Deputy Chief Executive. Also joining us here is Jeremy Conway, who is the Chief Executive of Infrastructure SA. Because we have only half an hour for the two, I am happy to move between the two. We do not have to have two discrete lots, if the leader would prefer.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: In regard to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 32, I understand that the Productivity Commission has been relocated to DPC since the beginning of this year; is that right?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Can you say that again?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I understand that the responsibility for the Productivity Commission was moved to DPC at the beginning of this year; is that right?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: From the outset, it was established as an attached office to DPC under the Public Sector Act, but there has been no change subsequent to its original formation. It is just the way that it was originally.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: How many times has the Premier met with the Productivity Commission?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not have that information. It has been on a reasonably regular basis, every couple of months, but I can provide specific detail on that.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: You will take that on notice?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The Productivity Commissioner has suggested that it is approximately four times.

The CHAIR: Leader, before I give you the call, for the purpose of our records, the member for Playford has been discharged and the member for West Torrens has joined the committee.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Does the Premier meet with the Productivity Commission on a regular basis or is it as required?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It is just as required, but I am informed by the Productivity Commissioner that we have another meeting coming up very soon.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Who decided the inquiries that the Productivity Commission is to undertake or, in the case of current or previous inquiries, has undertaken? Who makes that decision? Is it you, or is it the chair of the Productivity Commission? How does that work?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It is by negotiation. It is a discussion that is held.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So the Premier quite reasonably seeks to make input into what the Productivity Commission inquires into and what it does not?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I essentially make the decision, but obviously I like to discuss that with the Productivity Commissioner before I make a decision as to what the likely benefit of any inquiry is going to be. An inquiry is an expensive exercise. We are very fortunate in South Australia to have Dr Matthew Butlin as our inaugural Productivity Commissioner. He has extensive experience with the Australian Productivity Commission, the VCEC and also in his role as the commissioner for red-tape reduction in Victoria.

So, rather than just saying, 'This is what you are going to be investigating or what inquiries you are going to undertake,' we think it is prudent to have that discussion to see what the likely benefits of the inquiry are going to be because we have finite resources. We have increased those resources, but they still remain finite and we want to make sure that we get best value for the taxpayers of South Australia.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I understand the Productivity Commission has launched an inquiry into local government. How much money has been allocated to undertake this inquiry?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am not sure the government allocates money to specific inquires. What we do is provide an overall budget for the year. We were approached by the Productivity Commissioner to look to increase our budget for the SA Productivity Commission over and above what was originally envisaged so that we could undertake more inquiries. After consideration, cabinet agreed with that.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Did you discuss with the Productivity Commission chair your desire for a local government inquiry before you announced it?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Absolutely. In fact, it was something that we had discussed for a long period of time because the local government sector had made representations to me over many years that many of their costs and expenses were related to state government requirements. They assert that a lot of their costs are related to things they are required to do by the state and that many of those requirements consume great resources but do not deliver the requisite benefit, so we thought it was a good idea to take a look at this issue.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: In a letter to the chair of the Productivity Commission, dated 13 May this year, you requested an inquiry into local government costs and stated that 'the rising cost of living has put undue pressure on South Australian households and businesses'. When you wrote that, were you aware then that you were going to increase the solid waste levy by 40 per cent?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not have that information in front of me, but they are two separate issues; they are not related. The inquiry is looking at issues where the local government sector have asserted, over a long period of time, that there is inordinate additional cost pushed onto them in terms of regulation put in place by the state government, not with regard to a specific levy.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: But is the solid waste levy not an example of state government pushing something onto local government that has an impact on the cost of living?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It is not a regulatory burden; it is actually a levy.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: But for South Australians who are concerned about the rising cost of living putting undue pressure on South Australian households and businesses, surely a 40 per cent increase in the solid waste levy is a contributing factor to that?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Well, it is, but it does not relate to the budget lines that you are talking about. We are here to examine the state budget as it relates the Productivity Commission and Infrastructure SA. I do make the point that we are going to be expending the additional revenue that we receive from the increase of the solid waste levy on very important projects for this state.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Yes, I am sure the residents of outback South Australia, Whyalla, the South-East, Eyre Peninsula and Yorke Peninsula—

The CHAIR: Leader—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: —are very excited about the prospect of that money being spent on—

The CHAIR: —a question.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: The Premier raised the programs. He talked about them.

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, you do not have the call; the Leader of the Opposition has the call and he is about to ask a question.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am very conscious, Mr Chair, that your constituents would be very excited about the sand at West Beach. Premier, is it not hypocritical to instruct the Productivity Commission to inquire about local government costs when this budget is actually slugging them with a $90 million increase in costs?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think I have already answered that question.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Premier, regarding the inquiry into the local government's terms of reference, you asked the Productivity Commission to provide recommendations on actions the South Australian government could take to lower government costs. Do you accept that increasing the solid waste levy by 40 per cent certainly does not lower local government costs?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have made my response to this: it does not relate to the Productivity Commission or Infrastructure SA, which is the area of examination the committee is currently supposed to be focused on.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: But if the Productivity Commission is currently looking at the costs of local government, and that is a concern that your government has, why then would you impose the solid waste levy increase by 40 per cent?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have provided my response to the committee.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am just looking for consistency in government policy regarding local government, and the Productivity Commission is looking at local government.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: You are quite within your rights to pursue this, but not in this committee. That would be a good question for question time—much better than some of the questions you have been asking in recent performances.

The CHAIR: Leader, we have just 15 minutes left on the Productivity Commission and Infrastructure SA.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I refer to the same budget line on pages 32 and 33 regarding the reasons for an increasing cost in FTEs. Can the Premier detail the increase in resources for the Productivity Commission budgeted for 2019-20?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The increase is not so much an increase in unplanned costs, but a request was made to increase the resources so that we could undertake more inquiries than were originally envisaged. We think that this is a really important reform. It did not receive the support of the parliament, so we have established it in a format that was not our ideal scenario. We wanted to establish it under statute; that was not possible, so we have established it separately.

We have been very happy with the progress of the South Australian Productivity Commission to date. In a difficult budget environment, the Budget Cabinet Committee was persuaded to increase the resources that were originally envisaged for this attached office.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Does the Premier sit on that Budget Cabinet Committee regarding the budget?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes, I am a member of the Budget Cabinet Committee. It does not mean that I attend every meeting, but I am a member of the Budget Cabinet Committee.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Would you attend the majority of those meetings?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not have the attendance details in front of me.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: To the best of your recollection, would you attend the majority of those meetings?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Obviously, all important decisions are made ultimately by cabinet.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Is it possible that you did not attend a majority of those meetings?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am not really sure what budget line you are referring to.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am referring to your previous answer, when you referred to the Budget Cabinet Committee meetings.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As I said, I am a member of that. I do not have my attendance records here, and I have nothing further to add.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So it is possible that you did not attend the majority of those meetings.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have provided an answer to the committee.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: In relation to the Productivity Commission's inquiry into procurement and practices, will the Premier rule out outsourcing the management of procurement functions that are currently undertaken by state public authorities?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That is not something I have contemplated. We have received the report, and I think that we will respond to the report early to mid next month.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Has the Premier requested that any further investigations be conducted by the Productivity Commission outside the procurement inquiry and the local government inquiry?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: There are two stages to the procurement: there was the original phase and the scope that was put in place in October last year, and that was expanded earlier this year to include capital items. That is a major variation to the original process. I think that we then announced the local government inquiry, and there will be others that we will announce in due course.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Has the Productivity Commission provided any advice to the Premier in regard to the government's decision on privatisation of trains and trams?

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

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Why not?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It is outside the scope of what the Productivity Commission's advice to government is.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: If you are increasing the budget of the Productivity Commission and you decide what the Productivity Commission looks into, why would you not use the Productivity Commission to examine the very substantial cost that privatisation of trains and trams is going to have for the South Australian public?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not accept anything like the premise of that question. It is not something that we have asked the Productivity Commission to look at. As I have outlined to the committee before—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: What premise do you not accept?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am the one who determines what the Productivity Commission looks at. I think that we have arrived at the right areas of focus where the Productivity Commission can add value.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: For context, the reason I ask the question is that you have the Productivity Commission and the Economic Advisory Council, two sources of independent advice on high-level strategic questions for government policy. If the government is making a decision about the privatisation of trains and trams—a very significant government policy decision—why would the Premier not seek advice from either of those independent sources of advice for such a significant decision for our state?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Well, cabinet seeks advice and receives advice from various areas before it makes its decision, and I am satisfied that cabinet gave due consideration to all issues that we have considered since coming to government. That advice is received in confidence in cabinet.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Did it ever cross the Premier's mind to ask the Productivity Commission, or for that matter the Economic Advisory Council, about train and tram privatisation?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have already answered the question with regard to the Economic Advisory Council, but with regard to the Productivity Commission, no, it did not cross my mind. I have already said that the major focus for us was starting with procurement and moving to local government. These were things that we had envisaged for some time and were within the resources of the South Australian Productivity Commission.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: How many times have you met with Infrastructure SA? This relates to similar questions I was asking earlier. Do you meet with them regularly, or is it the same sort of approach that you use in regard to the Productivity Commission?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It is similar. When you say 'meet with Infrastructure SA', there is a chair and there is a board. I have not met with the board. I have met with the chair on occasion, and they are undertaking their work at the moment to come up with their recommendations to government, which I understand will be received early in the new year.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I understand that Infrastructure SA looks at government projects with a budget of over $50 million. Outside that criterion, does the Premier ever speak to Infrastructure SA about what it may or may not look into? When I say 'may or may not', I am not talking about providing permission. Would you ever say to Infrastructure SA, 'Can you please examine this project'?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think I am entitled to do that, but to date I cannot recall. If I thought that they were looking at projects and there were omissions, I feel that I could speak to the Infrastructure SA personnel, as anybody could, quite frankly. But they ultimately need to make their determination as to what they see as the priorities, and that will be received by the government next year and we will ultimately respond to that.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Have you ever had a conversation with Infrastructure SA regarding GlobeLink?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Not directly, but the government has already commissioned work separate because we wanted to kick this off much earlier than the establishment of Infrastructure SA. You would recall that Infrastructure SA, unlike the Productivity Commission, has been established under an act of this parliament. That took some time to go through, and we did not want to delay consideration of the GlobeLink project.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Is the Productivity Commission established as an act under parliament?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Is that what you just said?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: You did not support it.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: No, that is not right; you withdrew it.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I know that is your interpretation of what occurred, but we were of the opinion that the parliament was not going to put it in a format that would suit the government. We thought that it would be ideal to have it operating under statute, but this was not going to occur.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am not sure on what basis the Premier formed that opinion. He certainly did not inquire that of me or my office. I did not realise that the Premier's expertise extends to mind-reading of the opposition. Regarding Infrastructure SA—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Well, the—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: —and GlobeLink—

The CHAIR: Order! The minister is going to respond to that comment, I think. The Premier has the call.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The opposition sought amendments that we did not think would suit the agenda of the government and, whilst those amendments were there, we thought we cannot continue to delay the establishment of the South Australian Productivity Commission. As I stated for a long period of time whilst we were in opposition, we were really lacking organisations like Infrastructure SA and the Productivity Commission to provide independent advice to the government.

That is why we sought to have both these organisations enshrined under South Australian legislation, but we were not prepared to continually delay with amendments that we thought would not be in the best interests of the government or the state.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I welcome the Premier's recharacterisation of his earlier references both in this place and outside this place that the opposition did not support the legislative establishment of the Productivity Commission; that is simply not accurate. Regarding GlobeLink, I understand that the role of Infrastructure SA is to provide important long-term strategic advice to the state on infrastructure. How on earth does the Premier explain that that organisation would not examine GlobeLink, which is a central piece of his policy regarding infrastructure in this state?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I did not say that.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Yes, you did. My recollection (and we will get Hansard to check) is that you had not engaged Infrastructure SA for advice on GlobeLink.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: You asked whether I had spoken to Infrastructure SA about GlobeLink and I said no. That does not mean that Infrastructure SA is not going to have regard to GlobeLink.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Has Infrastructure SA looked at GlobeLink?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am advised that this is going to be considered as part of their strategy.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Okay, so now Infrastructure SA is looking at GlobeLink?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The government has already kicked off a separate investigation, but this will be incorporated into the work that Infrastructure SA provides in its report next year.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Is Infrastructure SA doing its own piece of work on GlobeLink?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: This will be considered as part of the Infrastructure SA 20-year strategy.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So you have two inquiries ongoing?

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Obviously, sir, there is—

The CHAIR: Premier, just before you go on, I want to clarify this: the leader has had the call and I am happy for him to continue asking questions. If other committee members want the call, they need to seek it. Member for West Torrens, do you have a question?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The leader has a question, sir.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: No, order! Member for West Torrens and member for Heysen, you will not interject across the chamber. We have 2½ minutes to go and the leader has the call.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I think it has been established that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing in regard to GlobeLink, let alone the Premier. How about the Portrush and Magill roads project? Has Infrastructure SA provided advice to the government on that project?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Infrastructure SA has been established, and the vast majority of its work at the moment is the development of the 20-year infrastructure plan. It was never envisaged that this would be an organisation that we would send projects off to for a quick, 'What do you think of this?' type of evaluation.

Therefore, because this is a project that has already been announced, we are, as we have previously announced, in this hiatus between the development of the 20-year plan and the continuing capital works of the government. But where Infrastructure SA will be involved in this project is the post-implementation review. That is a key component of the scope once that 20-year infrastructure plan is developed and delivered.

I know that this is a reform that the previous government opposed for a long period of time. In fact, my understanding is that we were the only jurisdiction in the country without an infrastructure body independent of government. The previous government liked to develop projects with less rigour, let's just say, and they were entitled to do so.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Like GlobeLink.

The CHAIR: Order!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Like the long list that you are racking up.

The CHAIR: Order! The Premier is responding to the question.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: They were entitled to do that, but we have a different arrangement.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Do you? That is what I am trying to understand.

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: There is a period of time when I think any reasonably minded person would understand that to come up with a 20-year infrastructure plan there has to be extensive consultation and analysis. I have actually been very impressed by the time frame that Infrastructure SA has put forward for the development of the 20-year infrastructure plan—well done.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: My question, Premier, then is—

The CHAIR: Leader, we will let the Premier finish and then I am going to call this session to a close.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: But there was always envisaged a period, which existed between coming to government and the determination of the plan, when we were not prepared to not push ahead with important infrastructure projects for the state, and that has been incorporated into our first two budgets.

The CHAIR: Having reached the allotted time, I declare the examination of proposed payments for the Productivity Commission and Infrastructure SA to be completed.

Sitting suspended from 11:16 to 11:30.